final generic environmental impact statement

Transcription

FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Proposed Action: The Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to the
Zoning Code and Local Waterfront Redevelopment Program (LWRP) for the Village of
Ossining, New York
Project location:
Village of Ossining, Westchester County, New York
Lead Agency:
Village of Ossining Board of Trustees
16 Croton Avenue
Ossining, NY 10562
Prepared by and with assistance from:
Village of Ossining Board of Trustees
16 Croton Avenue
Ossining, NY 10562
Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc.
434 Sixth Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (212) 475-3030/ Fax: (212) 475 0913
Village of Ossining Planning Department
P.O. Box 1166
101 Route 9A
Ossining, NY 10562
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services
21 Penn Plaza
360 West 31st Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 479-5400/ Fax: (212) 479-5444
Contact person:
Valerie Monastra, AICP
Village Planner
Village of Ossining Planning Department
P.O. Box 1166, 101 Route 9A
Ossining, NY 10562
Phone: (914) 762-6232/ Fax (914) 762-6208
This FGEIS will be posted on the Village of Ossining website
www.villageofossining.org
Date FGEIS Accepted:
March 17, 2008
Comment deadline:
21 days following the acceptance of the FGEIS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES ______________________________ 1
SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________ 2
PROJECT LOCATION______________________________________________________ 2
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FGEIS ___________________________________________ 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS REVISED IN THE FGEIS ________________________ 5
ZONING MAP AS REVISED IN THE FGEIS ___________________________________ 9
COMMENT INDEX ________________________________________________________ 10
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES____________________________________________ 16
ZONING _______________________________________________________________________16
General _____________________________________________________________________16
Definitions __________________________________________________________________20
Proposed Action PRD ________________________________________________________21
Environment ________________________________________________________________27
Historic Preservation_________________________________________________________29
Waterfront___________________________________________________________________30
Amended Proposed Action Conservation District (Proposed Action PW-1) _______41
Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) ______________________46
Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) ______________________52
Amended Proposed Action Station Plaza North and Station Plaza South (Proposed
Action PW-5) ________________________________________________________________53
Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) ______________________53
Incentives ___________________________________________________________________54
Business Districts ___________________________________________________________57
Residential Districts _________________________________________________________59
Affordable Housing __________________________________________________________59
PROPOSED ACTION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES__________61
General _____________________________________________________________________61
Economic Development ______________________________________________________72
Affordable Housing __________________________________________________________75
Housing_____________________________________________________________________81
Parks and Recreation ________________________________________________________82
Trees _______________________________________________________________________85
Other Environmental Concerns _______________________________________________85
Cultural and Historic Resources ______________________________________________87
View Preservation ___________________________________________________________95
Multi-modal Transportation ___________________________________________________95
Quality of Life ______________________________________________________________101
SEQRA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ___________________________________________104
General ____________________________________________________________________104
Future Projections __________________________________________________________118
MARKET AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DRAFT FGEIS_____________________________121
Introduction ________________________________________________________________121
General ____________________________________________________________________125
Data _______________________________________________________________________137
Development Economics ____________________________________________________145
Affordable Housing _________________________________________________________151
APPENDIX A PUBLIC COMMENTS ___________________________________ 153
APPENDIX B MARKET AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS __________________ 154
INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES
Village of Ossining Planning Board
Village of Ossining Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Ossining Environmental Advisory Council
Village of Ossining Historic Review Commission
Ossining Union Free School District
Town of Ossining
Village of Briarcliff Manor
Westchester County Planning Department
NYS Department of Correctional Facilities
Metro North Railroad
NYS Historic Preservation Office
NYS Hudson River Valley Greenway
Old Croton Aqueduct State Park
NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resources
NYS Department of State
NYS DEC Region 3
NYS DEC Division of Environmental Permits
Scenic Hudson
Riverkeeper
1
SUMMARY
PROJECT LOCATION
The Proposed Action encompasses the entire Village of Ossining, Westchester County,
New York. Although only situated within three square miles, Ossining has a population
of approximately 24,000 people and contains an assortment of land uses, social diversity
and an abundance of public amenities. The Village is almost completely developed and
offers a good quality of life – even if sometimes beleaguered by traffic and other
suburban ills. Located on the eastern shore of the Hudson River 30 miles north of New
York City, the Village is also one of a number of River towns with an older
industrial/waterfront and historic/Downtown that is in need of investment and poised for a
revival complete with significant public amenities. To the north and northeast, the Village
borders the Town of Ossining and to its south and southeast it borders the Village of
Briarcliff Manor. The Hudson River forms the western boundary of the Village of
Ossining and provides three miles of Riverfront land. Spectacular views of the water and
the pristine Hudson Palisades are offered throughout the Village, even in locations
remote from the River’s shores.
2
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FGEIS
The Village of Ossining has undertaken the task of adopting a Comprehensive Plan (the
“Plan”), and amending the Village Code and Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan
(LWRP). As a part of this process, a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(DGEIS) has been prepared for the Village pursuant to New York State regulations as
codified at 6 NYCRR Part 617 et seq. The DGEIS was submitted to the Board of
Trustees of the Village of Ossining. On August 19, 2008 the Board, as lead agency,
accepted the DGEIS for the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan, Proposed
Action Village Code, and Proposed Action LWRP as complete for the purposes of public
comment. The Board published a notice of completion and notice for a public hearing to
be held on the DGEIS, and copies of the DGEIS, Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan, Proposed Action Village Code, and Proposed Action LWRP were made available
for public review. Comments were received during the public review period (August 19,
2008 to October 14, 2008), and at a public hearing held on September 22, 2008 and
October 1, 2008 at the Village of Ossining.
This Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) hereby incorporates by
reference the DGEIS dated August 19, 2008. Therefore, the combination of the DGEIS
and this document including appendixes form the complete GEIS.
This document is a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). Its intent is to
identify the broad, top-level impacts of the adoption of the Plan, the alternatives that
have been defined and to identify the impacts of the adoption of the proposed local laws
and LWRP revisions. Any individual actions that are taken to implement the Plan or any
of the alternatives could potentially result in specific localized impacts that are beyond
the scope of this document. Therefore, with the exception of the adoptions of the
Comprehensive Plan and the contemplated local laws and LWRP revisions, all individual
actions should be required to undergo individual project environmental reviews as part of
the site plan, subdivision or other approval processes. These project reviews should
include, at a minimum, scrutiny of the following environmental considerations:
1. Whether the proposed project would impact the quality and/or quantity
of runoff into water supply and recreational resources including
groundwater, the New Croton Reservoir, the Indian Brook Reservoir, or
any tributaries feeding these water bodies. To the extent practical,
projects should be designed to maintain pre-construction runoff rates, and
utilize natural best management practices where filtering, retention and
detention are required.
2. Whether the proposed project would impact areas of critical
environmental concern, including critical habitats, wetlands, vernal pools
and steep slopes. Projects should be sensitively designed so as to avoid
impacting such areas and to preserve identified wildlife corridors and
critical habitat areas.
3. Whether the proposed project can be served adequately by parks,
schools and emergency services.
4. Whether the proposed project would alter the Village’s housing
balance. Residential projects should be developed consistent with the
goals of the Plan.
5. Whether the amount of traffic from any site-specific proposal can be
adequately handled by the Village’s existing transportation infrastructure.
The adoption of transportation management plans, as well as project
designs that encourage pedestrian and non-motorized transportation,
should be considered in the evaluation of any site-specific project.
3
6. Whether proposed development would lie in the path of or block views
in the Village’s scenic vistas or view corridors, or views of parks and open
space.
7. For projects involving new sewer systems, whether the scope of the
project can be accommodated safely and adequately with regard to
treatment of the waste expected to be generated by the project.
8. For projects that will be connected to public sewer and water, whether
sewer and water supply capacity is sufficient to serve the proposed
project.
9. Whether the proposed project would adversely affect historic, scenic or
cultural resources, or would adversely impact the character of an existing
community. To the extent possible, projects should be designed so as to
protect historic, scenic, and cultural resources, as well as to protect and
enhance community character.
The FGEIS includes a listing of the comments received on the DGEIS, the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Proposed Action Village Code
and Proposed Action LWRP as well as the responses to these comments by the Lead
Agency. Any other comments that were received through out the Comprehensive Plan
process dating back to June 2007 are also included and responded to as part of the
FGEIS. Appendix A includes the transcripts of the public hearings and copies of all
written submissions containing comments pertaining to the DGEIS, the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan, Proposed Action Village Code, and Proposed Action LWRP.
The Project Description and Revised Zoning Map sections of the FGEIS highlight the
amendments to the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan, Proposed Action
Village Code, and Proposed Action LWRP based upon comments received by the
public.
Comments were received on the DGEIS and the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan, Proposed Action Village Code and Proposed Action LWRP at a public hearing
(held over two evenings) and in written submissions to the Board of Trustees. The
transcripts of the public hearing and copies of written submissions are contained in
Appendix A of the FGEIS. The comments have been categorized and numbered, and
the source of every comment is identified. All comments are referenced by the date of
the comment submission, name of the author, and type of submission.
Appendix B includes the Market and Sensitivity Analysis, which while not part of the
DGEIS was commented on in the process.
4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS REVISED IN THE FGEIS
In 2005, the Village of Ossining initiated the Comprehensive Plan process. The intent of
the new Comprehensive Plan is to lay out a vision for Ossining’s future development,
particularly over the next two decades. The proposed changes to the current Village
Code and LWRP are designed to implement the vision articulated in the Plan which is to
set forth a new vision for Ossining’s future, encompassing land use, housing,
transportation, parks, community facilities and resources, and the natural environment.
The Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement incorporates by reference the
DGEIS. Therefore, the combination of the DGEIS and this document form the complete
GEIS.
The FGEIS details all proposed amendments to the Proposed Action as a result of public
comment that was received. As a response to specific public comments concerning the
Proposed Action, Amendments to the Proposed Action emerged through the DGEIS and
FGEIS process and those Amendments to the Proposed Action which the Village Board
of Trustees sets forth below and throughout this document.
Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning Code
Conservation Development District CDD (Amendments to the Proposed Action
Waterfront Sub-district PW-1: Institutional Conservation Zone):
Change from the DGEIS Proposed Action:
•
The Proposed Action PW-1 zone will be removed from the Planned Waterfront
Sub-districts and the PW-1 will be renamed to reflect the zoning district
objectives of environmentally sensitive and low density development. The new
district name will be the Conservation Development District (CDD).
•
The Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District (Proposed
Action PW-1), will keep the same text and incentives as proposed in the draft
zoning for the Proposed Action PW-1 with the exception of removing pier
construction/launching facilities and including incentives for green building that
achieve LEED Gold certification or similar level of standards; remediation work
that is not already subsidized by State or other government funding; contribution
to non-site related infrastructure improvements; or incorporation of publicly
accessible artwork, sculpture, monument or other permanent aesthetic structure
on a development site or a designated off-site location.
•
The Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District will include
the same bulk standards and language as originally proposed in the Proposed
Action PW-1. The Conservation Zone will have a base density of 6 dwelling units
per acre (du/acre) with incentives plus the affordable housing density bonus for a
maximum density of 8 du /acre. A 10% set-aside for affordable housing is
required for developments with 6 or more units in all zoning districts.
•
The height will be reduced from 4 stories / 50 ft to 4 stories / 48 feet to be
consistent with other zones which calculate one story as 12 feet in height.
•
The district boundaries will remain the same as the Proposed Action PW-1 zone
with the exception of the properties that front Route 9 and are currently in the OR (Office Research) zone will remain in the O-R zone. The bulk and use
standards will be the same as the current O-R district regulations except that the
Amended Proposed Action O-R zone will now have senior living facilities as an
additional permitted use.
5
Station Plaza North (SP-n) and Station Plaza South (SP-s) (Amendments to the
Proposed Action Waterfront Sub-district PW-5: Central Waterfront—Station
Square Zone):
Changes from the DGEIS Proposed Action:
•
The PW-5 zone described in the Proposed Action Zoning will be removed from
the Planned Waterfront Sub-districts and will be renamed the Station Plaza zone
to better reflect the strategies and objectives of the Draft Comprehensive Plan to
encourage mixed use development on small properties near the Metro-North
train stations, which will protect and promote the adaptive reuse of existing
buildings which exhibit interesting architectural characteristics.
•
As part of the Proposed Action Zoning, two areas in the Village are identified as
being zoned PW-5. This first area is located around the westerly intersection of
Main Street and Secor Road and the second is located just south of Kemey’s
Cove. As part of the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning, the Station
Plaza North zone will include only the area located around Main Street and Secor
Road. The Station Plaza South zone will include only the area around Kemey’s
Cove.
•
The Station Plaza North zone will include the same bulk standards and language
as the PW-5 except that the height will be reduced from 4 stories / 50 ft to 4
stories / 48 feet to be consistent with other zones which calculate a single story
as 12 feet in height. The Station Plaza North will retain the same language on
view corridors and view preservation as the Proposed Action Zoning for the PW5.
•
The Station Plaza South zone will refine the bulk standards to limit the mass of
any future building(s) by limiting heights to 2 stories / 24 feet, and minimum lot
area to one acre. Permitted uses will allow non-residential uses including retail,
parking lots, professional services etc.
•
The Amended Proposed Action Station Plaza North and Amended Proposed
Action Station Plaza South zones will not be eligible for the density bonus
incentives available in other waterfront zones. However, these zones will have to
comply with the Proposed Action affordable housing requirements which will
result in density bonuses for eligible developments.
Riverfront Development District (RDD) (Amendments to the Proposed Action
Waterfront Sub-district PW-3: Central Waterfront—Waterside Zone):
•
The PW-3 zone described in the Proposed Action Zoning will be removed from
the Planned Waterfront Sub-districts and renamed the Riverfront Development
District.
•
The zoning language for the Riverfront Development District will be based on the
objectives described in Chapter 3 Waterfront of the Draft Comprehensive Plan for
the Proposed Action Zoning PW-3 zone.
•
The Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District will decrease
maximum permitted heights from 3.5 stories / 40 feet in the PW-3 zone to 3
stories / 36 feet which is still an increase of 0.5 stories and 1 foot above the
current WD-1 (Waterfront Development-West Side of the Railroad Tracks)
6
zoning. Consistent with the existing WD-1, the Riverfront Development District
will allow residential development as a Special Permit use and permit 16 dwelling
units per acre.
•
The rest of the bulk and use standards will be the same as proposed for the
Proposed Action PW-3 district.
•
The Riverfront Development District will not be eligible for the density bonus
incentives available in other waterfront zones. However, the zone will have to
comply with the Proposed Action affordable housing requirements which will
result in density bonuses for eligible developments.
The PW-a, PW-b, and PW-c (Amendments to the Proposed Action Waterfront Subdistricts PW-2: Northern Waterfront, PW-4: Central Waterfront—Transit Oriented,
and PW-6: Central Waterfront—Hillside):
•
The Proposed Action PW-2, PW-4, and PW-6 Sub-districts will remain in the
Planned Waterfront but will be renamed the PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), PWb (Proposed Action PW-4) and PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6).
•
The three Planned Waterfront Sub-districts will retain their bulk, uses and base
densities listed in the Proposed Action.
•
The PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4), PW-c
(Proposed Action PW-6) Sub-districts will contain a Special Permit process in
which under the following terms an applicant can achieve additional density if the
following criteria are met:

Properties must have contiguous 3.0 or more acres to apply the
special permit

The underlying bulk and height regulations for each sub-district
will be applied but increased densities can be sought though
incentives. Those incentives can be applied only on parcels that
meet the minimum lot requirement of 3.0 acres that apply for the
special permit. The incentive program will work as follows:
o
Incentives will be the same as those described in the
Proposed Action Zoning Planned Waterfront Sub-districts
except
incentives
for
the
provision
of
pier
construction/launching facilities
will
be
removed.
Additional incentives will include incentives for green
building that achieves LEED Gold certification or similar
level of standards; brownfield remediation work that is not
already subsidized by State or other funding; contribution
to non-site related infrastructure improvements; or
incorporation of publicly accessible artwork, sculpture,
monument or other permanent aesthetic structure on a
development site or at a designated off-site location.
o
The Special Permit would allow a base density of 22
dwelling units per acre with density bonus incentives
including the affordable housing density bonus up to a
maximum density of 32 dwelling units per acre. The
affordable housing density bonus is required as one of the
incentives and will be applied according to the proposed
affordable housing regulations.
7
o
An applicant must be interested in applying for at least one
additional Planned Waterfront Special Permit incentives
besides affordable housing for the Special Permit to apply.
•
All properties that fall within the Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-a
(Proposed Action PW-2), PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4), PW-c (Proposed Action
PW-6) Sub-districts with development proposals that do not meet the
qualifications of the Special Permit or do not wish to apply for the Special Permit
will have a base density of 15 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the affordable
housing density bonus will be applied according to the proposed affordable
housing regulations.
•
The maximum height in the PW-a will be 6 stories / 72 feet which is the height
currently permitted for this area. The maximum height for the PW-b will be 4
stories / 48 ft from the curbline on Water Street, Central, Main and Secor Road
and no building shall extend more than 1 story or 16 feet above the westerly curb
line on Market or Hunter streets. The maximum height in PW-c will be to 4
stories / 48 ft.
Amendments to the Proposed Action PRD (Planned Residential) Zone
•
The Amendments to the Proposed Action PRD zone will maintain the same
incentives and text as the Proposed Action zoning including incentives for green
building that achieve LEED Gold certification or similar level of standards;
remediation work that is not already subsidized by State or other government
funding; contribution to non-site related infrastructure improvements; or
incorporation of publicly accessible artwork, sculpture, monument or other
permanent aesthetic structure on a development site or a designated off-site
location.
•
The bulk and use standards for the PRD will remain the same as the Proposed
Action except that the Proposed Action Zoning for the PRD will be amended to
limit the heights above the western curb-line of Hudson Street to no more than 10
feet for attached dwelling units and 2.5 stories / 35 feet for single and two-family
detached dwelling units.
Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-7
•
•
The Proposed Action PW-7 will be removed from the Planned Waterfront Subdistricts and the Proposed Action PW-7 will be renamed Institutional
Redevelopment.
The Amended Proposed Action Institutional Redevelopment will keep the same
bulk, uses and base densities as described in the Proposed Action for the PW-7
zone.
8
ZONING MAP AS REVISED IN THE FGEIS
9
PRD
NC-1
O-R
S-100
S-125
NC-1
S-50
O-R
S-50
S-125
NC-1
PRD
S-75
S-125
S-75
GB
S-75
NC-2
MF-1
CDD
MF-1
T
PW-a
NC-1
NC-2
NC-2
MF-1 MF-2
S-75
MF-2
S-100
PW-b
RDD
S-75
SP-n
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PWRD Overlay
!
!
!
!
!
S-100
S-125
T
VC
S-50
MF-2
PW-c
T
PO
S-75
MF-1
T
S-50
MF-1
MF-2
IR
S-75
MF-1
PRD
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
S-75
!
!
!
!
S-50
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
S-125 PC
!
MF-1
!
!
!
!
!
PRD
S-125
SP-s
0
1,000
2,000 Feet
i
Sources: Village of Ossining GIS Data, Westchester County GIS Data
GB
Amendments to
the Proposed Action Zoning
!
Sparta Historic/
Architectural Design
District Overlay
!
S-100
VC
PC
NC-1
NC-2
GB
SP-n
SP-s
CDD
IR
RDD
Village Center
Planned Center
Neighborhood Center
Neighborhood Center
General Business
Station Plaza North
Station Plaza South
Conservation Development District
Institutional Redevelopment
Riverfront Development District
Planned Waterfront Development
PW-a Northern Waterfront
PW-b Central Waterfront - Transit Oriented
PW-c Central Waterfront - Hillside
Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc. 2009
COMMENT INDEX
Date
Received
6/4/07
6/6/07
6/11/07
6/14/07
6/20/07
6/20/07
6/21/07
6/25/07
6/26/07
6/26/07
6/26/07
6/29/07
7/2/07
7/3/07
7/3/07
7/3/07
7/3/07
Submitted by:
Jerry Gershner
Dana & Stephen Levenberg
Gordon Albert
Miguel J. Hernandez
Patricia & Thomas Occhiogrossi, Marie Gagliardi, Ann & Graham Gulian, Jerry
Lucido, Walter & Ann Meinel; Noreen Martz, Phyllis Loreto, Donna Aristo,
Marcie McMahon
Ruloff F. Kip, Jr.
Victoria Polidoro
William Cowan, Marie Gagliardi & Pepi Powell
Stephen Holton
Chris Leonowicz
Tracey Cataldo
Ann Lauinger
Ronald & Bette Scorsone, Sean Scorsone, Margaret Brigham, Connie Shook,
John Shook, Patricia Kole, Jeses Lynds, Kay Olson, Anthony Ciancio, Manios
Ciancio, P. Martone, C. Martone, A. Martone, William Nolan, Carles Torrs,
Susana Torres, Todd Kruger, Mike Sterlacci, Pasquale, Rosane Kirinug, Cathie
Morales, Marie Buckley-Hoffman, Brian Hoffman, David Harper, Fred Howley,
Calin Papescu, Carla Houston, Cornelius Houston, Ruck Pat, Salvana Firrincieli,
John Beake, Catherine Beake, Nancy Ohman, Lisa Fambro, A. Pernin, Heather
Motrdle, Roy Ellingsen, Anis Sri-Jayantha, Sri Sri Jaya, Gerry Moran, Leah
Carlson-Stanisil, R. Stanisk, R. Fortuniewicz, M. Figueroa, C. Eldredge, Andrew
Richards, Terri Richards, Wilma Pabon Evans, Brian Evans, Gina Feeks, Eileen
Peterson, Michael Petro, Jennifer Bussiere, Christine Eidem, Bruce Eidem,
Diana McDermott, Adam Yuro, Mari Yuro, Brian McDermott, Pat O’Brien, Laura
Fewer, Sharon Rave, April Freeman Locke, Blake Rome, Babalunch Cohn,
Linda Lichtenstein, Lisa Palmietto, Lawrence Davies, Melanie Malirote, Barney
Gaiszzie, Mark Johnson, Ricahrd Machan, Betty Barrows, Carl Barrows, Mr. &
Mrs. Boateng, Anna Penugini, Ellen Harper, Lynn Lange, Alfonso Langone,
Octavian Cana, Joshua Levine, Mariana Caria, Dan Kurn, Rebecca O’Neill,
Vincent O’Neill, Peter Camewier, Susan Carpenter, Assunta Velardo, Nicola
Velardo, Mary Krzitzer, Kestar Silverman, William Satch, Michelle Sakin, Vasso
Morse, Joanna Gavnelatos, Areti Garrelatos, Shirley Forte, Joseph Forte, Angel
Cumbe, Theresa Wright, Kathleen Wright, Matt Leser, Neal Richman, Maria
Camro, Nicola Perugini, Patricia Healy, Gene Gioio, Peter Cober, Dolores
Cober, Alice Camp, Anne Zimmerman
Tracey Cataldo
Tracey Cataldo
Tracey Cataldo
Nicole Mone
7/3/07
11/29/07
David Mallen & Nicole Mone
Unknown
12/29/07
Victoria Polidoro
Type of
Correspondence
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
Letter and
Petition
E-mail
E-mail
Letter and
Petition
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
Letter
E-mail
Letter
1/1/08
Ossining Chamber of Commerce
E-mail
4/17/08
John Kirkpatrick of Oxman Tulis Kirkpatrick Whyatt & Geiger LP
10
E-mail
4/21/08
4/25/08
West Hudson Street Owners
5/7/08
Mili Ashar
5/8/08
Sue Stone
5/8/08
Christina Papadopoulos
5/8/08
Mondana Rezania
5/9/08
Elizabeth Harlow
5/12/08
Diana Angelini
5/12/08
Bill Irwin
5/12/08
Andrea Kimmich-Keyser
5/12/08
Stephen & Linda Krivisky
5/12/08
Kari Nelson
5/12/08
Teresa Duguet
5/12/08
Jane Collen
5/13/08
Amy Seiden
5/13/08
Galia Silverberg
5/13/08
Teresita Najito
5/13/08
Millie DeSalvo
5/13/08
Daysi Briones
5/13/08
Lynn Gissen
5/13/08
Elizabeth Simpson
5/13/08
Pat Unger-Scarduzio
5/13/08
Sherry Bailey
5/13/08
Julie Gross
5/13/08
Korina Moran
5/13/08
Lisa Stifler O’Hanlon
5/13/08
Wendy Tittel
5/13/08
Virginia Pope
5/13/08
Jeffrey Lindenbaum
5/14/08
Nancy Boyd
5/14/08
Elisabeth Hickey,
5/14/08
Karen Kennedy
5/14/08
Kay Hawley
5/14/08
Sue Jimney
5/14/08
Martha & Michael Klein
5/14/08
Lydia Rivaud
5/14/08
Lucy Dubray
5/14/08
Lisa Pitre
Letter
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
11
5/15/08
Cynthia Bardwell
5/15/08
Rev. Claire Woodley-Aitchison
5/15/08
Sal Oppedisano
5/15/08
Therese Kelly
5/15/08
Ibrahim Abdallah
5/15/08
Reina Fleury
5/15/08
Jeannette Gerber
5/15/08
Justine Lackey
5/15/08
Henrietta Porter
5/15/08
Joan Biecke
5/15/08
Gayle Marchica
5/15/08
Virginia Loughlin
5/15/08
Robin Gersten
5/15/08
Jane Ozer
5/15/08
Katie Gorycki
5/15/08
Kathleen Crowley
5/15/08
Sharon Frey
5/15/08
Miki Weiss
5/15/08
Toni Scholl
5/15/08
Thomas Vincent
5/15/08
Susan Lasky
5/15/08
Steve Holton
5/15/08
Salvatore Oppedisano
5/15/08
Peter Clements
5/15/08
Bonnie Rosborough
5/15/08
Nina Wilson
5/15/08
Resa Mestel
5/15/08
Theodore Donson
5/15/08
Marcia Sloman
5/16/08
Candace Kniffen
5/16/08
Doris Ferraro
5/16/08
Kimberly Gregg
5/16/08
Shelley Glick & Steve Saper
5/16/08
Robert Scholl
5/16/08
Peggy Monastra
5/16/08
Norma Banas
5/17/08
Rena Wilhelm
5/17/08
Barbara Hough
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
12
5/18/08
Julianne Panagacos
5/18/08
Mary & Russell Seacor
5/19/08
Maxine Lawrence
5/19/08
Cecilia Gutierrez
5/19/08
John Molinelli
5/19/08
Janet Thompson
5/19/08
Jeffrey Smith
5/21/08
Peter Moran
5/16/08
5/16/08
Adam Wekstein (for Plateau Associates)
Hudson Arts Foundation/Peter Stolatis Humphrey Newland, Sharon Alpert,
Phyllis Dunto, Richard Mushlin, Eleanor Besen, Rugh De la Yospa, Carla
Guenso, Daniel Heather, Kelly Heinacki, Paul Helmann, Gayle, Umpt, Kathryn
Howard, Karin Howard, Amie Cotton, Michael Donnelly, Alex Walker, William
Walker, Thomas Faryst, William Kruse, Mark Talhia, H. Grossman, Mary Lou
Morrissey, Jerome Morrisy, Maggie Guigb, Fin Safa, Bridget Murphey, Jeffifer
Wheeler, Thomas Olton, Frnk Meccia, S.R. Mujhol, Aveilia Gutierrez, Shid After,
Patrice Scully, Michael Karnes, Tarria Martin, Judi Hark, Charlie Samuels, Loyh
Ditterlzri, Demetra Seckares, Salvatore Resavia, David Quentin, Rerriata
Rutledge, Robert Fario, Felix Cortese, Claire Cronin, Onix Garcia, Donna Nikic,
Maureen Helliig, Peggi Gunter, Jana Wilson, Sandra Bilotio, Rich Grimaldi,
Donna Mikkelsen, Andrea Andrews, Beth Grecksti, Chrissanth Gross, J. Gidd,
Gadafentinetti, Suzanne Valetinello, Madeline Heepdendad, Mary Ayers,
Anthony Marino, Carol Ann Mananelli, Paul Mcusrelli, Jquies Meyerhoff, Frnk
Billak, Lanam Simmon, Joe Stakas, Robert Bailey, Laura Myerson, Debra shor,
Craig Schor, Richard Ann, John Anson, Florece Ginao, Gladys, Green, Ellen
Glazier, Peggy Weiss Gene Grenci, Balsa Zipkin, Ester Blanco, Lee Jacks,
Sean Amoto, Degon Amsti, Flow Doyle, Steve Schultz, Tanya Frohberg, Amy
Cotter, Danny Ferguson, Jeff Miller, Jim Mulligan, Maica Karalis, Roberta Shea,
Sin Mrid, Angela Hofnagel, Janice Shaw, Judy Lewis, Kimerbly Crane, Mike
Cherrly, Rob & Lisa Sussman, Sue Ruan, Patricia Boltin, Dana Levenberg,
Mario Giacatone, Troy Messenger, Lisa Monk, Sandra Aeujabon, Helen Gretter,
Zandi Geyer, Matt Usr, Lew Egol, Harry Frisch, Wayne Carca, Mary McFerran,
Karen Djen, Shan Varehger, Eliza Cooney, David Tuttle, Alice Kossin & Gary
Godden, Steven & Linda Stephenson, Lauren Peterson, Wiu Which, Joseph
Avalio, Judi Hark, Nana Hubner, Dorothy Milerlty, Russell Hammond, Gail
Goodman, Rachel Benish, Robin Field, Mark Wilbert, Barbara Aran, Marlene
Cartaina, Judy Weissman, April Krassner, Nancy Baligh, Susan Stone, Cathy
Wells, Lauren Davis, Betty Hinkes, Beth Maelana, Lisa Steiger, Lora Friedman
& Bill DeLeno, Mark Castelano, Steven Riedel, Daniel DeBeer, Janice St.
Germain, Ann Theomarpes, Karen Werustock, Gabriella Mirabelli, German
Fragnso, Anne McClenan, Bob McKane, A. Carey, Valerie Duboc, Fabiana
Camillo, Myra Oney, Jean Shin, Jane Arnold, Rosemarie Koory, Louis Pelosi,
Patti Rosen, Connie Derbabian, Kristine Fornday, Amy Kohn, Kim Smith, Eileen
Hart, Wendy Kind, Lulanti Sink, S. Hotta, Hidenao Abe, Bridget Cevasio, Jerry
Fruill, Denise Bisaccia, L. Hahn, Edna Cabrera, Susan Johnson, DJ Chair, Jean
McGee, Michelle Swanson, Marlene Rudnick, Charles Bennett, Paul Hofnagel,
Denise & Lowell Knauer, Wayne Ellis, Andrew Ordover, Lois Dyer, Joanne
Livesey, Marcia Farrell, Erin McKeon, Donna Griffin, Evelyn Randegger, David
Golod, Suti Zatar & Kevin Conrad, Donna Barkman, Danla McCarthy, Rana
Faura, M. Hitckbon, Shari Rove, Jeannie Zraz, Susan Fahez, Mary Crescenzo,
Jennifer Ries, Helen Barolina, Barbara Thompson, Mary Green, Donald DuBar,
Doris Dubas, Frances Twiss, Marnie McGavis, Thomas McGowan, Miller Starin,
Stefani Starin, Jeffrey Starin, Mona Tascani Laschber, Carol Grienman, L.
Adler, Wilma Messenger, Julie Johnson, Christine Garrett, Isaac Java,
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
E-mail
5/19/08
Letter
Petition
13
5/19/08
6/11/08
7/4/08
Geraldine Crinnini Brie Cummins, Adeline Engle, Jean Elluzzi, Isabel Oramas,
Walter Ruiz, Viranwa Valemo, Stephen Bordner, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Greg
Peffers, Carmela DiPierro, Mark Wilkins, Elore Conte, Tracy Conte, Grace
Gaito, Barbara Sherr, Rene Zovier, Mannel AShpole, Virginia Rai, Alex Funk,
Jonathan McRai, Anthony Tarantelli, Eda Gorukurk, Marie Sertuw, Tylcela
Dunne, Pat Unger, Angel Navarro, Teodoro Quesr Rogas, Laura Pino, Gustavo
Diz, Edoren Yuzy, Andrew Hinkler, Andrew Kousaurry, Seiten Sewer, Chris
Fuentes, Antonio Velardo, Shirah Winkler, German Oliveria, Sandra Robbins,
Alicai Diaz, Joyce Lippman, Eugene Katz, Donald Wheeler, Alan Green, Cole
Kamen-Green, Tricia Tanaffy, Beth Lamont, Sharon Alpert, Carrie Rotkin, Mary
Murphy, Dar Gilberg, Mark Bandivia, Gina Piazza, Evelyn Vanegas, Steve
Richards, Chris Ridenhouse, Vanessa Ridenhouse, O. Osandra, Victor Schotte,
Rebecca Leitman, Jennifer Lamaj, Maria Lamas, Judith Taylor, Catherine
Constable, Kathleen Williams, Heidi McGvirk, Barbara Cohen, Maura Lyons, D.
Mato, Linda Plastrik, Jean Chamey, Claudia Capshaw, Mary Chochian,
Elizabeth Thes, Maria Pereira, Tavier Piurjase, Sandra Jibeur, Harold Laft,
William Tonslh, Cindy McIntosh, Jennifer Fortunato, Anthony Raindi, Robert
Leary, Elsi Pavone, Tirni Faez, Helen DiPalma, Michael Geme, Vincent Pieluni,
Aldoti, Nolfo, L. Fits, V. Seogna, J. Chin, J. Del Cieni, Kurt Morgan, Rall Tigi,
Patricia Gerrity, Adam Ostaszewski, Evan Stolatis, Shelby Gathuson, Shirley
Johnson, Usja Simms, Galr, Frank Rosso, Games Ramkaram, Chasheena
Thomas, Linia Dimancio, D. Will, Mario Fro, G. Rivillo, Andra Sodano, Diana
Boryk, Robert Boryk, Tina Stolatis, Melissa Washington, Erika Thomas, Gloria
Jara, Joann Joyce, Frana Marc, Dara DiMarco, Amy Raccisppi, Maria Proilio, R.
Ruillo, Nancy Chica, Dennis Tate, Janine Altrnelli, Mick Scardyo, Norma Top, E.
O’Connell, C.J. O’Connell, Maryann Filardi, Marjorie Haggerty, Bernadette Kelly,
Ann Kiliommons, Robert Johnson, J. Whitley, Rudy Sekasits, Helga Mosqueda,
Rene Pasqueda, D. Dovelo, K. Hane, Dan Coppersmith, Maria Coppersmith,
Ray Boswell, Michael Bargi, Lisa Connolly, Roseann Marttnelli, Charlene
Diprini, J. Haiztrabig, H. Penn, Stephen Kirby, Thomas Suna, Dusey Zorre, Rai
Molinelli, Cheri Garver, Jen Harris, Skollen Tren, Aetann, Hans Wifer, Lorraine
Joffman, D. Hillgartine, Jessica Penn, Drew Baldomar, Celia Baldomar, David
Vutera, Stewart Shen, Kathy Garcand, Gabriel Aucar, Daisy Ryan, Denies
Thomas, Bonnie McCall, Mike DiBenedetto, Quantel Bazemore, Charlene Cody,
Michael Johnson, Brenda Canero, John Perry, Ashlie Perry, Diane Rohan,
James Fonid, Donna Cipriano, Deborah Beck, Sean Hamrock, Steve Wexler,
Lorraine Way, Laura Moore, Jeffrey Steiger, Wayne Paul Mattingly, Elaine
Young, Cathy Titus, Danielle Rose, Pat Rowan, S. Brannan, L. Dotterson, Claire
Aitchison, Nell MacDonald, Joanne Brown, Elizabeth Devaney, Sandra Segatti,
Wililam Korey, DiBenedeto, Thomas Chu, Mark Lederman, Helen Oskiba,
Robert Martin, Pat Cibulka, Pat Rohor, Jim Ferrell, Laurie Sterlacci, Tara Steele,
Lynda Nickelsen, Cathy DiGera, Wendy Garcia, Adriana Aguilar, Sheely
Benavder, L. Hopkins, Diane Covert, James Futte, Victor Jara, Cecilia Chu,
Joan Ledermen, J. Saobuskel, Susan Illansky, J. Jinillo, Allan Fyrus, David
Garcia, Les Boylan, David Garcia, Michelle Cooper, Evelyn Cooper, Mike
Makraj, Maria Bossinas, Krziakoula Morkzoj, Silvia Salzzar, Mihcael Saudg, Mili
Ashar, Kunjlata Ashar, Bryany Samyat, Brijen Dayal, Paul Bevelly, Mike
Masullo, Cindy Cassuto, Lauren Lortuz, Teresita Najito, Stuart Hecht, Donna
Edlund, Joan Seymour, G. Silvio, Martha Krahow, Lori Jorgensen, Mildred
Mandy, Tony Grossman, Tobe Sebb, Baibaialetter, John Barber, Pin Petruzzi,
Lucy Petruzzi, Sarah Dipillo, Jessica Rogers, Bonnie Balassone, I,
Colongrovemi, Sedruck Edwards, Ellen Kane, Robert Kane, B&B Obuck,
Kenneth McDonald, Richard Apute, J. Vezilante, T. Androth, Segumdo Galleo,
B. Frieilich, Diane Guaragno, BJ Neumann, Irma Spielberg, Charles Spielberg
Jerry Gershner
Melinda O'Brien & Michael Muldoon
Gareth Hougham
7/15/08
E-mail
Letter
E-mail
E-mail
14
E-mail
7/24/08
7/31/08
Jerry Gershner
8/12/08
8/20/08
8/25/08
8/26/08
Ossining Chamber of Commerce
Tim Miller/Tim Miller Associates
Gareth Hougham
Deborah Van Steen
9/18/08
9/18/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
9/22/08
10/1/08
10/1/08
10/1/08
10/1/08
10/1/08
Westchester County
Robert Little
Mark Miller
Gary Golio
John Kirkpatrick/Gary Warshauer
Dan Beaton
Catherine Oslon
Jerry Gershner
John Codman
Chrystine Nicholas
Eric Schatz
Mr. Hernandez
Etta Lobel Walsh
John Klapkowski
Lydia Rivaud
Ann Lauinger
Elizabeth Simpson
Chrystine Nicholas
Nick Stolatis
Adam Wekstein for Plateau Associates
10/2/08
10/2/08
10/2/08
Albert Schatz
Elizabeth Simpson
E-mail
Letter
Letter
E-mail
E-mail
Letter
Letter
10/2/08
10/2/08
10/7/08
10/8/08
10/10/08
10/10/08
10/10/08
10/14/08
10/14/08
Maureen Morgan
Chrystine & George Nicholas
Ann & Joseph Lauinger
J. Michael Divney (for BASF)
Cathy Schaeffer (Hudson Point Board of Managers)
Adam Wekstein (for Plateau Associates)
Planning Board
Anthony Beldotti
Environmental Advisory Committee
10/14/08
10/14/08
10/14/08
10/14/08
10/14/08
10/14/08
10/14/08
10/27/08
Mark Miller
Dan Beaton
Jerry Gershner/OCC
Giovanna Conti
George Echevarria
Peter Stolatis
Jeffrey Anzevino/Scenic Hudson
Peter Stolatis
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
15
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ZONING
General
Z-1. Philosophical objection to BAR (J. Gershner, letter, 6/4/07)
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) was established to prevent excessive
uniformity and dissimilarity, inappropriateness, or poor quality of design in the exterior
appearance of buildings erected in any neighborhood. The current BAR legislation will
remain and no alteration to this legislation is being proposed at this time.
Z-2. I’m wondering if you need more clarity on sewage and environmental protection,
etc.—again so codes are more easily enforced since they’re clearer. (Rev. S. Holton,
letter, 6/26/07)
The proposed Village Code changes look to streamline many of the regulations and
references to other environmental regulations outside the zoning and subdivision
chapters. This comment was addressed during the drafting of the amendments to the
Village Code. Details are set forth in the Chapter 3 and Chapter 7 of the DGEIS.
Z-3. Also, PLEASE look at Tarrytown’s design guidelines. Even their Chinese
restaurant signs are charming and well-designed. Storefront appeal really sends a huge
message about what our downtown is like. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when
we can look towards our neighbors. (T. Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
Comment noted. Strategy 1.3 “[p]ublish design guidelines for historic landmarks and
historic districts” found in Chapter 8 Neighborhood Quality of Life of the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan addresses the need for design guidelines. Architectural
guidelines are unique to each municipality depending on the existing building stock and
built landscape of that municipality.
Z-4. Also we encourage a strategic approach to zoning—specifically a careful
consideration of which properties are better suited for commercial space and which are
better suited for residential (and which residential properties are more suited to
affordable housing as opposed to market housing). (Mallen and Moné, letter, 7/3/07)
The recommendations listed in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan helped
develop the strategic approach to the Proposed Action Zoning code changes. The
Proposed Action Zoning amendments were created out of careful consideration of
location and land capacity, as well as which areas were best suited for which land uses
and zoning districts. Details of the strategic approach are outlined throughout the
DGEIS.
Z-5 As currently proposed, the draft zoning ordinance, and recommendations in the draft
comprehensive plan, are inconsistent with Plateau’s pending petition and application.
We continue to be of the view that the zoning proposed in our client’s pending petition
should be approved by your Board. The two disparately-zoned portions of the Property
16
are, of course, owned by a single entity, and your Board should include the entire
Property in a single zoning district which will facilitate the integrated and logical
development of the entire site which is embodied by Plateau’s application. The property
should be afforded a single zoning classification which would accommodate the pending
application and not be split between the PW-1 and PW-2 Districts as shown on the
proposed zoning map. (A. Wekstein, letter, 5/16/08)
We disagree. Rezoning the current PRD (Proposed Action PW-1) property referred to in
comment Z-5 from the Conservation Development District (Draft Amendments to the
Proposed Action PW-1) to PW-a (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-2)
would allow for greater density and height on the plateau and stream corridor property
behind the Pill Factory. The Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development
District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-1) was written to specifically
have lower density and heights than its surrounding waterfront districts. The reason for
this distinction as articulated in the Village’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP), remain valid. The Proposed Action Zoning districts for the site in question have
specific planning reasons that correlate to the establishment of the zoning boundaries,
which relate back to the creation of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) and
the 1990 Village Zoning Code amendments that established the WD-2 (Waterfront
Development-East of the Railroad Tracks) and PRD (Planned Residential District)
zoning districts. The Village of Ossining’s LWRP adopted by the Board of Trustees, July
2, 1991; adopted by the NYS Secretary of State July 11, 1991; and concurred by the US
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management July 8, 1993 articulates the
rationale behind the current boundaries of the PRD and WD-2 and the basis behind the
Proposed Action Zoning boundaries, as well as the zoning boundaries for the Amended
Proposed Action Conservation Development District (Draft Amendments to the
Proposed Action PW-1) and Amended Proposed Action PW-a zone (Draft Amendments
to the Proposed Action PW-2).
The intent of the original PRD is to limit heights, density, and preserve views and open
space. The area of land that is zoned PRD is considered environmentally sensitive and
identified as being of scenic quality to the Village in the LWRP and detailed in Chapter 3
The Waterfront of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. Under the section in
the LWRP, Local Laws and Regulations Necessary in order to Implement the LWRP it
states that the PRD “provisions of this district will implement the LWRP in that they will
allow for development while at the same time retaining much of the attractive natural
character of the areas covered by the district. Height limitations will protect views to and
from the river.” The Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District
(Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-1) was written to continue the goals and
objectives of the PRD.
Furthermore, the heights proposed in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Draft
Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-2) (current WD-2) also have their origins in the
current Special Height Overlay zone. The LWRP states “The SH District restricts the
heights of buildings within the WD-2 Waterfront Development District in order to prevent,
wherever possible, the blocking of views of the Hudson River from upland areas, and the
obliteration of the natural profile of the Eastern Palisades when viewed from the western
bank of the Hudson. This is one of the elements studied during site plan review. This
regulation protects the visual quality of the waterfront and its vistas.”
The LWRP specifically outlines the basis of the delineation of zoning boundaries and
provides detailed descriptions of the Snowden area in which the property is located.
Policies 1, 2, 5, 14, and 25 directly refer to the Snowden area and discuss the low
density and sensitive development that the LWRP identifies as appropriate for this area.
The LWRP also provides a thorough discussion of land and water uses for the properties
and has an in-depth discussion of existing zoning law provisions that directly relate to
the implementation of the LWRP. Details of the relevant language and policies related
to the Brandreth Pill Factory and the PRD properties located in the Snowden area can
17
be found on the following pages II-16 to II-19, III-3 to III-7, III-13 to III-15, III-26 to III-28,
IV-3, IV-11, and V-3 to V-6 in the LWRP.
Furthermore, the DGEIS details the reasons for the proposed heights, densities, open
space, and view corridor preservation regulations of the Amended Proposed Action
Conservation Development District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-1)
and Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-2)
in the following chapters: Chapter 3 Land Use and Zoning; Chapter 6 Geology and
Topography; Chapter 13 Scenic, Historic, and Cultural Resources; and Chapter 17
Community Character.
Z-6 First of all, there are things in here about office buildings, commercial research,
laboratories, hotels, conference centers. Well, you can strike all of those right out. The
taxes in Ossining preclude those uses, absolutely preclude them. So whatever else is—
is available in that zone, is what can be done, because those will not be done. It’s—I
mean, there are light industrial uses, light industrial buildings crumbling in Hastings, a
very high-priced area, because they’re just not a viable use anymore. (Eric Schatz,
public hearing, 9/22/08)
There are currently office buildings, commercial research and conference center uses in
the Village. One of the goals of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and
zoning changes is to create a more mixed use community. The Proposed Action Zoning
and the Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning create new waterfront districts
and amends the current business districts that will result in greater land use options to
help promote development throughout the Village. Precluding uses in the zoning that
include office buildings, commercial research, laboratories, hotels, and conference
centers based on the market today would not be consistent with the goals of the Draft
Plan that include creating a wider variety of permitted uses. Details are set forth in
Chapter 3 Land Use and Zoning of the DGEIS.
Z-7. Uniform signage for Main Street.(A. Schatz, letter, 9/26/08)
The Proposed Action Zoning Code changes include new sign regulations in Section 27033. The proposed amendments to the sign regulations will promote a variety of signs
and attempt to help create uniformity in the type and size of signs. Although uniform
signage for Main Street was not contemplated in the Proposed Action Zoning code
changes, Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development contains a
recommendation that can be implemented in the future that states “[p]rovide a consistent
palette of lighting, signage, landscaping, and sidewalks throughout downtown’s public
domains.”
Z-8. Some final thoughts:
1.
Highest and best use is an absolute top priority.
2.
The marketplace, not the zoning, dictates what to build.
3.
The land itself tells you what is the most it can carry.
4.
Keep the zoning as flexible as possible.
5.
When you hassle over density think of a unit as tax revenue—not just as another
number. (A. Schatz, letter, 9/26/08)
1. Local governments have the authority to regulate property, even if the value of the
property is affected. All of the Proposed Action Zoning and Amendments to the
Proposed Action Zoning retain similar, or in many instances increase, the permitted
18
densities and heights above current zoning except the current WD-2 located west of
Hudson Street and the portion of the Hunter Street properties that are currently zoned
WD-2 (see the Proposed Action Zoning map for delineation of the zones along Hunter
Street). The new Proposed Action Zoning for Hudson Street WD-2 is discussed and
outlined in more detail in Chapter 3, 13, 14, and 17 of the DGEIS. Some Hunter Street
properties will be re-zoned to T Two-Family zoning, which is in characteristic with of
uses currently located on the small properties that line Hunter Street.
2. Land use controls are an exercise of the police power long recognized by the United
States Supreme Court. The legal basis for all land use regulation is the power of the
jurisdiction to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of its residents.
While economic value of an individual property owner can be deemed part of public
welfare, it is not the sole determining factor for making municipal planning decisions.
The DGEIS outlines the various environmental factors that were taken into consideration
when determining the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan recommendations
and the proposed Village Code amendments.
3. The intent of the DGEIS is to analyze the limitations of the land and the effects of the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code changes to the
environment.
4. The Proposed Action Zoning and the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning are
intentionally more flexible than the current zoning providing a wider variety of permitted
uses and more form-based bulk regulations.
5. An extra unit may bring more tax revenue, but it may bring more costs to the Village
including its environment, traffic conditions, schools, and services. More units also result
in an increased need for Village resources. Different types of ownership can be
assessed very differently resulting in different tax revenues. All of the affects of a new
unit concerning the health safety and welfare of a community must be considered.
Those effects are detailed in the DGEIS.
Z-9. Signage in Village Retail Stores: There is utter chaos in the local signs, handdrawn, frequently in another language, which creates a very unwelcoming feeling to
anyone not in that culture. Couldn’t we have English listed first, with another language
beneath, creating a more inclusive atmosphere for that establishment? (Morgan, letter,
10/2/08)
The Proposed Action Zoning Code changes include new sign regulations in Section 27033.
The proposed sign regulations amendments are intended to help create
cohesiveness in the type and size of signs in the Village. The proposed sign regulations
do not contain restrictions on the language or content of the signs.
Z-10. Under either the current or proposed zoning, the Property should be treated as an
integrated site. The entire Property is in common ownership and had historically been in
a single zoning district which was the predecessor to the WD-2 zone, and the best
access to the plateau us over North Water Street through the WD-2 zoned portion of the
Property. We respectively submit that rezoning the Property as proposed in Plateau’s
petition is necessary to ensure proper development of the property while enabling
adaptive reuse of the Brandreth Pill factory, and is sound from both planning and
environmental perspectives. Under the zoning ordinance which is included in the
proposed legislation the entire property should be zoned into the newly created PW-2
district. Otherwise some of the primary putative goals of the Village’s legislative initiative
will be thwarted. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
See Response to Z-5
19
Z-11.The Planning Board finds that the proposed zoning changes appropriately address
most of the suggestions provided in the public comment meetings and the Village-wide
survey. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
Comment noted. The Draft Comprehensive Plan, the Proposed Action Zoning Code and
LWRP, and Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning and LWRP include a wide
reaching public process with the aim of gathering input of as many residents and
stakeholders as possible. Details can be found in Chapter 1 Introduction of the Draft
Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 1 of the DGEIS.
Z-12. The Planning Board also recommends that all parkland be noted on the zoning
map as Park Land and that a special zone be established which outlines the
designation. This designation will create greater awareness and improve sensitivity to
the area during the planning and design of nearby developments. (Planning Board,
memo, undated)
Comment noted. Parkland owned by the municipality will be reflected on the Village
zoning map.
Definitions
Z-13. The definition of structure is a little vague. What exactly does “arranged in a
construction” mean? Is it a pile of logs? A tent? Retaining walls? Consider clarifying
this definition. (Polidoro, letter, 12/29/07)
Comment noted. The definition of structure will follow the New York State Building Code
definition “that which is built or constructed.”
Z-14. The definition of Billboard is very broad. Consider excluding directional signs and
temporary signs for events like tag sales and flea markets. (Polidoro, letter, 12/29/07)
Comment noted. The definition of billboards will reflect an exemption for temporary
signs and way-finding signs.
Z-15. Consider adding the definition for accessory structure/building to the definition
section. I know it is explained elsewhere but it would be helpful to have it in the
definition section. (Polidoro, letter, 12/29/07)
The definition of USE, ACCESSORY can be found under the use definitions. Limits of
heights and bulk can be found throughout the Proposed Action Zoning depending on the
zoning district and the types of accessory use.
Z-16. It is unclear to me whether Height of a Structure is measured including antennas,
elevators, etc., or if those are included in the “rooftop appurtenances” exception. (I think
this is just a matter of rearranging the wording in the sentence.) (Polidoro, letter,
12/29/07)
We will make sure that the definition is made clearer.
20
Z-17. In Section 279-4(8)(e), Taxidermists are lumped with morticians. Do taxidermists
need a special license? If not, I interpret it as meaning that only licensed morticians can
practice taxidermy. (Polidoro, letter, 12/29/07)
Taxidermists are in a use category with morticians. The zoning law does not speak to
uses requiring licenses to operate only the ability or inability to conduct that type of
business in a particular area of the Village.
Z-18. What is the difference, practically speaking, between a home occupation and a
home-based business? Also, consider allowing home-based businesses one small
freestanding wooden sign. These can be very tasteful and add to the character of a
neighborhood. Additionally, a wall-mounted sign can be difficult to see from the road
and customers will have to be turn around frequently on a residential street. (I grew up
next to an attorney’s office and I never minded the sign, it was classy.) (Polidoro, letter,
12/29/07)
A home based business is a more intensive use than a home occupation and the
definitions and regulations in the Proposed Action Zoning lay out the thresholds between
the home occupation and home based business. Home occupations are supposed to be
low level operations. If a person needs more advertising than what is allowed for a
home based business that business is probably too intensive. However, a person is
always afforded the opportunity to make their arguments to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance from the sign regulations.
Proposed Action PRD
Z-19. A complete feasibility study should be performed to substantiate the new
limitations. (West Hudson Street Owners, letter, 4/25/08)
The DGEIS discusses the planning rationale and environmental reasons for the rezoning
of Hudson Street from WD-2 to Proposed Action PRD. These include but are not limited
to the preservation of views, and community character. The intent is to create zoning
that provides for incentives to create public access and enjoyment of the River, while
preserving view corridors of the Hudson and Palisades. Additional details can be found
in the DGEIS in Chapters 3, 13, 14, 17 as well as Chapter 3 the Waterfront, in the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Due to the type of development that surrounds both sides of Hudson Street, we believe
that a decrease in density from 18 dwelling units per acre to no more than 8 dwelling
units per acre (with incentives) is more compatible and in character with the intensity and
type of development along Hudson Street.
The current WD-2 district allows for heights of 6 stories/72 feet with an elevation of no
more than 180 feet above sea level. Based on the existing topography this would
potentially allow for buildings to be greater than 40 feet above Hudson Street on the
west side of Hudson and 72 feet on the east side. The Proposed Action Zoning will limit
the heights to no more than 10 feet above the western curb-line of Hudson Street and
2.5 stories/35 feet on the east side. We agree that the proposed height limitations would
render some of the current freestanding buildings located on the west side of Hudson
Street non-conforming. As analyzed in the DGEIS, the Proposed Action Zoning will be
amended to limit the heights to no more than 10 feet above the western curb-line of
Hudson Street in attached dwelling units and allow for 2.5 stories /35 feet in single and
two-family detached dwelling units, which will help prevent non-conformity of height.
21
Z-20. We find that most of the proposed changes for our zone will be beneficial, but that
some changes are arbitrary and detrimental to any future development. The 10 feet
above Hudson Street limit will make virtually every property on Hudson Street, except
47, an existing non-conforming use.
Additionally, while the proposed change talks about a public river walk and access to the
river over the tracks, the 10-foot height limit will prevent any development from achieving
this outcome. (West Hudson Street Owners, letter, 4/25/08) (Property owners at 11,
15, 47, and 49 Hudson Street)
to the preservation of views, and community character. The intent is to create zoning
that provides for incentives to create public access and enjoyment of the River, while
preserving view corridors of the Hudson and Palisades. Additional details can be found
in the DGEIS in Chapter 3, 13, 14, 17 as well as Chapter 3 Waterfront, in the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan.
units per acre (with incentives) is more in character with the intensity and type of the
development along Hudson Street.
amended to limit the heights to no more than 10 feet above western curb-line of Hudson
Street in attached dwelling units and allow for 2.5 stories /35 feet in single and two-family
detached dwelling units, which will help prevent non-conformity of height.
However, the intent of the current WD-2 and the Proposed Action PRD and
Amendments to the Proposed Action PRD is to encourage the assemblage of parcels.
The concept is to allow for cluster development on larger parcels. The properties
located along the west side of Hudson Street are all currently non-conforming lots except
47 Hudson Street and almost all of the properties on the east side are currently nonconforming. The new minimum lot area will be 3 acres in order to promote the
assemblage of the properties. The current minimum lot size in the WD-2 is 40,000
square feet. The current version of the Proposed Action Zoning contains language for
minimum lot areas per dwelling unit listed for detached, semi-detached and attached
housing. However, minimum lot area per dwelling unit will be removed from Appendix B
of the Proposed Action Zoning to allow for more flexibility in the site plan.
The residential developments located on Hudson Street contain single, two, and multifamily housing. This mix of housing is similar to the residential uses permitted under the
current PRD.
There is currently a private heli-pad on the west side of the railroad tracks at the
Testwell-Craig property (47 Hudson Street) and a pedestrian bridge over the railroad
tracks. This property was identified in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
as being advantageous to creating a public park on the river accessible via a public
easement involving the existing pedestrian bridge and the existing heli-pad. Incentives,
not mandates, are incorporated into the Proposed Action Zoning to provide amenities to
the Village that include the creation of public parks and RiverWalk.
22
Z-21. We strongly object to zoning which would permit structures as high as six stories
to be built on Hudson Street, thereby destroying our view of the Hudson River. How
about construction noise, traffic on a street which could not bear such traffic, and
pollution? (Christine and George Nicholas, letter, 9/21/08)
to the preservation of views, and community character. The intent was to create zoning
that provides for incentives to create public access and enjoyment of the River, and
preserves view corridors of the Hudson and Palisades. Additional details can be found in
the DGEIS in Chapter 3, 13, 14, 17 as well as Chapter 3, the Waterfront, in the
units per acre (with incentives) is more in character with the intensity and type of the
development along Hudson Street.
Hudson Street in attached dwelling units and allow for 2.5 stories /35 feet in single and
two-family detached dwelling units, which will help prevent non-conformity of height.
Proposed Action Zoning section 270-12 contains provisions for Proposed Action PRD
development that states a development “shall be designed wherever possible to
preserve the natural features of the site, including, but not necessarily limited to, water
bodies, wetlands, steep slopes, hilltops, ridgelines, views to and from the Hudson River,
major stands of trees, outstanding natural topography, significant geological features
and other areas of scenic, ecological and historic value; to utilize such features in a
harmonious fashion; and to enhance the visual appearance of the development.”
Development that is proposed in this area may require approvals from the following local
boards: Planning Board, Board of Architectural Review, or Zoning Board of Appeals.
The DGEIS analyzed the proposed height in terms of its general application along the
west side of Hudson Street, and contains an overall traffic analysis. Further site specific
environmental review will be conducted when specific development applications are
made and public comment is taken and considered on those applications.
Z-22. We strongly object to having zoning which would permit up to six stories. For one,
it would destroy—destroy our view of the river, which is the only reason we bought the
house, and also, I don’t think that the road is capable of handling such traffic, and I think
the noise—there would be a lot of noise and pollution, and, of course, property values
will be decreased. (Chrystine Nicholas, public hearing, 9/22/08)
See response to comment Z-21.
Z-22. I want to propose to the Village a five-townhouse development there. It would be a
regular-sized structure just like everything else on the street, two-and-a-half stories, but
what I’m able to do there and all those properties are able to do because they—all their
properties border the train station, we’re all able to contribute something to the Village if
23
we do develop, which would mostly be the RiverWalk. The zoning, it really encourages
RiverWalk and access over the tracks, all of this, we can do on that site, but the 10-foot
height restriction, you just can’t—I’m afraid that nothing will be built there and I don’t
think it’s fair to the public or to the decisions-makers in the Village…even if I did built ten
feet above Hudson Street, I’m still blocking the same views if I went two-and-a-half
stories, so I don’t see—I—I can see where there was a height restriction to some extent,
but I don’t see where the ten feet took any consideration into the feasibility of doing
anything or giving back anything to the—to the Village…
So I’m asking that—I’m—I’m applauding the effort that was made, but I’m asking you to
look again at the—the 10-foot height restriction and consider giving the Planning Board
the flexibility to go two-and-a-half stories under the right circumstances. (Dan Beaton,
Z-23 It’s obvious that the framers of the Comprehensive Plan took special care to
consider the qualities, the unique qualities, of Hudson Street, in designing that zone, and
again, I do appreciate that…Even 10 feet above Hudson Street will drastically block our
view. Restrict the height of the development to Hudson Street, ensure that units be sited
along the north-south axis in such a way as to maximize the preservation of views.
(Lauinger, public hearing, 10/1/08)
Z-24 I really appreciate the new zoning change from 60 feet to 10 feet, I really am.
Even 10 feet above Hudson Street will drastically block our view. (Lauinger, public
hearing, 10/1/08)
Z-25 The current proposal is vastly preferable to the existing zoning for the area and
would allow building construction up to a height of two-and-a-half stories or 35 feet but
not higher than 10 feet above the level of the west curb of Hudson Street. Nonetheless,
new buildings of this height would effectively destroy the views of all those living on the
east side of Hudson Street. (Elizabeth Simpson, public hearing, 10/1/08)
Z-26 The current proposal is vastly preferable to the existing zoning for the area, and
would allow building construction up to a height of 2.5 stories (35 feet), but not higher
than 10 feet above the level of the west curb of Hudson Street. Nonetheless, new
buildings at this height would effectively destroy the views of all those living on the east
side of Hudson Street. Local residents now walk and drive along our street to see the
view, and many congregate to watch the fireworks on the Fourth of July. For all those
who now appreciate the view along this charming lane, it would be much better if the
Testwell-Craig property were made into a riverside park. This would facilitate plans to
extend RiverWalk as well. (Elizabeth Simpson—10/1/08)
See response to comment Z-21. There is currently a private heli-pad on the west side of
the railroad tracks at the Testwell-Craig property (47 Hudson Street) and a pedestrian
bridge over the railroad tracks. This property is identified in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan as being advantageous to creating a public park on the river
accessible via a public easement involving the existing pedestrian bridge and the
24
existing heli-pad. Incentives are incorporated into the Proposed Action Zoning to
provide amenities to the Village that include the creation of public parks.
Z-27 Even 10 feet above the road will absolutely annihilate the view. And the road
is…not capable of handling additional traffic. (Chrystine Nicholas, public hearing,
10/1/08)
Z-28 Investments of labor and money by homeowners on Hudson Street have helped
make it a street now attractive to residential development. It would be a grim irony if
those homeowners should now themselves be deprived of the enjoyment (and value) of
their houses by the very development they helped make possible. (Lauinger, letter,
10/3/08)
Z-29 Naturally we have a personal concern with the loss of our view and devaluation of
our property. Certainly, the new zoning restriction limiting height to 10 feet above
Hudson Street is a great improvement on the former 60-foot allowance. But a building of
even 10 feet above curb level will drastically block the view, not only from our house but
also for pedestrians on Hudson Street. (Lauinger, letter, 10/3/08)
See response to comment Z-21. As stated previously the current zoning allows for 18
dwelling units per acre and 6 stories or 72 feet of building heights. The Proposed Action
Zoning will allow no more than 8 dwelling units per acre (with incentives) and will be
Hudson Street in attached dwelling units and allow for 2.5 stories /35 feet in single or
two-family detached dwelling units and all units located on the east side of Hudson
Street. This will help prevent the creation of non-conformity in height of existing
buildings. The new zoning will lessen not increase the impacts identified as the reasons
that the property would be devalued in the comment above.
Z-30 We would like to suggest remedies for some of these problems. It is obvious that
the framers of the Draft Comprehensive Plan have taken care to keep in mind the
special situation of Hudson Street in designing this PRD zone, and for that we do thank
them. We’d simply like to urge them to go a little further in that direction:
•
Restrict height to the level of Hudson Street.
•
Ensure that residential units be positioned along the north-south axis so as to
maximize preservation of views from Hudson Street (i.e., avoiding placement
directly in front of existing houses).
•
A riverwalk should be required, not an incentive.
Ensure that affected residents get to meet with and work with any developer from the
beginning of the process. (Lauinger, letter, 10/3/08)
See response to comment Z-21. There is currently a private heli-pad on the west side of
the railroad tracks at the Testwell-Craig property (47 Hudson Street) and a pedestrian
bridge over the railroad tracks. This property is identified in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan as being advantageous to creating a public park on the river
accessible via a public easement involving the existing pedestrian bridge and the
25
existing heli-pad. Incentives are incorporated into the Proposed Action Zoning to
provide amenities to the Village that include the creation of public parks. It is legally
impermissible to require private property to be turned over for public use without just
compensation.
Z-31 The residents and Board are steadfastly opposed to any changes that could
impede the current river views from Hudson Point. We have all paid a premium for
these condos, solely because of the existing views. Any obstruction to those views,
added after the fact, would greatly decrease the value of our homes and our investment
in this community. (Schaeffer, letter, 10/8/08)
See response to comment Z-21. Furthermore, the topographic changes between
Hudson Street and the beginning of the Condominium units that run parallel to Hudson
Street are greater than 40 feet.
Z-32 Development with public amenities can be achieved in the zone with much less
height and density. My concern as an Ossining resident, an owner of property in the
WD-2 zone, and as a developer is that the new zoning proposal has gone too far in its
restrictions on height and minimum lot size and will unintentionally prevent any and all
future development. The proposed changes are contrary to the stated intentions of river
access and amenities, a river walk, and desirable housing. (Daniel Beaton, letter,
10/13/08)
Z-33 At first glance the new zoning is ultimately saying that nothing should be developed
in the entire WD-2 zone except at Testwell. The other five properties will only be
redeveloped if they happen to burn down, etc., and they can only be rebuilt as singlefamily homes.
At second glance, and with careful analysis the new zoning will also disallow
development at Testwell. The parking requirements and the need to set back
construction from the railroad make it impossible to feasibly build at Testwell at a
minimum 10’ above Hudson Street. (Daniel Beaton, letter, 10/13/08)
The DGEIS does not analyze individual site plans. Individualized site plan or zoning
issues for a particular property owner may require approvals from the following local
boards: Planning Board, Board of Architectural Review, and/or Zoning Board of Appeals.
We do believe that the property in question is developable and an informal application
was filed with the Planning Board in July and then again in October for the
redevelopment of this site according to the Proposed Action Zoning.
Z-34 The importance of the waterfront is discussed at length in the new zoning
proposal. Ossining has limited accessible waterfront, including from south to north the
Hidden Cove area, the train station area, and the Hudson Street area. To make one of
these three areas non-developable and inaccessible to the public should be
reconsidered.
The additional height (15 ft) would not affect view sheds any more than the proposed 10
ft proposal.
Two changes in the proposed code will allow for these benefits to the Village to be
achieved. Please consider making these changes. They are:
1.
Minimum lot size: .5 acres
26
2.
Maximum height for any development: 25 feet. (Daniel Beaton, letter, 10/13/08)
Environment
Z-35 Scenic Hudson supports the added protection that the new zoning would provide
by restricting development on slopes greater than 15%. The existing zoning does not
protect steep slopes. The proposed Draft Comprehensive Plan recommends that the
Village develop and adopt an “open space and recreation plan.” Scenic Hudson strongly
supports this provision of the plan and urges the Village to make this a high priority.
(Jeffrey Anzevino, Scenic Hudson, letter, 10/10/08)
Comment noted.
Z-36 Scenic Hudson supports the Proposed Action Zoning requirement of a 25’ buffer
on each side of a water course for both residential and non-residential properties. Under
the current zoning a buffer is only required along streams in non-residential properties.
Comment noted.
Z-37
The proposed plan excludes wetlands and underwater lands from yield
calculations. Scenic Hudson supports this approach. (Jeffrey Anzevino, Scenic
Hudson, letter, 10/10/08)
Comment noted.
Z-38 The current zoning is silent on energy efficiency. The Proposed Action Zoning
states that site plans will be designed “whenever possible with energy and water
conservation measures.” We hope that the Village will be firm in requiring “green”
building design, and, in particular, encourage developers to meet LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design), developed by the US Council on Green Building. In
recent years developers have been more receptive to constructing green buildings.
Likewise, as energy costs have skyrocketed consumers increasingly understand that the
higher initial costs of energy efficient buildings are outweighed by long-term savings.
Comment noted. In Chapter 8 Neighborhood Quality of Life of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan strategy 4.2 states “[a]dopt Village Code regulations that promote
environmental sustainability.” The strategy includes recommending that the Village
adopt regulations requiring energy conservation measures based upon the scale of the
development projects. Examples may include, requiring all new or substantially
rehabilitated homes to be Energy Star® homes or LEED or similar certification on largescale development. The current Proposed Action Zoning includes language in Section
270-28 that states “As identified in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan,
energy and water conservation are important to the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the Village of Ossining. Proposed Site Plans shall be designed wherever
possible with energy and water conservation measures. Examples of such measures
include Energy Star Certification and the LEED Certification.” Although, the Proposed
Action Zoning does not contain detailed regulations at this time, it is a recommendation
in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan that can be implemented in the future.
The new zoning will include density bonuses in exchange for public amenities for
development in many of the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning including
27
incentives for providing LEED Gold certification or similar level of standards. More
details on how energy conservation and green building are incorporated in the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and Village Code changes can be found in Chapter 7,
8, 10, and 12 of the DGEIS and comment Z-46.
Z-39 General Recommendations Regarding Floodplain Development
6.
Following is Scenic Hudson’s general position on how communities should
reconsider floodplain development in light of global climate change and sea level
rise.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report, Confronting Climate Change in
the U.S. Northeast (July 2007), global sea level rise is projected to rise between 10
and 23 inches by the end of this century without a substantial decrease in carbon
emissions. The report estimates that by the end of this century what is currently
delineated at the “100-year” flood zone will be inundated by the “10-year” flood.
Furthermore, with projected increases in storm frequency and volatility, “100-year”
flood elevation designations are likely to rise faster than sea levels. All of this will
add considerable new risks to waterfront properties, commerce, and infrastructure.
Also, as tidal flows of ocean water reach further upriver, salinity will increase,
jeopardizing drinking water supplies, altering the habitat and distribution of aquatic
species, and affecting the river’s ecological functions.
A sea-level rise of a few inches may not seem problematic. But in combination with
more extreme storm patterns that cause more storm-induced floods, and with more
extreme temperature and rainfall patterns that cause river floods or droughts,
climate change may result in significant disruption of critical infrastructure as well
as loss of property and life. It is essential that municipalities do their part to
mitigate global climate change by reducing fossil-fuel emissions. Moreover,
Hudson River waterfront communities must begin to adapt—now—to make
communities resilient to the effects of climate change.
As a result, we recommend as a matter of course that new critical infrastructure such as
sewer plants and outflows be sited out of the 100-year floodplain. Likewise,
existing critical infrastructure should be moved out of the 100-year floodplain. New
residential and commercial development should also be sited out of the 100-year
floodplain.
FEMA flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) generally do not account for sea level rise nor
extreme future rainfall. Thus, municipalities are encouraged to work with federal,
state and county agencies to update flood zone maps and site new developments
in a manner that takes into account current and future flood-zone designations
utilizing the best available information about sea-level rise and other flood-causing
factors.
Along tidal tributaries such as the Croton River, consider adding two to three feet to the
FEMA elevation of the 100-year floodplain. For important, long-lasting structures
like sewer plants and outflows, consider doubling this elevation. Along non-tidal
rivers like the Sing Sing Kill and Sparta Brook, consider extending flood zones at
least one foot above current designated flood elevations.
Comment noted. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and zoning code
changes help to regulate when and how development will occur in the Village’s
floodplains. In the new zoning, land below the minimum high-water mark of the Hudson
River shall not be deemed developable for the purposes of calculating lot area, density
or coverage. All construction must meet the requirements of local law Chapter 142,
Flood Damage Prevention. The new Proposed Action Zoning also requires a mandatory
28
Hudson River setback of 50 feet. No building or parking should be allowed within 50 feet
of the normal high-water line of the Hudson River.
Requiring the location of new residential and commercial development outside of the
100 year floodplain or a 100 foot setback would render certain waterfront properties
undevelopable. Further details can be found in Chapter 7, Water Resources, in the
DGEIS.
Z-40 The reference to the term LEED Standard as a general standard of building may
not be appropriate or practical as time goes on. We suggest that use of this term may
also not be particularly credible, given the burden associated with trying to build this
way. We suggest that if the term is used it should be paired with “or similar certification,”
as it says in other parts of the EIS (Public Health). (Dorian Burden, EAC, letter,
10/13/08)
Comment noted and we concur. The Proposed Action Zoning will be amended to
include language for (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) LEED
certification or similar standards.
Historic Preservation
Z-41 Consider adding Main Street and surrounding areas (bottom of Emwilton, Ellis,
etc.) into Historic Overlay District. This would give the Historic Preservation Commission
some more control over changes to this historic area. (Polidoro, letter, 12/29/07)
Comment noted. Currently, the Historic Review Commission acts in an advisory role but
the Proposed Action Zoning code changes located in section 270-19 Historical and
Architectural Design Districts and Historic Landmarks (HADD) will endow the Historic
Review Commission with expanded powers including hearing applications and
recommendations for historic landmarks and districts and requiring Certificates of
Appropriateness for alterations and/or additions to designated buildings.
If the
Proposed Action Zoning is adopted, this will allow for landmarks and additional districts
to be designated in the Village of Ossining. Chapter 13 of the DGEIS, Scenic, Historic,
and Cultural Resources contains more details on the new zoning regulations concerning
the HADD.
Z-42 The new zoning endows Historic Review Commission with expanded powers to
issue Certificates of Appropriateness. This is a great improvement over the current
zoning, which provides little protection of historic resources. (Jeffrey Anzevino, Scenic
Comment noted.
Z-43 The manner in which the historical legislation defines the “hardship” which must be
demonstrated to obtain permission to modify, construct, alter or reconstruct a designated
historic structure is inconsistent with the standards associated with the constitutional
prohibition against the taking of property without just compensation. (A. Wekstein,
letter, 10/10/08)
Comment noted. Section 279-19(H)(1) will be amended to read: “In order to prove the
existence of hardship, an applicant shall establish that, whether for income-producing
purposes or for private use, it is either unable to make any economically viable use of
the property or that the property’s value is reduced to the extent that only a bare residue
of the value remains.”
29
Waterfront
Z-44 Would the zoning as proposed in the Draft Comprehensive Plan allow for Zoning
for artists? (G. Hougham, letter, 8/25/08)
Artisan uses including workshops would be permitted in the waterfront and most of the
business districts.
Z-45 Page 33, right side of page. It seems to say that development is restricted to
parcels of 3 acres or more. Doesn’t this contradict the desire for mixed use, organic
development rather than Corbusier-like glass ghost towns? (G. Hougham, letter,
8/25/08)
The three acres referred to on page 33 relates to the current zoning requirements for the
WD-1 adopted in 1991
Z-46 The PW-4 District permits 22 DU/ac with density bonus (with up to two incentives)
to 30 DU/ac. Further increases density to 34 DU/ac on sites larger than 3.53 contiguous
acres and where innovative energy or site plan configurations will offset additional
water/sewer use.
Likewise, the PW-6 District allows 15 DU/ac with bonus (with up to two incentives) to 20
DUs/ac. However, an increase in density is permitted to 26 DUs/ac on sites larger than
4.5 contiguous acres and where innovative energy or site plan configurations will offset
additional water/sewer use.
While measures to offset water and sewer use are beneficial, increases to 26 and 30
DUs and 34 DUs/ac (from 15 and 22, respectively), could impose other impacts on the
community. We suggest that this additional increase be moderated, especially
considering that the zoning already allows increases with up to two incentives to 26 and
30 DU/sacre. (Jeffrey Anzevino, Scenic Hudson, letter, 10/10/08
The DGEIS analyzed the Proposed Action, Alternatives and Mitigation Measures against
all of the scoped potential environmental impacts. The DGEIS identified environmental
impacts that would be problematic and could be mitigated by altering the uses and
densities in some of the proposed districts. Chapter 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 17 in
the DGEIS discuss in detail the different environmental impacts of the various options.
As a result of the analyses conducted in the DGEIS and the comments made in the
DGEIS process, the following text outlines the modifications of the Proposed Action
Zoning which are hereby incorporated as Amendments to the Proposed Action and the
planning reasoning(s) behind the amendments.
Conservation Development District CDD (Amendments to the Proposed Action
Waterfront Sub-district PW-1: Institutional Conservation Zone):
Change from the DGEIS Proposed Action:
The Proposed Action PW-1 zone will be removed from the Planned Waterfront Subdistricts and the PW-1 will be renamed to reflect the zoning district objectives of
environmentally sensitive and low density development. The new district name will be
the Conservation Development District (CDD). The Amended Proposed Action
Conservation Development District (Proposed Action PW-1), will keep the same text and
incentives as proposed in the draft zoning for the Proposed Action PW-1 with the
exception of removing pier construction/launching facilities and including incentives for
green building that achieve LEED Gold certification or similar level of standards;
30
remediation work that is not already subsidized by State or other government funding;
contribution to non-site related infrastructure improvements; or incorporation of publicly
accessible artwork, sculpture, monument or other permanent aesthetic structure on a
development site or a designated off-site location. The Amended Proposed Action
Conservation Development District will include the same bulk standards and language
as originally proposed in the Proposed Action PW-1. The Conservation Zone will have a
base density of 6 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) with incentives plus the affordable
housing density bonus for a maximum density of 8 du /acre. A 10% set-aside for
affordable housing is required for developments with 6 or more units in all zoning
districts. The height will be reduced from 4 stories / 50 ft to 4 stories / 48 feet to be
consistent with other zones which calculate one story as 12 feet in height. The district
boundaries will remain the same as the Proposed Action PW-1 zone with the exception
of the properties that front Route 9 and are currently in the O-R (Office Research) zone
will remain in the O-R zone. The bulk and use standards will be the same as the current
O-R district regulations except that the Amended Proposed Action O-R zone will now
have senior living facilities as an additional permitted use.
Planning Reasoning Behind Amendments to Proposed Action:
Removing those properties in the existing O-R zone from the Amended Proposed Action
Conservation Development District (Proposed Action PW-1), will result in a net reduction
of ~ 687 residential units under full build-out conditions (see Chapter 2 in DGEIS) and
retail uses will no longer be permitted, thereby concentrating residential and retail
development in the downtown and waterfront areas which were identified as the most
appropriate areas to redevelop and rejuvenate in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan (see Chapter 3 and 4 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan). By
maintaining the development potential for the O-R properties at current levels, the
Village will not be creating any significant increases in traffic volumes or demand on
infrastructure in this zone beyond the No Action alternative described in the DGEIS (see
Chapter 3, 4, 8, and 9 in DGEIS). The incentives for the Planned Waterfront Districts
described in the Proposed Action will continue to be an option for those properties that
will remain in the new Conservation Development District. The natural and scenic
resources of the new Conservation Development District are unique enough from the
rest of the waterfront to have a separate and distinctive zoning district (See Chapter 3 in
DGEIS).
The amendments to the Proposed Action are supported by the planning principles in the
adopted LWRP and recommended in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan.
The LWRP specifically outlines the basis of the delineation of the present zoning
boundaries and provides detailed descriptions of the Snowden area in which the current
zoning PRD and O-R zones are located. It also discusses in detail the low density
development policies and explanations of the Snowden area. Policies 1, 2, 5, 14, and
25 of the LWRP directly refer to the Snowden area and discuss the low density and
environmentally sensitive development as appropriate for this area. Pages II-7 to II-19,
III-3 to III-7, III-13 to III-15, III-26 to III-28, IV-3, and V-3 to V-6 in the LWRP describe the
area and policies for the Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District
(Draft Amendment to the Proposed Action PW-1) and Amended Proposed Action O-R
(Draft Amendment to the Proposed Action PW-1) districts. Chapter 3 The Waterfront in
the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan discusses the vision and goals of the
Waterfront area. These Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action are consistent with
the objectives of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan.
31
Station Plaza North (SP-n) and Station Plaza South (SP-s) (Amendments to the
Proposed Action Waterfront Sub-district PW-5: Central Waterfront—Station
Square Zone):
Changes from Proposed Action:
The PW-5 zone described in the Proposed Action Zoning will be removed from the
Planned Waterfront Sub-districts and will be renamed the Station Plaza zone to better
reflect the strategies and objectives of the Draft Comprehensive Plan to encourage
mixed use development on small properties near the Metro-North train stations, which
will protect and promote the adaptive reuse of existing buildings which exhibit interesting
architectural characteristics. As part of the Proposed Action Zoning, two areas in the
Village are identified as being zoned PW-5. This first area is located around the westerly
intersection of Main Street and Secor Road and the second is located just south of
Kemey’s Cove. As part of the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning, the Station
Plaza North zone will include only the area located around Main Street and Secor Road.
The Station Plaza South zone will include only the area around Kemey’s Cove. The
Station Plaza North zone will include the same bulk standards and language as the PW5 except that the height will be reduced from 4 stories / 50 ft to 4 stories / 48 feet to be
consistent with other zones which calculate a single story as 12 feet in height. The
Station Plaza North will retain the same language on view corridors and view
preservation as the Proposed Action Zoning for the PW-5.
The Station Plaza South zone will refine the bulk standards to limit the mass of any
future building(s) by limiting heights to 2 stories / 24 feet, and minimum lot area to one
acre. Permitted uses will allow non-residential uses including retail, parking lots,
professional services etc.
The Amended Proposed Action Station Plaza North and Amended Proposed Action
Station Plaza South zones will not be eligible for the density bonus incentives available
in other waterfront zones. However, these zones will have to comply with the Proposed
Action affordable housing requirements which will result in density bonuses for eligible
developments.
The Proposed Action Station Plaza districts consist of small parcels most of which are
too small for any of the density bonus incentives offered in the Planned Waterfront
Districts to be applicable. Almost all of the properties in the Amended Proposed Action
Station Plaza North are less than 10,000 square feet and the Amended Proposed Action
Station Plaza South contains a property that is a little over 1 acre. The planning concept
behind the Station Plaza districts (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-5) as
identified and discussed in Chapter 3 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
is to create destinations at the station plazas, across from the Metro-North train stations
and to increase the pedestrian movement around the train station areas. The DGEIS
discusses the unique characteristics of this area in Chapter 3 and Chapter 13.
Riverfront Development District (RDD) (Amendments to the Proposed Action
Waterfront Sub-district PW-3: Central Waterfront—Waterside Zone):
Changes from Proposed Action:
The PW-3 zone described in the Proposed Action Zoning will be removed from the
Planned Waterfront Sub-districts and renamed the Riverfront Development District. The
zoning language for the Riverfront Development District will be based on the objectives
described in Chapter 3 Waterfront of the Draft Comprehensive Plan for the Proposed
Action Zoning PW-3 zone. These objectives include promoting riverfront recreation and
32
uses that will create a waterfront destination for low-impact boating and other wateroriented uses, restricting heights of new building to not extend higher than existing
historic buildings, constructing new buildings setback from the Hudson; orienting new
buildings to preserve and provide views towards the Hudson River and Palisades; and
allowing for a mix of commercial, residential and recreational uses. The Amended
Proposed Action Riverfront Development District will decrease maximum permitted
heights from 3.5 stories / 40 feet in the PW-3 zone to 3 stories / 36 feet which is still an
increase of 0.5 stories and 1 foot above the current WD-1 (Waterfront DevelopmentWest Side of the Railroad Tracks) zoning. Consistent with the existing WD-1, the
Riverfront Development District will allow residential development as a Special Permit
use and permit 16 dwelling units per acre. The Riverfront Development District will not
be eligible for the density bonus incentives available in other waterfront zones.
However, the zone will have to comply with the Proposed Action affordable housing
requirements which will result in density bonuses for eligible developments. The rest of
the bulk and use standards will be the same as proposed for the Proposed Action PW-3
district.
Keeping densities in the riverfront area at currently permitted levels, allows for a shift of
density to areas east of the railroad tracks. Access to the Amended Proposed Action
Riverfront Development District by vehicle is limited to two narrow vehicular bridges over
the Metro-North railroad tracks. Additionally, a majority of the land in the Riverfront
Development district is on fill and will have high construction costs associated with any
development if buildings are to be built higher than a few stories. This will then increase
the need for additional densities and heights. Chapter 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 17
of the DGEIS discusses in detail how the various options for the former Proposed Action
PW-3 would affect the different environmental areas of concern. Based on the
comments submitted through the DGEIS comment period, in order to accommodate the
additional engineering costs for the building and density heights identified in the
Proposed Action Zoning additional heights and densities would be needed above what
was proposed. However, by keeping the density and heights similar to what exists
today, development similar to the present uses on the properties in the WD-1 such as
marinas and restaurants would still be able to continue and the new zoning would not
prohibit or affect the current uses that are permitted under the current WD-1 zoning.
Increasing heights and densities greater than what was analyzed in the DGEIS would
not be consistent with the policies that have been set forth in the LWRP and Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. By creating a Special Permit for residential uses, the
emphasis will be on non-residential uses destination type uses emphasized in the
LWRP. The new Riverfront Development zone will allow for a slight increase in height
and stories but limit heights along the waterfront which is a concern identified in the
LWRP, Draft Comprehensive Plan, and discussed in the DGEIS.
The amendments are supported by the planning principles in the adopted LWRP and
recommended in the proposed Draft Comprehensive Plan. The LWRP specifically
outlines the basis of the delineation of the present zoning boundaries and provides
detailed descriptions of the area in which the WD-1 zone is located. It also discusses in
detail the development policies and explanations of the Riverfront area known in the
LWRP as the downtown waterfront. Policies 2, 9, 5, 13A, 14, 17, 18, 19, 19C, 19D, 19E,
20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 of the LWRP directly refer to the Riverfront Area and discuss the
need for more water-related uses, preservation of views, and increased public access
and pedestrian traffic to the waterfront. Pages II-30 to II-35, III-5 to III-6, III-11 to III-14,
III-16 to III-27, IV-4, IV-11, and V-5 to V-6 in the LWRP describe the area and policies for
the proposed Riverfront Development Zone. Chapter 3 in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan discusses the vision and goals of the Waterfront.
33
The PW-a, PW-b, and PW-c (Amendments to the Proposed Action Waterfront Subdistricts PW-2: Northern Waterfront, PW-4: Central Waterfront—Transit Oriented,
and PW-6: Central Waterfront—Hillside):
The Proposed Action PW-2, PW-4, and PW-6 Sub-districts will remain in the Planned
Waterfront but will be renamed the PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), PW-b (Proposed
Action PW-4) and PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6). The three Planned Waterfront Subdistricts will retain their bulk, uses and base densities listed in the Proposed Action. As
identified in the DGEIS (Chapter 3) and the LWRP (IV-11), an objective of the present
WD-2 is to promote the assemblage of parcels. However, the current zoning has not
been effective in being able to create these assemblages. As discussed in Chapter 3 of
the DGEIS, there are larger sites that exist in the Proposed Action PW-4 and PW-6
districts that are anticipated to need additional densities in order to attract
redevelopment. There are also numerous contiguous lots that have common ownership
but are not officially combined. Keeping those properties in common ownership will help
promote the objectives of the waterfront zoning by allowing greater flexibility in site plans
and greater likelihood that the density bonus incentives will be used in return for the
provision of public benefits. The DGEIS took a hard look at potentially creating a special
permit process for increased densities in the Proposed Action PW-4 and PW-6.
Comments were received through the public comment period asking the Village to
consider including Proposed Action PW-2 as well. The comments highlighted many
characteristics of Proposed Action PW-2 that are similar to Proposed Action PW-4 and
PW-6, including steep topography that would not prevent the obstruction of view
corridors, and larger land parcels that could take advantage of the density bonus
incentives in exchange for the provision of public benefits. We agree. The intent of the
Proposed Action Zoning’s Planned Waterfront Districts is to address the inadequacies in
the current zoning, including a re-examination of bulk standards (including height and
setbacks); providing provisions for permitted uses and view preservation; and providing
amenities such as public access, connections to RiverWalk, publicly accessible open
space, affordable housing and historic preservation to the Village through density
bonuses. All of these public benefits could be provided by projects on the large tracts of
land located in the Proposed Action PW-2, PW-4, and PW-6 zones. The PW-a
(Proposed Action PW-2), PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4), PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6)
Sub-districts will contain a Special Permit process in which under the following terms an
applicant can achieve additional density if the following criteria are met:

The underlying bulk and height regulations for each sub-district
will be applied but increased densities can be sought though
incentives. Those incentives can be applied only on parcels that
meet the minimum lot requirement of 3.0 acres that apply for the
special permit. The incentive program will work as follows:
o
Incentives will be the same as those described in the
Proposed Action Zoning Planned Waterfront Sub-districts
except
incentives
for
the
provision
of
pier
construction/launching facilities
will
be
removed.
Additional incentives will include incentives for green
building that achieves LEED Gold certification or similar
level of standards; brownfield remediation work that is not
already subsidized by State or other funding; contribution
to non-site related infrastructure improvements; or
incorporation of publicly accessible artwork, sculpture,
monument or other permanent aesthetic structure on a
development site or at a designated off-site location.
34
o
The Special Permit would allow a base density of 22
dwelling units per acre with density bonus incentives
including the affordable housing density bonus up to a
maximum density of 32 dwelling units per acre. The
affordable housing density bonus is required as one of the
incentives and will be applied according to the proposed
affordable housing regulations.
o
An applicant must be interested in applying for at least one
additional Planned Waterfront Special Permit incentives
besides affordable housing for the Special Permit to apply.
All properties that fall within the Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed
Action PW-2), PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4), PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) Subdistricts with development proposals that do not meet the qualifications of the Special
Permit or do not wish to apply for the Special Permit will have a base density of 15
dwelling units per acre. In addition, the affordable housing density bonus will be applied
according to the proposed affordable housing regulations. The maximum height in the
PW-a will be 6 stories / 72 feet which is the height currently permitted for this area. The
maximum height for the PW-b will be 4 stories / 48 ft from the curbline on Water Street,
Central, Main and Secor Road and no building shall extend more than 1 story or 16 feet
above the westerly curb line on Market or Hunter streets. The maximum height in PW-c
will be to 4 stories / 48 ft.
The Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), PW-b
(Proposed Action PW-4), PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) are all buffered by steep
topography that permits taller buildings that do not obstruct view corridors. These subdistricts also include larger land parcels that could take advantage of the density bonus
incentives in exchange for the provision of public benefits. By creating the special permit
and reducing the densities slightly for the base zoning in the Amendments to the
Proposed Action PW-a, PW-b, and PW-c, a shift is created in the overall density toward
the larger properties and development is encouraged in key areas as identified in the
LWRP and Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 3). The amendments
to the zoning help promote assemblage of parcels which is the intent of the existing WD2 zone but was never effective. The Amendments to the Proposed Action also aim to
strengthen the goal of promoting Transit Oriented Development (denser, typically mixeduse, development that is located near public transportation). As discussed in Chapter 3
of the DGEIS, the current type and amount of development near the Metro-North Station
does not contain the density or the land uses to take significant advantage of the transit
services. Through the proposed amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning, Ossining
has an opportunity to create a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) surrounding the
Metro-North station and Ferry Dock by in-filling (redevelop) parcels with diverse land
uses.
Policies1, 1-B, 1-C, 23, 24, 25, and 25-A of the LWRP directly refer to the Amendments
to the Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4),
PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) and discuss the need for mixed-use, revitalization, and
preservation of views and historic structures. Pages II-19 to II-29, III-3 to III-4, III-23 to
III-28, and V-5 to V-6 in the LWRP describe the area and policies for the Proposed
Action Zoning Planned Waterfront Districts.
35
Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-7:
The Proposed Action PW-7 will be removed from the Planned Waterfront Sub-districts
and the Proposed Action PW-7 will be renamed Institutional Redevelopment. The
Amended Proposed Action Institutional Redevelopment will keep the same bulk, uses
and base densities as described in the Proposed Action for the PW-7 zone.
Proposed Action PW-7 consists of approximately 55 acres that is owned by the State
and it would have the potential to be completely redeveloped if Sing Sing Correctional
Facility were to ever close. The unique size of this property and the fact it is owned by
one property owner warrants its own zoning district.
Overall Growth Projections for the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning Outlined
Above
The amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning will create fewer dwelling units than
Alternative B analyzed in the DGEIS (See table below). The proposed amendments to
the Proposed Action Zoning are intended to better implement the planning goals and
vision of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. They include removing
residential uses from the PC district. The Full Build-Out Estimates and Reasonable
Expected Growth Estimates for the various alternatives throughout the Village of
Ossining, including the above described proposed amendments to the Proposed Action
Zoning are shown in the table below. The estimates were calculated based on the same
procedures outlined in Chapter 2 of the DGEIS.
Number of additional
residential units
Number of additional
residential units
FULL BUILD-OUT
ESTIMATES
REASONABLE
EXPECTED GROWTH
ESTIMATES
1,512
583
DGEIS PROPOSED ACTION
3,135
1,209
REMOVE RESIDENTIAL
USES IN CURRENT O-R
ZONED PROPERTIES
ALONG ROUTE 9 AND PC
(MITIGATION MEASURE
DESCRIBED IN 2.2 OF THE
DGEIS)
2,076
800
2,152
829
SCENARIO
NO BUILD (No change to
existing zoning)
SPECIAL PERMIT INCREASE
DENSITIES in PROPOSED
ACTION PW-4 and PW-6
(MITIGATION MEASURE
DESCRIBED IN 2.2 OF THE
DGEIS AND INCLUDES
REMOVAL OF RESIDENTIAL
36
USES IN THE O-R AND PC)
ALTERNATIVE B:
PROPOSED ACTION PW-1,
PW-3, PW-4 AND PW-6 WATERFRONT DENSITY
CHANGES DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 2.3 OF THE DGEIS
SPECIAL PERMITS FOR
AMENDMENTS TO THE
PROPOSED ACTION PW-a
(Proposed Action PW-2), PWb (Proposed Action PW-4),
PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6)
and INCLUDES REMOVAL
OF RESIDENTIAL USES IN
CURRENT O-R ZONED
PROPERTIES ALONG
ROUTE 9 AND PC
2,185
842
2,179
838
37
Z-47 The number of dwelling units and amount of square feet of non-residential
development presented in the table on page 275 is inconsistent with information
provided in other parts of the text. We suggest that this should be addressed. (Jeffrey
Anzevino, Scenic Hudson, letter, 10/10/08)
Comment noted. See revised table below.
S-125
S-100
S-75
S-50
T
MF-1
MF-2
PRD
NC-1
NC-2
GB
PO
PC
VC
PWRD
PW-1
PW-2
PW-3
PW-4
PW-5
PW-6
TOTAL
Number
of
additional
residential
units
based
on Proposed
Action Zoning
21
7
42
38
117
7
0
0
36
27
372
379
150
909
168
155
356
153
198
3,135
Number
of Non-residential
development
school
potential
of
children
based
on vacant/underutilized
properties
(sq.ft.)
Proposed
under
Proposed
Action
Action Zoning
Zoning
8
2
17
16
28
1
1
1
61
13
129
23
22
50
8
83
463
17,623
13,948
90,709
263,371
132,834
10,000
3,503,912
627,690
310,143
483,262
47,020
115,068
5,615,580
Z-48 The Proposed Action Zoning establishes a 50-foot setback from the Hudson River.
Scenic Hudson generally recommends a wider, 100-foot setback, which better mitigates
views along the waterfront and provides more accommodating public open space.
Understanding that some parcels on the Ossining waterfront may not be wide enough to
accommodate a 100-foot setback, we ask that you consider increasing the 50-foot
setback. (Jeffrey Anzevino, Scenic Hudson, letter, 10/10/08)
The 50 foot riverfront setback is the minimum river setback established to protect water
resources, scenic view corridors, and allow for space for the possible creation of
RiverWalk. Chapter 3, 7, 13, and 14 in the DGEIS contain additional details about the
setback. A larger setback than 50 feet will become problematic because many of the
waterfront properties are not very deep and developing the property and providing
flexibility in the site plan design will become difficult if not impossible. Development that
is proposed in this area may require approvals from the following local boards: Planning
Board, Board of Architectural Review, or Zoning Board of Appeals. Discussions
concerning an increase in the riverfront setback on a particular property will still be able
to be heard, considered, and evaluated in the site specific approval process for a
38
particular development.
Z-49 Page 80 indicates that the waterfront could yield at build-out approximately 5
million sf of non-residential space. This appears to be excessive. We suggest that the
Village reexamine the need for this amount. (Jeffrey Anzevino, Scenic Hudson, letter,
10/10/08)
Section 617.9(5)(iii)(‘d’) of the SEQR regulations requires that the draft EIS identify and
discuss any growth-inducing aspects of the proposed action. According to the SEQRA
regulations, “an evaluation should be made of potential significant adverse
environmental impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the
reasonable likelihood of their occurrence.” In order to do that, a determination was
needed on the reasonable growth-inducing impacts of the Proposed Action, and that
required an estimation of possible residential and non-residential growth.
To do this, we chose to evaluate all impacts at estimates for total build-out and a very
conservative reasonable expected growth analysis. Details of how the total build-out
and reasonable expected growth estimates were determined can be found in Chapter 2,
Future Growth Projections, in the DGEIS. A summary of Ossining’s development over
the last 20 years (1988-2008) was used to help guide the assumptions for its reasonable
expected growth estimate. Looking at historic growth in the Village over the last 20
years only provided one scenario of possible future development. However, it was able
to provide us a plausible baseline on which to create the conservative reasonable
expected growth estimate for the next 20 years. In reviewing the developments over the
last 20 years which were used to estimate reasonable growth, an error was found in the
list of developments outlined in the DGEIS. Kemey's Cove which contains 120
condominium units was incorrectly identified as having been built in the past 20 years
and thus will be eliminated from the estimate. However, in reviewing the Planning Board
applications and building certificates of occupancy again it was discovered that Hudson
Point and Vireum Schoolhouse condominiums were built and completed during the
1988-2008 timeframe. The two projects combined equal 106 units which amounts to a
14 unit difference between what we was listed in the DGEIS as new development for the
time period of 1988-2008 and the corrected unit count. It should be noted that the
identified error results in a de minimums effect.
The conservative estimates were used because in the past, the Village has experienced
spurts of residential and non-residential growth with no pattern to the growth. To
assume only minimal growth, would possibly underestimate the potential environmental
impacts in our analysis for the Proposed Action. Although, we do not reasonably expect
full build-out in 20 years, we cannot predict the future market potentials or the amount of
economic growth or recession in the next 20 years. Markets have always been variable
and can easily go against current trends. Having no foolproof development predictors,
we chose to run all impact analyses on full-build out and conservative reasonable
expected growth estimates.
Z-50 Other aspects of the proposed legislation, such as…will hinder redevelopment of
the Property and other waterfront sites, possibly rendering such activity infeasible.
The proposal imposes view corridors in PW districts requiring that building width be
limited to 50 percent of a site and that a single view corridor comprise at least 30 percent
thereof, as well as the related requirement that impacts to views must be mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable. In light of the topography and location of the Property in
relation to other parcels and development, such restrictions are both unnecessary and
unduly restrictive. While the latter requirement of mitigation to the maximum extent
practicable may have theoretical appeal, it includes a proviso that is unreasonable. It
mandates that only reduction and relocation of the proposed improvements, rather than
screening, will satisfy it. The view corridor standards may be wholly unnecessary,39
particularly on sites such as the Property, where substantial development can occur
without impairment of views from any public places within the Village. (A. Wekstein,
letter, 10/10/08)
The Proposed Action Zoning contains the following language:
270-18 (B)
Building Width and Distances between Buildings. The total cumulative width of buildings,
structures, solid fences or walls more than 36 inches in height shall not occupy more
than 50% of the width of a parcel as measured along a line parallel to the adjacent street
or Hudson River. Of the remaining open area, one uninterrupted space shall be at least
30% of such parcel width, unless the parcel provides more than one view corridor
totaling 30% and is approved by the Planning Board. Excluded are existing Village of
Ossining designated historical buildings that are proposed to be rehabilitated, any
proposed building in Subdistrict PW-5 Central Waterfront -- Station Square and any
other parcel that is deemed by the Planning Board as not applicable to preserving view
corridors either to or from the Hudson River.
View corridor preservation. Views of the Hudson River and/ or natural features, including
forested lands, from areas identified by the Planning Board as part of the Planned
Development Site Plan review process that are available from public streets and public
places across the entire property should be considered . Site layout and design shall
consider public views and view corridors and shall also consider the importance of views
of the Village from the Hudson River. A view corridor analysis including photo
simulations showing the building(s) from public vantages identified by the Planning
Board are required. The visual impact of buildings or portions of buildings that can be
seen from public streets or spaces shall be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable
by reducing the height of the building, changing the design of the building or moving the
structure to another location on the site. Providing landscape screening is not an
alternative to reducing building height or placement of the building in a less visible site.
We agree that there might need to be some exceptions to that rule depending on the site
and are included in section 270-18 B in Building Width and Distances between Buildings
in the Proposed Action Zoning. The exceptions in the Proposed Action Zoning are as
follows: existing Village of Ossining designated historical buildings that are proposed to
be rehabilitated; any proposed building in Subdistrict PW-5 Central Waterfront -- Station
Square and any other parcel or building that is deemed by the Planning Board as not
applicable to preserving view corridors either to or from the Hudson River. The
language in the Proposed Action Zoning Amendments relating to view corridor
preservation will be amended to include similar exceptions so that it contains language
to the following affect “Excluded are existing Village of Ossining designated historical
buildings that are proposed to be rehabilitated, and any other parcel that is deemed by
the Planning Board as not applicable to preserving view corridors either to or from the
Hudson River.”
Z-51 The prohibition of disturbance of slopes in excess of 25 percent also needs careful
consideration. At minimum, it should include an express exception where the
disturbance is undertaken to provide access allowing reasonable development of a
parcel. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
An exception is already located in the Proposed Action Zoning under 270-18 (B) Steep
Slope Restriction. It states that “there shall be no construction on or regrading of areas
measuring over 500 sq. ft. with greater than 25% slope unless the Planning Board
makes a specific finding that such construction or regrading is warranted by
considerations that make alternative approaches less desirable in view of overall
planning considerations (including the overall objectives of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan and the LWRP) and will be carried out in a manner consistent with
best management and engineering practices for such construction or regrading.”
40
Z-52 With regard to the PW-4 and PW-6, the Planning Board recommends that the
Village consider either a Special Permit in each zone or a floating zone that is linked to
those three zones where applications with large tracks of land greater than 3.0 acres will
be able to achieve greater densities (up to 26 DU per acre with incentives). Three acres
would allow the use of the floating zone/special permit on all of the larger properties in
each of the zones. If the Village develops Special Permits, the minimum acreage can be
adjusted for each zone so that, in zones in which the Village wants to encourage
combining parcels because of restrictive access or other building constraints, the Village
may increase the minimum acreage. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
See Response to Z-46
Z-53 Regarding the RiverWalk/Waterfront Esplanade, the Planning Board recommends
that building and parking setbacks from the esplanade/riverwalk should be a minimum of
25 feet. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
The Proposed Action Zoning contains language that mandates a riverfront setback.
No building or structure shall be erected within 50 feet of the normal high-water
line of the Hudson River unless its design requires a location closer to such water
line, as determined by the Planning Board. Said 50 feet shall be the average
distance derived by measuring the Riverfront setbacks from any building or
structure to the normal high-water line of the Hudson River, except that no part of
any building or structure shall be closer than 25 feet to the normal high-water
line. No parking or loading area shall be situated within the Riverfront setback.
Amended Proposed Action Conservation District (Proposed Action PW-1)
Z-54 I would also like to point out what appears to be a confusing statement in Table B5, the Bulk Requirements for the PW-1 District. Under “Spacing and Setbacks,” it states
that for development within 500’ of North Highland Avenue, “No building or part thereof,
or parking or loading area, shall be situated within 20’ of any street or lot line; or more
than 500 feet from North Highland Avenue [emphasis added].” This is unclear and
contradictory. A copy of Table B-5 is enclosed. (J. Gershner, letter, 8/12/08)
The Proposed Action Zoning for the PW-1 will be amended to remove the 500 foot
development restrictions as a result of the amendment to the Proposed Action which will
maintain the existing Office and Research (O-R) district.
Z-55 The Old Croton Aqueduct runs right behind the existing office/lab building.
According to the tax maps, on the north side of the property there is 280’ from Route 9 to
the beginning of the aqueduct which is another 67’ deep for a total depth of 347’. On the
south side there is 363’ from Route 9 to the aqueduct and when you add 67’ for the
aqueduct you have a depth of 430’.
It appears to me that the natural commercial/residential dividing line should be the
aqueduct, either the eastern boundary or the western boundary, but not 500’ (concerning
the PW-1). That just does not make any sense. (J. Gershner, letter, 7/31/08)
Comment Noted. The Proposed Action Zoning for the PW-1 (Amended Proposed Action
Conservation Development District) will be amended to remove the 500 foot
development restrictions as a result of the amendments to the Proposed Action to
maintain the existing Office and Research (O-R) district. See response to Z-46 for more
information.
41
Z-56 It appears to us that rather than an arbitrary 500 ft depth perhaps the Old Croton
aqueduct itself might be the more appropriate boundary. (J. Gershner, letter, 8/12/08)
See response to Z-55.
Z-57 Thus, leaving the BASF property under O-R zoning would make it undevelopable
for many, many years to come, if even in our lifetimes. (J. Gershner, letter, 8/12/08)
The BASF property contains development on site which has been historically used as
office and research.
Z-58 The only hope for ever developing any tax revenues out of that property is to allow
the BASF to be developed residentially, which means you have to have the PW-1 zone.
There’s also another mitigation measure which I think conflicts with the DEIS, it says that
the Village should encourage fee-simple ownership in the PW-1 zone to promote gross
tax revenues. Well, if you leave OR and then you want to have, you know, fee-simple
ownership, they conflict with one another. (J. Gershner, public hearing, 9/22/08)
According to the Village tax records, the BASF property currently contains two tax
generating properties.
There is no conflict concerning the fee-simple ownership comments directed to the
Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District (Proposed Action PW-1)
and retaining the current O-R district. An alternative was listed in Chapter 18, Fiscal
Implications that states “[p]ermit single-family and attached single-family dwelling units in
the PW-1 zone, in order to encourage fee-simple ownership in this zone where such
housing could easily be accommodated and where such housing is contextual with the
natural environment.” Fee simple refers to the absolute ownership of land and fee
simple could also apply to commercial office buildings. The reference to the Proposed
Action PW-1 district in the above statement does refer to residential housing in the
Proposed Action PW-1. However, even if the O-R properties that are adjacent to Route
9 are to be removed from the Proposed Action PW-1 district as outlined in the DGEIS
and in comment Z-46, there are still other properties that will be designated Amended
Proposed Action Conservation Development District (Proposed Action PW-1) and the
comment is still applicable to those properties. More details can be found in comment Z46.
Z-59 RE: approximately 22-acre property located at 217 North Highland Avenue (NY
Route 9) consisting of two parcels.
BASF is in favor of the Proposed Action’s concept of conventional cluster housing at the
proposed density of 6 dwelling units (DUs) per acre (and, its corresponding incentive
density bonus for inclusion of affordable housing of up to 8 DUs per acre) as a means of
preserving open space at a density that is commensurate with the economic return
comparable to that of the current O-R district.
The reduced density, of 4 units per acre as contemplated by Alternative B (Alternative
Action), will render residential development infeasible in that the access and
infrastructure costs for development at 6 units per acre and 4 units per acre are virtually
the same. The lower density is likely to eliminate the economic viability of affordable
housing given the fixed costs of infrastructure, site preparation and landscaping required
to develop the property. The natural topography of the area can accommodate the
proposed building heights and densities without obstructing the view corridors of the
Hudson River from properties to the east. Cluster development would provide the
opportunity to incorporate a future development with the area’s natural topography, the
42
Old Croton Aqueduct and be considerate of neighboring properties through buffers and
landscape planting. (M. Divney, letter, 10/7/08)
We agree that the current property owners in the O-R district should be able to receive
the economic return equal to what they already are able to achieve. Please see the
response to comment Z-46. The response contains information on the amendments to
the Proposed Action Zoning where the O-R properties along Route 9 will be removed
from the Proposed Action Zoning PW-1 district and remain, as they are currently zoned,
as O-R, the planning reasoning behind those amendments, and the policies and
documents backing the amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning.
Z-60 Under the current O-R zoning an additional 150,000 SF of office use on the
property could be expected to generate significant trips during the weekday AM and PM
peak hours. Under the Proposed Action Zoning amendments an addition of up to 100
dwelling units could be expected to generate a fraction of the traffic otherwise generated
by an office.
The water and sanitary sewer demand for 150,000 SF of additional office use is
generally equivalent to that which may be expected for a 100 dwelling unit residential
development. It is our belief that subject to more detailed engineering studies that the
incorporation of residential use will not increase the demands of the infrastructure and in
fact may actually be less than that of the current zoning. (M. Divney, letter, 10/7/08)
The DGEIS analyzed the Proposed Action, Alternatives and Mitigation Measures against
all of the scoped potential environmental impacts. The DGEIS identified environmental
impacts that would be problematic and could be mitigated by altering the uses and
densities in some of the proposed districts. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 17
of the DGEIS discuss in detail how the various options would affect the different
environmental impacts. The DGEIS identified maintaining the existing zoning for the OR properties along Route 9 as a Mitigation Measure for numerous environmental
impacts including but not limited to land use, utilities, community resources,
demographics, and community character. The proposed mitigation is specifically
discussed on the following pages of the DGEIS: 84, 96, 163-164, 180-181, 184, 258,
and 267.
We believe that the demands on sewer and water would be significantly greater if the
area were zoned Proposed Action PW-1 rather than Amended Proposed Action O-R.
Please see the Chapter 8 on our analysis of the water consumption. We understand
that residential use does have a lower traffic volume than office and retail. In the
Proposed Action PW-1 the permitted uses would include office, retail, and residential.
By keeping the O-R properties along Route 9 as they are zoned today, retail and
residential would not be a permitted use. Retail is a high traffic generator. During site
specific site plan reviews, local boards will have the ability to discuss traffic demand
strategies and alternatives.
Z-61 We recommend that the Village Board strongly consider the mitigation proposed
on page 84 that would prohibit residential development in the areas presently governed
by the OR and B-1 Districts.
This would better protect the new PW-1
(Institutional/Conservation) zoning district from overdevelopment. (J. Anzevino, Scenic
Comment Noted. Please see response to Z-46.
Z-62 The proposed density in the PW-1 District of six to eight units per net acre of land,
which would apply to the plateau, is also far too low. At that density neither adaptive
reuse of the Brandreth Pill Factory nor reasonable development of the plateau is
43
viable. Any review of the existing PRD and new PW-1 regulations demonstrates that the
Village is double or triple counting what is perceives to be sensitive environmental
conditions in setting density (referring to wetlands and steep slopes) (A. Wekstein,
letter, 10/10/08)
The language for discounting of the steep slopes for the calculation of density originated
from language in the current zoning PRD. The new zoning will remove language
concerning steep slope deductions in calculating density.
Z-63 The Village Board should carefully review the Hidden Cove DGEIS and the visual
simulations and analysis there in before making a sweeping generalization as embodied
by the proposed PW-1 regulations and the Alternative B in the DGEIS, that such
restrictions are necessary to mitigate visual impacts.
The Village Board is using the proverbial “blunt tool” in the PW-1 District by establishing
density and height restrictions that are unnecessary to achieve the putative goals of the
Proposed Action Zoning Ordinance and Draft Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the
Village Board, as part of the FGEIS, should examine and study in more detail the
purported rationale for restricting density and height on the plateau, as part of the PW-1
District. If it does so, the Village Board will find that strong reasons exist to map the
plateau in the PW-2 District so that it can be utilized as part of a unified development of
the entire Property. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see responses to comment Z-5 and Z-46 which detail the rationale for restricting
density and height on the plateau. The responses demonstrate that there are very
strong reasons to continue the boundaries for the Amended Proposed Action PW-a
(Proposed Action PW-2) and Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development
District (Proposed Action PW-1) in the new zoning code and those boundaries are the
same boundaries that exist today and were in existence since the last waterfront zoning
code amendments were adopted in 1990. These zoning district boundaries are also
endorsed in the LWRP adopted in 1991 which states that “this district covers areas of
Ossining’s waterfront which remain essentially undeveloped and which are characterized
by attractive natural features and views to the Hudson River and western Palisades.”
The LWRP states that the PRD zoning which has similar site, bulk and height
regulations as the proposed Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development
District (Proposed Action PW-1) “implement the LWRP in that they will allow for
development while at the same time retaining much of the attractive natural character of
the areas covered by the district. Height limitations will protect views to and from the
river.”
Z-64 As a legal, rather than environmental, matter, the Village should recognize that the
proposed PW-1 District regulations are illegal. They would contravene the “uniformity
requirement” of Section 7-702 of the Village Law. The PW-1 regulations, both as to
permitted uses and dimensional and bulk standards, vary depending on whether a
proposed structure is within 500 feet of Route 9. While zoning regulations may vary
from district to district, within a given district both the dimensional and use regulations
must be uniform. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The Proposed Action Zoning for the PW-1 will be amended to remove the 500 foot
development restrictions as a result of the amendment to keep the Office and Research
(O-R) district properties in the O-R.
Z-65 Without any reasonable explanation Alternative B in the DGEIS goes so far as to
recommend lowering density in the district even further to four to six units per acre. (A.
Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
44
Alternative B was identified as an alternative to be studied in the scoping process. As
per the SEQR regulations, reasonable alternatives should be considered. The maximum
allowable density in the existing PRD zone is 6 dwelling units per acre and the maximum
density for the proposed Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District
(Proposed Action PW-1) zone is proposed for 8 dwelling units per acre. It is not
unreasonable to look at the densities remaining at a maximum of 6 dwelling units per
acre. Please see response to Z-46 for information on the amendments of the Proposed
Action PW-1 zoning.
Z-66 Our previous letter regarding the PW-1 zone deals with the disastrous proposed
mitigation measure of allowing the land to remain Office-Research (O-R). Regarding
that same zone, the DEIS appears to contradict itself. In S.5, Mitigation Measures, the
first mitigation measure is to:
• Remove high-traffic-generating uses from the outskirts of Route 9 to allow for
redevelopment of the Downtown and waterfront by implementing the following
changes to the Proposed Action:
o
In the PW-1, the current O-R properties located along Route 9 should
remain as non-residential uses that are low trip-generators like office
research.
Keeping in mind the first mitigation measure above, the last mitigation measure states in
part as follows:
• …encourage fee-simple ownership in the PW-1 zone to promote greater tax
revenues for the Village than might occur otherwise.
If the presumption is that fee-simple ownership yields higher real estate tax revenues
than condominiums or cooperatives (which it does), how can you advocate fee-simple
ownership in a zone in which you do not want to allow residences? Which do you want?
O-R with no residences or fee-simple ownership? Perhaps Phillips Preiss Shapiro
Associates, Inc. (PPSA) can address this contradiction. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see response to comment Z-58.
Z-67 The Planning Board recommends that the PW-1 should be renamed the “Planned
Conservation” district to preserve unique characteristics and sensitive environmental
areas, including steep slopes, mature trees and landscapes. This is a significant
difference from the other more urban areas where steep slopes exist in the other PW
districts. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
Comment noted. Please see response to comment Z-46.
Z-68 The Office-Research district (“O-R Zone”) designation on the north side of
Ossining should remain.
Rezoning the O-R Zone to allow small tracts of
retail/commercial development will likely lead to unintended or adverse effects, including
more traffic and infrastructure impacts. The Planning Board believes that rather than
rezoning, which would allow the development of small disjointed projects in a piecemeal
fashion, it is better to have a comprehensive approach. (Planning Board, memo,
undated)
45
Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2)
Z-69 As to access to the PW-2 District, it is submitted that the Hidden Cove DEIS and
application materials, including road improvement plans and traffic study contained
therein, demonstrate how access can be improved to serve the Property and the PW-2
district as a whole.
Emblematic of the type of sloppy analysis which characterizes the DGEIS is the
statement therein that the access drive to the PW-2 District is steep (DGEIS, p. 65).
This statement is simply false, as the drive providing access to such land is essentially
flat. Therefore, the Village Board should carefully scrutinize not only this error but a
number of the other incorrect assumptions or “factual statements” that have contributed
to the conclusions in the DGEIS and proposals in the Comprehensive Plan and
Proposed Zoning Ordinance. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
This referred to access to the area which would either be via Snowden Avenue (steep),
Main Street, (steep) or Water Street (winding and narrow). The clarification of our
statement is as follows: This area is accessible through steep roads such as Main Street
or Snowden Avenue and through narrow roadways known as Water Street and the North
Water Street extension, The North Water Street extension consists entirely of property
easements.
The “analysis” referred to in the comment above was in fact a description of the access
to the area and no analysis was taking place on page 65.
Z-70 The Proposed Action Zoning should be modified to include the Property in a
district that allows density equaling that in the PW-4 District. (A. Wekstein, letter,
10/10/08)
Please see response to Z-46.
Z-71 While the DGEIS recommends that the maximum height in the PW-2 District
should be six stories and 72 feet (the same requirement as exists today in the WD-2
District), rather than the six stories and 50 feet listed in the Proposed Zoning Ordinance,
Plateau questions why the maximum height limitation should not be even greater. They
could significantly exceed 72 ft and six stories without obstructing views from
surrounding properties… (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The height for the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) will be
amended to 6 stories or 72 feet. This is the height that that the current zoning allows for
that area under the current Special Height overlay. The DGEIS discusses in detail the
rational behind the height restriction, which is to prevent blocking, views to and from the
plateau that has a peak at approximately 70 feet in elevation. More details can be found
in Chapters 3 and 13 of the DGEIS and specifically Table 13-1 in the document.
Amending the heights to 6 stories and 72 feet are specifically identified as mitigation
measures in Chapters 3 and 13 in the DGEIS. The concept of not blocking views from
the plateau is also discussed in Chapter 3 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan.
Z-72 The Village has not provided a reasoned explanation as to why the rationale for
the level of density in the PW-4 and PW-6 Districts should not apply in the proposed
PW-2 District, where additional density beyond the 15 to 20 units per acre now specified
will not interfere with views. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
46
Z-73 In the PW-2 it’s recommended six stories or sixty feet. Sixty feet is not six stories,
it can’t be; you need at least twelve feet per story when you include the—the height of
the apartment and the height of the slab. So what you’re really saying is you’re really
saying five feet or six—five stories or sixty feet. (J. Gershner, public hearing, 9/22/08)
Z-74 The proposed maximum height in the PW-2 district is six stories or 60 feet. Six
stories are not 60 feet, and in 60 feet one cannot build six stories. Allowing two feet for
the floor slab and a 10-foot ceiling height in each residential unit (which is standard
today), in order to achieve six stories the maximum height would need to be at least 72
feet. (Jerry J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
Z-75 The Market Analysis for PW-2 assumes that the “limited access” based on the
existing road network is insufficient to accommodate development to the intensity of the
other comparable zones. Since the Hidden Cove plan was already in front of the
Planning Board, how could the committee not be aware that North Water Street would
be upgraded so that it would equal or exceed the standards for roads within the Village?
Why then limit the potential density for PW-2? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Page 4 of the Sensitivity Analysis states that the Proposed Action PW-2 “access to the
PW-2 is limited to the narrow and winding Water Street which is currently privately
owned” and page 82 of the DGEIS states “although the PW-2 allows for residential
development, such residential development will most likely require infrastructure
improvements due to the fact there will be additional strain on the current water lines.
The roadways are also narrow, especially for the limited access that currently exists.”
Both statements are factual. The statements refer to the existing conditions of the North
Water Street Extension. The statements do not imply any decisions on density
restrictions as a result of current road conditions that can be upgraded through
infrastructure improvements. Please see response to Z-46 in reference to density
increases in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2).
Z-76 Zoning changes for PW-2 emphasize that commercial development is a targeted
use, yet commercial development is considered problematic elsewhere in the Plan.
What was the rationale for imposing such a problematic use on the PW-2 zone? (P.
Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Commercial use is not imposed nor is it a “targeted use”. As detailed in the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 3, and throughout the DGEIS, especially in
Chapter 3, the uses in the Proposed Action PW-2 were left flexible so that the market
can determine if commercial or residential use are best for a particular property.
Currently, all of the existing uses in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed
Action PW-2) zone are commercial uses and commercial uses can remain and be
replaced with other commercial or residential uses as outlined in Appendix A of the
Proposed Action Zoning.
Z-77 The Plan seeks recreational water uses in the PW-2 zone. As there is absolutely
no direct access to the waterfront anywhere in the PW-2 zone, why would this
recommendation be made? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Strategy 8.2 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan: Create Subdistrict PW2: Northern Waterfront calls for a mix of commercial, residential and recreational uses
and discourage industrial uses in the Proposed Action PW-2 zone. It does not
47
specifically call for recreational water uses in the Proposed Action PW-2. However, if
water-dependent recreational uses are located in any of the waterfront districts,
commercial uses that would compliment those water-dependent recreational uses could
be located in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2).
Z-78 The Plan speaks to the presence of slopes in PW-2 as one reason for the limited
density being proposed. This is evidence that no one on the Plan committee ever visited
the PW-2 zone. If they had, they would have noted that there are no slopes anywhere in
PW-2. All the slopes in that part of the Village are in the PRD (to be PW-1) zone, which
almost completely encircles the PW-2 zone. Given this major error in the Plan, and the
unfortunate financial implications for the owners in this zone, how can the Village permit
this impact to remain? What mitigation does the Village propose to encourage
comparable development as called for in other zones? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Draft Plan speaks to the presence of steep slopes surrounding Amended Proposed
Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) (See Chapter 3 of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan) and refers to the plateau area. The Amended Proposed Action
PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) experiences a sharp grade difference of at least 60 feet
between it and the abutting Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development
District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-1). The Draft Plan and DGEIS
does not recommend or identify any reasons for restricting densities in the Proposed
Action PW-2 based on steep slopes. On page 133 in Chapter 6 of the DGEIS under
amendments to the LWRP, it states “The Northern Waterfront. Preserve the area’s
unique, natural environmental features by not allowing wetlands to be considered
developable land and minimizing development on steep slopes, and having a lower
permitted density (up to 8 dwelling units per acre with incentives) than the rest of the
waterfront districts.” The northern waterfront referred to the quote above is referencing
the amendments that will need to be made to the LWRP text. The LWRP text refers to
the Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District (Draft Amendments
to the Proposed Action PW-1) area as the northern waterfront. The clarification is as
follows: “The Northern Waterfront as referred to in the LWPR (Draft Amendments to the
Proposed Action Zoning PW-1). Preserve the area’s unique, natural environmental
features by not allowing wetlands to be considered developable land and minimizing
development on steep slopes, and having a lower permitted density (up to 8 dwelling
units per acre with incentives) than the rest of the waterfront districts.”
With respect to the densities in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action
PW-2), please see response to comment Z-46.
Z-79 The Plan calls for height restrictions, yet the PW-4 zone allows for contextual and
topographically permitted heights. Why is PW-2 being discriminated against by the
imposition of such inequitable restrictions? (P.Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Chapter 3 of the DGEIS and the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan explain
why the various district boundaries were determined. Please see response to comment
Z-71 for information on the height limitations of Amended Proposed Action PW-a
(Proposed Action PW-2). See also response to comment Z-46.
Z-80 The Plan calls for the adaptive reuse of the Brandreth Pill Factory building, yet the
Village staff has continually attempted to frustrate the development plan’s SEQR
process that would lead to such adaptive reuse together with achievement of the other
goals of the Plan. The zoning limitations proposed for PW-2 seem to have been created
specifically to prevent the economic development of this site. How can one reconcile the
Plan’s stated goals with the actual actions being taken by the Village? (P. Stolatis,
letter, 10/13/08)
48
The Proposed Action Zoning and zoning amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning
outlined in the response to comment Z-46 contain more flexibility in land uses than is
currently permitted in the WD-2. Chapter 3 of the DGEIS details the flexibility. The
Proposed Action Zoning and amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning will provide
the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) district with greater
density than is currently allowed in the WD-2. As outlined in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, the new zoning is written to encourage redevelopment
of the waterfront areas including Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action
PW-2). Statements regarding attempts by the Village and Village staff to frustrate a
SEQR process and prevent economic development are incorrect.
Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action PW3)
Z-81 The attached addresses this with a suggested new category of Conditional Use
Permit, entitled “Marina Mixed-Use.” It has been written to be generally applicable to
any lands in the planned waterfront districts. Items discussed were heights, densities,
bonuses, (J. Kirkpatrick, letter, 4/17/08)
Please see response to Z-46 regarding the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront
Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) district.
Z-82 With this email I am attaching an amended version of our Proposed Action Zoning
language. The change is the addition of section (9) to allow a short commercial building
connecting taller buildings. Buildings may be joined together by a shorter building,
provided such shorter building contains only street-facing commercial uses on the
ground level, does not exceed 30 feet in height, and is at least 100 feet in width, thus
comprising twice the otherwise required minimum separation between buildings of 50
feet. (J. Kirkpatrick, email, 4/21/08)
Z-83 We suggest that minor adjustments to the zoning be made in order for the Village
to fully capitalize on its objectives. Additional density is necessary to afford the cost of
infrastructure, sustainable design features, structured parking and other public benefits,
such as a dock for the fire boat. (J. Kirkpatrick, letter, 9/22/08)
Please see response to comment Z-46 which outlines the Proposed Action Zoning
amendments and the rational behind the proposed amendments to the Proposed Action
PW-3 zone.
Z-84 We ask that the maximum density be increased to 30 units per acre.
Understanding that there are concerns about the traffic and other impacts of greater
density, we also ask that the Planning Board be given the flexibility to apply that density
as they see fit. (J. Kirkpatrick, letter, 9/22/08)
Please see response to comment 46 which outlines the amendments to the Proposed
Action and the rational behind the proposed amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3
zone.
The DGEIS discusses the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District
(Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) zone and how the limited vehicular
access to the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft
Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) does not allow for greater densities above
the Proposed Action and the flat topography of the zone does not allow for greater
heights due to the fact that greater heights will negatively impact views from upland49
areas. It also discusses how the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development
District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) has a prominent location in
the waterfront area which makes it especially advantageous for such non-residential
uses such as restaurants, retail and water-related uses like marinas which would further
the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan objectives stated in Chapter 3 The
Waterfront including: to maximize public enjoyment of the riverfront; to make Ossining a
destination for low-impact boating and other water-oriented uses; and to provide
amenities, services and attractions that will draw people to the waterfront. These types
of uses currently exist on the properties that are proposed to be zoned for Amended
Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed
Action PW-3). Discussions on heights and densities can be found in the DGEIS in
Chapter 3, 4, 5, and 13. The Planning Board is given flexibility to apply densities
because there are only maximum densities proposed and not minimum densities.
Z-85 We request increasing the height to 65 feet, with no restriction on stories. (J.
Kirkpatrick, letter, 9/22/08)
Please see response to comment Z-46. The increase of height to 65 feet would be
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the LWRP and Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan. The height restrictions are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and 13
of the DGEIS. Furthermore, please see response to Z-46 for more information on the
Proposed Action PW-3, amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning and planning
reasoning behind those amendments.
Z-86 While we generally agree with the concept of orienting structures perpendicular to
the river to maximize views, we ask that the planning board be given the flexibility to
modify these requirements in the interest of achieving better planning and design on a
project-specific basis. (J. Kirkpatrick, letter, 9/22/08)
Please see response to Z-50. Furthermore, there are proposed spacing setbacks in the
Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft Amendments to the
Proposed Action PW-3) district in order to maximize views of the Hudson River. The
Planning Board is given flexibility to apply building widths because there is only a
maximum building width set in the Proposed Action Zoning and not a minimum width.
However, the Planning Board will still be restricted with maximum building width of 75
feet. This concept is based on Objective 5 preserve public views of the Hudson River
and Palisades in Chapter 3 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. Most of
the properties in the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft
Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) that are not parkland are less than 200 feet
in width and a 75 foot wide building will already take up a large portion of the property. A
majority of the buildings that currently exist in the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront
Development District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) are
perpendicular to the Hudson River and are less than 75 feet in width. Any applicant is
afforded the opportunity to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to seek a variance from
the building width if there are particular circumstances of an individual lot which warrant
a variance.
Z-87 The result of the proposed zoning, without the opportunity to achieve an attractive
result, will be a continued status quo. Nothing will be built under the proposed zoning
except minor structures, such as water-related stores and shops. (J. Kirkpatrick, letter,
9/22/08)
As stated in the response to Z-46, the intent of the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront
Development District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) is to encourage
water-related stores and shops. There are already existing marinas in the Amended
50
Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed
Action PW-3) and the Village would like to see those continue to exist. The new zoning
allows for more flexibility in the proposed uses and an increase in density and height
from what is currently permitted to allow for additional development to occur that
compliments the existing businesses. Chapter 3 in the DGEIS details the intent of the
Proposed Action PW-3. The amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3 continue with
the same concept. Besides developing a vision of adding to the existing uses along the
waterfront, the Proposed Action Zoning also formulates a vision for new development if a
site were to be completely redeveloped.
Z-88 Second: it also doesn’t do what the Village wants to achieve along the Waterfront.
What we’re asking the Board to consider doing is giving the Planning Board the flexibility
to allow us to build in a second deck connecting the lower level of those units to allow a
landscaped deck on top of the parking to cover the parking and also to allow some
additional height so we have street-level retail. The street-level retail provides that
vitality but it also gets the residential units up above the activities of the marina.
(Kirkpatrick/Washauer, Public Hearing, 9/22/08)
Please see the response to comment Z-85.
Z-89 In the PW-3 you have four stories or fifty feet, yet you have a flood plain. And
what’s gonna happen in the flood plain? And since nothing can be built on the ground
floor, do you start to count the four stories on the ground floor or do you start to count
the four stories one level above the parking? (J. Gershner, public hearing, 9/22/08)
The Proposed Action Zoning under Section 270-18 B Development Standards states
“Floodplain/Wetland Restrictions. All construction must meet the requirements of
Chapter 142, Flood Damage Prevention. When story heights are provided in these
regulations, they apply to all floors of a building and not just those that are defined as
stories in Chapter 142, Flood Damage Prevention.” Additionally, many uses can be
located on the ground floor as long as they are built at or above the base flood elevation.
Some uses have more stringent requirements requiring at least two feet above the base
flood elevation. Those requirements are set forth in Chapter 142 of the Village Code
and in the New York State Building and Residence Codes.
Z-90 On a slightly lighter note, any prospects for having multiple uses on the Waterfront
would involve attracting people to it, preferably including people from other communities
using it as a destination. To kayak or fish the Hudson River can be an experience that
someone will remember for their entire life. I can attest to that from personal experience.
The River focus, the loss leader, is certainly the most realistic prospect for establishing
Ossining as a destination. I’m proposing we combine the tackle shops with an adjoining
room full of pictures, memorabilia and multimedia presentations on the Hudson River, its
cultural—colorful fishermen and local related history, with kayak use, sailboat rentals,
with seasonal fishing charters that could achieve that end. These are the sorts of
experiences that will get people coming and returning to Ossining. It’s obvious that this
sort of facility would be a loss leader and the ancillary benefits will be profound. (E.
Schatz, public hearing, 9/22/08)
Comment noted. Please see response to comment Z-46 for more information on
Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft Amendments to the
Proposed Action PW-3).
Z-91 In the PW-3 district, the maximum height is four stories or 50 feet. While that
would seem achievable, the west side of the railroad tracks is in a floodplain and thus
nothing can be built on the ground floor except for a parking area. Therefore, where do
the 4 stories and 50 feet limitation begin? If it is counted from the ground level, then51
the building can only hold three residential floors. The number of stories and maximum
height should be counted from the first residential floor not the ground level. If the
decision is to count floors and height from the ground, then the Market and Sensitivity
Analysis should calculate if the development is economically feasible with only three
residential floors and the corresponding number of units that can be developed in only
three floors. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
The Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft Amendments to
the Proposed Action PW-3) currently has commercial water-related businesses and they
will be able to continue to exist in the new zoning. As stated in the response to Z-46, the
intent of the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft
Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) is to contain mixed-use. There are already
existing marinas in the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Draft
Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-3) and the Village would like to see those
continue to exist. The new zoning allows for more flexibility in the proposed uses and
will allow for an increase in density and height from what is currently permitted to make
available additional development to occur on existing sites that will compliment the
businesses already there. Additionally, many uses can be located on the ground floor as
long as they are built at or above the base flood elevation. Some uses have more
stringent requirements requiring at least two feet above the base flood elevation. Those
requirements are set forth in Chapter 142 of the Village Code and in the New York State
Building and Residence Codes.
Z-92 The Ossining waterfront on the west side of the railroad tracks (PW-3) is truly
unique and significant access and environmental limitations.
Public input
overwhelmingly indicated that greater access to the waterfront was a prime goal. In
addition, while we have not completed a detailed traffic and infrastructure study in the
area, other development reviews indicate that this area is already significantly
constrained and alternatives to relieve this are limited. To that extent we recommend
that the PW-3 remain with the WD-1 designation. The maximum building height should
be limited to 3 stories with view corridors. The emphasis should be on water-related
retail/commercial uses and non-residential uses. Strong consideration should be given
to eliminating all residential uses on the west side of the railroad tracks and only allow
them as special uses. Approval should be granted only when the development
demonstrates active support of the intent of WD-1 and provides unrestricted public
waterfront access. (The Planning Board would be available to draft appropriate
guidelines.) Should the Special Use be considered, the Planning Board recommends
limited residential densities up to 16 Dwelling Units per acre and eliminating all
incentives. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4)
Z-93 Concerning the PW-4, the Planning Board recommends that the Village reduce the
proposed density from a minimum of 22 dwelling units per acre to 15 dwelling units and
from a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre to 20. While we have not completed a
traffic and infrastructure study in the PW-4, the Planning Board’s review of other
developments and its knowledge of the area indicate that PW-4 infrastructure is already
constrained. The greater densities are addressed in the PW-6 zone, which is closer to
the central business district and key infrastructure. In the PW-6, the Planning Board
recommends the addition of language to the floating zone or special permit that allows
for greater heights that fit certain requirements, such as maximum elevation levels,
instead of stories. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
52
Comment noted. Please see response to Z-46. The DGEIS does not analyze individual
site plans. Individualized site plan or zoning issues for a particular property owner may
require approvals from the following local boards: Planning Board, Board of Architectural
Review, or Zoning Board of Appeals. A particular site plan may also have additional
environmental impacts that will need their own SEQR review and site specific
infrastructure capabilities will be analyzed as part of that process.
Amended Proposed Action Station Plaza North and Station Plaza South (Proposed
Action PW-5)
Z-94 Re: Kemeys Cove: The—the defect that I feel, or the loophole I—I feel that may
occur is you’re calling it PW-5 and you’re sharing that designation with—with areas in
the center of town that also are called PW-5. …it will possible sustain damage because
people will be able to build or develop it as in encouraged mix uses that would be an
appropriate gateway to the train station. I suggest that we observe a possible
redesignation from PW-5 to PW-8 or 5-A so that it does not become a—a loophole
defect to allow a developer or a businessman, or the current businessman, to further
develop that area beyond the scope of the bus garage. (R. Little, public hearing,
9/2//08)
Please see response to comment Z-46.
Z-95 In the PW-5, the Planning Board recommends changing the name to “Railroad
Plaza.” (Planning Board, memo, undated)
Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6)
Z-96 We believe that the above observations demonstrate support for making density in
the PW-6 zoning district the same as the PW-4 zone. (T. Miller, letter, 8/20/08)
Z-97 In the PW-6 zone it says three and a half stories or 40 feet. First of all, I’m not
sure what half a story is, but 40 feet is not three stories, it’s about three and a half
stories. (J. Gershner, public hearing, 9/22/08)
Z-98 We respectively suggest that the Alternative PW-6 base density be increased to 19
dwelling units per acre with maximum incentives of 30 dwelling units per acre. (M.
Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
Z-99 However, the height limits proposed for PW-6 are too low and do not account for
the topographic opportunities that exist between State Street and Hunter Street. The
provisions of the existing height overlay district better reflect these goals. Building closer
to State Street should be permitted to a maximum elevation of 220 ft; closer to Hunter
Street permitted to 180 elevation. (T. Miller, letter, 8/20/08 and M. Miller, letter,
10/10/08)
53
Comment noted. Please see response to comment Z-46. The limits of the special
height overlay with restrictions of 4 stories or 45 feet in the Amended Proposed Action
PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) with a maximum elevation of 220 feet will be increased to
48 ft, 3 more feet than is currently allowed in the existing WD-2 zone along State Street.
The new Proposed Action Zoning for most of Hunter Street will be designated as T-zone
where the new limit on the height is 2.5 stories/35 feet. The 4 stories/48 feet height limit
for Hunter Street is proposed to be more in-line contextually with the neighboring T zone.
Z-100 In the PW-6 zone, the maximum height is 3½ stories or 40 feet. Using the same
2 feet plus 10 feet allowance in PW-2 above, then the maximum height would have to be
42 feet (3½ x 12 = 42). However, the ½-story is unsuitable for occupancy given the
height limitation of 7 feet, 6 inches. Therefore, a 3½-story building is, in reality, a 3-story
building for occupancy purposes. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
Comment noted. Please see response to comment 46.
Incentives
Z-101 Creating a pedestrian bridge between residential neighborhoods to Engle Park,
and asking MTA to build a parking garage between the railroad and these
neighborhoods seems more than ambitious. (G. Albert, letter, 6/11/07)
Comment noted. However, a Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan allows a
community to envision and explore “what if” scenarios. There is an old pedestrian
pathway connecting the neighborhoods in the vicinity and east of James Street towards
the waterfront ending on Barlow Lane where it confronts private property and the railroad
tracks. This path has been historically used to connect these neighborhoods to the
waterfront area. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan envisions taking this
walkway a step further by connecting the path across the railroad tracks. One possibility
of making this plan a reality was to explore the opportunity of transit oriented
development with Metro-North similar to plans explored by Metro-North in Beacon and
Poughkeepsie, NY which included development above parking garages. If this were to
be done in Ossining, then a pathway over the railroad tracks connecting to these
neighborhoods could become a reality.
Z-102 There are other items worthy of density bonuses, in addition to what is already
slated in the draft Zoning, that would enhance the Village’s future. Other incentives that
the zoning amendments should include are:
•
Design merit for high-quality architectural design and landscape design;
•
Sustainable development practices, including possible incremental incentives such
as LEED certification; green roofs; recycled content in building materials; energyefficient appliances; green design for stormwater detention; other sustainable
design ideas;
•
Provision of green space in excess of the open space requirement;
•
Provision of off-site infrastructure improvements;
•
Alternative parking provisions such as parking structures or mechanized parking
that would reduce impervious surfaces and increase open space;
•
New means of public pedestrian access or improvements to existing access to
RiverWalk or Old Aqueduct trails;
•
New means of visual access to the River without blocking existing views, including
54
taller, thinner buildings;
•
Incorporation of publicly-accessible artwork, sculpture, monument, fountain or
other permanent aesthetic structure on a development site or installation at a
designated off-site location; and
•
Any other component that the Planning Board deems to be a public benefit, based
on the value of the public benefit.
We ask that the Village consider adding these incentives to advance the quality of
revitalization in the waterfront zones, and rather than limiting the density bonus for any
individual incentive, allow a density ceiling, considering all incentives, of 30 units per
acre in the PW-6 zone. (Miller, letter, 8/20/08 and Mark Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
It is important that an applicant is able to understand how the density bonuses will be
awarded. Creating language that allows for a density bonus to not have limits on the
density awarded for each individual incentive potentially creates an opportunity for
inconsistency in awarding density bonuses. It was important for the Village to identify
incentives that require more than what will normally be essential to develop a piece of
property. The density bonus provisions in the Amended Proposed Action Zoning will be
the same as the Proposed Action Zoning with the following exceptions:
1. The new Conservation Development District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed
Action PW-1), will keep the same incentives and text as proposed in the draft
zoning with the exception of removing pier construction/launching facilities and
including incentives for green building that achieve LEED Gold certification or
similar level of standards; remediation work that is not already subsidized by
State or other government funding; contribution to non-site related infrastructure
improvements; or incorporation of publicly accessible artwork, sculpture,
monument or other permanent aesthetic structure on a development site or a
designated off-site location.
2. The Amendments to the Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), PW-b
(Proposed Action PW-4), PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) properties in which the
special permit will be applied will keep the same incentives and text as proposed
in the draft zoning with the exception of removing pier construction/launching
facilities and including incentives for green building that will achieve LEED Gold
certification or similar level of standards; remediation work that is not already
subsidized by State or other government funding; contribution to non-site related
infrastructure improvements; or incorporation of publicly accessible artwork,
sculpture, monument or other permanent aesthetic structure on a development
site or a designated off-site location.
3. The Amended Proposed Action Riverfront District and Station Plaza North and
South (Proposed Action PW-5) will have the density bonuses removed except for
the required affordable housing bonuses.
4. The Proposed Action PRD zone will keep the same incentives and text as
proposed in the draft zoning including incentives for green building that achieve
LEED Gold certification or similar level of standards; remediation work that is not
already subsidized by State or other government funding; contribution to non-site
related infrastructure improvements; or incorporation of publicly accessible
artwork, sculpture, monument or other permanent aesthetic structure on a
development site or a designated off-site location.
Z-103 Provide public amenities. It is unclear whether the draft GEIS assumes that
public amenities such as the RiverWalk, open space and right-of-way restoration will be
provided through the use of density incentives (81). If the Village wishes to ensure that
such amenities are provided, they should question whether these incentives are likely to
55
be used in all cases and consider the possibility that developers may opt not to take the
bonus provided. (Burroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
There are legal impediments to requiring landowners to contribute certain public
improvements. However, it is clearly permissible for the Village to enact incentive
zoning which offers specific incentives or bonuses in exchange for the provision of public
benefits or amenities (Village Law § 7-703). The Proposed Action proposes incentives
for density bonuses in the Waterfront Districts on the condition that specified public
amenities are provided.
Z-104 In certain cases the Plan and draft GEIS makes reference to the use of density
bonuses for developments providing affordable housing. It is unclear whether the
analysis of impacts in the draft GEIS assumes that all developers will choose to use
density bonuses. The Plan and draft GEIS mention both “mandates and incentives for
developers to set aside 10 percent of all units for affordable housing” (118). The Plan
should be clearer as to which strategy will be implemented, or—if both are to be used—
how the incentives and requirements will differ. The draft GEIS states that “[i]f the
Proposed Action is adopted, 10 percent of all new residential development of over six
dwelling units would be affordable” (122). However, using incentives, this seems
unreasonable unless every developer opts to receive the density bonus in exchange for
providing affordable units. Without an affordable housing mandate, this number will
likely be lower.
If the incentive is in fact expected to be used by every developer then it is questionable
why the bonus zoning and affordable housing set-aside is not simply mandated. (E.
Burroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
We are creating mandatory affordable housing but allowing for density bonuses for the
developers to help off-set the costs of developing affordable units in a project. We
developed the affordable housing legislation based on the legislative authority given to
Village government by the State of New York. The legislative authority to develop
affordable housing is through § 7-703 of the Village law entitled Incentive zoning;
definitions, purpose, conditions, procedures. An affordable housing fund can be
established under § 7-703 of the Village law where it states “If the village board of
trustees determines that a suitable community benefit or amenity is not immediately
feasible, or otherwise not practical, the board may require, in lieu thereof, a payment to
the village of a sum to be determined by the board. If cash is accepted in lieu of other
community benefit or amenity, provisions shall be made for such sum to be deposited in
a trust fund to be used by the village board of trustees exclusively for specific community
benefits authorized by the village board of trustees.”
Chapter 5 of the DGEIS
discusses affordable housing in more detail and Chapter 7 of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan is entirely devoted to affordable housing. The proposed affordable
housing legislation is supported by the recommendations in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the Village’s Affordable Housing Policy
adopted in 2006.
Z-105 Our concerns are primarily with height and density, but they’re really driven by
the underlying economics…That document and the other related documents were
obviously prepared in a different economic climate. Their goals are laudable and
admirable, but you need projects that are economically viable in order to make things
work…so I think you need to really examine the viability of rental projects….The analysis
needs to take into account the time value of both projects and, of course, money. ….
Suggestions as to how to implement those additional increases in density, which
generally relate to more flexibility in the incentives in allowing the Planning Board to
grant broader incentives on a per-project basis without limiting each particular density
bump to a particular incentive. (M. Miller, with the law firm of Veneziano &
56
Associates…representing Ossining Land, LLC, which owns Hunter James, and 34 State
Streetproposed to be placed in the PW-6 district, public hearing, 9/22/08)
See response to Z-102.
Z-106 With regard to “Incentives,” the Planning Board recommends that the Proposed
Action Zoning provisions have sufficient flexibility to allow the Planning Board to
negotiate what incentives should be applied. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
Comment noted. The zoning text will reflect language to make sure the Planning Board
has the ability to negotiate which incentives are applied to a particular site in the best
interest of the Village.
Z-107 RiverWalk, should be a requirement, it should not be an incentive. (Lauinger,
See response to Z-103 above.
Business Districts
Z-108 We strongly believe that stricter enforcement measures (referring to Section 27031) of these and other existing codes be written into any revision of the zoning code.
(Occhiogrossi, letter, 6/20/07)
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan outlines mechanisms for better
enforcement. See Chapter 8 Quality of Life of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan for more information on enforcement.
Z-109 Violations of Section 270-31 and other sections of the zoning code occur daily on
Stone Avenue and Campwoods Road with regard to Ossining Lawn Mower Shop. They
are as follows:
1.
Traffic congestion at Stone Avenue and Campwoods Road making it impossible, at
times, for emergency vehicles to enter Stone Avenue.
2.
Traffic congestion at Stone Avenue and Campwoods Road making it dangerous
for pedestrians to cross and motorists to enter Stone Avenue or Campwoods
Road.
3.
Delivery truck engines left running causing noxious fumes.
4.
Fumes from gas, oil and diesel fuel and black soot causing pollution to the air
quality of residents and to the environment.
5.
The washing of lawnmower equipment outdoors causing the runoff of oil, gas and
solvents to drain into the ground and possibly affect the ground water.
6.
Loud motors running for long periods of time causing noise and air pollution.
7.
Loading and unloading equipment in residential areas, working on equipment on
the sidewalks, trucks illegally parked and at times blocking driveways, and outside
display of equipment.
8.
Speeding of trucks and large tractor-trailers through Stone Avenue and
periodically pulling down overhead wires. (T. Occhiogrossi, P. Occhiogrossi, M.
McMahon, D. Astrio, N. Martz, P. Loreto, W. Meinel A. Meinel, A. Gulian, G. Gulian,
J. Lucido, M. Gagliardi, letter, 6/20/07 )
57
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan outlines mechanisms for better
enforcement. See Chapter 8 Quality of Life of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan for more information on enforcement.
Z-110 We request that the revised zoning code strongly address the issues of when a
neighborhood business reaches the point of critical mass, when it outgrows a
neighborhood, when it diminishes neighboring property values, when it negatively
impacts the health, safety and quality of life of the neighborhood’s residents, and
whether this business should continue to exist in that neighborhood. (T. Occhiogrossi,
P. Occhiogrossi, M. McMahon, D. Astrio, N. Martz, P. Loreto, W. Meinel A. Meinel,
A. Gulian, G. Gulian, J. Lucido, M. Gagliardi, letter, 6/20/07 )
Comment noted and the Proposed Action Zoning for the NC district does not allow for
repair of motor vehicles or lawn, landscaping, and garden equipment, small machines, or
similar intensive repair.
Z-111 Limited Business District: though I understand and respect the use of language
like “providing a district highly encourages business use” and “while retaining businesses
as the main uses in this district”…I would like as much substantive language in any
recommendation to recognize the dire need for affordable/workforce housing on the
floors above the retail as is feasible. (Gordon, letter, 6/11/07)
There is proposed affordable housing legislation that will be required in all zoning
districts.
Z-112 Although the Plan recommends that second-floor residential uses be conditional
in the downtown, we recommend that the Village consider making residential use a
principal permitted use on floors above commercial uses.
(Buroughs, letter, 9//17/08)
Comment noted. A conditional use is a permitted use provided certain conditions can be
met but it also allows for the Planning Board to put conditions on the development. We
intend to keep the residential uses as conditional uses so that the Planning Board will be
able to review the site plan and add any conditions to the proposed residential uses.
Z-113 The Planning Board supports the addition of residential use in the new
Neighborhood Business Districts as well as in the Central Business District (“CBD”).
The Planning Board also concurs with the recommendations regarding height limitation
and floor area ratios in the CBD. The addition of residential uses, the Planning Board
believes, will add to the vitality of this area. However, the Planning Board recommends
that the Village carefully review the build-out study to evaluate the impacts of residential
use on parking and Village infrastructure and services. (Planning Board, memo,
undated)
Comment noted. A particular parcel’s site plan will also have potential environmental
impacts that will need their own SEQR review and site specific parking, services, and
infrastructure capabilities will be analyzed as part of that process.
Z-114 The Planning Board recommends that residential occupancies not be permitted in
the PC district because development in the surrounding area is already dense and
additional development will only exacerbate the traffic problems without enhancing the
vitality of the businesses. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
58
Comment noted and Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 17 of the DGEIS discuss in
detail how removing the residential units in the PC zone would affect the different
environmental impacts. The Proposed Action Zoning will be amended in the PC zone to
remove residential uses and keep it as a non-residential district with uses similar to
those permitted in B-1 zoning today.
Residential Districts
Z-115 Further, the Village of Ossining would benefit from a rezoning. Audubon Manor
has been an asset to the community, providing affordable residential rental housing, and
has consistently paid its Real Estate Taxes as a multifamily complex for the past forty
(40) years. This could change overnight if the Owner should suffer a total loss under the
current zoning.
In connection with the Village of Ossining’s proposed new Draft Comprehensive Plan
and proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, the Owner of Audubon Manor is
requesting that the Village of Ossining Planner, in conjunction with the Planning Board,
Zoning Subcommittee, and Draft Comprehensive Plan Committee recommend to the
Village of Ossining Trustees that the Audubon Manor parcel be rezoned to MF 2, MultiFamily Residential District.
(Anthony Beldotti, Audubon Manor Co., LLC, letter, 10/13/08)
Comment noted. We agree that the property should be re-zoned to MF-2 to prevent any
non-conformity.
Z-116 In reviewing the proposed changes we would request that the Village consider
extending the P-O District from the south side of Waller Avenue (along Route 9) up to
and adjoining the B-3 district just north of Maple Place. This would make uniform the
section of South Highland Avenue that is not in the P-O District, which would be more in
character with the type of existing uses in the P-O District further to the south., We
believe this change would be a positive one for the new Village Master Plan. (George
W. Echevarria, letter, 10/14/08)
Comment noted. We agree that the properties identified should be rezoned for P-O
because the uses are more similar to the current P-O uses and the new zoning language
will reflect the same uses as the current P-O.
Affordable Housing
Z-117 While the Village formally adopted the referenced Affordable Housing Policy in
April 2006, to the best of my knowledge, it has not yet turned any part of that policy into
law. The net effect is to allow developers to lock in their preferred type of housing
construction on the remaining available parcels of available land, without reference to
any Draft Comprehensive Plan. (Cowan, letter, 6/25/07)
Comment noted and affordable housing legislation is part of the Proposed Action.
Chapter 5 of the DGEIS discusses affordable housing in more detail and Chapter 7 of
the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan is entirely devoted to affordable housing.
The proposed affordable housing legislation is supported by the recommendations in the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Village Affordable
Housing Policy adopted in 2006.
59
Z-118 We recommend that the Village work to ensure that new developments as a result
of the Plan’s implemented zoning include units set aside as affordable to a family at or
below 80% of area median income. (Buroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
Z-119 The Planning Board also recommends that the housing policy be altered to
require affordable units when the development consists of 10 or more total fair market
units. The current requirement requires an affordable unit starting at 6 fair-market units.
The option of payment in-lieu of housing units should be limited and have a very high
threshold for implementation and the minimum payment should be raised and consistent
with construction costs. (Planning Board, memo, undated)
Comment noted. Altering the current policy and proposed legislation to require
affordable units at 10 units instead of 6 will ultimately provide less affordable units to the
Village. It would eliminate smaller projects from needing to provide affordable housing to
the community and the Village wants to be able to provide as many units as possible.
Chapter 5 of the DGEIS discusses affordable housing in more detail and Chapter 7 of
the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan is entirely devoted to affordable housing.
The proposed affordable housing legislation is supported by the recommendations in the
60
PROPOSED ACTION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
General
CP-1) Against the recommendation concerning ETPA in the Draft Comprehensive Plan
(J. Gershner, letter, 6/4/07)
Strategy 1.4 of Chapter 7 Affordable Housing of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan states that the Village Board should “Take a closer look at the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) and consider whether adopting rent control
measures will further the affordable housing goals of the Village’s adopted Affordable
Housing Policy and Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan; and Consider the
adoption of an alternative to the ETPA.”
This recommendation is based on the Affordable Housing Community Workshop which
was held at the Joseph G. Caputo Community Center on Thursday, January 4, 2007. At
that meeting which was advertised and open to the public, many participants argued that
the Village should adopt a rent control measure, while others argued the counterpoint.
Strategy 1.4 responds to that debate. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
Committee, in reviewing the draft recommendations and the draft Plan decided that the
topic which had consumed so much of the workshop and about which there was so
much passion could not be ignored.
The commenter should note that the Plan does not recommend that the Village adopt or
not adopt ETPA or similar legislation, but rather investigate what are the advantages and
disadvantages of doing so.
CP-2) The recommendation to “undertake an active membership recruiting
process”…this would seem to be the Village taking on the responsibility of recruiting for
the Chamber. (Gordon, letter, 6/11/07)
Strategy 1.3 of Chapter 4 The Downtown Crescent and Economic Development states
that the Village Board should “[i]n the short term, appoint an existing staff person to help
coordinate efforts among the local business organizations and in the long term hire a
“Main Street Manager,” in order to help coordinate the already existing downtown efforts
of the local not-for-profits and work towards implementing a plan that would move all
efforts forward.”
Among the roles of the Main Street Manager would be to “improve outreach to
businesses located in downtown which might not be familiar with organizations like the
Chamber of Commerce or ADO. This would entail undertaking an active membership
recruiting process focused on Downtown businesses, particularly those geared towards
Spanish-only speakers.”
The Plan recommends that the Main Street Manager would work with the Chamber of
Commerce, Alliance for Downtown Ossining or other local business organizations to
coordinate efforts of local business owners. Part of this effort should include outreach to
those businesses which are not already involved in local business groups and might
benefit from membership, particularly those businesses managed by Spanish-only
speakers. The Plan does not envision that the Main Street Manager or any other61
representative of the Village take on this effort alone, but rather aid existing business
groups including the Chamber of Commerce to help recruit members in order to improve
communication and coordination in the downtown area.
CP-3) It is hereby suggested that, in Section H of the Draft Comprehensive Plan for the
Village of Ossining, below the paragraph which reads Ferry Service, there be added
another paragraph which reads as follows:
Ossining Boat and Canoe Club—This Club should, for the following reasons, be
regarded as an asset to Ossining, whose continuance should be encouraged by
Ossining. The Club has many members who are skilled in practical arts such as
carpentry, plumbing, maintenance of boat motors, and moving and handling docks,
boats and moorings in the Hudson River. Those members use such skills to keep the
Club’s yearly operating costs so low that many people from communities outside
Ossining elect to moor their boats at the Club. A result is that patronage and money
from such people flow into Ossining to benefit its economy. (Ruloff F. Kip, Jr., letter,
6/20/07)
Objective 2 of Chapter 3 Waterfront of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan is
to “[m]ake Ossining a destination for low-impact boating and other water-oriented uses.”
The Plan notes that there are only a few existing uses on the waterfront including the
Ossining Boat and Canoe Club. The Plan states that “water-dependent uses which
increase residents’ enjoyment of the river should be encouraged.” This strategy
recognizes the importance of the Boat and Canoe Club to the Ossining community and
is intended to protect its place on the Ossining waterfront.
CP-4) Waterfront access and views are priceless. Development may be necessary to
Ossining’s future, but in general it should NOT take place on the waterfront. Don’t
despoil something that is both a civic trust for future generations and, speaking
practically, a great potential tourist draw. Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
(A. Lauinger, letter, 6/28/07)
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the Village’s Hudson
River frontage is a unique aesthetic, historic and environmental resource which also has
potential for economic development and redevelopment. In order to balance these
various interests, the Draft Plan will be amended to articulate in Objective 3 that the
Village promotes development that will provide amenities, services and attractions that
will draw people to the waterfront. The Draft Plan will also be amended to recommend
that the Village Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board should create zoning for
developments in the waterfront to provide waterfront recreational opportunities on their
properties, regardless of the land use of the parcel and to make those uses publicly
accessible when possible
Objective 5: Preserve Public Views of the Hudson River and Palisades of Chapter 3
Waterfront in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan states that zoning should
be adopted that will protect views of the Hudson River by restricting total width of
developments allowed on a parcel to preserve view corridors. To further this objective,
62
the Draft Plan also recommends that view corridor preservation should be considered as
part of the planned development site plan review process.
Objective 8: Re-write the Zoning for the Waterfront Areas states that “[t]he existing
zoning should be examined and re-written to address the inadequacies in the current
zoning, including a reexamination of bulk standards (including height and setbacks);;
preservation of views, public access, RiverWalk, open space, shoreline and streambank
stabilization, waterfront recreation, affordable housing and historic preservation.” All of
inadequacies listed above of the existing zoning were identified as a priority in the
redevelopment of the waterfront area at the public meetings and survey. The Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan specifically states that the Village should encourage
carefully designed and orderly development plan for the riverfront area including the
protection of the quality of the natural environment; recreational, open space,
commercial, business and residential uses that will benefit from and, in turn, enhance
the unique aesthetic, recreational, historic and environmental qualities of the waterfront
area. The Draft Plan also includes recommendations for zoning in this area to contain
provisions for services, and attractions that will draw people to the riverfront and
encourage public use and enjoyment of the area including water-dependent and waterrelated uses of the area; and opportunities for public access to and enjoyment of the
riverfront area and shoreline. Please see comment Z-46 under the Zoning Section of the
FGEIS for more information on the Proposed Action Zoning and the proposed
amendments of the waterfront area to the Proposed Action Zoning. Details on the land
uses and zoning of the waterfront area can be found in Chapter 3 of the DGEIS.
CP-5) Waterfront: We need to focus on putting services and amenities in that area, such
as restaurants and shops. In order to do that the parking issues must be addressed to
make the area attractive to potential merchants. (Anonymous, letter, 11/29/07)
Objective 3 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan states that the Village
should “[p]rovide amenities, services and attractions that will draw people to the
waterfront.” We agree that among these services and amenities should be restaurants
and shops. The Planned Waterfront sub-districts in the Proposed Action Zoning include
new parking standards to accommodate these uses on the waterfront. See Appendix C
of the Proposed Action Zoning Code for the proposed parking ratios in the waterfront
area.
CP-6) Try to resurrect your negotiations with GDC. We cannot afford to wait another two
years for a new developer to be designated. (Chamber of Commerce, letter, 1/1/08)
Objective 8: Re-write the zoning for the waterfront areas of Chapter 3 Waterfront of the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan states that among other goals, the Village,
Planning and Zoning Boards should encourage:
• “The development of attractive, appropriately scaled mix of uses that will provide
economic support for the Village while protecting the sensitive aesthetic,
recreational, historic, and environmental features that exist in the waterfront;”
63
• “An increase in current permitted densities, in order to allow for development that
will help pay for the remediation of brownfields, provide identified public
amenities as part of the proposed development, and take advantage of locations
adjacent to the train station that offer spectacular views of the Hudson.”
CP-7) Start planning for the creation of the Village Green. (Chamber of Commerce,
letter, 1/1/08)
Comment noted. This comment is consistent with Strategy 3.2: Create a Village Green
of Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan.
CP-8) Solicit RFP’s for Market Square and the Spring Street parking lot (and DPW, if
necessary) and reserve 155 Main Street for Hudson Arts Foundation. (Chamber of
Commerce, letter, 1/1/08)
The comment is consistent with the objectives and strategies outlined in Chapter 4
Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 3.3 recommends infilling buildings on the existing market
square and parking lots at intersection of Spring and Main Streets.
CP-9) Finalize the planning for the parking garage. (Chamber of Commerce, letter,
1/1/08)
This comment is consistent with Strategy 4.2: Continue efforts to expand public parking
of Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan will be amended to state that the Village Board should
consider making the three-level parking deck on Brandreth Street, as proposed by the
Village, or structured parking at another location, a reality.”
CP-10) Approve the Hudson Arts Foundation proposal for a Performing Arts Center at
155 Main Street. (Chamber of Commerce, letter, 1/1/08)
Strategy 2.7 in Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan states that the Village Board, Main Street
Manager, and Planning Department in cooperation with other downtown entities, such as
the Chamber, ADO, or proposed BID, should work to establish a cultural destination that
would attract visitors to the downtown during nights and weekends. Although the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan supports the creation of a cultural venue in
the downtown area, it does not specify a location or a developer.
CP-11) Engage the ADO to administer the Downtown Development Fund. (Chamber of
Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Alliance for Downtown Ossining (ADO),
64
the Ossining Chamber of Commerce, and/or other downtown non-profit entities work
closely with Village staff in the Village’s efforts to boost economic development in the
Village’s downtown. The Proposed Action does not recommend a specific organization
with which the Village should work on its efforts in the downtown area.
CP-12) Advise the owner of the oil tanks that Ossining is prepared to condemn them
unless the property is sold for a reasonable sum of money. (Chamber of Commerce,
letter, 1/1/08)
Strategy 3.2 of Chapter 3 Waterfront states that the Village should provide parks and
recreational space wherever possible. Among the parcels highlighted in the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan that would be ideal for future park space includes the
existing tank farm located on the waterfront and owned by Paradise Oil Company. The
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan makes this recommendation in case the
parcel ever becomes available. However, the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan does not make any recommendations for or against the condemnation of this
property.
CP-13) Obtain a professional analysis as to whether the proposed zoning code allows
sufficient height and density for development. (Chamber of Commerce, letter, 1/1/08)
The Village of Ossining also appointed a Comprehensive Plan Committee that consisted
of 15 people to help guide the process, a number of whom have real-estate
backgrounds. The Comprehensive Plan Committee established in 2005 included two
commercial real estate brokers, Joy Solomon and Jerry Gershner, who is also President
of the Ossining Chamber of Commerce. Antonio Da Cruz an architect, who is also a
landlord for a few multi-family houses, was on the Committee as well as Joyce Lannert,
AICP, who is a former Commissioner of Planning for Westchester County. The
Committee also included a representative from a non-for profit organization, IFCA, that
has experience in residential development, rehabilitation, and management of rental
units. All of theses members have experience or knowledge in the development field. In
addition, various developers were consulted by the Planning Department throughout the
formulation of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Action
Zoning and LWRP, and input from these developers was incorporated into the Proposed
Action. Furthermore, the Zoning Code Subcommittee also contained professionals from
the development sector as well as the Chairs of the Zoning and Planning Boards. Input
from professionals and developers who are very knowledgeable in the economics of
development were part of the creation of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
and Proposed Action Zoning.
CP-14) Spread the new affordable housing units around the village.
(Chamber of
Strategy 2.1 of Chapter 7 Affordable Housing in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan recommends amending the Zoning Code to provide affordable
housing units. This recommendation is consistent with the Affordable Housing Policy
65
adopted by the Village Board in April 2006. The strategy calls for the consideration of a
density bonus of 10 percent for all developments or major rehabilitations of six or more
units. Thus, any new development or major rehabilitations of six or more units regardless
of location in the Village would be required to provide 10 percent affordable housing
units. Please see Chapter 7 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and
Chapter 5 of the DGEIS for more information on affordable housing.
CP-15) Eliminate the rent control concept from the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
(Chamber of Commerce, letter, 1/1/08)
See answer to CP-1.
CP-16) Page 2, 1st paragraph. Ossining is 30 miles north of the city, not 40. This is an
important difference to commuters so it should be accurately reflected.
(Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
The commenter is correct. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan will be
amended to say “approximately 30 miles.”
CP-17) Page 22. 2nd paragraph on right side of page should explicitly include mention of
the little restaurant (formerly Sellazzo’s), since the other businesses are explicitly
mentioned. Otherwise could be construed as prejudicial. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Sellazzo’s had been closed for many years. A new restaurant opened in the former
Sellazzo’s just a few months ago and it will be noted in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan.
CP-18) Page 17. The image of Sparta dock lithograph was probably taken from
www.ossining.org. If so, the source should be acknowledged as The Hudson Valley Arts
and Science, Inc. (We spent a lot of time and money getting all those images up and
available. We need the acknowledgements to keep it going strong.) (Hougham, letter,
7/4/08)
Comment noted. The Hudson Valley Arts and Science, Inc. will be given proper photo
credit.
CP-19) Page 20, a typo. 2nd paragraph down in the Riverwalk sidebar. The pedestrian
walkway between Ossining and Croton is, I believe, named “Crossining,” not “Crossing.”
It was a play on words by Chervokas. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Commenter is correct. The typo will be corrected.
CP-20) Page 21. The section on access to Sparta Dock should be updated to include
new data on the Scarborough Train station rebuild which is now underway. The
uncertainty in bullet number 1 from the time of writing is probably clarified by now.
(Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
66
Commenter is correct. The language will be updated to state that the bridge will have to
be made ADA accessible.
CP-21) Page 33, right side of page, (b) should say “pedestrian walkways and bicycle
routes.”
The amenities listed are from the existing Zoning Code regulations for the WD-1 zoning
district and not language in the Proposed Action Zoning.
CP-22) Page 33, right side of page, (c) should say…and temporary, mobile commercial
uses such as antique fair tables, farmer market, food and beverage vendors (not
excluding alcohol beverages) by permit. (I can easily imaging a nice riverside food
vendor tent serving light meal with wine or beer. Could be very pleasant and bring in
people.) (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
See answer to CP-21.
CP-23) Page 34, right sides of page. It says “for public ingress, egress, access to
riverfront area…” It does NOT explicitly say access to the RIVER ITSELF. I think it
should. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Comment noted. The bullet listed under Objective 8: re-write the zoning for the
waterfront areas currently states, “Opportunities for public ingress, egress, access to and
enjoyment of the riverfront area and shoreline.” Bullet will be amended to read,
“Opportunities for public ingress, egress, access to and enjoyment of the riverfront area
and shoreline, including the river itself.”
CP-24) Page 73. Another acknowledgement oversight. The lithograph of the double
arches was taken from the www.ossining.org website.
The source should be
acknowledged as “Hudson Valley Arts and Science,Inc.” (G. Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
See answer C-18.
CP-25) Overall we found that the overall goals and recommendations are consistent with
the County Panning Board’s long-range planning policies and strategies set forth in
Westchester 2025. (E. Buroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
Comment noted. The formulation of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
included consideration of the County Planning Board’s long-range planning policies and
strategies set forth in Westchester 2025.
CP-26) The Plan could call for investigation of how pedestrian circulation over this
(topography between waterfront and downtown) steep slope can be improved through
innovative means. (E. Buroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
67
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan makes several recommendations for
improving pedestrian circulation between the downtown Crescent and waterfront areas.
These include:
• Chapter 3 The Waterfront; Strategy 3.2 states that zoning incentives should be
provided to developers of the former Village-owned DPW site to create a walking
path along the Sing Sing Kill which could serve as a “nature trail linkage between
the Main Street area and the waterfront.”
• Chapter 4 The Downtown Crescent and Economic Development; Strategy 3.7
provides recommendations to connect the downtown Crescent to the waterfront
area including providing safe, attractive, well-lit and landscaped sidewalks;
enhancing views of the Hudson by providing viewing areas; and using signage to
direct visitors to the waterfront.
• Chapter 5 Transportation; Strategy 2.1 calls for improving pedestrian circulation
throughout the Village. Among the recommendations are that the Village, Planning
and Zoning Boards take pedestrian circulation into account as part of any future
site plan review.
• Chapter 5 Transportation; Strategy 3.1 recommends that the Village consider
establishing a Village shuttle bus/jitney service between the waterfront and
downtown.
For additional details and analysis on pedestrian circulation please see Chapter 10,
Public Health, Chapter 13 Scenic, Cultural, and Historical Resources, and Chapter 14
Parks and Recreation of the DGEIS.
CP-27) We recommend that the Plan call for regular discussions between Village
officials and the County Department of Environmental Facilities, given that the Proposed
Action Zoning changes could have impacts on the wastewater treatment plant.
Increased density on the waterfront could strain the plant’s permitted capacity limits. (E.
Burroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
The Village consulted Westchester County for information on the statements included in
Chapter 8 Utilities and Infrastructure of the DGEIS. Page 284 lists the contacts at the
County that were contacted concerning the infrastructure capacities. Gina D’Agrosa
Westchester County, Director of Water Agency, and Jagdish V. Mistry, P.E., Director of
the Wastewater Treatment Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities
were both contacted in May 2008.
As noted in Section 8.2.2 of Chapter 8: Utility Infrastructure of the DGEIS, the Village is
served by a sanitary sewer system that discharges to and is treated at the Ossining
Wastewater Treatment Facility owned and operated by Westchester County. In addition
to the Village of Ossining, the plan also serves the Village of Briarcliff Manor, Village of
Croton-on-Hudson, Town of Ossining and Town of Mt. Pleasant. As Section 8.2.2
describes, when once the plant reaches 95 percent capacity, Westchester County is
required to look at plant expansion.
As noted in Section 8.3.3 of the same chapter, currently the plant processes about 5.3
million gallons per day (MGD) and can handle up to 7 MGD. Based on projected
68
development if the Proposed Action Zoning were adopted, it is not anticipated that there
will be a need for upgrades to the plant. However, if new development exceeds
projections the properties in the sewer district would be responsible for paying for any
new expansions or upgrades.
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan will be amended to call for regular
discussions between Village officials and the County Department of Environmental
Facilities when new developments are proposed in the Village of Ossining.
CP-28) No ETPA recommendation in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. (A. Schatz, letter,
9/26/08)
Please see answer to CP-1.
CP-29) Village officials should take the positions that Sing Sing should be shut down and
make it known in Albany. (Previous sentenced was paraphrased) “Imagine if the
property was redeveloped along the lines of Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco.” (A.
Schatz, letter, 9/26/08)
The State has jurisdiction over Sing Sing Correctional Facility, which has been at its
location on Ossining’s waterfront since 1825. However, it should be noted that the prison
is not anticipated to close down over the horizon period of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan, i.e., twenty years. When and if, the prison is ever closed Strategy
8.7 of Chapter 3 Waterfront of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
recommends that the zoning and future plans for the Sing Sing area “are consistent with
the intent and guidelines for the waterfront area.”
CP-30) I would seriously question whether such a facility in that location would develop
enough revenue to pay for the Debt Service. A far more satisfactory solution would be
to put decks over the parking lots at 2 Church Street and the Post Office. (A. Schatz,
letter, 9/26/08)
Please see comment CP-9 for more information on structured parking. In the Proposed
Action Zoning structured parking is a conditional use.
CP-31) I recommend that the entire Plan be sent back to the drawing board with at least
two different development company representatives actively participating in creating a
viable plan. (N. Stolatis, public hearing, 10/1/08)
The Village of Ossining also appointed a Comprehensive Plan committee that consisted
of 15 people to help guide the process, a number of whom have real-estate
backgrounds. The Comprehensive Plan Committee established in 2005 included two
commercial real estate brokers, Joy Solomon and Jerry Gershner, who is also President
of the Ossining Chamber of Commerce. Antonio Da Cruz an architect, who is also a
landlord for a few multi-family houses, was on the Committee as well as Joyce Lannert,
AICP, who is a former Commissioner of Planning for Westchester County. The
Committee also included a representative from a non-for profit organization, IFCA,
69
that has experience in residential development, rehabilitation, and management of rental
units. All of theses members have experience or knowledge in the development field. In
addition, various developers were consulted by the Planning Department throughout the
formulation of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Action
Zoning and LWRP, and input from these developers was incorporated into the Proposed
Action.
In addition, as detailed above, the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan was
crafted through an open and inclusive public outreach process involving the participation
of local resident stakeholders including Village residents, Village activists, local
organizations, and civic leaders. The Plan also had input from the Village’s local
governmental Boards and Committees including the Board of Trustees, the Planning
Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Historic Review Commission, and the
Environmental Advisory Council. It also had professional Village staff from the Planning,
Building, Water and Engineering Departments and outside professional urban planning,
architectural, and engineering consultants provide input as well. There were ample
opportunities for community members, including developers to add their input and
feedback regarding various components of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan and Proposed Action Zoning and LWRP. There were a total of nine public meetings
which were widely advertised in newspapers, the Village website, and local newspapers.
There were also public comment periods after the draft recommendations were
presented to the public and then after the draft Plan was presented to the public. These
meetings were well attended and, in fact, members of the development community
attended many of the public meetings. In addition, the Village received many comments
from interested community members including developers.
Chapter 1 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and the DGEIS details the
public participation and outreach.
Given this diversity of stakeholders, the
recommendations outlined in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan took into
account a variety of concerns including among others, land use patterns, traffic
circulation, fiscal implications, economic development, community character, open space
and recreation, the preservation of historic buildings and the natural environment, etc.
Please see the DGIES for more information. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan attempts to take into account these various concerns, attempting to strike a balance
that will protect the quality of the environment and the public health, safety and general
welfare. Therefore, although development concerns were taken into account in the
formulation of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan, these concerns were not
considered exclusively, but rather in concert with other stakeholders.
CP-32) The plan acknowledges that many residents have expressed concern regarding
the One Harbor Square project. It forewarns that without a strong plan implemented with
appropriate zoning the Village faces “a future where access to and views of the Hudson
River would be blocked by private development.” Scenic Hudson agrees. We
participated in the SEQRA review of the Harbor Square project and, likewise, were
disappointed with the resulting height, massing, and scale of the building as well as lack
of open space on the site.
Thus, we hope that upon adoption of the new
Comprehensive Plan and zoning law, future development on the Village’s waterfront70
will be appropriately scaled and sited, providing economic opportunity and tax ratables
while protecting views and providing vibrant public open space and natural resource
protection. (J. Anzevino, Scenic Hudson, letter, 10/10/08)
Objective 5 of Chapter 3 Waterfront of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan is
to “preserve public views of the Hudson River and Palisades.” The Plan states that the
Village should adopt zoning which regulates building widths on waterfront parcels and
makes view corridor preservation a part of site plan review. Chapter 3 Land Use and
Zoning and Chapter 13 Scenic, Historic, and Cultural Resources provide more details on
new heights and bulk of the Proposed Action Zoning. Comment Z-46 under the Zoning
section of the FGEIS, details additional amendments for the Proposed Action Zoning for
the waterfront areas.
CP-33) Obviously, the Plan is fatally flawed and should be returned for reconsideration
and redrafting. Our community deserves much better than this. As a taxpayer, I look to
my Village officials not to rush the process and jeopardize our community’s opportunity
to set itself on a productive and practical path to revitalization. To get it right, I strongly
recommend that at least two different developers be invited on to the Plan committee to
correct the errors and hopefully prevent the errors from intruding into the Plan to be
created. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see response to comment CP-31.
CP-35) I question why no developers were formally invited to be part of the Plan
committee. This oversight, intentional or otherwise, has shortchanged our community
from access to a valuable resource, a font of information, and an expert in the process
about which this Plan is focused on. The novices who worked on this Plan were clearly
not up to the task of preparing such a critical analysis and evaluation. (P. Stolatis,
letter, 10/13/08)
Please see response to comment CP-31.
CP-36) The objections being raised here are that the Plan is structured in such a way as
to make the attainment of these principles exceedingly expensive to accomplish, and, in
some cases, contrary to the stated public goals of the Plan, seem to be pursuing a
hidden agenda to frustrate certain development. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
All of the Proposed Action Zoning amendments that are part of the Proposed Action or
are outlined in the FGEIS retain similar, or in many instances increase, the permitted
densities and heights above current zoning except the current WD-2 located west of
Hudson Street and the portion of the Hunter Street properties that are currently zoned
WD-2 (see the Proposed Action Zoning map for delineation of the zones along Hunter
Street). The new Proposed Action Zoning for Hudson Street WD-2 is discussed and
outlined in more detail in Chapter 3, 13, 14, and 17 of the DGEIS. Some Hunter Street
properties will be re-zoned to T- Two-Family (zoning allows single and two family
homes), which is in characteristic with the uses currently located on the small
71
properties that line Hunter Street. Please see comment Z-46 of the Zoning section in the
FGEIS.
CP-37) The ranks of the likely challengers to the Final EIS and Zoning Code are few and
well known. Playing defense is sometimes an effective offense. We recommend that
Village officials meet with those parties to determine if there is some mutual agreement
possible that could forestall legal challenge with its unknown consequences. As I know
that you are aware, in situations such as this, plaintiffs have everything to win and
nothing to lose, while for the village the reverse is true. No one likes to make decisions
under threat of litigation but the alternative to compromise now may be years of costly
litigation and a much-delayed resolution and implementation of the zoning code. (J.
Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
Comment Noted. All comments that have been made in this process have been
carefully considered. Comments from various parties including affected landowners
have caused further study which will result in a number of changes to the Proposed
Action Zoning as described in the FGEIS. These changes will come about as a result of
their merit from a community planning standpoint and not because of the threat of a legal
challenge.
Economic Development
CP-38) Retail Conclusions for Ossining…Did they mean “this can be done by attracting
the Gap”…or cannot…”but by capitalizing on”? (Gordon, letter, 6/11/07)
Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan states that “Ossining is at a competitive disadvantage” for stores
such as the Gap “for compounding reasons: (1) chain stores like to cluster together; (2)
they do not like to “pioneer” (i.e., be the first one in the cluster); (3) they gravitate to
locations proximate to greater wealth and/or highway convenience; (4) the Hudson River
cuts the potential trade area down to a semi-circle rather than a full circle; and thus river
towns are at a disadvantage compared to inland locations; and (5) there are other
business centers nearby with these clusters. Finally, many chain stores have prototypes
which they can “plug into” various locations with few variations. It would be a mistake for
Ossining to sacrifice its valuable historic downtown buildings to accommodate a national
chain store’s square footage and display window specification requirements.”
Therefore, in order for Ossining to increase visitors to downtown, it must build on the
assets it does possess—authentic historic architecture, soaring views of the Hudson,
pedestrian-friendly scale, ethnic and socio-economic diversity—to create and market its
downtown as a unique destination unlike any other in the region. Please see Chapter 4
Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan for more information on the Downtown and economic development
recommendations.
CP-39) Under Recommendations for Ossining it would be nice if some of the local
72
restaurants could have cabaret licenses, allowing music, jazz, classical, country, Latin,
maybe even karaoke. (Gordon, letter, 6/11/07)
Comment noted. Objective 2 in Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic
Development of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan is to “create a unique
dining and shopping destination to attract residents and visitors, both during the day and
at night.” This objective encompasses the ideas expressed in this comment.
CP-40) We believe that the ADO which is specifically focused on Downtown Ossining
should be the lead Downtown Coordinating Agency recognized by the Village of
Ossining to help it follow-up and implement the recommendations of the Master Plan.
(Hernandez, letter, 6/14/07)
Please see response to CP-11.
CP-41) Downtown definitely needs an economic “anchor,” whether it be a theater, art
gallery, museum, etc. Something is needed in town that will draw people into town
because of its uniqueness. Hopefully, side businesses and services will blossom,
allowing these visitors to stay for awhile. A prison museum seems a desperate idea and
tacky, especially if the prison is still in operation. Plus, it is not in a central location, away
from the central Main Street area. (Leonowicz, letter, 6/26/07)
Comment Noted. Strategy 2.7 in Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic
Development of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan calls for the creation of
a cultural venue downtown that would both benefit from and support a restaurant cluster
in the downtown area. However, Strategy 3.3 in Chapter 3 Waterfront calls for making
Sing Sing Correctional Facility an asset rather than a liability including exploring a
possible historic prison museum in the historic 1825 cell block. It is intended that the
Sing Sing museum would be a draw to RiverWalk and the waterfront. There have been
other efforts outside of the Comprehensive Plan concerning the Sing Sing Prison
Museum including an assessment of economic impacts and planning framework
conducted by a groups of graduate students from Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of
Public Service at New York University.
CP-42) Old Navy to replace the vacating Rainbow in the Arcadian would also appeal to
all. People want to spend their money here. (Cataldo and Moné, letter, 7/3/07)
Stores such as the one listed above would be able to go into the PC district where the
Arcadian Shopping Center is located. Please also see response to CP-38.
CP-43) We need a mix of business. A real ice cream shop or Wobble-type restaurant to
mix in with all the Latin-American places. An appealing bookstore would be a
tremendous asset and encourage community. It can appeal to everyone. I’m so worried
that all the new spaces are going to be filled with dollar stores and cell phone shops.
Yes, some are needed, but the key is balance. We want something for everyone.
(Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
73
Please see Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development, of the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan for more information on economic development
recommendations. Chapter 3, 15, and 18 of the DGEIS contain additional information
on economic development and the Proposed Action Zoning for the Village’s business
districts.
CP-44) Did the village research vacancy rates prior to proposing Arcadian Shopping
mixed-use residential? I think mixed-use office is a good idea, however with all the new
housing I would be interested in knowing what the Ossining vacancy rate is on current
housing. (Anonymous, letter, 11/29/07)
The Proposed Action Amendments include removing residential uses from the PC and
VC district which is included in the Arcadian Shopping Center. Please see response to
comment Z-114 in the Zoning section of the FGEIS for additional information on the
amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning in the PC district.
CP-45) As a guidance going forward it may be useful for the environmental review to
assess whether the approved One Harbor Square development is in conformance with
these view corridors and other guidelines for development and public access on the
waterfront. (Buroughs, letter 9/17/08)
It is already an approved project and is beyond the scope of the Proposed Action and
DGEIS.
CP-46) We suggest the plan could identify and discuss the role of a major attraction that
could be pursued to increase the number of visitors to the Village’s downtown.
(Buroughs, letter 9/17/08)
Please see Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan which provides a variety of strategies for creating a
draw in the downtown area particularly Strategies 2.1 through 2.11.
CP-47) If you want the “downtown” to be a viable area you will need to do something to
set it apart. (A. Shatz, letter, 9/26/08)
We agree. See Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan which provides a variety of strategies for
improving the appearance of the downtown area and the Village’s position to attract new
businesses which will draw people to the historic downtown.
CP-48) There is a major push to bring tourists to our village but to date there is no
interest in providing overnight accommodations. This could be done by instituting a B&B
ordinance, giving the entrepreneurs among us the opportunity to develop much-needed
housing. (Maureen Morgan, letter, 10/2/08)
74
We agree. See Strategy 2.11 in Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic
Development of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan which states that the
Village should “promote small-scale overnight accommodations in or near downtown and
other business or mixed-use districts.” The strategy calls for incorporating bed and
breakfast establishments into the zoning code and they are included in the business and
waterfront districts of Proposed Action Zoning.
CP-49) I know that a lot of the Ossining residents shop on Routes 9 and 133, which I
think is great, however I also agree that putting shopping and restaurants downtown is a
great idea, especially for those individuals coming across from Haverstraw. Ossining
does need the name-brand stores along the main roads and also in Arcadian Shopping
Centre. Yes, we are getting a Super Stop & Shop and I am highly excited, but we need
to focus on the empty stores in that shopping center as well as the empty stores in
Ossining. (Giovanna Conti, letter, 10/11/08)
We agree that vacancies should be filled along Routes 9 and 133 including the Arcadian
Shopping Center, as well in the downtown Crescent area. In order to fill those vacancies,
Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development provides a variety of
strategies to boost economic development in the Village including Objective 1 which is to
“promote Ossining as a desirable place to do business, focusing on regulatory reform
and capacity building.” See also Chapter 3, 15, and 18 of the DGEIS for more
information on how the Proposed Action promotes economic development.
CP-50) I agree with your strategy 1.1, Making Ossining a More Welcoming Place to do
Business. We need that and we need to support the business we currently have and
see how the new proposed business coincides with the current business. (Giovanna
Conti, letter, 10/11/08)
Comment noted.
Affordable Housing
CP-51) I note for the record that the no part of the Village Survey of several thousand
residents undertaken in the Spring of 2006 appears to have been used as a basis for
any of the affordable housing recommendations. (W. Cowan, M. Galiardi, and P.
Powell letter, 6/25/07)
To the contrary, the Village of Ossining Comprehensive Plan Survey results indicated
that a little over a third (36%) of the respondents thought there should be more
affordable housing which would consist of families making roughly between 50 and 80
percent of AMI in the Village of Ossining and a little over one-fourth of the respondents
were against more affordable housing. This does not present a decisive consensus. The
support for affordable housing in the survey as well as in the Village at large prompted
the Affordable Housing Policy, adopted in 2006, and Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan recommendations on affordable housing. The Proposed Action
Affordable Housing legislation contains regulations mandating a density bonus of 10
percent to those developments or major rehabilitation of six or more units where 10
75
percent of the units are provided to families making 80 percent or less of the area
median income (AMI) of Westchester County. The Proposed Action Affordable Housing
legislation offers a density bonus of 15 percent (rather than 10 percent) to developments
or major rehabilitations of six or more housing units where at least 10 percent of the
units are offered to those making less than 80 percent AMI which would be in the range
of $46,700 to $74,700 mentioned in the survey question. Developers are not required to
provide housing for these households. However, the incentive is there to those
developers who choose to take advantage of it.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the density bonuses afforded developers who
provide affordable units results in the same number of market rate units than if the
developer had not provide the affordable housing. Thus, the same amount of tax
revenue from the market rate units would accrue to the Village.
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan survey indicated that a large number of
residents (463 respondents or 32 percent) believe there is a significant need for senior
housing in the Village. In many instances, those seniors would fall into the category of
residents making 80 percent or less of AMI. Thus, the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan recommendations for affordable housing regulation which supports
the Village’s adopted Affordable Housing Policy is intended to provide housing for longtime Ossining residents who would prefer to stay in the Village than move elsewhere.
Finally, it should be noted that the recommendations for affordable housing are drawn
not only from the Village’s Affordable Housing Policy adopted in 2006 and the
Comprehensive Plan Survey, but also from community feedback received at the
affordable housing workshop (January 2007) and Draft Comprehensive Plan
recommendations workshop (May 2007). At these public forums many participants
discussed providing housing for young professionals who grew up in Ossining, but could
no longer afford to live there. The recommendations for affordable housing in the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan are intended to help these young people
remain in the Village.
CP-52) It is commendable that PPSA finds it as important to upgrade and rehabilitate
existing affordable housing, as it is to construct new affordable units. Heavy emphasis
should be placed on that point, especially in light of later comments below. (W. Cowan,
M. Galiardi, and P. Powell letter, 6/25/07)
We agree. The first objective listed in Chapter 7 Affordable Housing is to “preserve and
upgrade existing housing.”
CP-53) The Affordable Housing Fund: If the “great number of restrictions on…money”
are locally imposed, they should be removed, consistent with local needs. If they are
County or State imposed, then steps should be taken to petition for their removal, again
consistent with local needs. (W. Cowan, M. Galiardi, and P. Powell letter, 6/25/07)
We agree. The current restrictions placed on affordable housing trust fund money are
based on New York State Law. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
identifies this restriction as an issue that needs to be addressed and under Strategy 5.1
76
in Chapter 7 of the Draft Comprehensive Plan it states “seek legislation that allows
alternative municipally-controlled funding mechanisms.”
CP-54) I heartily support the proposed advocacy recommendations, especially as they
relate to creation of a local Housing Development Corporation (HDC). Without that, the
proposed Affordable Housing Fund is severely limited in what it can be used for. (W.
Cowan, M. Galiardi, and P. Powell letter, 6/25/07)
Comment noted.
CP-55) Furthermore, every effort should be made to persuade and/or pressure
developers to meet affordable housing requirements, instead of providing payment-inlieu. The list of allowable uses of affordable housing funds is so limited as to be only
marginally useful. If, for whatever legitimate reason, the developer cannot meet the
affordable percentage requirement, then there should be an additional penalty
assessment. Ten percent is already a low requirement compared to some other
Westchester communities. (W. Cowan, letter, 6/25/07)
Under Strategy 2.1 in Chapter 7 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan it
states “amend the zoning code to provide affordable housing units” it includes language
that expresses that the preference “should be on-site development of affordable
housing, particularly for multi-family housing or large-scale, single-family developments
that are proposing to develop ten units or more” and a “developer should have to prove a
hardship for not building the affordable units onsite.” Chapter 5, Housing, in the DGEIS
contains additional information on affordable housing.
Providing ten percent of units as affordable is consistent with neighboring communities.
As of the writing of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan, neighboring
communities in Westchester had the following set-asides:
Community and Data Zoning Adopted
Set Aside %
Town of Bedford, amended in 2005
10% single family subdivisions & 20%
multi-family
Village of Hastings, adopted in 2001
10% set-aside applies to any residential
development of 10 or more units (single
family, two family or multi-family)
Town of Greenburgh, adopted in 1996
10% of new units in multi-family districts
Town of North Salem, adopted in 2000
10% and 20% set asides in selected
districts
Village of Port Chester, adopted in 2004
10% of new multi-family units in selected
districts
77
Town of Somers, adopted in 2003
10% multi-family units—limited to hamlet
centers and floating zone application
City of White Plains, adopted in 2001
6% set aside in new multi-family districts in
the downtown area
City of Yonkers, adopted as follow-up to 20% of new multi-family in East and
the 1988 Court mandated Housing Northwest Yonkers; can decrease to 10%
Remedy Order
in highly dense areas
Town of Yorktown, adopted in 2005
10% set-aside in residential subdivisions
and 10% set-aside if multi-family—but at
least 15% in new multi-family projects of
31+ units.
City of New Rochelle
10% set-aside rental and ownership
CP-56) I concur and support all of the proposed Zoning Code amendments, especially
those that require the developer to construct affordable units at the same time he is
constructing market-rate units. (W. Cowan, M. Galiardi, and P. Powell letter, 6/25/07)
Comment noted.
CP-57) People will talk about affordable housing, and I like to talk affordable housing,
too, and that’s affordable housing for everybody in the community. If there’s not
sufficient density—now, there has to be a balance in these matters, of course, but if
there’s not sufficient density in the developments that are coming along here, they’re not
gonna be strong enough tax ratables to maintain the affordability of this community for
everybody here. I personally know of people who are losing their houses for the taxes
alone who have them paid off. Some food for thought. (Eric Schatz, public hearing,
9/22/08)
The Proposed Action Affordable Housing legislation mandate of 10% affordable housing
in residential housing of 6 units of more would result in the same number of market rate
units as if there was no affordable housing mandate. The Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan recommends that in new developments and major rehabilitations of
six or more units, 10 percent of units should be affordable to those households making
80 percent or less of area median income. In return for this provision, the developments
will receive a 10 percent density bonus. Therefore, if a development of 10 units is
proposed, 10 percent or one unit would be affordable and the developer would be
eligible for a 10 percent or one unit density bonus. Thus, the development would include
one affordable unit and ten market rate units, the same number of market rate units as if
there was no affordable housing mandate.
The recommendations in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and the
Proposed Action Affordable Housing legislation also offer a density bonus of 15 percent
(rather than 10 percent) to developments or major rehabilitations of six or more
78
housing units where at least 10 percent of the units are offered to those making less
than 80 percent AMI.
Chapter 5, Housing, in the DGEIS contains additional information on affordable housing.
CP-58) I think we would do better if we could actually have people with disposable
income shopping in our stores and promoting economic development. …I would
encourage you not to be forcing it (affordable housing) all over the Village. (J. Gershner,
Please see Chapter 7 Affordable Housing, of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan and Chapter 5, Housing, of the DGEIS for analysis of affordable housing needs in
the Village of Ossining as well as the Planning reasoning behind the Proposed Action
Affordable Housing legislation. The first objective of the affordable housing strategies
listed in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan is to upgrade and preserve
existing affordable units. However, the creation of new units would also help house
these current residents.
In addition, it should be noted that the recommendations for affordable housing are
drawn not only from the Village’s Affordable Housing Policy adopted in 2006 and the
Comprehensive Plan Survey, but also from community feedback received at the
affordable housing workshop (January 2007) and Comprehensive Plan
recommendations workshop (May 2007).
Finally, please see answer to CP-58 which explains that the Proposed Action makes
recommendations for inclusionary zoning legislation to provide affordable housing in the
Village, which offers a 10 percent density bonus for developers who set-aside ten
percent of units in a development as affordable to households making 80 percent AMI or
less. This density bonus would result in the same number of market-rate units than if no
affordable housing were provided. Therefore, the proposed inclusionary zoning should
result in the same number of residents with “disposable income.” The recommendations
in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Action Affordable
Housing legislation also offer a density bonus of 15 percent (rather than 10 percent) to
developments or major rehabilitations of six or more housing units where at least 10
percent of the units are offered to those making less than 80 percent AMI.
CP-59) This same ordinance could also be used to provide more affordable housing in
the village without major investment and political capital. This also may afford overtaxed
homeowners the ability to survive in this village, not a small issue. (Morgan, letter,
10/2/08)
Please see answer to CP-57 and CP-58.
CP-60) In the Planning Board’s opinion, providing 10 percent of the dwelling units in the
development as affordable seems to be reasonable. The Village must carefully structure
the implementation of the AH Policy to insure that the Village addresses the areas where
affordable housing is appropriate to meet the needs outlined in the survey results. A
significant deficiency in the AH Policy is the lack of ability to construct affordable rental
and senior housing. An additional key goal of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and the
79
AH Policy should include a statement that outlines a strategy to eliminate substandard
housing. Overall, the Village needs to create a mechanism that ensures that it has a
balanced housing practice and is consistent with other Westchester communities.
(Planning Board, memo, undated)
We agree. Objective 1 of Chapter 7 Affordable Housing of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and upgrade existing housing. Please see the
strategies which are listed to accomplish this objective including:
• Strategy 1.1: Facilitate the preservation and upgrade of existing affordable housing
units;
• Strategy 1.2: Maintain a current inventory of affordable units in the Village;
• Strategy 1.3: Better utilize the Village’s tenant/landlord relations council to the
maximum extent possible; and
• Strategy 1.4: Undertake a study to evaluate the potential effects of adopting a local
ETPA (Emergency Tenant Protection Act) or other rent stabilization mechanisms.
In addition, please also see Objective 5: Be strategic vis-à-vis regional affordable
housing needs and supports. Please see the following strategies are listed to accomplish
this objective including:
• Strategy 5.1: Lobby now for improvements in State Legislation;
• Strategy 5.2: Focus on legislation that allocates fair share obligations by wealth
and number of jobs;
• Strategy 5.3: Seek legislation that allows alternative municipally-controlled funding
mechanisms; and
• Strategy 5.4: Seek recalibration of Westchester County’s affordable housing
allocation.
Chapter 7 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 5 in the
DGEIS contain more information on Proposed Action Affordable Housing legislation.
CP-61) While no one would dispute the value of affordable housing in the abstract, the
proposed law is just one more impediment to desired redevelopment which is one of the
primary bases for the proposed legislation and Draft Comprehensive Plan. (A.
Please see answer to C-57 and CP-58.
CP-62) The Greater Ossining Chamber of Commerce, Inc. supports the concept of
affordable housing with limitations. We are concerned about the concentration of
affordable housing in the downtown area that is about to happen with the development
of 50 units on the Academy & State Street lot as well as 12 units at 135 Main Street.
In our opinion, what downtown Ossining needs is families with high disposable incomes
to shore up the poor state of the economy there. Further, Ossining is already de facto
80
affordable. There are many apartments available in Ossining at rents that meet the
criteria of affordable housing. We do not need to institutionalize more affordable
housing.
It must be noted, and certainly PPSA is aware of this, that the responses in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan Survey were not overwhelmingly in favor of affordable housing.
Specifically, only 0.3% of the respondents stated that they think that affordable housing
is needed in Ossining (Q. 14). Further, when questioned as to whether there is a need
for more affordable housing (defined as a family of 4 with an income of $46,7000 $74,700), only 36.1% said “Yes,” while 46.4% said “No” (Q. 16). Lastly, when asked
what attributes redevelopment should required, only 27% stated that there should be
affordable housing (Q. 22). (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see answer to CP-51. The recommendations listed in Chapter 7 Affordable
Housing are consistent with the Village’s Affordable Housing Policy adopted in April
2006 prior to the distribution of the Comprehensive Plan survey and prior to the hiring of
PPSA. In addition to the Village’s Affordable Housing Policy, the recommendations draw
upon responses to the Comprehensive Plan survey, feedback from the public affordable
housing workshop, as well as a thorough review by the affordable housing subcommittee of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Committee which included housing and land
use experts. Before the recommendations were finalized, they were thoroughly reviewed
by the Comprehensive Plan Committee, which included real estate, housing, zoning and
land use experts, as well as members of the Chamber of Commerce. The
recommendations were then presented at a public workshop devoted to the draft
recommendations. The recommendations listed in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan reflect the input and feedback of a number of community
stakeholders and attempts to strike a balance between these varying viewpoints.
Housing
CP-63) Illegal dwellings: This is a huge quality of life issue. These households are
dangerous and getting out of control. There needs to be enforcement on this issue.
(Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
Comment noted. Objective 5 listed in Chapter 8 Neighborhood Quality of Life of the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan focuses on alleviating Ossining’s residential
overcrowding problems. Various strategies are listed which include ways in which the
Village can improve enforcement of overcrowded housing. Chapters 5, 10, 16 and 17 of
the DGEIS discuss the impacts of the Proposed Action concerning enforcement.
CP-64) Page 36. What about senior housing as appropriate use? Look at the Phelps
Assisted living complex. Not bad looking and important to demographics of next 20
years. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Senior living facilities is being proposed as a permitted or conditional use in almost the
entire waterfront, residential and business districts. Please see the Proposed Action
Zoning for more details.
81
Parks and Recreation
CP-65) Note that, if the Sing Sing Museum becomes a reality, the Testwell site will stand
as the missing link between two important recreational destinations: Sparta Park and the
Sing Sing Museum.
The plan includes a recommendation to make the Tank Farm, which is not even
available into a park.
So much, the more reason for the plan to include a
recommendation for the Testwell Craig site, which is available. (Lauinger, letter,
6/29/07)
Strategy 3.2 of Chapter 3 Waterfront recommends the Village to “provide parks and
recreational space wherever possible.” Among the recommendations listed are for the
Village “to create incentives for the development of parkland on 47 Hudson Street pier
(which is the Testwell-Craig property). The plan notes that “[c]onsistent with other goals,
incentives should be offered to developers of this site to create a public park on the river
accessible via a public easement involving the existing pedestrian bridge.” However, it
should be noted that the heli-pad, like the Paradise Oil tank farm, is privately owned and
the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan does not make recommendations for the
condemnation of either property.
CP-66) The village should, in cooperation with the county, state and whatever other
government bodies may be relevant, undertake a good faith effort to buy the Testwell
Craig site, and turn the whole site, not just the helipad, into a Riverwalk park. (Ann
Lauinger, letter, 6/28/07)
CP-67) Especially because the Plan envisions some development and some
construction of new housing—which will presumably result in further tree loss—the
preservation and vitality of parks and public spaces becomes all the more important.
The Draft Comprehensive Plan represents an opportunity to address the affirmative step
or planting trees in parks and public spaces. (Mallen and Moné, letter, 7/3/07)
Comment noted. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan will be amended to
add language to acknowledge the importance of tree replacements and new trees added
to the existing landscape of our parks and the Village at large.
CP-68) Consider designating the St. Ann’s property as potential parkland on the official
map or other planning map should the property be sold in the future. The property
provides recreational opportunities to lots of families in the community and there is not
another park nearby, especially one that Macy Park in Briarcliff is closed to Village
residents. (Polidoro, letter, 12/29/07)
Comment Noted. In Chapter 8 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan,
Neighborhood Quality of Life, Strategy 3.2 states “[c]reate new parks and open space.
The text of the strategy directs the Village to look for opportunities to create parks and82
open space as part of the site plan approval process on any large land parcels
institutional or otherwise. Additional language will be added to the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan to clarify that the negotiations of site plans should include
discussions of creating new public parks from larger land parcels.
CP-69) Page 29, 4th bullet on right-hand side. Should include “mandating not only
riverfront setbacks, but also periodic breaks in the riverfront construction or pathways to
accommodate “RiverLaunch,” i.e., informal kayak, etc. launch areas. (Hougham, letter,
7/4/08)
There are legal limitations for mandating access for the public on private property.
However, Strategy 2.1 in Chapter 3 Waterfront is to “permit and promote waterdependent and water-related uses on the waterfront” including “encouraging a proper
balance of water-oriented uses including access to and enjoyment of the waterfront area
that will be compatible with other waterfront uses and objectives…. These uses include
marinas, boat storage, ship repair, kayak/canoe rentals, and water-oriented restaurants
and retail.”
For more information on the Proposed Action Zoning in the waterfront areas please see
response to Z-46 of the Zoning section of the FGEIS.
CP-70) Page 30. Snowden Avenue, Route 9 intersection should have big sign pointing
to “WATER FRONT PARKS” and train station. Only Ossining insiders know this muchfaster route. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Comment noted. Please see Strategy 3.7 Connect the downtown Crescent to the
waterfront area in Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development which
includes recommendations to “use signage to direct visitors to the waterfront.”
CP-71) Page 104. Gerlach park amenities listing should include “horse trailer parking for
use on the NYState Bridal trail on the Croton Aqueduct.” (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Comment noted and information will be updated.
CP-72) Where possible, the term “Riverwalk” could also be amended with “Riverlaunch.”
This would imply periodic informal access points along the Riverwalk where folks could
put in kayaks, etc. It is important to keep periodic areas open as opposed to fenced for
long stretches. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
RiverWalk is a Westchester County initiative and was named by the County. However,
please see the answer to CP-69.
CP-73) Page 24. The existing and proposed expanded Village Pier should be explicitly
mentioned here as a key component of the riverfront revitalization plans. The hosting of
visiting educational ships, especially the Amistad America, the Hudson River Clearwater,
83
and the Half Moon replica, should be stated as key to bringing vitality and people to the
riverfront. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Language will be added to the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan to discuss
the current work on the Ossining dock and the possibilities of the future dock that include
the extension of the dock, educational ships, transient slips etc.
CP-74) Provide public amenities. It is unclear whether the draft GEIS assumes that
public amenities such as the RiverWalk, open space and right-of-way restoration will be
provided through the use of density incentives (81). If the Village wishes to ensure that
such amenities are provided, they should question whether these incentives are likely to
be used in all cases and consider the possibility that developers may opt not to take the
bonus provided. (Burroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
There are legal limitations for mandating access for the public on private property.
However, it is legal for the Village to enact incentive zoning which offers specific
incentives or bonuses in exchange for the provision of public benefits or amenities
(Village Law § 7-703). The Proposed Action proposes incentives for density bonuses in
the Waterfront Districts on the condition that specified public amenities are provided.
CP-75) Kemeys Cove was declared two or three years ago actually a Town of Ossining
Park, its name is properly the Town of Ossining Park at Kemeys Cove, and it was listed
in the—it was up there with “New York State Government Locations” and things like that.
I’d like you to note that the Kemeys Cove Park is not listed in any of the document pages
here talking about a park or—or parks in the Village of Ossining. It may in fact be a
Town of Ossining Park but there are other Town of Ossining parks so listed. I propose
that it be given the designation that it earned through the participation of citizens in the
Scarborough area who wanted it to be preserved. (Little, public hearing, 9/22/08)
Comment noted and the text will be amended to include Kemey’s Cove.
CP-76) It has come to light that there is a new tract of land on the Capelli project that
was not given to Capelli, and I would like to see if that could possible be turned into
parkland. (John Klapkowski, public hearing, 9/22/08)
Although this is not related to the DGEIS, all property associated with the Harbor Square
project is accounted for and no new property was found.
CP-77) My concern…is the Testwell parcel and the other parcels adjacent to it on the
west side of Hudson Street. Situated between an existing park and a proposed
museum, this narrow strip of land would ideally become parkland, making a substantial
contribution to Hudson River Greenway. (Lauinger, public hearing, 10/1/08)
84
Trees
CP-78) Trees: We continuously are losing trees to weather. Please replace with mature
trees. And these empty spaces where trees have often become impromptu soccer
fields, leaving behind a lot of litter. We’d like parks to be parks, and playing fields to be
playing fields. Again, we specifically would like tree replacement in Nelson Sitting Park
where we live. (Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
Comment noted. Please see response to CP-67.
Other Environmental Concerns
CP-79) The County Department of Planning produced the report in close collaboration
with the towns of Cortlandt, New Castle, Ossining and the villages of Croton-on-Hudson
and Ossining. The Plan should reference this overlay zoning strategy in the context of
the existing Watershed Conservation Action Plan’s continued implementation.
(Burroughs, letter, 9/17/08)
Comment noted and information on the Indian Brook-Croton Gorge Conservation Action
Plan will be added to the text of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
including the new inter-municipal agreement.
CP-80) I also wonder about the former Texaco fuel storage tanks on that property. Do
we have documentation of a cleanup? (Lauinger, public hearing, 10/1/08)
This comment is beyond the scope of the Proposed Action and DGEIS. However, many
sites in the waterfront area would likely benefit from environmental clean-up. Therefore,
density bonus incentives are offered to those development projects which remediate
contaminated soil as long as the projects are not receiving other government funding.
CP-81) A final problem: 47 Hudson Street formerly housed Texaco fuel storage tanks.
Is there documentation of any cleanup? (Lauinger, letter, 10/3/08)
CP-82) The EAC is concerned that DGEIS and the Draft Comprehensive Plan do not
adequately address LWRP regulations 7, 7A, 7B and 9. Specifically, these are left out of
the policies for rezoning. (Dorian Burden, EAC, letter, 10/13/08)
POLICY 9 of the LWRP is to “[e]xpand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in
coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks
and developing new resources. Such efforts shall be made in a manner which ensures
the protection of renewable fish and wildlife resources and considers other activities
dependent on them.”
Chapter 14 of the DGEIS discusses the LWRP policies related to parks and recreation.
Strategy 2.1 in Chapter 3 Waterfront of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
is to “permit and promote water-dependent and water-related uses on the waterfront”
including “encouraging a proper balance of water-oriented uses including access to85
and enjoyment of the waterfront area that will be compatible with other waterfront uses
and objectives. These uses include marinas, boat storage, ship repair, kayak/canoe
rentals, and water-oriented restaurants and retail.” The Proposed Action Zoning seeks
to continue Policy 9 of the LWRP by creating zoning that will emphasize the waterdependent and water-related uses. Please see the response to comment Z-46 of the
Zoning section of the LWRP of the FGEIS for more information on the Proposed Action
Zoning concerning the waterfront.
POLICY 7 of the LWRP states that, “significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, as
identified on the coastal area map, shall be protected, preserved, and, where practical,
restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats.”
POLICY 7A of the LWRP states that, “the designated coastal habitat at the croton river
and bay shall be protected, preserved and, where practicable, restored so as to maintain
its viability as habitat.”
POLICY 7B of the LWRP states that, “the locally important coastal wildlife habitat at
crawbuckie nature area shall be protected and preserved, so as to maintain its viability
as a habitat.”
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan will be amended to include language to
reflect the work and recommendations of the Indian Brook-Croton Gorge Conservation
Action Plan and the inter-municipal agreement. This will address the goals of Policy 7
and 7A of the LWRP. Furthermore, the Amended Proposed Action Conservation
Development District (Proposed Action PW-1) district will encompass the Crawbuckie
area and the goals of this zone are to maintain the level of development currently
allowed in the PRD. Please see the response to comment Z-46 of the Zoning section of
the FGEIS for more information on the Proposed Action Zoning of the waterfront.
CP-83) Additionally, the Greenway Project would bring more foot traffic to the
Crawbuckie area, yet the LWRP states that access should “remain at current levels”
(19A). These two should be made consistent. (Dorian Burden, EAC, letter, 10/13/08)
The LWRP states that “access to Crawbuckie should remain at current levels.” The
LWRP specifically states that “although regular maintenance is needed to keep trails
passable, and improved marking of unique vegetation would increase the area's
educational value, the use of Crawbuckie should remain passive in order to preserve the
area as a quiet retreat for Ossining residents.” Passive recreation is what is
recommended in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan (see Chapter 3 and
Chapter 8).
CP-84) Also, the EAC discussed whether the Draft Comprehensive Plan, in an effort to
protect the Croton River and Bay (also a regulation of the LWRP), should include
language to develop long-range goals for intermunicipal agreements to protect these
bodies of water. (Dorian Burden, EAC, letter, 10/13/08)
See response to comment CP-79.
86
CP-85) “The proposed action is expected to increase the number of cars on village
roadways, which may lead to a reduction in air quality.” The EAC recommends that the
“planting of trees and preservation of trees” should be included as a way to fulfill the
goals of creating an environmentally greener village and improving air quality. (Dorian
Burden, EAC, letter, 10/13/08)
Comment noted. See response to comment CP-67.
CP-86) Making “Ossining a more environmentally green” community is a goal of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan. “The Village of Ossining is committed to preserving the
protecting the natural environment.” Additionally, the quality of air has a significant
impact on public health. Trees in the environment do much to improve the air quality.
More trees in the village of Ossining would have the benefit of offsetting carbon
emissions and improving air quality for the residents of the Village of Ossining. More
trees in the village would also have the added benefit of improving stormwater
management, another strategy of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. (Dorian Burden, EAC,
letter, 10/13/08)
Comment noted. Please see response to comment CP-67.
Cultural and Historic Resources
CP-87) Historic character: Many historic features are being removed from the exterior
and interiors of these homes—the home across the street from mine removed all of the
stained glass windows, pocket doors and ornamental shingles and placed them in a
dumpster. (Polidoro, letter, 6/21/07)
Please see Objective 1: protect the Village’s valuable historic resources and Objective 2:
preserve the unique qualities of Ossining’s neighborhoods in Chapter 7 Neighborhood
Quality of Life of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. The strategies listed
under these objectives include expanding the powers of the Historic Preservation
Commission and consideration of designating neighborhood conservation districts.
Chapter 13 Scenic, Historic, and Cultural Resources discusses the impact the Proposed
Action has on the historic character and resources of the Village of Ossining.
CP-88) Can the Sing Sing property be used for another purpose—one that also will
serve a vital public function and perhaps stimulate even greater economic growth for
Ossining and Westchester? We would urge that the Planners and the Committee give
serious consideration to what seems to be a very promising plan for an Ossining
Performing
Arts
Center
proposed
by
the
Hudson
Arts
Foundation.
http://hudsonartsfoundation.org/hafcenter.html
We believe a center such as this would not only draw business and money to downtown
Ossining, it would likely be very popular with residents. Indeed, 61.8% of the residents
surveyed wanted to see MORE “Cultural” activity and 67.1% wanted MORE
entertainment. (Mallen and Moné, letter, 7/3/07)
87
We agree. Please see Strategy 2.7: Create a cultural venue downtown that would both
benefit from and support a restaurant cluster in Chapter 4 The Downtown Crescent and
Economic Development and Strategy 3.3: Make Sing Sing Correctional Facility an asset
rather than a liability.
CP-89) No doubt, the price of the Testwell site is steep. But I do not believe that either
the village or the county has so far made a serious effort to acquire it, which would
include seeking philanthropic contributions towards its purchase. Have foundations
been approached? Private donors? (Lauinger, letter, 6/28/07)
The Village has not approached private donors or foundations. The Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan does not make recommendations for the condemnation of
this property.
CP-90) Page 26. 1st paragraph right-hand side discusses the Sing Sing museum and
how the Village needs to ensure the design shows utmost respect to prisoners. Good
paragraph, but it could go further by pointing out how this brings an opportunity for
displays by such organizations as “The Innocence Project” and the “Legal Aid Society” to
openly discuss extant social injustice in America. (Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan intends to provide a brief discussion of
a possible Sing Sing Prison Museum. Details of the museum will need to be worked out
in a future date.
CP-91) A final suggestion would be to plan to have a village-wide tour of all 7 prerevolutionary war buildings. This winds through several neighborhoods and acts to
create a thread of continuity through other historic neighborhoods. (Hougham, letter,
7/4/08)
Comment noted.
CP-92) …it would be much better if the Testwell Craig property were made into a
riverside park. (Elizabeth Simpson, public hearing, 10/1/08)
Please see answer to CP-65 and CP-89.
CP-93) Support the proposal for the development of a cultural arts center in Ossining as
part of the Village’s Draft Comprehensive Plan.
(Melinda O’Brien & Michael J. Muldoon, letter, 6/11/08; Cynthia Bardwell, e-mail,
5/15/08; Nancy Boyd, e-mail, 5/14/08; Rev. Claire Woodley-Aitchison, e-mail,
5/15/08; Sal Oppedisano, e-mail, 5/15/08; Lauren Attinelly, e-mail, 5/15/08; Therese
Kelly, e-mail, 5/15/08; Cecilia Gutierrez, e-mail, 5/19/08; Christina Papadopoulos, email, 5/8/08; Candace Kniffen, e-mail, 5/16/08; Amy Seiden, e-mail, 5/13/08; Ibrahim
Abdallah, e-mail, 5/15/08; Elisabeth Hickey, e-mail, 5/14/08; Reina Fleury, e-mail,
5/15/08; Doris Ferraro, e-mail, 5/16/08; Teresa Duguet, e-mail, 5/12/08; Diana
88
Angelini, e-mail 5/12/08; Millie DeSalvo, e-mail, 5/13/08; Daysi Briones, e-mail
5/13/08; John Molinelli, e-mail, 5/19/08; Janet Thompson, e-mail, 5/19/08; Jeannette
Gerber, e-mail, 5/15/08; Jeffrey Lindenbaum, e-mail, 5/13/08; Jane Collen, e-mail,
5/12/08; Justine Lackey, e-mail, 5/15/08; Julianne Panagacos, e-mail, 5/18/08;
Henrietta Porter, e-mail, 5/15/08; Bill Irwin, e-mail, 5/12/08; Joan Biecke, e-mail,
5/15/08; Gayle Marchica, e-mail 5/15/08; Barbara Hough, e-mail, 5/17/08; Virginia
Loughlin, e-mail, 5/15/08; Elizabeth Harlow, e-mail, 5/9/08; Robin Gersten, e-mail,
5/15/08; Galia Silverberg, e-mail, 5/13/08; Julie Gross, e-mail, 5/13/08; Karen
Kennedy, e-mail, 5/14/08; Kay Hawley, e-mail, 5/14/08; Katie Gorycki, e-mail,
5/15/08; Kathleen Crowley, e-mail, 5/15/08; Jane Ozer, e-mail, 5/15/08; Andrea
Kimmich-Keyser, e-mail, 5/12/08; Kimberly Gregg, e-mail, 5/16/08; Lisa Stifler
O’Hanlon, e-mail, 5/13/08; Lisa Pitre, e-mail, 5/14/08; Korina Moran, e-mail, 5/13/08;
Wendy Tittel, e-mail, 5/13/08; Miki Weiss, e-mail, 5/15/08; Toni Scholl, e-mail,
5/15/08; Sue Jimney, e-mail, 5/14/08; Martha & Michael Klein, e-mail, 5/14/08;
Thomas Vincent, e-mail, 5/15/08; Susan Lasky, e-mail, 5/15/08; Jeffrey Smith, email, 5/19/08; Stephen & Linda Krivisky, e-mail, 5/12/08; Sherry Bailey, e-mail,
5/13/08; Steve Holton, e-mail, 5/15/08; Salvatore Oppedisano, e-mail, 5/15/08;
Sharon Frey, e-mail, 5/15/08; Shelley Glick & Steve Saper, e-mail, 5/16/08; Virginia
Pope, e-mail, 5/13/08; Rena Wilhelm, e-mail, 5/17/08; Robert Scholl, e-mail, 5/16/08;
Peter Clements, e-mail, 5/15/08; Peter Moran, e-mail, 5/21/08; Pat Unger-Scarduzio,
e-mail, 5/13/08; Peggy Monastra, e-mail, 5/16/08; Bonnie Rosborough, e-mail,
5/15/08; Norma Banas, e-mail, 5/16/08; Sue Stone, e-mail 5/8/08; Kari Nelson, email, 5/12/08; Mondana Rezania, e-mail, 5/8/08; Nina Wilson, e-mail, 5/15/08;
Teresita Najito, e-mail 5/13/08; Resa Mestel, e-mail, 5/15/08; Maxine Lawrence, email, 5/19/08; Mary & Russell Seacor, e-mail, 5/18/08; Theodore Donson, e-mail,
5/15/08; Marcia Sloman, e-mail, 5/15/08; Mili Ashar, e-mail, 5/7/08; Lydia Rivaud, email, 5/14/08; Lucy Dubray, e-mail, 5/14/08; Elizabeth Simpson, e-mail, 5/13/08;
Lynn Gissen, e-mail, 5/13/08; Peter Stolatis, letter w/petition attached, 5/19/08;
Humphrey Newland, Sharon Alpert, Phyllis Dunto, Richard Mushlin, Eleanor
Besen, Rugh De la Yospa, Carla Guenso, Daniel Heather, Kelly Heinacki, Paul
Helmann, Gayle, Umpt, Kathryn Howard, Karin Howard, Amie Cotton, Michael
Donnelly, Alex Walker, William Walker, Thomas Faryst, William Kruse, Mark Talhia,
H. Grossman, Mary Lou Morrissey, Jerome Morrisy, Maggie Guigb, Fin Safa,
Bridget Murphey, Jeffifer Wheeler, Thomas Olton, Frnk Meccia, S.R. Mujhol,
Aveilia Gutierrez, Shid After, Patrice Scully, Michael Karnes, Tarria Martin, Judi
Hark, Charlie Samuels, Loyh Ditterlzri, Demetra Seckares, Salvatore Resavia,
David Quentin, Rerriata Rutledge, Robert Fario, Felix Cortese, Claire Cronin, Onix
Garcia, Donna Nikic, Maureen Helliig, Peggi Gunter, Jana Wilson, Sandra Bilotio,
Rich Grimaldi, Donna Mikkelsen, Andrea Andrews, Beth Grecksti, Chrissanth
Gross, J. Gidd, Gadafentinetti, Suzanne Valetinello, Madeline Heepdendad, Mary
Ayers, Anthony Marino, Carol Ann Mananelli, Paul Mcusrelli, Jquies Meyerhoff,
Frnk Billak, Lanam Simmon, Joe Stakas, Robert Bailey, Laura Myerson, Debra
shor, Craig Schor, Richard Ann, John Anson, Florece Ginao, Gladys, Green, Ellen
Glazier, Peggy Weiss Gene Grenci, Balsa Zipkin, Ester Blanco, Lee Jacks, Sean
Amoto, Degon Amsti, Flow Doyle, Steve Schultz, Tanya Frohberg, Amy Cotter,
Danny Ferguson, Jeff Miller, Jim Mulligan, Maica Karalis, Roberta Shea, Sin Mrid,
Angela Hofnagel, Janice Shaw, Judy Lewis, Kimerbly Crane, Mike Cherrly, Rob
89
& Lisa Sussman, Sue Ruan, Patricia Boltin, Dana Levenberg, Mario Giacatone,
Troy Messenger, Lisa Monk, Sandra Aeujabon, Helen Gretter, Zandi Geyer, Matt
Usr, Lew Egol, Harry Frisch, Wayne Carca, Mary McFerran, Karen Djen, Shan
Varehger, Eliza Cooney, David Tuttle, Alice Kossin & Gary Godden, Steven &
Linda Stephenson, Lauren Peterson, Wiu Which, Joseph Avalio, Judi Hark, Nana
Hubner, Dorothy Milerlty, Russell Hammond, Gail Goodman, Rachel Benish, Robin
Field, Mark Wilbert, Barbara Aran, Marlene Cartaina, Judy Weissman, April
Krassner, Nancy Baligh, Susan Stone, Cathy Wells, Lauren Davis, Betty Hinkes,
Beth Maelana, Lisa Steiger, Lora Friedman & Bill DeLeno, Mark Castelano, Steven
Riedel, Daniel DeBeer, Janice St. Germain, Ann Theomarpes, Karen Werustock,
Gabriella Mirabelli, German Fragnso, Anne McClenan, Bob McKane, A. Carey,
Valerie Duboc, Fabiana Camillo, Myra Oney, Jean Shin, Jane Arnold, Rosemarie
Koory, Louis Pelosi, Patti Rosen, Connie Derbabian, Kristine Fornday, Amy Kohn,
Kim Smith, Eileen Hart, Wendy Kind, Lulanti Sink, S. Hotta, Hidenao Abe, Bridget
Cevasio, Jerry Fruill, Denise Bisaccia, L. Hahn, Edna Cabrera, Susan Johnson, DJ
Chair, Jean McGee, Michelle Swanson, Marlene Rudnick, Charles Bennett, Paul
Hofnagel, Denise & Lowell Knauer, Wayne Ellis, Andrew Ordover, Lois Dyer,
Joanne Livesey, Marcia Farrell, Erin McKeon, Donna Griffin, Evelyn Randegger,
David Golod, Suti Zatar & Kevin Conrad, Donna Barkman, Danla McCarthy, Rana
Faura, M. Hitckbon, Shari Rove, Jeannie Zraz, Susan Fahez, Mary Crescenzo,
Jennifer Ries, Helen Barolina, Barbara Thompson, Mary Green, Donald DuBar,
Doris Dubas, Frances Twiss, Marnie McGavis, Thomas McGowan, Miller Starin,
Stefani Starin, Jeffrey Starin, Mona Tascani Laschber, Carol Grienman, L. Adler,
Wilma Messenger, Julie Johnson, Christine Garrett, Isaac Java, Geraldine Crinnini
Brie Cummins, Adeline Engle, Jean Elluzzi, Isabel Oramas, Walter Ruiz, Viranwa
Valemo, Stephen Bordner, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Greg Peffers, Carmela DiPierro,
Mark Wilkins, Elore Conte, Tracy Conte, Grace Gaito, Barbara Sherr, Rene Zovier,
Mannel AShpole, Virginia Rai, Alex Funk, Jonathan McRai, Anthony Tarantelli, Eda
Gorukurk, Marie Sertuw, Tylcela Dunne, Pat Unger, Angel Navarro, Teodoro Quesr
Rogas, Laura Pino, Gustavo Diz, Edoren Yuzy, Andrew Hinkler, Andrew
Kousaurry, Seiten Sewer, Chris Fuentes, Antonio Velardo, Shirah Winkler, German
Oliveria, Sandra Robbins, Alicai Diaz, Joyce Lippman, Eugene Katz, Donald
Wheeler, Alan Green, Cole Kamen-Green, Tricia Tanaffy, Beth Lamont, Sharon
Alpert, Carrie Rotkin, Mary Murphy, Dar Gilberg, Mark Bandivia, Gina Piazza,
Evelyn Vanegas, Steve Richards, Chris Ridenhouse, Vanessa Ridenhouse, O.
Osandra, Victor Schotte, Rebecca Leitman, Jennifer Lamaj, Maria Lamas, Judith
Taylor, Catherine Constable, Kathleen Williams, Heidi McGvirk, Barbara Cohen,
Maura Lyons, D. Mato, Linda Plastrik, Jean Chamey, Claudia Capshaw, Mary
Chochian, Elizabeth Thes, Maria Pereira, Tavier Piurjase, Sandra Jibeur, Harold
Laft, William Tonslh, Cindy McIntosh, Jennifer Fortunato, Anthony Raindi, Robert
Leary, Elsi Pavone, Tirni Faez, Helen DiPalma, Michael Geme, Vincent Pieluni,
Aldoti, Nolfo, L. Fits, V. Seogna, J. Chin, J. Del Cieni, Kurt Morgan, Rall Tigi,
Patricia Gerrity, Adam Ostaszewski, Evan Stolatis, Shelby Gathuson, Shirley
Johnson, Usja Simms, Galr, Frank Rosso, Games Ramkaram, Chasheena Thomas,
Linia Dimancio, D. Will, Mario Fro, G. Rivillo, Andra Sodano, Diana Boryk, Robert
Boryk, Tina Stolatis, Melissa Washington, Erika Thomas, Gloria Jara, Joann
Joyce, Frana Marc, Dara DiMarco, Amy Raccisppi, Maria Proilio, R. Ruillo,
90
Nancy Chica, Dennis Tate, Janine Altrnelli, Mick Scardyo, Norma Top, E.
O’Connell, C.J. O’Connell, Maryann Filardi, Marjorie Haggerty, Bernadette Kelly,
Ann Kiliommons, Robert Johnson, J. Whitley, Rudy Sekasits, Helga Mosqueda,
Rene Pasqueda, D. Dovelo, K. Hane, Dan Coppersmith, Maria Coppersmith, Ray
Boswell, Michael Bargi, Lisa Connolly, Roseann Marttnelli, Charlene Diprini, J.
Haiztrabig, H. Penn, Stephen Kirby, Thomas Suna, Dusey Zorre, Rai Molinelli,
Cheri Garver, Jen Harris, Skollen Tren, Aetann, Hans Wifer, Lorraine Joffman, D.
Hillgartine, Jessica Penn, Drew Baldomar, Celia Baldomar, David Vutera, Stewart
Shen, Kathy Garcand, Gabriel Aucar, Daisy Ryan, Denies Thomas, Bonnie McCall,
Mike DiBenedetto, Quantel Bazemore, Charlene Cody, Michael Johnson, Brenda
Canero, John Perry, Ashlie Perry, Diane Rohan, James Fonid, Donna Cipriano,
Deborah Beck, Sean Hamrock, Steve Wexler, Lorraine Way, Laura Moore, Jeffrey
Steiger, Wayne Paul Mattingly, Elaine Young, Cathy Titus, Danielle Rose, Pat
Rowan, S. Brannan, L. Dotterson, Claire Aitchison, Nell MacDonald, Joanne
Brown, Elizabeth Devaney, Sandra Segatti, Wililam Korey, DiBenedeto, Thomas
Chu, Mark Lederman, Helen Oskiba, Robert Martin, Pat Cibulka, Pat Rohor, Jim
Ferrell, Laurie Sterlacci, Tara Steele, Lynda Nickelsen, Cathy DiGera, Wendy
Garcia, Adriana Aguilar, Sheely Benavder, L. Hopkins, Diane Covert, James Futte,
Victor Jara, Cecilia Chu, Joan Ledermen, J. Saobuskel, Susan Illansky, J. Jinillo,
Allan Fyrus, David Garcia, Les Boylan, David Garcia, Michelle Cooper, Evelyn
Cooper, Mike Makraj, Maria Bossinas, Krziakoula Morkzoj, Silvia Salzzar, Mihcael
Saudg, Mili Ashar, Kunjlata Ashar, Bryany Samyat, Brijen Dayal, Paul Bevelly,
Mike Masullo, Cindy Cassuto, Lauren Lortuz, Teresita Najito, Stuart Hecht, Donna
Edlund, Joan Seymour, G. Silvio, Martha Krahow, Lori Jorgensen, Mildred Mandy,
Tony Grossman, Tobe Sebb, Baibaialetter, John Barber, Pin Petruzzi, Lucy
Petruzzi, Sarah Dipillo, Jessica Rogers, Bonnie Balassone, I, Colongrovemi,
Sedruck Edwards, Ellen Kane, Robert Kane, B&B Obuck, Kenneth McDonald,
Richard Apute, J. Vezilante, T. Androth, Segumdo Galleo, B. Frieilich, Diane
Guaragno, BJ Neumann, Irma Spielberg, Charles Spielberg - petition
Comment noted. Please see the response to CP-10.
CP-94) The following changes should be made to page 99 to correct errors and
omissions:
Old Croton Aqueduct National Historic Landmark. This resource is missing from the list.
I have attached the NHL page as there seems to be some question about the status of
this resource. The Old Croton Aqueduct was listed on the National Register in 1974
and the designation raised to NHL 4/27/92. The Old Croton Trailway State Park is
located on its path. The district extends from Croton to NYC. Of course, all National
Landmarks are National Register properties. (D.Van Steen, letter, 8/26/08)
The commenter is correct, the Old Croton Aqueduct between Croton and Yonkers is a
National Historic Landmark and will be included in Table 18: Ossining Landmarks on the
State/National Registers of Historic Places in Chapter 8 Neighborhood and Quality of
Life in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and in Table 13-1: Ossining
91
Landmarks on the State/National Registers of Historic Places of the DGEIS. Please see
amended tables below:
Site of Old Croton Dam; New Croton Dam. Please correct title and remove asterisks.
This is not in Ossining or the Downtown Historic District; but is located in the towns or
Cortlandt and Yorktown. I think someone picked up this site from the state’s website,
not realizing it is not the aqueduct. (D.Van Steen, letter, 8/26/08)
The site of the Old Croton Dam is listed in Table 18: Ossining Landmarks on the
State/National Registers of Historic Place in Chapter 8 Neighborhood and Quality of Life
in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and in Table 13-1: Ossining
Landmarks on the State/National Registers of Historic Places of the DGEIS as being
North of Ossining on NY 129. Although it is actually located to the north of Ossining, the
National Register lists the site as being in Ossining and so it will remain in these tables.
However, the asterisk linking the dam to the Downtown Ossining Historic District will be
removed.
The Rohr building, listed on the National Register and demolished in 1981. Demolished
properties generally remain on the roster, however we should indicate that it has been
demolished. (D.Van Steen, letter, 8/26/08)
Comment noted. We will remove the demolished George Rohr Saloon and
Boardinghouse from Table 18: Ossining Landmarks on the State/National Registers of
Historic Place in Chapter 8 Neighborhood and Quality of Life in the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan and in Table 13-1: Ossining Landmarks on the State/National
Registers of Historic Places of the DGEIS.
You may also wish to note that the Kane House on North Highland Avenue has been
Determined Eligible for listing on the National Register by NYSOPRHP. (D.Van Steen,
letter, 8/26/08)
Table 18: Ossining Landmarks on the State/National Registers of Historic Place in
Chapter 8 Neighborhood and Quality of Life in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan and in Table 13-1: Ossining Landmarks on the State/National
Registers of Historic Places of the DGEIS only list properties already on the State and
National Register of Historic Places. Please see Chapter 13: Scenic, Historic and
Cultural Resources of the DGEIS for a description of the Proposed Action’s impacts on
historic properties in the Village including those properties which are determined eligible
for National Register listing, but which currently do not have protection by the State
Historic Preservation Office nor the Historic Review Commission.
I also believe that the Ossining Train Station shares the same status—Determined
Eligible for National Register by NYSOPRHP. (D.Van Steen, letter, 8/26/08)
Please see answer to comment above.
92
I don’t know if any formal determination has been made, but Sing Sing is considered a
historic property and the state was thinking also eligible for NHL. One might check with
NYSOPRHP, if you are interested in formal eligibility. (D.Van Steen, letter, 8/26/08)
Please see answer to comment above.
CP-95) I do not understand the dates found in the “Years” column. They do not appear
to represent the date of the historic properties and am not clear about their purpose.
Some of the dates are missing. For example, Highland Cottage was built in 1872, the
First Baptist Church in 1874, St. Paul’s Church in 1835 and the Rectory dates for 1864,
Washington School was constructed in 1907, the Old Croton Aqueduct in 1837-1842,
Richard Austin House 1878-1879. (D.Van Steen, letter, 8/26/08)
The dates listed are the dates of significance associated with the property as listed in the
National Register of Historic Places database which is located in an online database at
the website for the National Park Service (www.nps.gov). No dates are listed in the
database for Highland Cottage and we will add the dates of construction. All other dates
are as listed in the National Register.
The Isaac Young House (114 Pinesbridge Road) should be removed from Table 18
because it is in the Town of Ossining.
Amended Table 18: Ossining Landmarks on the State/National Registers of
Historic Places
and
Amended Table 13-1: Ossining Landmarks on the State/National Registers of
Historic Places
Building/District
Location
Years of
Significance
Function/Style
Brandreth Pill
Factory
Water Street
Manufacturing
Facility/Italianate; Greek
Revival; Second Empire
Downtown
Ossining Historic
District
Route 9, Main
Street and
Croton Avenue
First Baptist
Church of
Ossining*
Highland Cottage
South Highland
Avenue and
Main Street
36 South
Highland Avenue
1825-1849;
1850-1874;
1875-1899;
1900-1924
1825-1849;
1850-1874;
1875-1899;
1900-1924;
1925-1949
1850-1874
Commerce/Italianate; Gothic
Revival/
Religious structure/ Gothic/
Constructed in
1872
93
Jug Tavern
Old Croton
Aqueduct
Site of Old Croton
Dam
Rohr, George
Saloon and
Boardinghouse
Scarborough
Historic District
St. Paul’s
Episcopal Church
and Rectory (a.k.a.
Calvary Baptist
Church and
Annex)
Washington
School
Revolutionary
Road and
Rockledge
Avenue
Between Croton
and New York
City
North of
Ossining on NY
129
1-3 Highland
Avenue
1750-1799
Commerce; trade;
restaurant/ No style listed
Constructed
1837-1842
Transportation/water related
1825-1849;
1900-1924
Water works/no style listed
1850-1874
Commerce and
Hotel/Second Empire
Route 9
1750-1799,
1800-1824;
1825-1849;
1850-1874;
1875-1899;
1900-1924;
1925-1949
1825-1849;
1850-1874
Religious structures,
schools, residences/ late
Victorian, mid 19th-century
revival
1900-1924
School/Beaux Arts/
Architecture
St. Paul’s Place
83 Croton
Avenue
Religious structure/Gothic
Revival
Source: National Register of Historic Places.
94
CP-96) I am disappointed that this report does not have a chart of identified history
properties in Ossining that lack legal status. The practice has been widely implemented
in planning for some time. Often a municipality has a section of preservation, goals and
identification of historic buildings and includes buildings and areas that may be of
historical or architectural merit. Believe it or not (and depending on the state) this can be
a powerful planning tool. (D.Van Steen, letter, 8/26/08)
Please see Chapter 8 Neighborhood and Quality of Life which recommends gathering
funding for the Historic Review Commission to promote the preservation of landmarks
and historic districts. This funding could also be used to produce studies and reports on
historic buildings and/or districts in need of protection by the Historic Review
Commission. Please see Chapter 13: Scenic, Historic and Cultural Resources of the
DGEIS for a description of the Proposed Action’s impacts on historic properties in the
Village including those properties which may be deemed historic, but which currently do
not have protection by the State Historic Preservation Office nor the Historic Review
Commission.
View Preservation
CP-97) Please note that I wish to specifically identify Hudson Street as a view corridor
worthy of preservation, as requested on page 5 of the draft. I would be happy to provide
photos, if needed. (Lauinger, letter, 6/28/07)
Comment noted.
CP-98) The residents and Board are steadfastly opposed to any changes that could
impede the current river views from Hudson Point. We have all paid a premium for
these condos, solely because of the existing views. Any obstruction to those views,
added after the fact, would greatly decrease the value of our homes and our investment
in this community. (Schaeffer, letter, 10/8/08)
Please see Objective 5: Preserve public views of the Hudson River and Palisades in
Chapter 3 Waterfront of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. The objective
includes the recommendation that the Village Board should adopt zoning for the
waterfront which regulates building width in waterfront properties; and incorporate view
corridor preservation in site plan review. Please see the Zoning section of this FGEIS
for more information concerning the Proposed Action Zoning for Hudson Street.
Multi-modal Transportation
CP-99) One of the recommendations in paragraph C is to do something about the
Croton Avenue and Route 9 intersection. What has been overlooked is the red light that
controls cars going north on Route 9 trying to turn right onto Croton Avenue. (J.J.
Gershner, letter, 6/4/07)
95
Chapter 5 Transportation in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan discusses
this stoplight and the frustration it causes motorists. Strategy 1.1 recommends generally
supporting but further examining the State’s proposed re-striping of Route 9 including
the recommendation that the Village Board “[c]ommission further studies on the effects
the re-striping will have on the current traffic signal timings, which could potentially lead
to changing the traffic signal timings and synchronization along Route 9 at Croton
Avenue, Main Street and Church Street.” This study will further clarify what can be done
to improve traffic and pedestrian circulation at this intersection. Please see Chapter 9 of
the DGEIS for more information on traffic.
CP-100) The idea of a shuttle bus/jitney service looks great on paper but it is a pie-inthe-sky idea. (J.J. Gershner, letter, 6/4/07)
The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan suggests that the option be investigated
as a means to transport people between the waterfront and downtown. Strategy 3.1 of
Chapter 5 Transportation of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan
recommends that the Village “consider establishing” a Village shuttle bus/jitney service.
The plan specifically states that the Village Planning Department should “work with the
Village Board in determining whether a shuttle bus/jitney service would be successful in
Ossining”.
CP-101) Recommendations for Future (Consistent with NYMTC): “The spillover impact
of customer parking in residential neighborhoods could be managed through residential
permits, i.e., non-residential would not be able to park on the street in residential
neighborhoods during certain hours”. I think this will be a nightmare. (Gordon, letter,
6/11/07)
Comment noted. Chapter 4 Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan contains strategy 4.6 which states
“proactively address the spillover impact of customer parking in residential
neighborhoods” speaks to the issue raised in CP-101.
CP-102) Light timing should take into account school buses arrival and departure at key
spots along Route 9 (i.e., at Van Cortlandt), and possibly near Park at Edward and S.
Highland. I thought the point about the curb cut at Waller and S. Highland was
something to note. I thought the point about lights at Star of Bethlehem and C-Town
were interesting and that perhaps some mention of crossing guards at key points or
times could be mentioned (not sure if personnel is mentioned, but I think it is suggested
in other places). All of these points may be too specific, so I leave it in your capable
hands to craft appropriate so that we don’t forget. Also, did we include crosswalk
striping mentions? (D. Levenberg, letter, 6/6/07)
Chapter 5 Transportation in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan includes the
following strategies which address the above comment:
•
Strategy 1.3: Implement traffic data collection and infrastructure inventory
throughout the Village states that the Village Board should “implement a
96
regularly scheduled traffic data collection program and infrastructure
inventory to better manage traffic in the Village.”
•
Strategy 2.1: Improve pedestrian circulation throughout the Village states that
the Village Board should commission studies that further evaluate pedestrianminded improvements at all intersections within 150 feet of a school.
CP-103) Passenger cars speed along Rockledge Avenue, between Liberty Avenue and
Revolutionary Road, causing dangerous pedestrian conditions in what is a very
pedestrian community and quite a bit of noise. Given the fact that a very popular
restaurant has just opened (Goldfish) with a parking lot across the street, I think
pedestrian walkways and additional “SLOW” signs should be constructed and posted. A
larger police presence would help, as well. Even bright orange markers in the middle of
the road would help. I understand that this may lead to congestion, but there is also a
blind curve on Rockledge, making walking very dangerous. Even parking on the road is
dangerous, as my car was hit by a speeding car coming down Spring Street and onto
Rockledge.
Trucks of every size and type use Rockledge Road to bypass certain sections of Route 9
and are unbelievably loud. They should use the same routes the buses do, not
Rockledge. If this is not feasible, there should at least be a tonnage limit allowed on
such a small, highly residential road. (Leonowicz, letter, 6/26/07)
Objective 2 enhance walkability throughout the Village in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan discusses strategies to improve pedestrian mobility throughout the
Village. Chapters 9 and 10 of the DGEIS contain additional information on the Proposed
Action’s impacts of pedestrian mobility throughout the Village.
CP-104) Parking: Enforce illegal parking with tickets. Listen to us when we report illegal
parking. Limit paving of yards. (T.Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
With regards to parking, please see answer to CP-63.
Please see Strategy 2.1: Improvement stormwater management regulations in Chapter 6
Sustainable Infrastructure. This strategy includes the recommendation to limit
impervious surfaces such as driveways, patios and pools on a given lot to minimize
stormwater impacts for lots of all sizes. The Proposed Action Zoning includes restrictions
on impervious coverage. Chapter 7 Water Resources, of the DGEIS also details how
the Proposed Action impacts stormwater issues.
CP-105) Speed bumps around parks/schools on roads where there is a lot of speeding
(specifically Washington Avenue and Spring Street near the Park School—major cutthrough area. There’s a lot of reckless driving—we’ve had a few hit and runs, including
my car getting hit. School zone speed limit would be much more effective with speed
bumps to ensure careful driving at all hours of the day.) (T.Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
97
CP-106) Change blinking red light on Spring Street (near police station) into regular
traffic light. (T.Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
CP-107) Enforce overnight parking permits (or call in permission) on Washington
Avenue; encourage people to use diagonal parking spots on Edwards Street instead.
(T.Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
Comment noted.
CP-108) Also, I am not sure if this is in the Comp plan, but sidewalks are desperately
needed on the east side of Highland Avenue near Highland Terrace Apartments and
also on Underhill Road. (V.Polidoro, letter, 12/29/07)
Please see Strategy 2.1: Improve pedestrian circulation throughout the Village in
Chapter 5 Transportation of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. This
strategy states that the Village Board should consider a study of all of the sidewalks and
crosswalks in the Village. A study of this nature would identify where additional
improvements to pedestrian circulation may be needed.
CP-109) Page 5, 3rd paragraph down on right side of page. “improvements to pedestrian
experience” should explicitly also mention “bicycling.” (G.Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Comment noted. The Comprehensive Plan will mention bicycling.
CP-110) This is also true on page 6 under objectives. “enhance walkability” should
explicitly include bicycling. (This ties it to broad Westchester County plans currently
underway.) (G.Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Comment noted. The Comprehensive Plan will mention bicycling.
CP-111) Page 27, bottom paragraph, first bullet should include “and bicyclists.”
(G.Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Comment noted. The Comprehensive Plan will mention bicyclists.
CP-112) Page 65. Right side of page. I think we should MAXIMIZE Route 9 bypass
routes, not minimize. Without back routes, this village would be in-passable gridlock
during rush hours. (G.Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
While we understand the commenter’s frustration with traffic on Route 9, many of these
bypass routes present safety and quality of life concerns for residents along these
streets. As is noted in Chapter 5 Transportation, Route 9 bypass routes are often used
98
through “residential neighborhoods—many with street patterns characterized by short
lengths, narrow, winding widths, steep slopes, and offset intersections.”
However, Strategy 1.3: implement traffic data collection and infrastructure inventory
throughout the Village states that the Village Board should “implement a regularly
scheduled traffic data collection program and infrastructure inventory to better manage
traffic in the Village.” Therefore, if after further study the Village Board determines that
there is a safe bypass road to Route 9, they can encourage traffic along that route.
CP-113) Page 66, under Objective 2. “Enhance Walkability” should be “Enhance
Walkability and Bikability.” (G.Hougham, letter, 7/4/08)
Comment noted. The Comprehensive Plan will mention bikability.
CP-114) One of the points of the Draft Comprehensive Plan is preserving the character
of Ossining and I think one way of doing that is to require for sidewalks to always have a
green strip where trees and grass can be planted so that we preserve the—the
character, we don’t become like New York City. (L. Rivaud, public hearing, 9/22/08)
CP-115) There are very few places to park. I have a driveway, but there are many
people who are allowed to park on the street, Belle Avenue, Stone Avenue, and below
Camp Woods, and I think that increasing the density would—would hamper the quality of
life.
So while this might benefit a developer or two, I don’t think that it benefits the local
residents or their quality of life. (G. Golio, public hearing, 9/22/08)
Comment noted.
CP-116) My business right now, everybody parks in my lot, and I request that if you do
bring to that area, you please watch the parking, because I really don’t want to be the
parking garage. (E. Lobel, public hearing, 9/22/08)
Comment noted. Please see Strategy 4.1: move the discussion to the reality of how
much parking is really needed in Chapter 4 The Downtown Crescent and Economic
Development states that the Village Board should “Commission a parking study for the
Village to accurately understand the demand for parking and whether the supply does in
fact present a shortage of spaces or if this shortage is more of a perception.”
CP-117) In addition, Hudson Street is an old narrow road which periodically collapses in
various sections and must be repaired frequently, as many in this room know…If a major
development adds substantially to the density of the neighborhood, this will surely cause
further problems with the infrastructure. (E. Simpson, public hearing, 10/1/08)
99
Comment noted. Please see Chapter 3, 5, and 6 of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan for more information on infrastructure, proposed level of
development along Hudson Street, and roadways. The DGEIS contains additional
information on infrastructure, roadways, and land use in Chapters 3, 8, and 9.
CP-118) The re-striping of Route 9 would appear to create more congestion in the CBD
but I believe there are studies that show that when a roadway is narrowed traffic tends to
disperse, the reverse way that traffic increases when a roadway is widened. Prior
studies of this corridor have shown that the traffic is nearly 70% local, not through traffic.
Therefore if we continue to encourage a walkable village there could be a positive
impact on the road. Others have observed that during the summer, when the teens are
not leaving the school mid-afternoon there is a noticeable drop in traffic. Parents
chauffeuring their kids to school also contribute to congestion in the morning.
Furthermore, with the steady increase in the cost of gas (yes, folks, it will continue to
climb) there should be more interest in alternative commuting options, such as the train
that parallels this road as well as the BeeLine. This plan does require accepting a
tradeoff but that seems to be more than acceptable given the impossible design with
which we now live. (M.Morgan, letter, 10/2/08)
Comment noted.
CP-119) The absence of a discussion on creating a true intersection between Broadway
and Croton Avenue was surprising. This is the single-most annoying and unnecessary
bottleneck in traffic flow in the village. This must be addressed, particularly given the
increasing traffic that will be generated by the use of the new pool. If a real intersection
is opened up commuters coming down Croton Avenue and returning in the evening can
use that route instead of the congested Church Street connection. We fail to see the
negatives of spreading out this traffic and instead directing it to congested areas.
(M.Morgan, letter, 10/2/08)
Comment noted. Chapter 5 Transportation in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan includes the following objective which addresses the above comment: “improve
traffic circulation throughout the Village particularly on Route 9.” The DGEIS contains
additional information on roadways in Chapter 9.
CP-120) The intersection of Croton Avenue and Clinton should be examined. The full
traffic stop seems quite unnecessary, causing massive backups down Croton. It would
seem a simple blinking light would be quite adequate. There is very little traffic coming
down Clinton. (M.Morgan, letter, 10/2/08)
CP-121) We have a concern about traffic on Hudson Street, from at least two points of
view. First, water and sewer pipes are in a poor state; since July of this year alone,
there have been numerous leaks, owing, doubtless, to the already heavy truck traffic
100
to Sing Sing. The historic Sparta district includes fragile structures. Increased traffic
concomitant with residential development will certainly aggravate the damage to both
Liberty and Hudson Streets. Second, traffic congestion concerns us. The configuration
of these small, right-angled streets already makes ordinary driving difficult; with
increased density, what would happen in an emergency evacuation? ( Lauinger, letter,
10/3/08)
CP-122) The proposed plan wisely stresses the need for greater densities needed
around the Ossining station.
We believe that this approach—transit-oriented
development, or “TOD”—is sound provided views are protected to and from the Hudson
River and sufficient open space and public access is provided. The current zoning is
problematic because it does not provide the flexibility needed to encourage TOD.
Scenic Hudson supports the flexible zoning meant to allow sufficient density and a
variety of uses: residential, retail, and office at this strategically important location. (J.
Anzevino, Scenic Hudson, letter, 10/10/08)
Comment noted.
Quality of Life
CP-123) One emotion I hear in all the meetings is a need for code enforcement,
whatever those codes might be. (Rev. Stephen Holton, letter, 6/26/07
CP-124) Noise: It can get out of control. Please distribute the rules so we have a
resource when asking neighbors to lower their music. (T.Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
CP-125) We recognize that issues such as noise pollution, litter and graffiti come down
to enforcement. We believe however that the planning process should carefully examine
whether the existing enforcement mechanism is adequate. (Mallen and Moné, letter,
7/3/07)
CP-126) Quality of Life: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan presentation on June 11,
rezoning for “the parcel located on Sherman from Croton Avenue back to the park” was
mentioned as part of the plan being put forward. We strongly oppose the rezoning of
this parcel of land from its current residential zoning to any form of business zoning.
(Scorsone, letter w/petition, 7/2/07: Ron Scorsone, Bette Scorsone, Sean
Scorsone, Margaret Brigham, Connie Shook, John Shook, Patricia Kole, Jeses
Lynds, Kay Olson, Anthony Ciancio, Manios Ciancio, P. Martone, C. Martone, A.
101
Martone, William Nolan, Carles Torrs, Susana Torres, Todd Kruger, Mike Sterlacci,
Pasquale, Rosane Kirinug, Cathie Morales, Marie Buckley-Hoffman, Brian
Hoffman, David Harper, Fred Howley, Calin Papescu, Carla Houston, Cornelius
Houston, Ruck Pat, Salvana Firrincieli, John Beake, Catherine Beake, Nancy
Ohman, Lisa Fambro, A. Pernin, Heather Motrdle, Roy Ellingsen, Anis SriJayantha, Sri Sri Jaya, Gerry Moran, Leah Carlson-Stanisil, R. Stanisk, R.
Fortuniewicz, M. Figueroa, C. Eldredge, Andrew Richards, Terri Richards, Wilma
Pabon Evans, Brian Evans, Gina Feeks, Eileen Peterson, Michael Petro, Jennifer
Bussiere, Christine Eidem, Bruce Eidem, Diana McDermott, Adam Yuro, Mari Yuro,
Brian McDermott, Pat O’Brien, Laura Fewer, Sharon Rave, April Freeman Locke,
Blake Rome, Babalunch Cohn, Linda Lichtenstein, Lisa Palmietto, Lawrence
Davies, Melanie Malirote, Barney Gaiszzie, Mark Johnson, Ricahrd Machan, Betty
Barrows, Carl Barrows, Mr. & Mrs. Boateng, Anna Penugini, Ellen Harper, Lynn
Lange, Alfonso Langone, Octavian Cana, Joshua Levine, Mariana Caria, Dan Kurn,
Rebecca O’Neill, Vincent O’Neill, Peter Camewier, Susan Carpenter, Assunta
Velardo, Nicola Velardo, Mary Krzitzer, Kestar Silverman, William Satch, Michelle
Sakin, Vasso Morse, Joanna Gavnelatos, Areti Garrelatos, Shirley Forte, Joseph
Forte, Angel Cumbe, Theresa Wright, Kathleen Wright, Matt Leser, Neal Richman,
Maria Camro, Nicola Perugini, Patricia Healy, Gene Gioio, Peter Cober, Dolores
Cober, Alice Camp, Anne Zimmerman - petition)
The comment was considered and the parcel in question will remain in the S-75 single
family district.
CP-127) It seems clear to us that Ossining should foster healthy growth and economic
revitalization of its downtown and make a productive and responsible use of its
waterfront. We also share in the concern that other residents expressed—development
should not run amok, the shortage of affordable housing should be addressed, the
historic character of the Village should be preserved, our natural resources should be
protected, etc. It is precisely because growth and change impacts so many intersecting
concerns that a Draft Comprehensive Plan such as this one is needed. (Mallen and
Moné, letter, 7/3/07)
Comment noted.
CP-128) Litter: I would like one garbage can at each corner of Nelson Sitting Park (total
4 cans). I pick up garbage (including liquor bottles) every other day and a LOT on
Mondays. A can with the top (like those on Route 9 near Elisabetta’s) would be great.
There’s only one can right now in the middle so people entering from corners usually
toss their garbage on the ground as they enter the park. A can on each corner would
prevent this. Keep the can near the playground for people sitting in the park. (T.
Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
Comment noted.
CP-129) More cans in general. Spring Street is filled with garbage. Even near the
102
police station. Or pay people to pick it up or enforce penalties. It makes the village look
terrible. (T.Cataldo, letter, 7/3/07)
CP-130) As for the Quality of Life issues: please! Please take seriously the desire for
enforcement of laws. Litter, Parking, Noise, Illegal housing, Graffiti…all these things
take such a toll on the morale of the residents with even the most positive and resilient of
attitudes toward our village. Tracey’s idea of distributing flyers with the laws written in
both English and Spanish is a great idea. It would serve as a reminder that there are
laws to ensure all residents the quiet enjoyment of their homes and public common
areas that they deserve. Enforcement is key and should be addressed. That is the one
action that would make an immediate difference and pave the way for all the exciting
possibilities for this wonderful village with amazing potential. (N. Moné, letter, 7/3/07)
CP-131) The additional traffic and noise, as well as a reduction in open space, will
diminish the quality of life in the area, running counter to one of the main aims of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan for the development of Ossining. (E. Simpson, public
hearing, 10/1/08)
Please see Chapter 7, Neighborhood Quality of Life, for a variety of objectives and
strategies aimed at maintaining and improving quality of life in the Village including
creating more open space; as well as Chapter 5, Transportation, which offers a variety of
strategies and recommendations to provide alternatives to driving by improving
pedestrian circulation and public transit in the Village.
CP-132) Noise Control: The level of noise generated by the fire engines, emergency
and police vehicles is way above what it needs to be to get the attention of the public as
they use the roadway. The decibel level is well above the level that is damaging to
human hearing. Other communities, notably Tarrytown, seem to manage a lower level
in their sirens without danger to the public. The municipal siren is also extremely
abrasive. This is a real quality of life issue in this village.(M.Morgan, letter, 10/2/08)
103
SEQRA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
General
S-1) In analyzing impacts, the draft GEIS calculates the amount of residential and nonresidential space. The Village may have a need for the environmental review to be more
specific as to non-residential uses, delineating changes in commercial, industrial,
institutional and other uses under the baseline and proposed changes.
(Buroughs, letter 9/17/08)
The Proposed Action Zoning and the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning are
intentionally more flexible than the current zoning providing a wider variety of permitted
uses. A majority of the uses permitted under the current zoning will still be permitted
under the Proposed Action Zoning and the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning.
All uses that are not permitted under the current zoning but will be under the Proposed
Action Zoning (including Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning) and vice versa
are identified and analyzed in the DGEIS and throughout the FGEIS. Chapter 3 of the
DGEIS discusses in detail the changes of uses for each of the zoning districts in the
Village of Ossining and the rest of the DGEIS analyzes those changes where applicable.
S-2) As such, the Village is considering extensive land use regulations and a
Comprehensive Plan (which we submit are ill-conceived), that are based on the flawed
DGEIS and Market Analysis. It is suggested that proper economic analysis would likely
demonstrate that none of the waterfront development sought to be achieved will go
forward in the foreseeable future, or possibly forever, without far-reaching changes in the
proposed regulatory regimen. Indeed, based on the fundamental errors in the economic
analysis undertaken on behalf of the Village, the discussions in the DGEIS of impacts on
neighborhood and community character, cultural and historic resources, economics, the
pattern of community growth and development, and fiscal resources of the municipality
and school district, are of little or no value. Such analyses should be redone in their
entirety. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see responses MSA-1 through MSA-79 in the Market Analysis Section of the
FGEIS.
S-3) As is common to the modus operandi of the DGEIS in general, the description of
the probable impacts of the Proposed Action on community character is conjecture, with
little, if any, supporting evidence. Simply listing the desired impacts of various planning
policies and zoning proposals does not provide a reasoned explanation as to why such
results can be expected to be achieved. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see Section 13.2.1 Historic Resources of the DGEIS which identifies the
following community character issues concerning the current zoning:
“Ossining can be expected to largely create development, which is predominately
that of a moderately-high density suburb. But the aspects of Ossining’s
character could diminish because important elements that give Ossining its
unique character, such as historical landmarks and districts, and open spaces
and scenic areas, will not be protected to any greater extent than they are today.
In the absence of such protection, development is likely to encroach upon these
elements. Some of Ossining’s important historic structures will likely be
destroyed without binding decisions by the Historic Review Commissions,104
while districts such as the waterfront will likely be altered to accommodate new
development without regard for public access to and enjoyment of the waterfront,
including views of the Hudson River and Palisades. The character of some
single- and two-family zones will deteriorate as homes without proper
infrastructure are converted to multifamily dwellings. Because of the continued
demand for housing in the region, the existing illegal conversion problem will
continue to worsen. The unique architectural character of some neighborhoods
may be lost without measures to preserve particular characteristics. Finally, the
socio-economic diversity of the Village, lauded by so many residents, could be
lost if measures described in the Proposed Action to systematically provide
affordable housing are not taken.”
The Lead Agency knows these statements to be correct based on its members own
observations and experience in the Village. Please see discussions of specific
proposals throughout this FGEIS and the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan for
analysis of impacts on community character. More information on community character
throughout the Village of Ossining can be found through out the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 17.3 of the DGEIS discusses the probable impacts of the Proposed Action by
stating:
“Overall, the Proposed Action will largely preserve and enhance Ossining’s
current character as a socio-economically diverse, pedestrian-friendly historic
Village with a vibrant Downtown, accessible waterfront and green spaces, and
historic and architecturally interesting neighborhoods. In contrast to the Future
Baseline Conditions, implementation of the Proposed Action will effectively
preserve and improve unique aspects of Ossining’s character. It will also create
and enhance unique characteristics in areas of Ossining which, under current
policies, are likely to remain, in some ways, indistinguishable from those of other
suburbs.
As detailed elsewhere in this GEIS, historic structures and
neighborhoods would be given protections they will not otherwise receive under
Future Baseline Conditions, and scenic vistas and open spaces will be protected.
Parklands will be upgraded, and new parks and public open spaces would be
provided in developed areas where they are most needed. Overall, aesthetic
values will be protected to a much greater degree than if the Proposed Action
were not implemented. Finally, if the Proposed Action is adopted, socioeconomic diversity will remain a defining characteristic of the Village.”
Section 17.3 details the areas in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan,
Proposed Action Zoning and Affordable Housing regulations that support and define the
Village’s community character.
The Village has never had an adopted Comprehensive Plan and the last Village Master
Plan was adopted in 1959. The Village does not have a current adopted plan that
outlines the community vision presented in the Proposed Action and therefore those
elements of the community that have been identified throughout this process are at risk
without the Proposed Action being adopted. The current historical preservation
regulations sets up a Historic Review Commission which can only advise the Planning
Board in matters relating to application for permits within historic districts or other places,
buildings, or features of architectural or historic significance. However, the Proposed
Action Zoning will provide the Historic Review Commission with the power to make
binding decisions that will protect historic districts or other places, buildings, or features
of architectural or historic significance. The Village also does not currently have
Affordable Housing regulations consistent with it Affordable Housing Policy adopted in
April 2006. If the Proposed Action is adopted, it will ensure a socio-economic diversity in
the community to a greater degree than the current Village Code.
105
S-4) A related unsupported assertion in the DGEIS is the statement that overcrowded
housing conditions would be reduced to a greater extent under the Proposed Action than
under future baseline conditions. No citation to reasonable authority or even a coherent
explanation of the basis for this statement is made. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The statement that is referred to in the above comment can be found in the Executive
Summary on page 14 and states “[f]urthermore, under the Proposed Action,
overcrowded housing would be reduced to a greater extent than under Future Baseline
Conditions.” The purpose of the executive summary is to preview the main points of
DGEIS. The statement was summarizing Section 5.3.3, Overcrowded Housing, which
contains detailed information on how the Proposed Action intends to help curb
overcrowded housing. A clarification of our statement on page 14 is a follows
“furthermore, the Proposed Action would help curb overcrowded housing to a greater
extent than under the Future Baseline Conditions.”
S-5) The document also misleadingly states that under future baseline conditions
consideration of steep slopes will not be part of site plan review. Indeed, this is contrary
to what actually occurs in the process as evidenced by the Planning Board’s current
review of Hidden Cove. Both under site plan review and the associated SEQRA
process, the presence of and disturbance to steep slopes is a significant consideration.
Indeed, at present, the PRD District, in which in excess of 4.7 acres of the Property is
located, requires reduction of lot area and, therefore, density, based on the presence of
steep slopes. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The sentences referenced above can be found in Section S.4.6 Geology and
Topography, as well as on page 131 in Section 6.3 where it states under Future
Baseline conditions “consideration of steep slopes will not be a part of site plan review.”
A clarification of our statement is as follows: “Under Future Baseline Conditions the
Village’s Site Plan regulations Article X (D)(2) Natural Features will not mandate
considerations of steep slopes as part of its required site plan elements.”
S-6) The proposed legislation starts with insufficient base densities, then adds layer
upon layer of such additional regulations as to render uneconomical reasonable
waterfront revitalization. The DGEIS failed to study in adequate fashion the cumulative
impacts of the new restrictions found in the proposed regulatory regimen.
(A.
We disagree. The Proposed Action Zoning is intentionally more flexible than the current
zoning to respond to various market conditions. All of the Proposed Action Zoning
amendments that are part of the Proposed Action or are outlined in the FGEIS retain
similar, or in many instances increase, the permitted densities and heights above current
zoning except the current WD-2 located west of Hudson Street and the portion of the
Hunter Street properties that are currently zoned WD-2 (see the Proposed Action Zoning
map for delineation of the zones along Hunter Street). The new Proposed Action Zoning
for Hudson Street WD-2 is discussed and outlined in more detail in Chapter 3, 13, 14,
and 17 of the DGEIS. Some Hunter Street properties will be re-zoned to T -Two-Family
(zoning that allows single and two-family homes), which is characteristic with the uses
currently located on the small properties that line Hunter Street. Comment Z-46 of the
Zoning section in the FGEIS contains more information on the Proposed Action Zoning
and its Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning. It is noted that as a result of the
DGEIS, certain Proposed Action potential densities will be increased.
S-7) The view corridor standards may be wholly unnecessary particularly on sites such
as the Property where substantial development can occur without impairment of views
from any public places within the Village. Such a restriction just adds more
106
burdensome regulations which will accomplish nothing other than limiting the Planning
Board’s discretion under SEQRA and the site pan approval process to determine on a
site-by-site basis what “view corridors” are necessary. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see comment Z-50 in the Zoning section of the FGEIS for more information on
the view corridor standards. The Planning Board’s discretion under SEQR will not be
limited. The view corridor standards are to create breaks in the massing of buildings and
prevent views from being completely blocked in the waterfront districts. The standards
also allow for the Planning Board to make exceptions (see Z-50). The Planning Board
will have the ability to analyze potential view corridor impacts on a site specific basis
during the SEQR process and create the necessary site plan modifications. Views from
within the Village are not the only views to be considered.
S-8) Why construction on steep slopes is considered to be acceptable in the PW-4
District, with appropriate engineering and design, but not in other districts, such as the
PW-1 District in which the Property is located, is a question without a rational answer,
and creates a distinction with has no tangible nexus to legitimate environmental goals.
The SEQRA analysis should have explained this paradox which directly prejudices
Plateau. The proposed zoning should be modified to include the Property in a district
that allows density equaling that in the PW-4 District. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see response to comment Z-5, Z-46, and Z-62 concerning the re-zoning of the
Amended Proposed Action Conservation Development District (Proposed Action PW-1)
and Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning including changes to steep slope
regulations for the purposes of calculating density. The Proposed Action Zoning
Amendments will remove language concerning steep slope deductions in calculating
density. The Proposed Action will minimize the construction or re-grading of steep
slopes greater than 15 percent but less than 25 percent. Construction on slopes greater
than 25 percent will be severely limited for all zoning districts unless the Planning Board
makes a specific finding that such construction or regrading is warranted by
considerations that make alternative approaches less desirable in view of overall
planning considerations (including the overall objectives of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan and the LWRP) and will be carried out in a manner consistent with
best management and engineering practices for such construction or regrading. The
Proposed Action Zoning Amendments will also require all site development to be
designed wherever possible to preserve the natural features of the site including steep
slopes. The concept for development in the Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed
Action PW-4) is to limit any cut and fills and promote design that adapts to its
surrounding steep slopes. Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4)
contains fairly level land parcels that are bordered by steep slopes where the Amended
Proposed Action Conservation Development District (Proposed Action PW-1) contains
land parcels that contain steep slopes.
S-9) The Market Analysis should have been part of the DGEIS, or at least an appendix
thereto, and should have been circulated to all involved and interested agencies and
interested parties. To the extant that this may not have been the case the SQERA
process has been fundamentally tainted and the Village has violated the requirement for
strict and literal compliance with SEQRA’s procedural mandates. (A. Wekstein, letter,
10/10/08)
As is explained in the Section of this FGEIS entitled “Market and Sensitivity Analysis”,
the Market and Sensitivity Analysis (“MSA”) was not prepared as part of the DGEIS. It
was prepared prior to the drafting of the DGEIS as a tool to assist the Lead Agency in
preparing the Scope for the DGEIS. The MSA was published and available on the
Village’s website with the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan throughout this
process. As the Market and Sensitivity Analysis section of the DGEIS demonstrates,
107
this commentor and other interested parties were widely aware of the MSA, reviewed it,
and commented on it during the DGEIS comment period.
Notwithstanding the fact that the MSA was not part of the DGEIS analysis, the Lead
Agency will attach it as an appendix to the Environmental Impact Statement See
Appendix B.
S-10) The SEQRA review should have included a proper analysis of the economic
impact of the affordable housing requirement, both on the waterfront and elsewhere in
the Village. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
We believe that we provided the proper analysis in both the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan and the DGEIS to demonstrate the need for affordable housing
and any potential impacts relating to affordable housing in the Village of Ossining. The
proposed affordable housing legislation is supported by the recommendations in the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Village Affordable
Housing Policy adopted in 2006. Chapter 5 of the DGEIS discusses affordable housing
in more detail and Chapter 7 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan is
entirely devoted to affordable housing. The proposed Affordable Housing legislation
mandate of 10% affordable housing in residential housing units of 6 units or more would
result in the same number of market rate units as if there was no affordable housing
mandate. The legislation also offers a 15% density bonus to developments where at
least 10% of the units are offered to those making less than 80 percent of the AMI. In
this scenario the developer would be granted more market rate units than would
otherwise be built if no affordable housing was required.
S-11) SEQRA calls for a more particularized analysis including a discussion of the basis
for the Village’s conclusions regarding the economic impact of existing land use on the
financial feasibility of waterfront development, supported by studies, empirical data and
/or analysis of market comparables. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see response to comment S-2 for more information on the Market and Sensitivity
Analysis and its relation to the Proposed Action.
The DGEIS contains the proper economic analysis for a Generic Environmental Impact
Statement. Please see Chapter 15 and 18 of the DGEIS. The DGEIS outlines the
various environmental factors that were taken into consideration when determining the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan recommendations and the proposed Village
Code amendments. Site specific economic analysis of a particular developer’s private
property development proposal is beyond the scope of this DGEIS. Please see the
Market Sensitivity Analysis Section of the FGEIS for more information.
S-12) The assertion of the DGEIS that absent the new regulations designed to
safeguard scenic views, the views of the Hudson and the Palisades will likely be
compromised, is also incorrect. The current Village regulations contain height limitations
and special height overlay districts. Further, all approvals are subject to site plan review
and the SEQRA process, the latter of which specifically requires analysis and mitigation
of potential impacts on visual resources. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Although, the current Zoning Code contains a Special Height Overlay District it does not
restrict districts in their bulk parameters. Furthermore, Article X of the current Zoning
Code does not require considerations of view corridors as part of its required site plan
elements In the Proposed Action the restrictions located in § 270-18 and Appendix B
are placed to limit the total cumulative widths, the setbacks from the River and distances
between the buildings. The Proposed Action specifically incorporates the views and
scenic resources as considerations in the site plan review which is not present in the
108
current zoning. The Planning Board will still have the ability to analyze potential view
corridor impacts on a site specific basis during the SEQR process and create the
necessary site plan modifications. A clarification of our statement is as follows: “The
waterfront zones are particularly vulnerable to redevelopment and in the absence of
regulations designed to safeguard scenic views, some of the Village’s most pristine
views of the Hudson and Palisades could become compromised.”
S-13) We are writing to comment on the proposed Zoning Ordinance, including the
Historic Preservation Provisions thereof, Affordable Housing Regulations,
Comprehensive Plan and the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which are
currently undergoing public review. We believe that the proposed ill-advised and in
certain respects illegal, and that the DGEIS, including the associated market and
sensitivity analysis, is so deficient that the Village should begin the SEQRA process
anew. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The Proposed Action is not ill-advised. Chapter 1 of the DGEIS contains information on
how the Village went to great lengths to reach out to the public and include them in the
process. With regards to the statement that the Proposed Action is in certain respects
illegal and that the DGEIS, including the associated market and sensitivity analysis, is so
deficient that the Village should begin the SEQRA process anew” no citation or even an
explanation for this statement is made by the commenter. See the Market and
Sensitivity Analysis section of this FGEIS.
S-14) …the DGEIS avoids the central issue—the physical capacity of the schools to
accommodate new students…Yet the Village impermissibly segments its SEQRA review
of this subject by failing to ascertain or discuss the capacity of the schools. It merely
states that “the School District will need to continue to examine the capacity and
conditions of District Facilities.” (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Section 16.2.1 of the DGEIS states that “[c]ommensurate with population growth over
the next 20 years, it is expected that the Ossining Union Free School District will
continue to expand. Barring unusual economic or social changes, the rate of growth in
the numbers of schoolchildren will likely continue at a moderate pace until full build-out is
reached. It is likely that school expansions will be necessary, particularly because space
requirements are increasing.” Enrollment projections presented to the Board of
Education by the Superintendent of the School District in October 2007 indicate that the
School District anticipates an estimated increase of 67 students by 2017. The total
enrollment from kindergarten through 12th grade was 3,990 in 2007 and is projected to
be 4,056 in 2017 which is an increase 67 students or an approximately two percent
increase.
Two corrections are hereby made to the information provided in the DGEIS which
includes the text in Section 16.2.1 and under Section S.4.16 of the DGEIS which states
“estimated increase of 251 students by 2017” with the following language: “estimated
increase of 67 students or an approximately two percent increase”. Figure 16-2 in the
FGEIS should also read as follows:
School
Roosevelt EC
(Pre-K)
Park School
(K-1)
Brookside
School
2007 Enrollment
283
2017
Enrollment
Projections
288
665
617
Projected Change
in Enrollment
0* Maximum will
be 288
-48
590
598
8
109
Claremont
School (4-5)
Anne Dormer
MS (6-8)
Ossining HS
(9-12)
Total
577
592
15
833
863
30
1,325
1,387
62
3,390
4,056
67
To project the likely number of additional students under the Future Baseline Conditions,
Village consultants performed an analysis utilizing public school children multipliers
based on dwelling unit size and likely income levels. Assuming the Future Baseline
Conditions under existing zoning for the next 20 years, the analysis indicated that there
is potential for as many as an additional 82 school children in Ossining (See Chapter 2 in
the DGEIS for more information). The Proposed Action anticipates approximately 170
new students in the next 20 years. What is unknown is the amount of students who will
attend the Ossining public school system and who will attend private schools.
Furthermore, the School District’s projections were only based on the next 10 years and
not 20. The School District also makes its projections based on current building permits
and population increases where the Future Baseline Conditions takes into account
anticipated additional populations on new development projections within the next 20
years not overall population demographic changes. The Ossining School District is also
not limited to the Village of Ossining boundaries and educates children from the Town of
Ossining, and sections of the Village of Briarcliff Manor, Town of Yorktown, and the
Town of New Castle.
The DGEIS states “[i]f the Proposed Action is adopted, the School District will need to
continue to examine the capacity and conditions of District facilities” because what is
known at this point is that the School District is already facing a need to reorganize and
possibly expand its current facilities for the current as well as future school populations
with or without the Proposed Action taking place. The Ossining School District
established a Facilities Advisory Committee in fall 2008 to investigate long term options
and already has a reorganization plan set up for the 2009-2010 school year due to the
short term grade population demands.
On February 12, 2009 Ken Waldron, Director of Facilities, Operations, and Maintenance
of the Ossining School District was contacted on this issue. He stated that the School
District is close to capacity and will need to continue to examine the capacity and
conditions of the District facilities. He also agreed that whether the Village increases its
overall population or not, there are many other additional factors that require changes to
facilities and they include but are not limited to: shifts in the number of students per
grade, shifts in the number of students that go to private schools, and shifts in the
number of families moving into the School District, none of which the School District can
accurately predict. He stated that our response to the issue in the DGEIS was
appropriate and adequate based on the uncertainties.
A clarification of the statement should read as follows: If the Proposed Action is adopted,
the School District will need to continue to examine the capacity and conditions of
District facilities and upgrades, expansions, and improvements may be required. The
DGEIS recognizes that the School District is currently undergoing investigations
because there is a need now to reconfigure or expand its current facilities and under
Future Baseline or Proposed Action growth projections changes will be needed. The tax
revenues generated under the Proposed Action will help offset those costs.
Furthermore, Mitigation Measures and Alternatives were proposed beginning at Section
16.3.6 of the DGEIS to help reduce the overall school population. The Proposed Action
110
Zoning Amendments will result in approximately 117 school children in the next 20 years
which is 53 fewer children than the original Proposed Action Zoning.
S-15) The proposal to rezone the portion of the Property which is currently zoned WD-2
into the PW-2 District appears routine on its face. However, review of the DGEIS shows
that the basis for limiting the density to the 15 to 20 units per acre that is currently called
for in the Comprehensive Plan and Proposed Zoning Ordinance is weak, and that a far
higher density is appropriate and sustainable. The DGEIS states that the density is
based on limitations in access and infrastructure serving the PW-2 District. The
assertion that further infrastructure improvements are necessary to serve the PW-2
District is unsubstantiated in the Comprehensive Plan and the DGEIS. The Hidden
Cove DEIS demonstrates that existing infrastructure is adequate to serve the proposed
use of the Property, or will be improved by Plateau to remedy any potential deficiencies.
Accordingly, at present, the statement of the DGEIS regarding the sufficiency of
infrastructure serving the PW-2 district is unsubstantiated and inaccurate. The subject of
the adequacy of infrastructure warrants a complete study in the Village’s SEQRA review.
(A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Page 82 of Section 3.3.3 of the DGEIS states “although the PW-2 allows for residential
development, such residential development will most likely require infrastructure
improvements due to the fact there will be additional strain on the current water lines.
The roadways are also narrow, especially for the limited access that currently exists.”
The statement refers to the existing conditions of the North Water Street Extension. The
statements do not imply any decisions on density restrictions or the possibility of
development as a result of upgrades that can occur through infrastructure
improvements. Please see response to Z-46 in the Zoning section in the FGEIS in
reference to density increases in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action
PW-2).
S-16) Stating that the action will “create and enhance unique characteristics in areas of
Ossining that, under current policies, are likely to remain, in some ways,
indistinguishable from those of other suburbs” (DGEIS Executive Summary, p. 38) is
meaningless within the context of a DGEIS and provides no basis for comparing the
impacts of the Proposed Action with those of other alternative courses of action…no
evidence is provided to indicate that such a socioeconomic change has been occurring
in Ossining or that, in the absence of the Proposed Action, it will take place as
described. Nor is an estimate provided regarding the extent to which the Proposed
Action might mitigate such a trend. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The purpose of the Executive Summary is to preview the main points of DGEIS. The
quoted language is one sentence in a whole paragraph summarizing the findings in
S.4.16. The full paragraph is set forth below.
“Overall, the Proposed Action will largely preserve and enhance Ossining’s
current character as a socio-economically diverse, pedestrian-friendly, historic
Village with a vibrant Downtown, accessible waterfront and green spaces, and
historic and architecturally interesting neighborhoods. In contrast to the Future
Baseline Conditions, implementation of the Proposed Action will effectively
preserve and improve unique aspects of Ossining’s character. It will also create
and enhance unique characteristics in areas of Ossining that, under current
policies, are likely to remain, in some ways, indistinguishable from those of other
suburbs.
As detailed elsewhere in this DGEIS, historic structures and
neighborhoods will receive protections they will not otherwise receive under
Future Baseline Conditions, and scenic vistas and open spaces will be protected.
Parklands will be up-graded, and new parks and public open spaces will be
provided in developed areas where they are most needed. Overall, aesthetic
values will be protected to a much greater degree. Finally, socio-economic111
diversity will remain a defining characteristic of the Village.” (Emphasis added)
Please see Chapter 13 of the DGEIS for more information and our response to S-3.
S-17) The DGEIS goes so far as to state ” housing demand in Westchester County and
the Village is strong and is expected to remain strong over the horizon period.” (DGEIS
Executive Summary, p. 13.) In and of itself, such a statement warrants that the Village
“go back to the drawing board” and undertake a new analysis of its Action’s impact on
housing, in general, and waterfront redevelopment, in particular. Reliance on such a
groundless assumption would be laughable, but for the fact that it is this kind of
assumption that may well spell the doom of efforts to revitalize the waterfront, wreak
havoc with the existing economic and fiscal conditions in the Village, and seriously injure
property owners such as Plateau. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see response to MSA-35 of the Market and Sensitivity Analysis Section in this
FGEIS.
S-18) For example, one of the goals set forth in the DGEIS and the proposed
Comprehensive Plan is to foster the adaptive reuse of the Brandreth Pill Factory.
Absent the rezoning of the entire Property into the PW-2 District, including the plateau
(or another similar zoning change substantially increasing the allowable density on the
Property), the preservation and reuse of the factory will not be feasible. The costs of
such restoration and reuse are simply too great to be defrayed by development of the
Property under the existing zoning or, for that matter, the zoning that is set forth in the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance. This is particularly the case if the other proposed
legislation under consideration, which imposes substantial additional restrictions on and
impediments to development—e.g., affordable housing, historic preservation, view
corridor and steep slopes regulations—were to be enacted. A noticeable deficiency in
the DGEIS is its failure to acknowledge the high costs entailed in the adaptive reuse of
sometimes dilapidated and almost always functionally-obsolescent historic or
landmarked buildings. Absent such an analysis, the SEQRA review of the impact of the
Village’s Proposed Action on historic and cultural resources, community character, and
the pattern of community growth and development and its economic and fiscal impact is
patently deficient. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Analysis of the specifics of the Hidden Cove application currently pending before the
Planning Board is beyond the scope of this GEIS. The Lead Agency is aware that there
can be significant costs involved in the preservation and/or adaptive reuse of historic
structures. The Lead Agency believes that its proposed zoning amendments and
Historic Preservation law adequately take this factor into account.
S-19) The DGEIS does nothing to study the potential costs involved in rehabilitating
historic or cultural structures or buildings, in general, or the Brandreth Pill Factory, in
particular. It does not analyze the potential costs and environmental impacts of
compelling landowners to maintain functionally useless landmarked structures in
perpetuity. It ignores that adoption of the legislation may encourage those who own
structures or buildings which have not yet been designated as historic or landmarked by
the Village to destroy the buildings before the increased regulation decreases the value
and severely restricts the potential use of their property. In short, conclusory statements
that the proposed legislation will have a positive impact on cultural and historic
resources, without undertaking a full socioeconomic analysis of the costs involved in
rehabilitating and/or maintaining buildings and the impediments preservation of such
buildings or structures will pose to redevelopment and, in general, its impact on
community character and the pattern of community growth and development, are
112
insufficient to constitute the required “hard look” at the topic. (A. Wekstein, letter,
10/10/08)
A hard look was taken at this issue. Please see Chapter 13 Scenic, Historic, and
Cultural Resources; and Chapter 17 Community Character for more information on the
analysis of the Proposed Action Historic Preservation legislation. Please see response
to comment Z-43 in the Zoning Section concerning the proposed hardship language
regarding the Proposed Action Historic Preservation legislation.
S-20) In addition, the claim in the DGEIS that under future baseline conditions business
areas are less likely to be redeveloped with mixed land use and, therefore, are less apt
to encourage pedestrian, as opposed to automobile, transportation, is contradicted by
the fact that a number of the recent proposals for development in and around the
downtown involve multifamily residential uses which would place residents in proximity
to existing businesses. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
As discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the DGEIS, the current downtown zoning district
(B-3) and the B-2 districts actually discourage mixed use. The B-3 requires a special
permit for residential uses where the owner of the non-residential component does not
live on the premises and the B-2 does not allow residential uses. All recent proposals
for development are a result of special permits or use variances. Therefore, the
Proposed Action Zoning will promote mixed use in the business districts by making
residential uses conditional uses and the resulting more streamlined process will create
more mixed uses than the Future Baseline Conditions. More details can also be found
in Chapter 10 of the DGEIS.
S-21) The Village should explain in the FGEIS why restricting development in the PW-2
District, rather than Village acquisition of the portion of North Water Street that is
privately owned together with limited additional property along the margins thereof
(through the exercise of eminent domain, if necessary), represents a sounder approach
from a planning and land use perspective. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The Proposed Action does not restrict development in the PW-2 and in fact under the
Proposed Action Zoning and its amendments the Amended Proposed Action PW-a
(Proposed Action PW-2) will have the ability to achieve more development than under
the current zoning. Please see more information under the Zoning Section of the FGEIS
especially comment Z-46.
S-22) The FGEIS must examine the divergence between the conditions in the field and
the locations of the roads in the filed instruments both in gauging the proper use of the
municipal parcel on north Water street and in undertaking an appropriate analysis of
access for the PW-2 district and for that matter the Plateau. (A. Wekstein, letter,
10/10/08)
Please see comment Z-69 in the Zoning section of the FGEIS and S-15 of this Section.
The DGEIS does not base any decisions on density restrictions or the possibility of
development as a result of upgrades that can occur through infrastructure
improvements. Access to and from any of the properties in the Amended Proposed
Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) will be analyzed during local site plan review.
Please see response to Z-46 in the Zoning section in the FGEIS in reference to density
increases in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2).
113
S-23) Interestingly, and perhaps contradictory, the DEIS states in S.4.7, Water
Resources (p. 19) as follows:
“Given the new FEMA regulations regarding development in flood plains, the existing
waterfront zoning may not allow enough height and setbacks for development.”
That statement requires further explanation in light of the proposed height limitation in
the zoning code. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
This statement refers to the existing zoning in the waterfront districts specifically in WD-1
which limits heights at 2.5 stories or 35 feet. The Proposed Action Zoning and its
associated amendments will increase its height from the existing zoning to 3 stories or
36 feet and are summarized in the Zoning section of the FGEIS especially in the
response to comment Z-46.
S-24) Chapter 1.2 contains a statement that the Village is almost completely developed,
yet the Plan speaks to the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of square feet of
residential and commercial development that can be achieved. If this is the case, then
there has not been enough emphasis placed on the adaptive reuse or demolition and
redevelopment of the existing stock in the Village, and too much emphasis placed on
new development. How can this inconsistency be reconciled? (P. Stolatis, letter,
10/13/08)
The Village is almost completely developed. To clarify the confusion, when the Plan
speaks about new development it refers to all types of new development whether it is infill development through adaptive reuse, complete redevelopment of a property or new
development on vacant property.
S-25) Chapter 1.3.2 speaks to the numbers of attendees at the four public sessions,
ranging from 50 to a couple up to 100 for one meeting. How many discrete individuals
actually attended one or more meetings? In other words, were the same 50 people
present at all four sessions, with the balance made up of other attendees, or were there
a total of 260 different people attending only one session each? Of the attendees, how
many were members of the Plan committee and Village Trustees, staff and other
officials? This statement is meant to assure a reader that the Plan has benefited from a
broad exposure and participation by the residents of the Village, yet it seems that few
understand, much less appreciate, the significant changes being proposed by the Plan.
How do we ensure that the residents will be satisfied with the results of the Plan if it is
implemented, especially in light of all the faults and problems exposed above? (P.
Comment noted. Throughout this process people regularly attended the public
meetings. There were people who attended more than one workshop or public meeting
and the Village found that to be a positive situation because that meant that the Village
was able to engage the public and carry that engagement through the process. Below
highlights the number of individual people that attended the various public outreach
events the Village conducted at the inception of the Comprehensive Plan process.
Survey: 1,436 individual surveys received.
Workshops that had sign-in sheets (Includes four workshops and 2 recommendation
meetings) 115 individual people signed the sign in sheets. That does not include the 14
Committee members or the 5 Village Board members who also attended the meetings.
The SWOT and the two public presentations on the Draft Plan and Zoning did not have
sign-in sheets.
Focus Groups: ~ 40 students at the Ossining High School (head count only); 20 people
at the Chamber of Commerce; 18 people from St. Ann’s; 16 people from Star of
114
Bethlehem; 40-50 people at the Golden Agers Club (head count only)
Public Comment Period for recommendations: 27 separate pieces of correspondences
with 140 signatures
S-26) A constant theme throughout the Plan is the omission of the PW-2 from all
discussions relative to additional density bonuses. There are multiple references to the
adaptive reuse of the Brandreth Pill Factory, yet the level of density and density bonuses
sought in other zones to encourage such adaptive reuse have been withheld from PW-2.
What is the justification of such an egregious omission? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
As already stated in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and Proposed
Action Zoning the PW-2 is being afforded additional density and density bonuses. The
proposed amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning will afford the Amended Proposed
Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) the same density as Amended Proposed Action
PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) and Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action
PW-6). Please see comment Z-46 of the Zoning section in the FGEIS for more
information.
S-27) Chapter 6.1.2 speaks to 60% of the Village being on slopes in excess of 15%.
Based on the objections of the Village Planning Department and Code Enforcement
Office relative to the Hidden Cove on the Hudson site plan, which includes a small
portion of its access road at a slope of 12%, how can the Plan recommend the level of
development it has? Since a significant portion of this development will have to be on
slopes in excess of 15%, how does the Village reconcile this inconsistency in a
reasonable manner? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Chapter 6.1.2 speaks to the existing overall topography in the Village of Ossining. The
10% grade of an access road you are referring to is related to a legal requirement of a
maximum grade for access roads that can be found in the Village of Ossining’s Local
Code Chapter 233, Subdivision.
S-28) The Plan mentions the Vireum as a successful example of an adaptive reuse of a
historically significant structure. This is a patently misleading statement by the Plan, and
is being used improperly. If the consultant had done its research, it would have spoken
to the developer of the Vireum, Mr. Carmody, who would confirm that he “lost his shirt”
when he developed the Vireum in the early eighties. Eventually, the Vireum did attract
buyers for the units available, but there was no profit for the developer. It was also
conveniently omitted that the Virerum had no infrastructure costs to contend with, with
development costs limited to the immediate site. This failure to recognize the added
costs and risks associated with the adaptive reuse of such a structure as the Brandreath
Pill Factory is unacceptable, and reflects an obvious bias. How does the Village
reconcile this biased position based on the facts available? What other biases are to be
found within this Plan that would only be discovered by a careful examination of the
facts? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
We still stand by our comment that Vireum is a successful adaptive reuse of historic
buildings in the waterfront area in recent years. As pointed out in the comment above
Vireum was an 1870 building once used as a military school, training young men for the
entrance exam into West Point and Annapolis and it is now an occupied condominium
building. The Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan does not attempt to analyze
construction costs for particular sites but it merely recommends that the Village should
encourage the adaptive reuse of these buildings. Please see Objective 6 of the
Waterfront Chapter in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan.
115
S-29) The Plan speaks to the Historic Review Committee having its powers increased as
a means to save more historically significant structures. The opposite may actually be
the case for owners who might be willing to work with the Village on a mutually beneficial
plan to adaptively reuse such a structure, yet have no desire to have their economic
interests subordinated to the whims and fancies of an appointed committee that has no
economic consequences to its decisions and no direct appeal of its rulings, whether
intelligent or arbitrary. Why would the Village support a proposal to abdicate its
responsibilities in such a fashion? What controls will be established to ensure fairness
and equity to the affected owners? What economic incentives area to be offered in
exchange for the unquestioned control of the HRC over a property? What potential
litigation is the Village exposing itself to from what might be viewed as a ‘taking’ when an
owner is prevented from the economic enjoyment of his/her property? (P. Stolatis,
letter, 10/13/08)
Currently, the Historic Review Commission acts in an advisory role to the Planning
Board for structures that fall within the Village’s designated Historic Districts. The
Proposed Action Historic Preservation legislation located in section 270-19 Historical
and Architectural Design Districts and Historic Landmarks (HADD) will endow the
Historic Review Commission with expanded powers including hearing applications and
recommendations for historic landmarks and districts and requiring Certificates of
Appropriateness for alterations and/or additions to designated buildings. If the Proposed
Action Zoning is adopted, this will allow for landmarks and additional districts to be
designated in the Village of Ossining. The intent of the legislation is to create a
commission with the necessary architectural, real estate, and historic preservation
background with membership who would know as professionals in the field of economics
of rehabilitation of an historic structure, where the Planning Board members are not
required to have that background. The requirements for the Proposed Action Historic
Preservation commission members are as follows:
There shall be a Historic Preservation Commission consisting of five members appointed
by the Village Manager of the Village of Ossining.
a. All members shall have a known interest in historic preservation and architectural
development within the Village of Ossining.
b. The membership of the board shall include:
[i] At least one member with practical experience in the field of architecture or
urban design;
[ii] At least one member with practical experience in planning, land development
or real estate;
[iii] At least one member who is a resident of a designated Historical District or of
a property that has been designated as a local historic landmark; and
[iv] At least one member who has demonstrated significant interest in and
commitment to the field of historic preservation or local history, evidenced either
by involvement in a historic preservation group or historical society, employment
or volunteer activity in the field of historic preservation, or other practical
demonstration of interest.
c. It is not necessary to appoint a separate Commission member to fulfill each of the
above categories. A single member with the requisite experience or expertise can fulfill
more than one of the categories.
In addition, the Proposed Action Historic Preservation legislation was based on the
model Certified Local Government (CLG) Historic Preservation Ordinance provided to us
by Julian Adams the CLG Program Coordinator for New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation.
The Village has not abdicated its responsibilities. This legislation is further testament
that the Village views Historic Preservation as an important planning tool and something
of value to the health and welfare of the Village.
116
Please see Chapter 13 of the DGEIS Scenic, Historic, and Cultural Resources; and
Chapter 17 Community Character for more information on the analysis of the Proposed
Action Historic Preservation legislation. Please see response to comment Z-43 in the
Zoning Section concerning the proposed hardship language regarding the Proposed
Action Historic Preservation legislation. There is an appeals process and please see
section 270-19 Historical and Architectural Design Districts and Historic Landmarks
(HADD) of the Proposed Action Zoning for the information on the appeals process.
S-30) Table 13-1 indicates the height in PW-3 as 4 stories/50 feet, in keeping with the
heights of existing building stock. Why was Harbor Square, with its approved height at 7
stories/79 feet, omitted as an exception to the standards being applied? Was this an
error, or purposefully done to fit the standard to a desired limit? (P. Stolatis, letter,
10/13/08)
Harbor Square One is located in an overlay zone of PWRD. The Amended Proposed
Action Riverfront Development District (Draft Amendments to the Proposed Action PW3) intent is not to replicate the heights of Harbor Square One but of the surrounding
buildings that currently exist in that area and therefore the PWRD or Harbor Square One
is not discussed. For clarification, Harbor Square will be 6 stories.
S-31) Chapter 18.3.1 makes much of the tax base of condominiums being a fraction that
of single-family homes, implying that such developments reduce the revenue to the
Village and School District. Why was this tack taken by the Plan? Aside from the
research and other evidence that points to condominium projects as having less impact
on community services, such as school-age children, there are generally several
multiples of condo units per acre than if the same site were developed with single-family
homes. The total tax revenue per acre would, therefore, be much higher from a condo
project than from single-family homes. Why is this bias permitted in this important
document? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The statements contained in Chapter 18: Fiscal Implications of the DGEIS concerning
the way cooperatives and condominiums are assessed compared to single family homes
are simply facts of the way these properties are assessed. The DGEIS does not state
that condominiums or cooperatives should not be built. Page 277 simply states that:
As part of site plan reviews, require the applicant to submit a fiscal impact study
and involve the Tax Assessor on its review. Fiscal impacts of projects should be
made part of the review and resolution process.
Require a non-residential component for projects in the Proposed Action PW-3
and Proposed Action PW-4 zones, where condominium development is likely to
occur, in order to offset the impacts on tax revenues of the condominium
development. However, non-residential uses should only be required if nonresidential uses are able to be supported by the residential component of a proposed
project.
Permit single-family and attached single-family dwelling units in the Proposed
Action PW-1 zone, in order to encourage fee-simple ownership in this zone where
such housing could easily be accommodated and where such housing is contextual
with the natural environment.
Please see Section 18.2 of the DGEIS which states that multi-family buildings, including
condominiums tend to have fewer children than single and two family housing.
117
S-32) The DGEIS states: “While mitigation does not appear to be required for the
proposed action, future development levels, locations and timeframes could vary.”
This is a misleading statement given that “analysis of the proposed action resulted in
operational failure at many intersections.” If the mitigation does “not appear to be
required,” is this because full build-out numbers were not used for traffic studies? If so,
perhaps that point should be made clear in the sentence above. (Burden, EAC, letter,
10/13/08)
Comment noted. The sentence should be deemed stricken from the DGEIS and Section
9.3.2 should just begin with “[a]n alternative to the Proposed Action was detailed in
Section 9.3.1.
S-33) The Village of Ossining has no control over the work arrangements of the village
residents (with the exception of residents who work for the village), therefore this cannot
be an effective mitigation to traffic concerns. The idea that this could reduce car trips by
2-8 percent we regard as a wholly unreliable prediction in this situation and recommend
that this paragraph be stricken from the environmental impact statement (EIS). (Burden,
EAC, letter, 10/13/08)
It is true that you cannot control the work arrangements of all of the Village residents or
of employees in the Village but as part of applicable site plan approvals you can make
arrangements of start and end times of certain businesses with the goal of having that
site’s peak traffic occur at off-peak times for Village roads. The paragraph is simply
stating that if you use traffic demand strategies effectively you can reduce trips generally
in the range of 2 – 8 percent.
S-34) It is suggested that the few multi-family cluster developments that currently exist
should be reviewed to insure that the existing zoning adequately defines the
development. (Planning Board, undated letter)
As part of the Proposed Action Zoning process the Village did take a look at some of
those properties and adjusted zoning for Claremont Gardens and 15 and 16 James
Street. Comments were also received on two other properties and response to those
comments can be found in comments Z-115 and Z-116 of the Zoning section of the
FGEIS.
Future Projections
S-35) In examining likely tax impacts of the proposed action, the document uses
projections on a full buildout.…3,351 residential units and 6.3 million square feet of
nonresidential development is likely to be created…to be created over the next 20 years
is 228,625 square feet with residential development of 583 new units…At minimum, the
FGEIS should utilize reasonable projections, rather than full buildout figures, in
attempting to project the fiscal impacts of the action on the Village and School District.
(A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The paragraphs referred to in Chapter 18 should include the following information as
well.
Future Baseline Conditions
The reasonable expected growth projection for new residential units under Future
Baseline Conditions is estimated to be approximately 583 units. This number represents
approximately 38 percent of the full residential build-out under Future Baseline
Conditions which is a growth rate based on residential development rates in the Village
over the last 20 years (including approved projects not yet complete). It is estimated
118
that these residential units will yield ±1,160 new residents and ±82 new school children.
The reasonable expected growth projection for new non-residential square footage
under Future Baseline Conditions is estimated to be approximately 152,417 square feet.
This number represents approximately four percent of the full non-residential build-out
under Future Baseline Conditions which is a growth rate based on non-residential
development rates in the Village over the last 20 years. Although the non-residential
development rate was only two percent during that time period, to be conservative the
rate was doubled to four percent.
The Proposed Action
The reasonable expected growth projection for new residential units under the Proposed
Action is estimated to be approximately 1,209 units. This number represents an increase
in residential units of 107 percent over Future Baseline Conditions. This 107 percent
increase is based on the estimated difference between Future Baseline Conditions and
the Proposed Action at full build-out. It is estimated that these new residential units
would yield ±2,405 new residents and ±170 school children.
The reasonable expected growth projection for new non-residential square footage
under the Proposed Action is estimated to be approximately 228,625 square feet. This
number represents an increase in non-residential square footage of 50 percent over
Future Baseline Conditions. The 50 percent increase is based on the estimated
difference between Future Baseline Conditions and the Proposed Action at full build-out
The conclusions would still be the same. In adopting the Proposed Action there would
be an increase in the amount of non-residential square footage more than would be
developed in the Future Baseline conditions over the next 20 years. It is estimated that
there would be an additional ~ 76,000 square feet of non-residential growth with the
Proposed Action than under Future Baseline Conditions. This additional non-residential
will add much needed tax revenue to the Village of Ossining.
S-36) These numbers, limited as they are and derived during a period of different
economic conditions, simply do not support the kind of projections and conjecture about
future development which is contained in the DGEIS and Comprehensive Plan. (A.
Section 617.9(5)(iii)(‘d’) of the SEQR regulations requires that the draft EIS identify and
discuss any growth-inducing aspects of the proposed action. According to the SEQRA
regulations, “an evaluation should be made of potential significant adverse
environmental impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the
reasonable likelihood of their occurrence.” In order to do that, a determination was
needed on the reasonable growth-inducing impacts of the Proposed Action, and that
required an estimation of possible residential and non-residential growth.
To do this, we chose to evaluate all impacts at estimates for total build-out and a very
conservative reasonable expected growth analysis. Details of how the total build-out
and reasonable expected growth estimates were determined can be found in Chapter 2,
Future Growth Projections, in the DGEIS. A summary of Ossining’s development over
the last 20 years (1988-2008) was used to help guide the assumptions for its reasonable
expected growth estimate. Looking at historic growth in the Village over the last 20
years only provided one scenario of possible future development. However, it was able
to provide us a plausible baseline on which to create the conservative reasonable
expected growth estimate for the next 20 years. In reviewing the developments over the
last 20 years which were used to estimate reasonable growth, an error was found in the
list of developments outlined in the DGEIS. Kemey's Cove which contains 120
condominium units was incorrectly identified as having been built in the past 20 years
and thus will be eliminated from the estimate. However, in reviewing the Planning Board
applications and building certificates of occupancy again it was discovered that
119
Hudson Point and Vireum Schoolhouse condominiums were built and completed during
the 1988-2008 timeframe. The two projects combined equal 106 units which amounts to
a 14 unit difference between what we was listed in the DGEIS as new development for
the time period of 1988-2008 and the corrected unit count. It should be noted that the
identified error results in a de minimis effect.
The conservative estimates were used because in the past, the Village has experienced
spurts of residential and non-residential growth with no pattern to the growth. To
assume only minimal growth, would possibly underestimate the potential environmental
impacts in our analysis for the Proposed Action. Although, we do not reasonably expect
full build-out in 20 years, we cannot predict the future market potentials or the amount of
economic growth or recession in the next 20 years. Markets have always been variable
and can easily go against current trends. Having no foolproof development predictors,
we chose to run all impact analyses on full-build out and conservative reasonable
expected growth estimates.
S-37) No rational explanation is provided for either of these methodologies, which are
central to all of the conclusions in the comprehensive Plan and DGEIS. Absent citation
to legitimate authority supporting such an approach, the projections, analysis and
recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and DGEIS, which are the basis for the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance, are nothing but speculation based on unsupported
hypothetical scenarios. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see the response to comment S-36.
S-38) Chapter 3.3.3 speaks to expectations of 627,000 sf on non-residential space that
can be developed in PW-2. This may be physically possible to squeeze this much space
into this area, but it has no practical likelihood of ever happening without major
skyscrapers rising up. Some practical facts: 627,000 sf of non-residential space
(assumed to be office or retail since industrial is specifically targeted as a non-desirable
use) will generate from 2,000 to 3,000 tenants and guests. Aside from the physical
challenges of accommodating this many people, there are superior locations within
Westchester County where such development would occur first. Why does the Plan
speak so seriously about something that has no hope of ever occurring? If the Plan
includes retail, then how does it reconcile the inability of the Central Business District to
attract retail, yet expect an unproven location to be able to attract such numbers? (P.
The paragraph refers to the total build-out square footage in the Proposed Action PW-2.
Please see page 81 in the DGEIS. It does not estimate or suggest numbers of tenant
and guests just the total build-out square footage of non-residential use in the Proposed
Action PW-2.
S-39) The consultant included the residential development of Kemeys Cove in its
analysis of historic development to forecast the potential future development for the
Plan. Had Kemeys Cove not been included, the consultant’s projections would be
considerably changed and the recommendations significantly different than those
provided. (Stolatis, letter, 10/27/08)
Please see the response to comment S-36.
120
MARKET AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DRAFT FGEIS
Introduction
In order to better understand what kind of development could realistically be expected to
occur in the waterfront area given recent market trends (as of that time), the Village
Board commissioned the preparation of a Market and Sensitivity Analysis (the
“Analysis”) in Spring 2008. The intent of the Analysis was to generally test the market
viability and market impacts of the Proposed Action Zoning which included the creation
of seven Planned Waterfront sub-districts. The first part of the Analysis is the market
analysis which focused on the market viability of various land uses on the waterfront.
The uses examined were not intended to be recommendations, but rather an estimate of
the likelihood of a particular land use being a success in the waterfront area in the
current real estate market. The second part of the Analysis is the sensitivity analysis,
which focused on the financial viability of density options in the waterfront, as well as
different affordable housing options that were being contemplated in the DGEIS as part
of the Proposed Action Zoning. The primary goal of the Market and Sensitivity Analysis
was to help the Village narrow down and identify additional Alternatives to the Proposed
Action to be studied in the DGEIS for their potential impacts.
In November 2008, the Village Board proposed Amendments to the Proposed Action
Zoning based in part on feedback from the pubic comments, which included the
development community, on the DGEIS and concern among the Village Board that the
Proposed Action Zoning could be amended to better promote the goals and objectives
for the waterfront area as stated in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and
LWRP. As is detailed further below, the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning
would create the option of greater density in certain waterfront zones on sites suitable to
accommodate such densities and retain existing densities in zones less suitable to
handle increased densities or identified as more likely to be suitable for “destination”
commercial uses. (Please see the Zoning Section of the FGEIS.).
Bulk Requirements in the Existing Waterfront Zones
The baseline bulk requirements in the Planned Waterfront sub-districts of the Proposed
Action Zoning were based on the similar as-of-right heights and densities as the existing
waterfront zones, the WD-1 and the WD-2 which were adopted by the Village in 1990.
The maximum residential density for the WD-1 zone is 16 dwelling units per acre in
existing buildings with no dwelling unit containing more than two bedrooms. The
maximum residential density for the WD-2 zone is 18 dwelling units per acre with no
dwelling units containing more than two bedrooms. According to the current Zoning
Code, the objectives of the WD zones are to promote redevelopment in the waterfront
area while further encouraging public access and use of the riverfront area for residents.
In order to encourage this redevelopment, the objectives of the WD zones include
encouraging the assemblage of sites for redevelopment along the waterfront.
Bulk Requirements in the Proposed Action Waterfront Zones
The Proposed Action Zoning which was studied in the DGEIS includes the Proposed
Action PW-3 (currently in WD-1) and the Proposed Action PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 zones
(currently in the WD-2), and Proposed Action PW-1 (currently in PRD and O-R). Base
densities are consistent with the maximum densities allowed in the current Zoning
Code.1
1
Notes on the PW-1, PW-5 and PW-7: The bulk requirements for the proposed PW-1 zone are
consistent with the existing PRD zone. However, for the PW-1 the minimum lot size is two acres
rather than five acres for the PRD. The maximum density for the PW-1 is eight dwelling units per
acre rather than the six dwelling units per acre maximum for the PRD. The PW-5 zone consists
mainly of lots smaller than the minimum 40,000 square feet of the WD zone. Therefore, the 121
A primary objective of both of the existing WD zones is to promote redevelopment of the
waterfront while encouraging public access and use of the riverfront area. The intention
of the Proposed Action Zoning is to further advance these objectives, by offering density
bonuses in exchange for the provision of public amenities in the Proposed Action PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 zones. Such amenities include creation of open space, and other
community benefits that would further the recommendations detailed in the Proposed
Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. Developers are not required to provide these
community benefits, but are rewarded with increased density if they choose to do so.
The Proposed Action Zoning allows maximum densities in the PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6
zones to 20 dwelling units per acre. Based on topography and adjacency to the MetroNorth train station, the maximum density in the Proposed Action PW-4 is 30 dwelling
units per acre. Therefore, in the Proposed Action Zoning the maximum densities of the
PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 zones are greater than the existing WD zoning. Details of
the base densities and incentives of the Proposed Action Zoning can be found in
Appendix B of the Proposed Action Zoning.
Bulk Requirements in the Amendments to the Proposed Action Waterfront Zones
As stated above, the Village Board proposed Amendments to the Proposed Action
Zoning in November 2008 based in part on feedback from the comments received during
the public comment period of the DGEIS. Please see response to comment Z-46 of the
Zoning section of the FGEIS for more information. .
A primary reason for amending the Proposed Action Zoning is to advance a primary
objective of both of the existing WD zones which is to encourage the assemblage and
re-development of sites. In order to further promote these objectives, the Amendments
to the Proposed Action increase densities by Special Permit in the Amended Proposed
Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed
Action PW-4) and Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zones on
sites at least 3.0 or more acres in size. Qualifying sites will receive a base density of 22
dwelling units per acre, which are four units more than under the existing WD-2 zoning
for these areas. The Amendments to the Proposed Action would offer incentives for
density bonuses including affordable housing for a maximum density of 32 dwelling units
per acre.
The increased density also serves to address feedback from the development
community to the Proposed Action Zoning tested in the Market and Sensitivity Analysis
which identified the possibility of providing more density for developments to reduce the
economic risk of developing in the waterfront area. Based on analysis detailed in the
DGEIS, increased densities on larger parcels could be accommodated in certain zones
and would better accomplish the Village’s objectives outlined in the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan and LWRP. This increased density in the Amended Proposed
Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed
Action PW-4) and Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zones
allow for a total maximum number of units which is 14 units greater than Existing
Conditions and 12 units greater in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a and PW-c and
two units greater in the Amended Proposed Action PW-b than the Proposed Action
Zoning. These increased densities are intended to induce development in the waterfront
area and make contemplated projects even more feasible than under the Proposed
Action Zoning.
In order to accommodate the increased densities in these zones east of the railroad
tracks, the Village Board proposed removing the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront
Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) from the Proposed Waterfront Zoning
Action and maintaining this zone at the bulk regulations currently permitted under the
zoning for this area is more consistent with the proposed zoning for the downtown Crescent area.
The PW-7 includes Sing Sing Prison which is not anticipated to be redeveloped over the 20 year
122
horizon period and so was not analyzed for this GEIS.
WD-1 zoning with the exception that the maximum height be raised by one foot and 0.5
story to 3 stories/36 feet which is greater than the existing zoning. The redistributed
density is based on several factors including the fact that access to the Amended
Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) is limited to
two narrow vehicular bridges over the Metro-North railroad tracks. In addition, the
majority of land in the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District
(Proposed Action PW-3) is on fill which accrues high construction costs associated with
any development above a few stories. Feedback from the development community in the
DGEIS public comments indicated that these higher costs necessitated higher densities
and heights above what was proposed for the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront
Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) zone. Furthermore, the Amended
Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) is also
identified as the best area in the waterfront to locate commercial destination uses due to
its proximity to the Hudson River and water-related uses that currently exist in that zone.
The Village Board decided that greater heights and densities would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan or
Amendments to the LWRP. Instead, the Village Board decided that maintaining existing
densities and heights in the waterfront area west of the Metro-North railroad tracks
would encourage the maintenance of existing water-related uses along the waterfront
and further promote the development of new water-related uses which is in keeping with
the goals and objectives of the Draft Proposed Action and Amendments to the LWRP.
(Please see the Zoning Section of the FGEIS.).
Permitted Uses in the Proposed Action Zoning and Amendments to the Proposed
Action Zoning
The proposed waterfront sub-districts of both the Proposed Action Zoning and the
Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning are intended to allow for greater flexibility
than the existing waterfront development zones in terms of permitted uses and bulk
requirements. This was to allow for a variety of land uses including mixed-use
developments and to let the market decide what uses were most suitable. On that point,
it is important to note that most parcels in the waterfront sub-districts contain existing
businesses. The zoning is designed to enable redevelopment, or in some cases more
intense development, if market conditions permit.
The Market and Sensitivity Analysis and the Proposed Action
The Analysis was released in August 2008 close to a year after the Proposed Action
Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to the Zoning Code and LWRP (the “Proposed
Action”) were released in November 2007 and played no role in the formulation of the
Proposed Action. The Proposed Action Zoning was based on a thorough analysis of
height and bulk regulations including an investigation of waterfront zoning in other
Westchester and Rockland County communities with frontage on the Hudson River, as
well as computer modeling demonstrating how various heights and densities might
impact the Ossining shoreline. Also taken into consideration were environmental
concerns related to density and height. Not least of all, the Comprehensive Plan Zoning
Committee members considered their own and the community’s general level of
tolerance for increased height and densities on the waterfront.
The Intention of the Market and Sensitivity Analysis and the Pro Forma
Typically, a sensitivity analysis, or a “what if” analysis, is a method of analyzing risk for a
particular parcel by starting with a base case, and then changing one or more of the key
assumptions to see how sensitive the property is to these changes. In this case, the
sensitivity analysis is not really analyzing risk because, as mentioned, the existing
zoning formed the basis of the as-of-right densities and heights with the possibility of
increased densities in exchange for public benefits. In addition, the sensitivity analysis
was not performed for one project, but for an entire area. Thus, it was not a precise tool
focused on all of the particulars of one site, but rather a generic, or an order-ofmagnitude analysis on the proposed densities using a variety of theoretical123
scenarios. Among the comments received on the Analysis included many issues that
tend to be more site and project specific. The Analysis was not intended to reach that
level of detail. The Analysis is not a pro forma for a particular project which would take
into account variables too exact for a study such as this.
The pro forma for the Analysis was intended to be a prototype which could be updated,
adapted and used in the future by the Village Planning Department; it is based in market
realities, but general enough to be applied to a myriad of sites. The costs were based on
discussions with developers with vast expertise working in the Westchester County real
estate market, as well as an investigation of comparable projects in comparable
communities in Westchester and Rockland Counties. It is important to note, that this pro
forma is not intended to test the feasibility of a particular project and in that case may
lack some of the depth of analysis that would be performed for a specific site. The goal
was to create results that would help identify the alternatives to be analyzed for
environmental impacts in the DGEIS. These alternatives had to balance bulk regulations
that the Village Board and the community were prepared to allow and which could be
reasonably balanced with the other planning and environmental concerns, i.e.,
affordable housing needs, traffic capacity, utility capacity, natural habitat preservation,
community character, etc.
The statements expressed above are further corroborated in the Introduction located in
the Market and Sensitivity Analysis on page 1 and 2 which specifically states that “[a]
part of the sensitivity analysis is a cost analysis which indicates a rough (order-ofmagnitude) sense of the cost of developing on the waterfront.” The Introduction also
states “[i]t should be emphasized that this report provides background on the
prospective uses. It is not intended to serve as a formal Environmental Impact
Statement, fiscal impact, or financial evaluation. It was prepared to aid the Village in its
planning and decision-making with regards to the waterfront on a conceptual level.”
The Market and Sensitivity Analysis and Current Market Conditions
The pro forma, based on costs in spring 2008, presents a snapshot of a market at a
particular point in time was. The mortgage crisis and the ensuing economic downtown in
fall 2009 have left the real estate market in much of the country, including Ossining, in a
precarious position. Given the current housing market, the assumptions relating to
project feasibility have obviously changed. Projects which heretofore would have been
viable are no longer so, not because they lack adequate density or incentives, but
because of falling prices, lack of credit, and a myriad of other problems related to the
market. However, this does not invalidate the Proposed Action Zoning. The Proposed
Action Zoning and the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning, like the existing
zoning, which it is intended to replace, may not induce immediate development, not
because of zoning but because of economic circumstances deemed by President
Obama to be “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” This does not
mean that there are fatal flaws in the proposed zoning. The Market and Sensitivity
Analysis tested the Proposed Action Zoning to determine if this zoning included the
correct range of densities to induce future development. Feedback from members of the
development community indicated that the densities needed to be increased in order to
reduce the risk to developers even further and increase the feasibility of redevelopment
in the waterfront. The Village Board responded with the increased densities described in
the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning.
Real estate analysts generally agree that the Westchester County real estate market will
eventually recover from the economic downturn due to scarcity of land and proximity to
New York City. However, a community is not obligated to increase densities or provide
other zoning incentives to make real estate projects viable in bad markets. Zoning is
intended to balance the interests of the community with those of individual private
124
property owners, and in “normal” markets, provide sufficient economic incentives for
development.
In addition to the market conditions, the amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning as
is noted above and detailed in the Zoning Section of the FGEIS, greatly increase the
permitted densities in the waterfront zones for which the Market and Sensitivity Analysis
was conducted. An analysis concerning the Proposed Action PW-3 zone for which much
of the analysis focused is no longer relevant as that zone has been proposed to be
removed from the planned waterfront zones and generally retains its current bulk and
height restrictions. The maximum allowable density in the Amended Proposed Action
PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) and Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action
PW-6) zones has increased from 20 dwelling units per acre to 32 dwelling units per acre
for developments of 3.0 acres of more. The Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed
Action PW-4) zone has increased from a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre to 32
dwelling units per acre for developments of 3.0 acres of more.
The Market and Sensitivity Analysis and SEQRA
The concept of studying increased densities as alternatives in the DGEIS came about, in
part as, a result of the Market and Sensitivity Analysis. The DGEIS examined whether
environmental factors such as traffic, infrastructure, and community character could
accommodate these increased densities. It should be noted that economic impacts are
but one consideration in any assessment of environmental impacts. Local governments
have the authority to regulate property, even if the value of the property is affected. All
of the proposed zoning amendments in the waterfront area which are part of the
Proposed Action retain similar, or in some instances greatly increase, the permitted
densities and heights above current zoning. The legal basis for all land use regulation is
the police power of the jurisdiction to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its
residents. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should
be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, and well balanced as well as
carefully patrolled. While individual economic values can be deemed part of the public
welfare, it is not the sole concern.
Finally, the Proposed Action was crafted through an open and inclusive public outreach
process involving the participation of local residents, Village activists, civic leaders, the
Board of Trustees, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and outside urban
planning consultants, Village Planner, Village Treasurer, Building Department, among
others. Many of the respondents to the community survey and participants in the
community SWOT analysis and topical workshops voiced concerns over the future of the
waterfront area and offered various visions for the future of the area. Given this diversity
of stakeholders, the recommendations outlined in the Proposed Action took into account
a variety of concerns including among others, land use patterns, the need for affordable
housing, utility capacity, traffic circulation, fiscal implications, economic development,
community character, open space and recreation, the preservation of historic buildings
and the natural environment, etc. The Proposed Action and the Amendments to the
Proposed Action attempts to take into account these various concerns, attempting to
strike a balance that will protect the quality of the environment and the public health,
safety and general welfare. Therefore, although economic development and fiscal
concerns were taken into account in the formulation of the Proposed Action, these
concerns were not considered exclusive, but rather in concert with other environmental
impacts including traffic, community character, etc.
General
MSA-1) PW-6 Ideal for Higher Density: On page 5 of the study it states that PW-6 is “an
ideal zone for accommodating greater densities and convenience retail. The larger
densities and convenience retail should make rental units viable.” Although this is the
conclusion, PW-6 is allocated the same density allotment as PW-3. Further, on page 3
of the study it states that “The housing is the economic engine for the waterfront’s
125
development: the more housing units that are built, the more revenue that is available for
amenities, acquisitions, etc.” (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
This is a valid point. Based on its review of the DGEIS and Market Analysis, the Village
Board concluded in November 2008 that on sites greater than three acres in size, the
minimum densities in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2),
Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) and Amended Proposed
Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zones should be raised to 24 dwelling units per
acre. If public benefits are provided than the maximum density in each of these three
zones would be 32 dwelling units per acre. The purpose of these changes is based upon
the following reasons:
1.
The Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), Amended
Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) and Amended Proposed Action PW-c
(Proposed Action PW-6) zones all have similar variations in topography and close
proximity to the Metro-North station, and thus could handle the increased densities.
2.
By restricting these increased densities to sites larger than three acres in size,
the zoning will promote the assemblage of parcels and, hopefully, a more cohesive
redevelopment of the Ossining waterfront which is consistent with the existing WD
zoning, as well as the Proposed Action.
3.
The greater densities permitted will encourage transit oriented development in
the vicinity of the train station.
4.
The greater densities only come with the provision of more public benefits to the
community.
MSA-2) The Analysis PW-3 speaks to significant returns for developers, especially with
density bonuses and payments-in-lieu. Aside from the fact that this statement was
based on erroneous and incorrect analysis, the indicated returns of 15% for a project
that could take five to ten years to bring to fruition is hardly worth the risk incurred, much
less be considered significant. What basis does the consultant have for making such an
absurd evaluation? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The threshold of 15 percent rate of return was provided to us by developers with vast
experience working in Westchester County. As described in the Introduction, the pro
forma in the Analysis was meant to be a snapshot analysis, to determine the ballpark a
prototype project within the waterfront zones. The pro forma’s stated returns are
expressed as a simple cash return after repayment of principal and debt service on a
standard loan which is a typical methodology for this type of analysis. Any developer
would have to make his or her own judgment of whether their proposed project’s return
would be significant enough to justify the risk of the market and a multi-year build-out
and leasing or sales period.
In addition, please also see the description of the Amendments to the Proposed Action
in the Introduction which includes removing the Proposed Action PW-3 from the
Proposed Waterfront Zoning and retaining its existing bulk standards, and proposes
offering increased densities of up to 32 dwelling units per acre to developers on sites of
3.0 acres or more in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2),
Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) and Amended Proposed
Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zones. These density increases in these zones
represent an increase in maximum allowable density of 14 dwelling units per acre above
current WD zoning; and increases over the Proposed Action Zoning of 12 dwelling units
per acre in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2) and Amended
Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zone and two dwelling units per acre in
the Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) zone. The increased
densities in these zones are intended, in part, to reduce the risk to developers who
develop in these areas.
126
MSA-3) There is a comparison of Ichabod’s Landing that is reported to earn $23 per
square foot in rents. There is a statement made that it is uncertain that Ossining could
command such high rents. The analysis presented at length earlier, though depends on
$25 per square foot market rents to show the returns a developer could achieve. How
can this inconsistency be reconciled in a reasonable fashion? (P. Stolatis, letter,
10/13/08)
The $25 per square foot is an estimation of rents that could have been gotten for a
luxury waterfront rental on the Ossining waterfront in spring 2008. As is shown in Table
1: Sales and Rental Prices of Comparable Developments of the Market and Sensitivity
Analysis, the rental prices charged in Ossining and neighboring communities for new
construction ranged from a low of $18 per square foot to a high of $33 per square foot.
The use of $25 per square foot was simply an average of the low and high rents being
asked in comparable developments.
It is assumed that given the Ossining waterfront’s beautiful views of the undeveloped
palisades and proximity to the Metro-North Station, sales and rental prices for housing in
the area would be higher than typical for Ossining, i.e., $18 to $22 per square foot for 97
Main Street.
MSA-4) The conclusions for PW-3 are being made in isolation from the Plan’s own fact
situation for the theoretical scenario. It is as if the Plan authors did not care what
financial results were obtained, the case could always be made that more density and
concessions would make a development a success. How can the Village make a
reasoned case for its future with such unreasonable analysis? (P. Stolatis, letter,
10/13/08)
We disagree. It is not necessarily the case that the provision of public benefits yields
greater profits for the developer particularly if the cost of the provision is so exorbitant as
to not be compensated for by the increased number of units. One concern raised by the
Village Board in its examination of the Proposed Action was that developers would
choose not to provide public benefits in exchange for density bonuses. This was of
particular concern to some members of the Village Board who view the Amended
Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) area as some
of the most valuable land in the waterfront area due to its proximity to the Hudson River
itself. One purpose of the Proposed Action PW-3 analysis was to see whether
developers would take advantage of these density bonuses in exchange for the
provision of public benefits.
However, please see the Introduction for information on the Amendments to the
MSA-5) The PW-2 Analysis (Section V) speaks to returns on development of “for-sale
units” at numbers ranging from 45% to 50%, depending on density bonuses. There is no
supporting information presented here to verify the calculations that support this
conclusion but, logically, if PW-3 which has the highest return potential relative to
densities and market acceptance due to location can only achieve returns of 15% to
36%, with the erroneous and incorrect figures used as proven above, how is anyone to
believe that PW-2 (or indeed any of the other zones) can surpass the returns achieved
there? Clearly the analysis is deficient and not to be believed. How can the Village
justify and rationalize the conclusions reached in this analysis? (P. Stolatis, letter,
10/13/08)
Please the answer to MSA-2.
127
MSA-6) The Plan’s discussion on affordable housing states that such housing doesn’t
affect absorption. No evidence is submitted to back up this position, yet intuitively one
must accept that even for affordable housing, marketing is still required. Further, there is
an acknowledged chilling on the sale of the market-rate units when the affordable
component is not integrated properly. In a condominium project, where each owner is
responsible for their allocated share of operating and capital costs, and any shortfalls
that result from other owners not making such contributions, a specific owner may be
concerned that the owners of affordable units have the financial wherewithal to have
those funds available. Why was there no discussion of this concern anywhere in the
Plan? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Consistent with the Village’s adopted Affordable Housing Policy, as well as
recommendations in Chapter 7 Affordable Housing in the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan, all affordable units that are part of a market rate development
would have to be integrated so as their affordability would not be noticeable from the
outside and theoretically bring down property values. It should also be noted, the option
of supplying affordable housing off-site is studied in both this Analysis and as Alternative
C: Payments-in-Lieu of Providing Affordable Housing in the DGEIS.
Please see page 15 of the Analysis for a discussion of integrating affordable units into
market rate developments. The Analysis states that, “As indicated, the market-rate
housing units will sell or rent for a premium. This creates a pool of revenue from which to
draw in order to provide a cross-subsidy for affordable housing. (Though, of course, the
same pool of revenue must be shared with the site acquisition, site preparation,
infrastructure, amenity and other costs that together can exceed the revenue generated
by the development. Some developers would be queasy about an affordable housing
setaside of 10 percent, in terms of setting the tone for the development and therefore
creating problems in terms of marketing the luxury units. However, waterfront area is so
outstanding in terms of its amenity package and image, that this is not likely to be a
problem.”
MSA-7) The Plan opines that given the right retail mix, MetroNorth commuters would exit
at Ossining to utilize such retail and then re-board to continue their journey home is so
far-fetched, that the reasonableness of other assertions must be seriously questioned.
Not even major stops such as White Plains experience such activity. How could such a
statement be permitted to be made in this Plan? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Analysis makes no such suggestion. In fact, the Analysis makes the point in Section
IV Retail, that retail is a development risk in the waterfront area and that even railroad
commuters who come through the waterfront area everyday to and from the Ossining
Metro-North Station can only be expected to take “the shortest route to their cars and
homes, except on occasion to buy a gift or meet a friend for drinks or dinner.” These
commuters are disembarking in Ossining because they live there and in the process of
coming to and from the train would stop at this retail before going home or at a unique
restaurant offering water views. The point is that even these people who come to the
waterfront area everyday can only be relied upon to support a limited amount of retail.
No mention is ever made that people would come by train from other communities unboard shop in Ossining and then re-board during their daily commute.
MSA-8) Realizing that national retailers won’t be attracted to (nor desired by) Ossining,
there is a misguided belief that regional retailers will flock to Ossining simply because
the Plan authors will it to be. These firms are also driven by real life metrics: how many
people currently live in the community? What is their economic status, i.e., how much
do they spend? How many others come into the community? How much will it cost to
operate in the community? How much profit will the retailer reasonably expect to make?
The Plan does not speak to any tangible evidence that major retailers have been
128
surveyed and definite commitments received if the Plan’s proposals are implemented.
Notwithstanding the above, it had been proven to the Village several years ago that a
commitment from a national retailer (a restaurant) was in hand if the Village would
approve the performing arts center proposal submitted by the Hudson Arts Foundation.
Absent such a viable economic driver, national and regional retailers are not interested
in experimenting with unproven communities. What mitigation has the Plan offered? (P.
In fact, the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and the Market and Sensitivity
Analysis say quite the opposite. In Chapter 4 The Downtown Crescent and Economic
Development of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan it states that “Ossining
is at a competitive disadvantage for [big-name, chain retailers] for compounding
reasons: (1) chain stores like to cluster together; (2) they do not like to “pioneer” (i.e., be
the first one in the cluster); (3) they gravitate to locations proximate to greater wealth
and/or highway convenience; (4) the Hudson River cuts the potential trade area they can
“plug into” various locations with few variations. It would be a mistake for Ossining to
sacrifice its valuable historic downtown buildings to accommodate a national chain
store’s square footage and display window requirements.” The Market and Sensitivity
Analysis is consistent with the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. In Chapter
IV Retail it states that “there is local market support for a limited number of specialty
stores and restaurants in Ossining especially on the waterfront.” These specialty stores
and restaurants would not be chain-stores or restaurants but would offer “shopping and
dining experiences that are unique and entertaining.”
Please see Chapter 4 of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan for ways that
Ossining can boost its downtown Crescent and waterfront areas while not attempting to
attract national retailers. Please also see Chapter 15 Economic Resources of the DGEIS
which details the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan’s recommendations for economic development in the Downtown Crescent and
waterfront areas.
MSA-9) The Plan presumes that retail will move into the waterfront simply because it is
there. Unless there are significant subsidies offered, which no one is proposing, retail
will only develop as housing is brought on line, or some other driver is provided, such as
the aforementioned performing arts center proposal. Besides wishful thinking, what
practical plan is being proposed by the Plan to provide this attraction to retail? (P.
To the contrary, please see Chapter IV Retail of the Market and Sensitivity Analysis
presents the demand factors for and risks of various types of retail. No suggestion is
ever made that retail “will move into the waterfront simply because it is there.”
Please also see Chapter 4 The Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 15 Economic Resources of the
DGEIS for the various strategies proposed to boost economic development in the
downtown Crescent and waterfront locations.
MSA-10) Much discussion is given to Festival Retail as a possible draw for the
waterfront. This raises several questions that are not addressed within the Plan, yet are
critical to the reason for inclusion within the Plan. Specifically:
a)
What waterfront property does the Village control that could be dedicated to
a Festival Retail use?
b)
What other waterfront property owners have indicated a desire to develop
their properties into Festival Retail?
c)
What consideration has been given to the need for the US Corps of
Engineers approval for any impact to the Hudson waterfront?
129
d)
The Plan completely ignores the likely cost of delivering power and utilities
offshore. What analysis has been performed to establish these costs?
e)
What analysis has been performed to determine if the costs in 18.d above
are economically sustainable from the creation of Festival Retail?
f)
Does the Plan Committee intend for the Village to condemn in order to
acquire through eminent domain the property with the oil tanks or either of the two
marinas, or any combination thereof, as a means to obtain access to the waterfront?
What recommendations have been made to accomplish the above?
(P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The festival marketplace was considered to analyze the market viability, level of risk, site
requirements and other factors associated with the creation of a festival marketplace. A
careful reading of the Analysis would reveal that the festival marketplace is not
suggested as a draw, but rather analyzed to determine the circumstances such a use
requires. Furthermore, the Analysis concludes that “it is not likely that a festival market
would be profitable at the Ossining waterfront” and that such a venture would be
“extraordinarily risky.” (Please see page 22).
a. The Analysis makes no suggestion or recommendation for the Village to
condemn property on the waterfront. In addition, the Village would not
have to own the property for a festival market. The Analysis intent was to
determine whether such a marketplace would be possible in Ossining
and, if so, should it be encouraged through zoning or other measures
taken by the local government body.
b. This is beyond the scope of the Analysis. As stated above, the Analysis
looked at the viability of different retail options in the waterfront area
including a festival marketplace without going into specifics of ownership
of sites.
c. This is beyond the scope of the Analysis. As stated above, the Analysis
was not intended to go into site specific concerns. However please note
on page 22 of the Analysis that festival markets have “far higher common
fees and development costs” and “it is not likely that a festival market
would be profitable at the Ossining waterfront.” The Analysis also states
that “festival markets are high-risk ventures. They are generally pursued
where large public subsidies are provided to a master developer
functioning as a visionary entrepreneur.” (Page 25)
d. Please see answer to “c” above.
e. Please see answer to “c” above.
f.
Please see answer to “a” above.
MSA-11) The Plan states that waterfront retail would have a negative impact on retail
located in the Central Business District. There is no evidence for this assumption.
Further, conventional retail wisdom holds that this assumption is absolutely wrong, with
the expectation that two similar retailers will do more business when located near the
other than either would do if the other were not near, thanks to the offering of choice and
competition drawing more traffic. Why does the Plan believe that the waterfront will
have a negative impact? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Plan actually concludes the opposite of the commenter’s assertion. On page 26 of
the Analysis it states, “All three types of retail would compete with particular downtown
businesses” and “certain downtown stores and especially restaurants will experience a
decline in local business.” However, it also states that “certain stores will experience an
increase in regional business” and “it is likely, however, that the convenience retail
130
[in the waterfront] would have a negligible net impact on downtown” and “it is likely that
the theme retail and restaurants would have a positive net impact on downtown… more
people from nearby communities would, when they drive through downtown, learn about
stores and restaurants (too) that they would like to return to. Downtown could capitalize
on this by upgrading its appearance, parking and marketing, aimed at these new
passersby from a larger trade area.”
The Analysis does conclude that a “large festival market could have a negative net
impact on downtown” since a festival market would be a major destination and
downtown businesses may choose to relocate there. However, please note the answer
to MSA-10 which details how the Analysis does not believe the festival market to be a
viable option on Ossining’s waterfront.
MSA-12) The Plan goes on to state that views will be impacted, which is overstating its
case. Given the existence of the MetroNorth station, plus Harbor Square, and the
existing structures, there are virtually no direct view corridors to the Hudson from
anywhere in the PW-3 zone. How, therefore, does the Plan believe that views will be
further impacted? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Analysis states that views will not be impacted and indeed maybe maximized if retail
was created on the water’s edge. Please see page 27 of the Analysis which states that
“the convenience retail would have no impact on water views, since it would most likely
be oriented towards the bridge and railroad station. Both the theme retail and
restaurants and festival marketplace would, however, maximize the public enjoyment of
these views in order to maximize their own appeal.” The Analysis also states on page 14
that residential uses would open up many opportunities to view or get to the water’s
edge.
However, view corridor preservation refers to views from a particular location, as well as
views of a particular location. It should be noted that views of Hudson River in the
Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) can
be seen from many vantages.
MSA-13) The Plan states that the affordable housing will be helped by theme retail and
restaurants. Since such theme retail and restaurants are associated with discretionary
spending, something not typically associated with affordable housing, how does the Plan
reconcile the conflict of its position? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see Chapter 7 Affordable Housing in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive
Plan which recommends that in new developments and major rehabilitations of six or
more units, 10 percent of units should be affordable to those households making 80
percent or less of area median income. In return for this provision, the developments will
receive a 10 percent density bonus. Therefore, if a development of 10 units is proposed,
10 percent or one unit would be affordable and the developer would be eligible for a 10
percent or one unit density bonus. Thus, the development would include one affordable
unit and ten market rate units, the same number of market rate units as if there was no
affordable housing mandate. Therefore, the same number of people who can afford
“discretionary spending” would be living in the waterfront area both with the affordable
housing and without.
Furthermore, the basic concept of affordable housing is that a resident is paying either
rent or a mortgage that they are able to afford and therefore should be able to have
money available for discretionary spending. It is for this very reason affordable housing
is being created because too many people are currently subject to rents or mortgages
that require a majority of their monthly income to be able to make payment and therefore
they do not have money to spend on other necessities or on discretionary items.
131
The Analysis actually states on page 27 that “convenience retail would be an important
amenity for on-site residents [of affordable housing]. The theme retail and restaurants
would be too.” This does not mean that it would be “helped.” Please note page 15 of the
Analysis which states that the “market-rate housing units [in the waterfront] will sell or
rent for a premium.” These residents will presumably have the power of “discretionary
spending.”
MSA-14) The Plan admits that recreation will be a loss leader, dependent on the balance
of the development to offset the cost. Since none of the existing sites are large enough
to provide a sufficient base from which the presumed recreational component can be
subsidized, how does the Plan expect there will be a practical development program that
is being presented? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The recreation uses explored in Chapter VI Private Recreation of the Analysis include
skating rinks, amusement parks, tennis courts, health clubs, indoor children’s centers,
bowling alleys, family fun centers, etc. On page 32 of the Analysis, the various
requirements for sizes are listed: ice-skating rinks (20,000 square feet); health clubs
(10,000 to 30,000 square feet); indoor children’s centers (13,500 to 20,000 square feet);
bowling alleys (30,000 to 40,000 square feet); family fun centers (20,000 to 25,000
square feet); full-scale indoor pool and gymnasium facilities (20,000 to 30,000 square
feet). Although the Analysis does not investigate site specific concerns, we would
disagree that there are no sites in the entire waterfront area that could accommodate
some of these uses.
Furthermore, the Analysis does explain on page 33 how certain private recreation uses
such as a health club can be incorporated into other uses such as housing or office.
However, please also note that on page 31 of the Analysis, it states that “with a
population of only 24,000, it is clear that Ossining alone cannot support any of these
uses. Even if the population within a five-mile radius could support one of these facilities,
it begs the question of which of these facilities are better or more conveniently located
elsewhere in the five-mile catchment area.”
MSA-15) Further to the question in #22, is the Plan making the unspoken
recommendation for the Village to condemn and take by eminent domain the waterfront
properties from their existing owners to assemble the properties for delivery to a single
developer to attempt to provide the necessary critical mass of developable land? (P.
The Analysis does not make any recommendations for condemnation either spoken or
unspoken. Please see the Introduction to this section which explains the goals of the
Market and Sensitivity Analysis and please see page 1 of the Analysis which states that
the intention of the Analysis was to “understand the market viability of various land uses
on the waterfront.”
MSA-16) Why does the Plan believe a developer, assumed to be in full control of a
sufficient amount of waterfront to undertake a recreational element as a loss leader, will
make a decision to provide the recreational element at all, versus simply providing more
economically viable development? How does the Plan show that the recreational
element is a necessary component to make the developer’s site more marketable? (P.
Please see MSA-14.
In addition, investigating the market viability of a particular land use does not mean that
the Analysis endorses the land use. That said, as stated in MSA-14 the Plan
acknowledges that the waterfront is not an ideal location for a recreational element,132
unless it is provided in conjunction with another use such as office, housing, restaurants
i.e., a health club, indoor children’s center, etc.. Please see page 33 of the Analysis for
more information.
MSA-17) The entire section on cultural uses is replete with errors and false statements;
it is apparent that the Plan writers’ prejudices and personal agendas are at work here.
Many, if not most, of the Plan committee members are aware of the proposal presented
by the Hudson Arts Foundation for a performing arts center to be located at 155 Main
Street. The general Ossining population is in favor of this proposal, as evidenced by the
thousands of signatures on multiple surveys conducted over the years. Given the
unlikely programs presented in the Plan, such as the Festival Retail, why was this
proposal completely disregarded and ignored as a possible economic driver for the
entire community, not just the waterfront? Unlike the other suggested programs
appearing in the Plan, the performing arts center is a program that the Village can have
a direct positive impact of a successful implementation of the program through its
ownership of the identified site, and opportunity to seek and obtain Federal and State
funds. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
It is beyond the scope of the Market and Sensitivity Analysis to determine the viability of
a particular project being proposed in the downtown area, not the waterfront. A careful
read of the Analysis would reveal that the Analysis states that the waterfront may not be
the best location in the Village for a cultural use, but if a cultural use were to succeed in
the waterfront it would require a “tenant and funding plan solidly in place.” The Analysis
says that while the cultural use itself may not provide positive tax revenue “cultural and
institutional uses would bring plenty more people down to the waterfront (page 38),”
“would provide an additional source of clientele for downtown businesses (page 38),”
and would be “generally complementary with the commercial uses under consideration.”
The conclusions above are consistent with the objectives and strategies listed in the
Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan. Please see Strategy 2.7: Create a cultural
venue downtown that would benefit from and support a restaurant cluster in Chapter 4
The Downtown Crescent and Economic Development of the Proposed Action Draft
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states that “this venue would tie in nicely with the
emerging restaurant cluster and would create a destination to potentially attract
customers from places beyond Ossining’s borders.”
Finally, please see the answers to MSA-10 which explain that the Analysis simply
investigates the market viability of a festival market, it does not recommend it.
MSA-18) I should mention that I was interviewed for about 10 minutes by members of
the Plan committee. I did not see a single piece of information that I provided (as a
developer and taxpayer) used anywhere in this Plan. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
PPSA consulted a variety of professionals with expertise in real estate development in
Westchester County some of whom were willing to provide data on costs and sales
prices. All of the information provided helped with the analysis and resulting document.
Among the experts interviewed include:
o
Martin Ginsburg, Ginsburg Development Corporation
o
Bruce Lozito, Community Planning and Development Consultants
o
Joseph Apicella, Executive Vice President from Cappelli Enterprises;
o
Sal Carrera, Commissioner, Westchester County Office of Economic Development
and Real Estate
o
Geiger LLP on behalf of Dan Beaton
133
o
George Kane, Kane & Associates
o
John Kirkpatrick, Oxman Tulis Kirkpatrick Whyatt
o
Albert Schatz and Eric Schatz, Schatz Real Estate
o
Peter Stolatis, Plateau Associates
Furthermore, the information received was substantiated by an examination of
comparable projects in Westchester and Rockland Counties.
MSA-19) PPSA states that the addition of more non-residential space is a possible
answer to solving the rental development quandary. That is easier said than done. My
personal business is devoted to commercial real estate only and I have done so for over
40 years. As perhaps the sole realtor in Ossining that focuses only on commercial real
estate, I can state affirmatively that there is not and will not be a big demand for
commercial, and particularly retail, real estate in the waterfront area. One Harbour
Square, when developed, will contain a restaurant. It is likely that if the Westerly marina
property is developed there may very well be another restaurant to take advantage of its
location on the river. Two restaurants on the river may be the maximum that could be
achieved. Any other type of retail would be de minimis. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
We do not disagree. Please see page 21 of the Analysis, and particularly Table 2:
Population Needed to Support Various Retail Uses. The waterfront can support only a
limited amount of retail whether it be restaurants, theme or convenience retail. However,
rentals derived from this non-residential space could augment any housing built above.
The Sensitivity Analysis used only a small amount of retail (2,500 square feet) and as is
noted in the Market Analysis additional square footage would be able to be supported in
the area especially if more redevelopment were to occur or synergies were to be built off
of new or existing uses in the waterfront. Examples of synergies for retail can be found
on page 25 of the Analysis.
It should also be noted that existing businesses are profitable in the waterfront area and
the Market and Sensitivity Analysis examined what other potential residential and nonresidential uses may be viable in the area. The Proposed Zoning Action and the
Proposed Zoning Action Amendments intentionally allow for a variety of uses in the
waterfront zones in order to respond to a variety of market conditions.
MSA-20) PPSA confirms this in their Market Analysis in V. Retail (p. 20-21) wherein
they write “...the demand for convenience stores and services is limited to the potential
residents who live along the waterfront.” They go on to state that “Housing on the
waterfront would support only a limited amount of retail in the area” and that “The
convenience stores and services would tend to be marginal operations.” The solution to
the Plan B issue lies not in assuming that non-residential space will solve the problem
but rather that the densities (and heights) need to be adjusted upwards. (J. Gershner,
letter, 10/13/08)
We don’t disagree that convenience stores would tend to be marginal operations and
dependent on population. Example of convenience stores are delis, dry cleaners,
laundry mats, pharmacies etc. The nature of these type of stores relies on population
and foot traffic. Please see the Introduction of this section for a description of the
proposed Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning which includes significant
increases in maximum allowable densities over Existing Condition and the Proposed
Action Zoning on sites of 3.0 acres or more in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a
(Proposed Action PW-2), Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) and
Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zones. The Proposed Action
PW-3 zone is recommended to be removed from the planned waterfront zones in order
134
to accommodate this increased density and further the goals of the Proposed Action
Draft Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to the LWRP.
Increasing densities and heights will, of course, increase the return on a developer’s
investment. However, heights and densities can only be increased to a point before the
environmental impacts of these projects are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of Ossining residents. Please see the Introduction which notes that economic impacts
are but one consideration in any assessment of environmental impacts and please see
the DGEIS for an examination of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to the Proposed
Action on a variety of environmental factors. The Proposed Action and Amendments to
the Proposed Action attempt to take into account these various environmental factors,
attempting to strike a balance that will protect the quality of the environment and the
public health, safety and general welfare. Although economic development and fiscal
concerns are taken into account, these concerns are not considered exclusive, but
rather in concert with other environmental concerns, i.e., affordable housing needs,
traffic capacity, utility capacity, natural habitat preservation, community character, etc.
MSA-21) The Plan assumes that the market pricing for residential developments within
the Village are equal to that for Westchester County. The sad reality is that Ossining
does not attain the averages for the County. How does one reconcile this discrepancy?
(Peter Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see Table 1: Sales and Rental Prices of Comparable Developments in the
Analysis. The sales and rental prices, as well as the square footage of units are
consistent with comparable developments along the Hudson River waterfront in
neighboring communities. In addition, prices were provided by two different developers
with vast experience in Westchester County. The prices used are actually not the
highest prices asked at these comparable developments, but represent a general midprice between low and high prices from these other developments.
MSA-22) Additional support for the optimistic view on pricing achievable is the failure of
Harbor Square, a development that received its site plan approval many years ago, to
move forward to actual construction. This is significant evidence that the viability of
Ossining is weaker than acknowledged by the Plan. How can one reconcile the
optimistic pricing in the Plan with such obvious evidence? (Peter Stolatis, letter,
10/13/08)
We disagree that Harbor Square is a failure and the project is still moving forward.
Harbor Square spent the last two years on remediation of the property and participating
in New York State’s Brownfields program. Harbor Square is now preparing to
documents for the shoreline stabilization efforts as part of this project. Please see
answer to MSA-21.
MSA-23) In the section on Location Bias, only PW-4 and PW-6 are mentioned. PW-2
has the same essential characteristics and opportunities with respect to proximity to the
train and lack of visual impact of view corridors. How does one reconcile this blatant
omission? (Peter Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
There was no blatant omission. Please see answer to MSA-1 and Z-46 in the Zoning
Section of the FGEIS.
MSA-24) Why is the reference to the existing road condition repeated in this section? As
pointed out earlier, this condition could have been understood to be temporary or
pending approval of Hidden Cove site plan. Further, the creation of Riverwalk, which we
has proposed to the Village as a promenade since the beginning of our ownership,135
along his route would necessitate the development of the road to standard or better.
Why has the Plan committee, or indeed the Village, not followed through to evaluate the
opportunities currently available to achieve a much sought after goal?
(P. Stolatis,
letter, 10/13/08)
Please see the Introduction which explains that the Analysis was not site or project
specific. The Analysis examines the entire waterfront area and is not based on “what ifs”
for the creation of a future road suggested for an unapproved project.
MSA-25) The Design Bias section assumes that waterfront views assign a premium to
residential units with such views. This has been a reasonable assumption in other
communities, yet the failure of Harbor Square, which has the best possible water views,
and therefore the highest possible premium, to be completed speaks to either the lack of
such presumed premiums, or that even with such presumed premiums the economic
case for developing in Ossining is too weak for a developer to risk his/her capital. (P.
The Harbor Square project is still moving forward. Harbor Square spent the last two
years on remediation of the property and participating in New York State’s Brownfields
program. Harbor Square is now preparing to documents for the shoreline stabilization
efforts as part of this project. Please see answer to MSA-21. In addition, it is assumed
that given the Ossining waterfront’s beautiful views of the undeveloped palisades and
proximity to the Metro-North Station, sales and rental prices for housing in the area
would be higher than typical for Ossining.
MSA-26) Given the importance of this Plan to the revitalization of the Village of Ossining,
why was the consultant permitted to provide forecasts based on an Excel spreadsheet?
Excel is a useful program for simple number-crunching, but all professional prepared
forecasts are made with specific software designed to do projections, such as Argus. If
the consultant does not have the capability or knowledge to prepare an Argus projection,
then it could have engaged a professional appraisal firm to do this analysis for it. In
addition to the more reliable and valid output that Argus provides over Excel, a
professional appraiser would have avoided many of the erroneous assumptions that
exist in the Market Analysis. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see the Introduction above which notes that the pro forma for the Analysis was
intended to be a generic look at the economics of developing in the waterfront. It is not a
detailed pro forma that a developer would undertake for a specific project nor was it
intended to be such. The Analysis was done in MS Excel, a widely used program for
this type of analysis, and not in Argus, a more sophisticated pro forma software used in
the real estate industry for specific projects (although some developers certainly use
Excel).
MSA-27) There are too many inconsistencies between the assumptions provided within
the text of the report and the information indicated in the various tables, as well as
outright errors and mistakes. A number of examples will be presented here to show the
nature and extent of the errors, mistakes and incorrect assumptions to be found in the
Market Analysis. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Analysis was to provide a general overview. Please see The Intention of the Market
and Sensitivity Analysis and the Pro Forma located at the beginning of this section. For
responses to the rest of the comments made in the commenter’s letter dated 10/13/08
please read the responses to the comments throughout this section.
136
MSA-28) As one will see, this is plainly the case where the person making the
assumptions was entirely different than the person preparing the spreadsheet, and that
neither communicated with the other, much less checked the information presented.
Why didn’t PPSA or the Village catch these obvious errors? What rationale is there to
continue the current SEQR process when the calculations upon which many
assumptions and projections are based are incorrect and misleading? (P. Stolatis,
letter, 10/13/08)
Please see the Introduction to this section which describes that the Proposed Action was
formulated after careful analysis, public input, and expert consultation. The Market and
Sensitivity Analysis did not inform the formulation of the Proposed Action, but rather
identified that increased densities should be examined in the DGEIS as Alternatives to
the Proposed Action. The DGEIS considered the various environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action and the Alternatives to the Proposed Action. As a
result of the Market and Sensitivity Analysis and the DGEIS, the Village Board
recommended the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning which would significantly
increase densities on qualifying sites in the Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed
Action PW-2), Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW-4) and Amended
Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zones above Existing Conditions and
the Proposed Action.
Data
MSA-29) Some of the selling prices that were projected by the consultant are very
unrealistic. As apartments get larger you don’t make more per square foot, you just
make more dollars but not per square foot. (J. J. Gershner, public hearing, 9/22/08
For simplicity’s sake, the estimated sales and rental prices are tied to the square footage
of units. Please see MSA-21.
It should be noted that in many comparable developments, the larger units do cost
significantly more because they are more luxurious than the smaller units and include
more amenities. The Analysis assumed that the larger units on the waterfront, i.e., two
and three bedroom units would be the most luxurious and thus, the most expensive per
square foot. However, the price per square foot in affordable housing units does
decrease for the larger units because it is assumed that the amenities would be basically
the same for all affordable housing unit sizes.
MSA-30) Most importantly, the calculation treats the $32,132,500 of purported revenue
as being obtained immediately. In fact, while most of the costs would be incurred at the
onset of the development or shortly thereafter, the income from the sale of units would
not even begin to be realized until after all approvals have been obtained, the
development completed and units sold. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
It is true that the pro forma in this Analysis did not discount the prototype project’s
income stream to account for a lengthy leasing or sales period. A developer for a
specific project, however, would take into account the strength of the current
marketplace, an expected absorption period, and the time value of money when
calculating his or her risk and return. This pro forma was only meant to be a snapshot
analysis, and it is not uncommon for snapshots such as this not to perform a discounted
sales or cash flow analysis. On balance, and as a means of testing feasibility, such an
analysis is valid. For example, in a discounted cash flow analysis, while the revenue
may not be derived immediately, often the rents and/or sales escalate over time,
compensating the developer for the period of time he or she must wait for their return.
137
MSA-31) First the amount to be paid on the loan is not appropriately factored into the
analysis. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see the Introduction which describes that this type of analysis is intended to be a
snapshot of a particular market and not site or project specific. We used a 20 percent
figure for soft costs which is meant to include fees and interest on the construction loan.
In addition, if this analysis was project or site specific than various intricacies of a
specific loan would be factored into the analysis.
MSA-32) Second the Market Analysis assumes that the construction loan will be at a
fixed rate of 8 percent with a 30 year amortization period. If true figures are used any
assessment of housing under the waterfront zoning shows that the likely economic
outcome drifts further and further into the red. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The Analysis assumed the construction period loan would be taken out by a permanent
loan, and the debt service is supported by sales or rental revenues. For the purpose of
this broad brush snapshot, the Analysis did not distinguish between the intricacies and
financing of the two loan types which would be factored in a more site and project
specific pro forma.
Note that escalating rents and/or sales prices over time, while not accounted for in the
snapshot analysis, also helps to compensate the developer for the added costs related
to construction financing.
MSA-33) Had the calculations been based on the unit mix set forth in the original
hypothetical underlying the entire analysis the revenues from the development would be
1.5 million less than is shown on table 4. (A. Wekstein, letter, 10/10/08)
The text on page 43 of the Analysis which states “For this example, ten units are onebedroom, 27 units are two-bedroom and eight units are three-bedroom units” should be
amended to read, “For this example, 11 units are one-bedroom, 23 units are twobedroom and 11 units are three-bedroom units.”
In addition, the text on page 43 of the Analysis which states “The units would include
twelve one-bedroom units, 21 two-bedroom units, and 21 three-bedroom units,” should
be amended to read, “The units would include 11 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom
units, and 21 three-bedroom units.
The spreadsheet for Scenario 1 examined a 45 unit project with the bedroom distribution
of 11 one-bedroom units; 23 two-bedroom units; and 11 three-bedroom units. Of the 45
units, 1 one-bedroom unit, 3 two-bedroom units, and 1 three-bedroom unit are affordable
to residents making 80 percent AMI. The spreadsheet for Scenario 2 examined a 54unit project with the bedroom distribution of 11 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom
units, and 21 three-bedroom units. Of the 54 units, 1 one-bedroom unit, 3 two-bedroom
units, and 1 three-bedroom units are affordable to residents making 80 percent AMI.
Spreadsheets from which all conclusions are drawn are consistent with the correct
bedroom distribution, not the bedroom distribution described in the text on page 43.
MSA-34) It also, just to show you one more thing, because the market sensitivity
analysis says, in essence, that the—the real viable use, the money producer on the
waterfront, is residential ownership property, but in doing the pro forma in the PW-3
District, which is supposedly the same methodology as all the other districts, it leaves
out the most critical steps, there are other errors, but what it does is it says you’re gonna
spend X amount upfront and then when you sell off all the units in the development you
will get back Y, but what it does is it acts as if you’re getting back Y on day one. It has to
138
discount that it’s failed to have received from selling off the units to account for the time
value of money. (A. Wekstein, public hearing, 10/1/08)
Please see answer to MSA-30.
MSA-35) …your whole economic analysis in the market sensitivity analysis and in the
DGEIS is flawed. One looks no further than the fact that the housing demand data relied
upon is from 2004, and the Comprehensive Plan, I don’t have the quote in front of me—
oh—says: “Housing demand in Westchester County and the Village is strong and is
expected to remain strong over the horizon period.”
Anybody who’s been living in Westchester County and looking at the market and has
any idea what’s going on would know that’s dead wrong, it’s just not right, it wasn’t right
six months ago. (A. Wekstein, public hearing, 10/1/08)
In point of fact, neither the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan nor the DGEIS
rely on or even mention 2004 data. The 2004 data quoted in the Market Analysis is
taken from Databook published by the Westchester County Department of Planning. The
only conclusion drawn from this data (as well as 2000 Census data) is that demand for
housing in Westchester has over the past decades been strong and that supply was not
keeping pace with demand up until the recent mortgage crisis. The Analysis
acknowledges the financial downtown on page 2, but contends that the demand for
housing will remain strong in Westchester after the current financial crisis abates.
Despite current market conditions, there is limited land to develop in Westchester
County including Ossining, and Ossining’s relatively close and easy access to midtown
Manhattan would suggest that demand for housing will be strong after the Westchester
County economy recovers.
A community is not obligated to increase densities or provide other zoning incentives to
make particular real estate projects viable in bad market cycles. Zoning is intended to
balance the interests of the community with those of property owners, and in “normal”
markets, provide sufficient economic incentive for development.
On page 2 of the Analysis, it states that “the housing market fundamentals for housing in
Westchester County remain the same even under current market conditions:
•
Acute housing shortage relative to demand;
•
A demand for workers/commuters;
•
Renewed interest in Westchester waterfront which developers are eager to
capitalize on in a county where land is increasingly costly and scarce.”
These claims are substantiated by Cushman & Wakefield who released a report in
September 2008, after the Analysis was released, which stated that Westchester
County’s vacancy rate for multi-family units in 2008 was below the Northeast average of
4.1 percent and well below the national 6 percent.
However, in response to pubic comments on the DGEIS, the Village Board
recommended the increased densities described in the Amendments to the Proposed
Action Zoning. These increased densities are intended to further induce development
above the Proposed Action Zoning by reducing the level of risk to developers.
Finally, please note that the Proposed Action Zoning and Amendments to the Proposed
Action Zoning allow for a mix of uses. If the commenter does not believe that there is
currently a strong market for residential uses, than they have the option of choosing
another use permitted under the proposed zoning which would represent less risk to the
developer. There are existing viable businesses in the waterfront and if the market for
residential uses is too risky for some developers there are alternative scenarios that can
be pursued.
139
MSA-36) Buildable v. Saleable: When analyzing Tables 3 and 4 to determine the
amount of square footage built and sold in each project, we found an erroneous
conclusion. In scenario 1 and scenario 1 in-lieu, about 78,000 square feet are being
built and about 72,000 square feet are being sold, which is a build/sell ratio of 92%,
leaving only 8% of the built space for common use. A more accepted ratio is closer to
80%-85%. We also note that in scenario 2 and scenario 2 in-lieu, about 93,000 square
feet is being built but 98,000 square feet are being sold, which is obviously impossible.
(M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
The Analysis simplified the calculation for the total building envelope to an average unit
size of 1,500 square feet (average square footage of studio, 1-br, 2-br, and 3-br) plus an
inefficiency of 15 percent which was used to calculate the acquisition and construction
costs. The inefficiency ratio is intended to account for those portions of the building
which are in-common and therefore not saleable. These might include lobbies, hallways,
elevators, stairwells, etc. The sales prices were based on square footage of units which
accounts for the discrepancy noted by the commenter. However, as noted, the Analysis
is a generic tool designed to provide an order of magnitude calculation.
MSA-37) Return Analysis: On all the models, the return percentage is simply a cash-in,
cash-out return. This is an inconclusive means of evaluating a project as it ignores any
time value of money (TVM) and/or internal rate of return (IRR) considerations.
Additionally, no sensitivity analysis was performed which might evaluate what the
implications of a delay in the project might be. Each project discussed will take at least
two years and will produce negative IRR in all scenarios, which would make the projects
not feasible even under an ideal sale scenario. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see Answer to MSA-30.
MSA-38) Using Different Methodology Assumptions in Rental and Sales Analysis: The
study alludes to a net present value (NPV) analysis only for the rental project. On page
54, the study discusses the NPV and concludes that the project is a “No Go” on all
scenarios for rental projects. In the very next paragraph, entitled “Analysis of PW-3,” it
concludes that the project is profitable on the sale analysis. The study ignores any NPV
or IRR calculations under a sales scenario. It should also be noted that no lender will
consider a for-sale scenario only; a rental analysis must also work. (M. Miller, letter,
10/10/08)
It should also be noted that, as compared to existing zoning, the Proposed Zoning Action
and the Amendments to the Proposed Zoning Action offer density bonuses which raise
the maximum allowable densities that can be achieved in the waterfront zones and
allows for great flexibility in terms of permitted uses. The proposed zoning therefore
should increase profitability over what the current zoning allows.
MSA-39) No Sensitivity Assumption of the Length of the Project: In a development
project, the length of the project is extremely important, as it accounts for the amount of
time one’s loan is outstanding, which in turn has a direct correlation to the amount of
interest one pays. Further, there is the consideration of NPV and IRR as discussed
above. The study ignores this in the sale scenario and analyzes the sale as if the money
was invested and returned on the same day. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
See answer to MSA 30 and MSA 38.
140
MSA-40) Sales Assumptions; Square Footage and Unit Size Relationship: The study
assigns a square footage to a standard 2-bedroom unit of 1,400 sf. It does not explore
the relationship between unit size and square footage. If it did, the study would likely
find that a smaller 2-bedroom unit would receive a higher price per square footage than
a larger 2-bedroom unit. There needs to be a density allotment solely based on square
footage and not on the amount of units in a project in order to maximize the highest and
best use and to validate the sellout price assumed by the study. (M. Miller, letter,
10/10/08)
MSA-41) Sales Price per Square Foot Should Go Down, Not Up, on Extremely Large
Units: The study assigns larger units a higher per square foot sales price (se Table 4 on
page 48), which may hold true until a certain threshold. After that, the marginal return
square footage will sell for far less or nothing and thereby decrease the overall average
price per square foot. We submit that there is no market for $1,250,000 3-bedroom units
as suggested in Table 4. Further, Table 4 illustrates that the per square footage price on
affordable units decreases as the units get larger. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
MSA-42) No Sensitivity Analysis on Sales Price: The sales prices suggested are base
prices and do not take into consideration a shift in the market below those price points.
Though it is mentioned on page 12, there is no accounting for varied pricing based upon
the availability of river views in Table 4 on page 48. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see Table 1: Sales and Rental Prices of Comparable Developments. For
simplicity’s sake, the prices used in the Analysis are roughly in the middle range of
prices in comparable developments which would include higher priced units with water
views and lower priced units with less attractive views.
MSA-43) Five-Story Buildings Offer Economies of Scale: The only way to achieve the
density as suggested and maintain open space is by allowing 5-story development. The
height in PW-6 is expressly restricted to 40 feet or 3.5 stories. Without the additional
height and density this analysis is unrealistic because it fails to take into account the
interplay between these factors. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see the Zoning Section especially comment Z-46 which details the planning
reasoning for the height and bulk regulations for the Amended Proposed Action PW-c
(Proposed Action PW-6) zone.
MSA-44) Gross and Net Square Footage: The study makes a point of drawing its
conclusions based upon a total development cost and a sellout price each based upon
square footage. However, it does not differentiate between the gross square footage
price paid in the total development cost as opposed to the net square footage sold in the
sellout. Typically, the differential in this yield is approximately 15%. This discrepancy
would mitigate any returns projected in all scenarios. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
MSA-45) Raising Density: The rental analyses performed for PW-3, as summarized on
pages 54 and 55, seem to indicate that the proposed density is not feasible until nearly
27 units per acre is achieved. This break-even analysis does not account for the costs
associated with achieving all of the bonuses offered to get to that level. It is our
141
estimation that the real break-even number is closer to 30 units per acre, at which point
a developer’s incentives and returns would begin to substantiate the expense, effort and
risks involved in taking on a project in one of these waterfront zones. (M. Miller, letter,
10/10/08)
Please see Introduction which details the Amendments to the Proposed Zoning Action,
which would raise the maximum allowable densities in the Amended Proposed Action
PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), Amended Proposed Action PW-b (Proposed Action PW4) and Amended Proposed Action PW-c (Proposed Action PW-6) zones to 32 dwelling
units per acre on sites 3.0 acres or more in size. The Amended Proposed Action
Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) zoning will remain consistent
with the use and bulk regulations currently permitted for the WD-1 zone. Although page
54 and 55 discusses increased densities as an option to make development in the
Proposed Action PW-3 feasible and is reiterated in the conclusions located on page 56
what is not mentioned in the comment above are the two other scenarios which would
also make Amended Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action
PW-3) feasible include:
“Large amounts of non-residential space constructed in tandem with residential
rental units could be profitable under the proposed zoning. Depending on the
use, traffic to and from the site could be focused on the weekends and evening
hours outside of the am and pm peak hours which would not strain traffic flows
as much as increased residential density. However, special provisions for
parking, such as at the nearby train station lots would be required.
Given the prominent location of the PW-3 zone west of the railroad tracks on the
waterfront, and in light of the conclusions of the Market Analysis, focusing retail
uses in the form of restaurants and/or theme retail in this zone (with retail above)
may be the most appropriate use of the scarce land available.”
MSA-46) However, we note in our comments below that the PW-3 district is a risky place
to increase density as it is located entirely in a floodplain. There are upland areas in the
PW-4 and PW-6 districts that would be more suitable for increases in, or reallocation of,
residential density, perhaps based on market factors, but also clearly related to close
proximity to the waterfront, and being adjacent to the train station and the downtown VC
zoning district. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
We agree. Please see the Introduction for a description of the Amendments to the
MSA-47) Page 44 explains that construction costs include 20% soft costs, which include
“fees, insurance, interest, etc…” Table 3 states that this amount is approximately $3.5M
- $4.169M. According to Table 4, the interest cost per year is approximately $1.7M $2.1M. If the project is carried for 2 years, the interest alone eats up all the allocated
soft costs on Table 3, leaving no room for insurance, fees, carry taxes, etc…” (M. Miller,
letter, 10/10/08)
As noted in the Introduction, this is a broadbrush tool and not site specific. Given the
nature of this analysis, we used a 20 percent soft costs which we assumed would
include the construction loans fees, interest, etc. A more site-specific analysis may find
that the soft costs as a percentage of construction costs should be higher or lower than
the 20 percent indicated.
MSA-48) The interest costs on Table 4 do not take into consideration any loan fees or
upfront points which typically run from 1% to 1.5%, which would be about $300,000 to
$500,000 in this example. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
142
As noted in the Introduction, the pro forma was meant to be a broad brush tool and not
project or site specific. Thus we assumed the eight percent interest figure would catch
most if not all of the financing costs of this prototype development. However, the
purpose of the Analysis was to aid the Village in its planning for the waterfront area on a
conceptual level and not to assume the financing associated with a particular
development or project.
MSA-49) In the rental analysis there is no consideration for the cost of refinancing the
loan from a construction loan to a permanent income-producing property loan. (M.
As noted in the Introduction, the pro forma was meant to be a broad-brush analysis tool
and not project or site specific. Thus we assumed that our figures for loan interest rates
and for soft costs would include most if not all of the financing costs, including
refinancing costs, of this prototype development.
MSA-50) There is no sensitivity analysis which would demonstrate how the project would
look at different development costs and per-square-foot sales prices. The base case
assumption does not have any margin for error or contingency or market, it merely
assumes the numbers presented are 100% accurate. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
As noted in the Introduction, the pro forma was meant to be a generic analysis tool and
not project or site specific. The intent of the analysis was not to test for specific financial
break even points and test these against various market scenarios. Rather, it was
intended as a tool to assess on a broad level the relative feasibility of different
development densities to help the Village narrow down and identify additional
Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
MSA-51) The return calculation ignores taxes. On a for-sale project the true return to
the developer will be much lower. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
As noted in the Introduction, the pro forma was meant to be a generic analysis tool and
not project or site specific. As such, it generally represents before tax calculations. This
is typical for general pro formas whose intent is to provide a first look at feasibility. This
was never intended to provide such detailed return calculations which would be included
in a pro forma for a specific project.
MSA-52) On page 53 the return on equity calculations ignore the taxes which lower the
return on equity even further. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
MSA-53) There is no break-even calculation for a sell scenario to understand what the
worst-case scenario in the sales analysis might be. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
Please see answer to MSA-50. The intent of the analysis was not to test for specific
financial break even points and test these against various market scenarios. Rather, it
was intended as a tool to assess on a broad level the relative feasibility of different
development densities to help the Village narrow down and identify additional
Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
MSA-54) There is no NPV calculation on the sales scenario (it is considered in the rental
scenario). By ignoring this component of the analysis, the understanding of true
143
returns and the ability to attract investors and banks to the project is ignored. (M. Miller,
letter, 10/10/08)
MSA-55) An anomaly appears in the figures provided by PPSA as shown in Table 4.
For the market-rate units they conclude that the sale price per square foot increases as
the size of the apartment increases, while for the affordable units it is exactly the
opposite. This difference needs to be explained, although we believe that an analysis of
sales figures would show that the affordable housing inverse ratio is correct for all types
of apartments. If that proves to be true, then the “profit” for the market-rate apartments
is a lot worse than PPSA has calculated. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
MSA-56) We also have serious reservations regarding the “profit” that a developer would
earn under this analysis. Specifically, we urge that the following issues be reexamined
very closely as we, and others, have serious reservations about them:
•
The “profit” analysis assumes that everything happens in 1 year. The development
is started, completed and sold out in 12 months. That is impossible and PPSA should
know that. Development, from the day that a contract of sale is signed to the day that
the last condominium unit is sold could be 5 years, at a minimum, if not longer. The site
plan approval process, in and of itself, would probably take 2 years, at best. During the
development period, cash only goes one way and that is out. There is an allowance for
“soft costs” but no explanation as to what it includes or a justification for how was the 4%
of acquisition or 20% of construction costs arrived at. PPSA needs to be more specific
in this regard. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
As noted in the Introduction, this Analysis is a broad brush tool designed to test “order of
magnitude” results. Based on experience, soft cost percentages of four percent of
acquisition and 20 percent of acquisition are reasonable figures for a generic analysis
such as this. Soft costs are meant to include fees for architects, engineers, lawyers,
financing fees, loan interest, property taxes, etc. A more site specific analysis might
indicate that the soft cost percentages should be higher or lower depending on the
specific project.
MSA-57) Members of our organization who are active in the residential real estate field
believe that the projected size of the units is grossly overstated. The following are the
sizes of the units assumed by PPSA and the sizes that we feel are realistic in this
market:
Unit Type
Size per PPSA
Recommended Size
1 bedroom
1,200 sq.ft.
1,000 sq.ft.
2 bedrooms
1,500 sq.ft.
1,200 sq.ft.
3 bedrooms
2,500 sq.ft.
1,500 sq.ft.
Should the sensitivity analysis be recalculated using the lower sizes that would seriously
change the “profits” that PPSA has projected. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
The sizes estimated were based on comparable projects along the Hudson River in
Westchester and Rockland Counties. The commenter’s “recommended size” column
may be appropriate for development in other locations in Ossining, but the Analysis
anticipates that the market rate units in the waterfront development will most likely be
larger units. Please note page 10 of the Analysis which states that the “prime market
populations to be tapped consist of: (1) local residents who are selling their larger,144
and higher-maintenance houses so as to “downsize” into waterfront apartments and
townhouses; and to a lesser extent (2) Manhattan-ites who are now thinking about
relocating given the vast increases in rents and co-op apartment costs during the past
few years.” It is expected that the target market will want larger units consistent with
other Hudson River development. For example, the two-bedroom units at Harbor Square
range from 1,300 to over 1,700 square feet in size far larger than is typical in other areas
of the Village.
MSA-58) PPSA’s projected sales prices, as reflected in today’s market, need to be
seriously reexamined, as we believe that they are very high. We would be glad to
arrange for PPSA to speak with several of our members who are active in the local
residential real estate field for their input. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see answer to MSA-29 and MSA-18.
MSA-59) Extraordinary costs for development, particularly in the PW-3 district, which is
landfill, are mentioned and then dismissed (p. 45). The applicant for the proposed
development on the Westerly Marina site in the PW-3 district has submitted projections
from a contractor showing the cost of piles in excess of $3,200,000. An amount of this
magnitude needs to be included in the cost projection or fully explained why it is being
ignored. (J. Gershner, letter, 10/13/08)
Please see the Introduction for a description and explanation for the Amendments to the
Proposed Zoning Action which would result in the Amended Proposed Action Riverfront
Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) retaining height and bulk regulations
consistent with its current WD-1 zoning.
In addition, as was mentioned in the introduction to this section, the pro forma is not
intended to be project or site specific. Extraordinary costs related to specific sites,
situations and applications cannot be accounted for in an analysis such as this.
Development Economics
MSA-60) Separating Rental and Sale Analysis: The Analysis reached the conclusion
that a sale project is “A Go” and a rental is “No Go.” One cannot look at these as two
separate and independent decisions. Both developers and lenders analyze the project
as a rental as a critical component of the underwriting process. In this case, if a
developer cannot sell the units the project is a loss since there is no feasible backup
worst-case scenario which would provide for rental units. As described on page 51, a
rental project is not feasible. Further, page 55, paragraph 3 suggests that to make this a
feasible project you would need to increase the density to 27 units per acre. As
discussed in item 6 below, we submit that 30 units per acre is necessary in order to
achieve the Village’s goals. The example of PW-3 and our case of PW-6 should be the
same analysis and conclusion, as they have the same density zoning requirements. (M.
The Proposed Action PW-3 and Proposed Action PW-6 tested in the spreadsheet
included different lot sizes and bedroom distributions which impacted the results.
Please see the Introduction which explains that, in part because of the results of the
Market and Sensitivity Analysis, the Village Board recommended the Amendments to the
Proposed Action Zoning which would increase densities on sites 3.0 acres or more in the
Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), Amended Proposed Action
PW-6) zones. In addition, as noted in the Introduction, real estate market conditions
currently are precarious; however when conditions improve residential rental units at this
site may be a viable option. The proposed zoning is intentionally flexible in terms of
145
permitted uses and bulk requirements to respond to a variety of market conditions and
permit a variety of development scenarios. Although page 54 and 55 discusses
increased densities as an option to make development in the Proposed Action PW-3
feasible and is reiterated in the conclusions located on page 56 what is not mentioned in
the comment above are the two other scenarios which would also make Amended
Proposed Action Riverfront Development District (Proposed Action PW-3) feasible
include:
“Large amounts of non-residential space constructed in tandem with residential rental
units could be profitable under the proposed zoning. Depending on the use, traffic to and
from the site could be focused on the weekends and evening hours outside of the am
and pm peak hours which would not strain traffic flows as much as increased residential
density. However, special provisions for parking, such as at the nearby train station lots
would be required.
Given the prominent location of the PW-3 zone west of the railroad tracks on the
waterfront, and in light of the conclusions of the Market Analysis, focusing retail uses in
the form of restaurants and/or theme retail in this zone (with retail above) may be the
most appropriate use of the scarce land available.”
MSA-61) Return on Development (For-Sale Units): This calculation is not clearly
substantiated. It fails to recognize that the returns are absolute and that the IRR—a
metric far more universal in development and finance—is not nearly as compelling. The
results as set forth in page 63 seem to be inherently contradictory. The profitability in a
for-sale scenario is mediocre even as represented, and is purely theoretical as the
conclusion goes on to find that rentals are not feasible. This conclusion will present any
financial institution from financing a project of this nature. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
Please keep in mind that the intent of this Analysis was not to test the feasibility of a
specific parcel or project, but was a tool to determine if the proposed land uses and
densities proposed for Ossining’s waterfront were in the range of feasibility. Whether or
not a lender would support a pure for-sale scenario or a pure rental scenario is a
judgment that is likely made on a case by case basis and determined by how compelling
the returns are projected to be. While a lender in the current market may require that
both a for-sale and a for-rent project are feasible, this may not always be the case. The
intent of the Analysis was not to determine whether a bank would finance a particular
project on a particular site especially in a real estate market as precarious as the current
one.
A developer for a specific project would likely undertake a more detailed site-specific
analysis that discounts sales revenues over a projected lease-up or marketing period,
that evaluates all metrics including Internal Rate of Return, Return on Equity, Net
Present Value, etc. However, this level of detail was not necessary for this type of
analysis.
MSA-62) In the Market Analysis, what is not mentioned, and needs to be examined, is
the requirement of lenders for a “Plan B.” That is, condominium development is the
proposed plan that is seeking financing (Plan A). However, lenders will demand to see
what the alternative to condominiums is in case that plan does not succeed. Therefore,
Plan B would have to be development as rental housing. In the opinion of PPSA, there
is no Plan B that is achievable under the proposed zoning code. (J. Gershner, letter,
10/13/08)
MSA-63) We cannot have a zoning code that theoretically allows development of
condominiums but not rentals because the result is that nothing can be developed with
bank financing and bank financing is not available without a workable Plan B. Thus, the
proposed zoning code may be seriously defective if not worthless. (J. Gershner, letter,
10/13/08)
146
Please see the Introduction which states that a community is not obligated to increase
densities or provide other zoning incentives to make real estate projects viable in bad
market cycles. Zoning is intended to balance the interests of the community with those of
property owners, and in “normal” markets, provide sufficient economic incentives for
development.
Furthermore, as noted in the Introduction, please also note that the proposed zoning
attempts to strike a balance that will protect the quality of the environment and the public
health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, although economic development and
fiscal concerns were taken into account in the formulation of the Proposed Action, these
concerns were not considered exclusive, but rather in concert with other environmental
impacts including traffic, needs for affordable housing, utility capacity, community
character, etc.
MSA-64) Table 3: Costs are assumed for both shoreline/bulkhead restoration and
Riverwalk construction, yet neither cost is depicted in the spreadsheet. This serves to
understate expenses, thereby overstating potential profit. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The prices for these public benefits are not shown on the spreadsheet because Scenario
A and B did not include the provision of either shoreline/bulkhead restoration or the
construction of RiverWalk.
MSA-65) Similarly, no recognition of costs associated with streambank/bulkhead or
offsite infrastructure improvements are included, notwithstanding the commentary in the
narrative. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
MSA-66) Table 4
c)
The breakdown of affordable units in Scenario 2 is different from the facts set up
for this program, in that there are 2 1-bedroom, 2 2-bedroom and 1 3-bedroom units
shown, versus the 1,3,1 breakdown of the set up. Interestingly, the adjacent column
showing Scenario 1 has the correct breakdown. The spreadsheet drafter did not think to
question this inconsistency. Such a lack of understanding raises questions as to the
validity of the logic of the entire spreadsheet. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The commenter is correct that the bedroom distribution of the five affordable units for
Scenario 2 is slightly different from the other three scenarios described which all have
the same bedroom distribution of 1 one-bedroom, 3 two-bedroom unit, and 1 threebedroom units. If this distribution was applied to Scenario 2, the sales revenues from the
affordable units for Scenario 2 would increase from approximately $1,602,500 indicated
in Table 4 Total Sales Revenues, Scenarios 1 and 2 to $1,632,500 which is consistent
with the sales revenues for Scenario 1. This change in the bedroom distribution would
not change the return for Scenario 2 which would still be 27 percent as is indicated in
Table 4.
MSA-67) The sales revenues for Scenarios 1 and 2 are wrong based on the indicated
number of units to be sold in each case. The numbers are shown and the correct
numbers are as follows:
Indicated Sc 1
Correct Sc 1
Indicated Sc 2
Correct Sc 2
One Bedroom
$4,500,000
$4,050,000
$4,500,000
$4,950,000
Two Bedroom
$13,500,000
$16,200,000
$12,825,000
$12,150,000
147
Three
Bedroom
$12,500,000
$8,750,000
$25,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,500,000
$29,000,000
$42,325,000
$42,100,000
Please see MSA-33. The sales revenues shown in Table 4 Total Sales Revenues,
Scenarios 1 and 2 accurately reflect the sales prices for the 40 market-rate units in
Scenario 1 and the 49 market rate units in Scenario 2 based upon the following bedroom
distribution, size and price:
• Scenario 1: 10 one-bedroom units (1,200 square feet each at $375 per square
foot), 20 two-bedroom units (1,500 square feet each at $450 per square foot),
and 10 three-bedroom units (2,500 square feet each at $500 per square foot);
and
• Scenario 2: 10 one-bedroom units (1,200 square feet each at $375 per square
foot), 19 two-bedroom units (1,500 square feet each at $450 per square foot),
and 20 three-bedroom units (2,500 square feet each at $500 per square foot).
Therefore the “Indicated Sc 1” and “Indicated Sc 2” columns are correct.
MSA-68)
e)
There are comparable mistakes in the next set of columns showing the
revenue figures for the payments–in-lieu scenarios, as follows:
Indicated Sc 1
Correct Sc 2
Indicated Sc 2
Correct Sc 2
One Bedroom
$4,500,000
$4,500,000
$4,500,000
$5,400,000
Two Bedroom
$13,500,000
$18,225,000
$12,825,000
$14,175,000
Three
Bedroom
$18,750,000
$10,000,000
$31,250,000
$26,250,000
$36,750,000
$32,725,000
$48,575,000
$45,825,000
These errors call into question the fundamental basis for all of the Plan’s assumptions as
to what is “profitable” and what isn’t. Just on this basis, the Plan must be sent back to
the drawing board for a complete and correct analysis. How can the Village justify or
rationalize any other action, given the importance of this action to the Village’s future?
The sales revenues shown in Table 4 Total Sales Revenues, Scenarios 1 and 2
accurately reflect the sales prices for the 45 market-rate units in Scenario 1 (payment-inlieu) and the sales prices for the 54 market-rate units in Scenario 2 (payment-in-lieu)
which was as follows:
• Scenario 1 (Payment-in-Lieu): 10 one-bedroom units (1,200 square feet each at
$375 per square foot), 20 two-bedroom units (1,500 square feet each at $450 per
square foot), and 15 three-bedroom units (2,500 square feet each at $500 per
square foot); and
148
• Scenario 2 (Payment-in-Lieu): 10 one-bedroom units (1,200 square feet each at
$375 per square foot), 19 two-bedroom units (1,500 square feet each at $450 per
square foot), and 25 three-bedroom units (2,500 square feet each at $500 per
square foot).
These distributions are consistent with the affordable unit distributions shown in
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 of one one-bedroom, 3 two-bedroom units, and one threebedroom units, as well as the distribution of market-rate one and two-bedroom units.
However, please note that these scenarios assume that a developer will want to make
the most money on any given development and so this scenario applies the extra
market-rate units gained in these payment-in-lieu scenarios to three-bedroom units
which would increase the sales revenue.
Therefore the “Indicated Sc 1” and “Indicated Sc 2” columns are correct.
MSA-69)
f)
The density bonuses reflect a 20% in the number of units permitted, but the
theoretical scenario allowing the additional nine units represents an increase in total
area from 72,500 sf to a total of 98,400 sf, or an increase in square footage of 35%. It is
not hard to see that the economic feasibility of a development calculated on square
footage will realize a significant boost when the permitted area is increased by 35%.
Why was this extraordinary increase permitted as an alternative option? What reasoned
basis can justify such an action? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Analysis indicates that the density bonus increases the floor area from 78,409
square feet to 92,665 square feet (which assumes an average unit size of 1,500 square
feet and a building inefficiency of 15 percent). This density bonus represents an increase
in floor area of 18 percent. This percent increase is consistent with the density increases
which were rounded numbers, i.e., 45.45 dwelling units to 53.72 dwelling units which is
an increase of 18 percent.
MSA-70)
Table 5
g)
The annual rent for a Low Income 1-bedroom unit in Scenario 1 is given as
$18,528. This is a fairly simple calculation. $15/sf/yr x 1,200 sf = $18,000. Clearly, the
spreadsheet has been corrupted for it to be incapable of making such a simple
calculation. What steps will the consultant and Village take when the Plan is redrafted to
avoid these errors? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The spreadsheet is correct. The $15 rent represents a rounded number. In 2008, the
annual rent per square foot for a one-bedroom unit affordable to a two-person household
making 80 percent of Westchester County AMI and spending 30 percent of their annual
income on living expenses is actually $15.44.
MSA-71)
h)
The annual rent for the nine (9) Market 1-bedroom units at $25/sf is calculated to
be $300,000, rather than the actual $270,000. The 2-bedroom units show a total rent of
$725,000, when it should be $900,000. This is offset by the error for the 3-bedroom
units, with an indicated annual rent of $625,000 when it should be $437,500. Therefore,
for Scenario 1, the Market units’; total rental achievable is overstated by almost $70,000.
As noted in MSA-33, the actual bedroom distribution used in all of the spreadsheets for
Scenario 1 is as follows: 11 one-bedroom units (including one affordable); 23 two149
bedroom units (including three affordable); and 11 three-bedroom units (including one
affordable). The values in Table 5: Operating Income (rental building), Scenarios I and 2
accurately reflect that bedroom distribution, i.e., for Scenario 1 $300,000 for the onebedrooms, $750,000 for two-bedrooms, and $625,000 for the three-bedrooms. The total
rents achievable is accurately reflected in Table 5.
MSA-72)
i)
The annual rent for the two scenarios for the payment-in-lieu are also wrong,
as shown below:
Indicated Sc 1
Correct Sc 2
Indicated Sc 2
Correct Sc 2
One Bedroom
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$360,000
Two Bedroom
$750,000
$1,012,500
$712,500
$787,500
Three
Bedroom
$937,500
$500,000
$1,562,500
$1,312,500
$1,987,500
$1,812,500
$2,575,000
$2,460,000
The gross potential revenue is overstated by $175,000 and $115,000
respectively. This magnitude or error is unacceptable and the consultant should be held
accountable for the costs to revise all of the analysis, assumptions and
recommendations in a new document. How can the Village rationale or justify any other
course of action without jeopardizing its objectivity in this effort? (P. Stolatis, letter,
10/13/08)
Table 5 is correct based on the bedroom distribution described in the answer to MSA-68.
MSA-73)
Table 6
j)
The heating and utilities for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are exactly the same
amount. Recognizing that the building in Scenario 2 is larger by about 35% than that in
Scenario 1, what logical argument can be made that these costs will be identical? It is to
be questioned whether more of the numbers presented herein are pure conjecture rather
than thoughtfully derived. (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Sensitivity Analysis is not intended to be a pro forma for a specific project. The
$5,000 cost for heating and utilities is a ballpark figure which should apply for both
scenarios despite the difference in size which is actually twenty percent.
MSA-74)
k)
According to Footnote 9, real estate taxes are based on applying an equalization
rate and the Village consolidated tax rate against the NOI capped at 10%. Had the
consultant any knowledge of real estate transactions, it would have known that an
appropriate cap rate for sales transactions involving quality multi-family assets have
ranged from as low as 2.5% up to around 6%, based on location and other factors.
Using 10% seriously undervalues the market value of the subject property, leading to
lower real estate taxes. At a 6% cap rate, the real estate taxes would be150
conservatively an additional $200,000 higher, further eroding the already negative
condition of the rental option. What justification or rationalization can be offered to
ignore these fundamental errors? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The Market and Sensitivity Analysis was written in spring 2008. In March 2008, an article
entitled “Westchester County’s Strong, Steady Demand” in the real estate journal
Apartment Finance stated that rental apartment buildings in Westchester County
constructed in neighborhoods that were being redeveloped had cap rates ranging from
6.5 percent to 8.5 percent. The cap rates tended to be higher in areas undergoing
transition in order to compensate for the risk, and/or during an economic downturn. The
Ossining waterfront is in transition and development in the area represents a great deal
of risk for a developer, as the commenter mentioned in MSA-25. Taking into account the
range in cap rates for other apartment buildings in Westchester and the realization that
the real estate market was anticipated to cool, the Analysis used a cap rate of 10
percent for rental buildings on the waterfront.
MSA-75)
l)
The explanation for Debt Constant (K) exposes the ignorance of the author
responsible. We are told that the higher the debt constant, the greater the relation of
debt to equity. Debt Constant has nothing whatsoever to do with equity. Its purpose is
to identify the total interest and principal due on an amortizing loan per $1,000 of loan
balance. Shorter amortization terms, or higher interest rates will increase the Debt
Constant, with the reverse situation lowering the Debt Constant. How can any other
statements be trusted as being correctly applied even if the technical definition is
accurate? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The explanation for the debt constant (K), often also referred to as the mortgage
constant, was perhaps too simplified. It does in fact reveal the relationship of debt and
equity, by measuring the cost of debt versus the repayment on equity. As greater
proportions of cash flow are required to repay debt to the lender, and thus cannot be
distributed to equity investors, an investor’s percentage return decreases. A larger loan,
then, does not increase equity returns. And, as the commenter suggests, the same is
true when shorter loan terms or higher rates serve to consume more and more of the
cash flow in order to pay high debt service. K increases, and the return on equity is less
positive.
MSA-76)
m) Operating Ratio is an example of an incomplete understanding of the principles of
real estate. The author’s statement that high or low ratios are reflective of poor expense
estimation or bad management is offered as the complete explanation. There are two
problems with this: 1) these are not the only reasons why ratios could be off; and 2)
there is no indication provided as to what is considered an acceptable ratio. How can
the Village justify or rationalize the unfortunate impact such statements have on the
expectations of a successful development? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The trade associations or lenders maintain their own database and compare properties
against one another. It depends on comparable properties. It is used in this Analysis
simply to compare the different scenarios with one another.
Affordable Housing
MSA-77)
10% Affordable for 10% Density: If the Village awards 10% density in exchange for 10%
affordable units, in reality all it is allowing a developer to do is build an additional151
10% to accommodate the affordable component. This means that one would need to
evaluate the affordable income vs. the building cost as it does not improve the overall
project economics. To illustrate this point, see Table 3—in all scenarios the total
development cost per square foot is between $357 - $385, while on Table 4 the sell-out
price per square foot for the affordable units is between $185 - $275. This indicates that
for every percentage of added density that is needed to be used for affordable housing,
the developer is in reality losing money. In the in-lieu payment scenario, the above
calculation would mean that one would need to check the added density vs. the in-lieu
payment. The net result is that the purported density bonus for affordable units actually
results in an economic disincentive for a developer. (M. Miller, letter, 10/10/08)
The ten percent zoning density bonus in exchange for the provision of affordable
housing is consistent with the Village’s adopted Affordable Housing Policy. Please see
Chapter 7 Affordable Housing in the Proposed Action Draft Comprehensive Plan and
Chapter 5, Housing in the DGEIS.
The sell out prices on market rate units are intended to cover the losses of the sell-out of
prices on affordable housing. The Village, as part of the DGEIS is investigating ways to
increase the flexibility for developers in providing affordable units. Please see Alternative
C: Payments-in-Lieu of Providing Affordable Housing in Chapters 1 through 18 of the
DGEIS which investigates other methods for developers to meet their affordable housing
obligations, i.e., payment-in-lieu of providing affordable units.
Also, please see the Introduction which describes the density increases proposed in the
Amended Proposed Action PW-a (Proposed Action PW-2), Amended Proposed Action
PW-6) zones as part of the Amendments to the Proposed Action Zoning which will help
to offset the revenue lost by providing affordable units.
MSA-78)
Ossining policy of encouraging affordable housing by offering developers a 10% zoning
density is insufficient for developers to take advantage of it. Where the loss on the
affordable apartment exceeds the profit on the additional market rate apartment, why
would developers want to avail themselves of this “incentive”? (J. Gershner, letter,
10/13/08)
MSA-79)
The Plan correctly states that multiple residential types are preferred to provide diversity
of design and environment, yet the Plan does not speak to the emphasis being placed
on Harbor Square-style development, that is, a monolithic structure as shown by the
comments rendered in the Hidden Cove submission. How is this inconsistency
reconciled? (P. Stolatis, letter, 10/13/08)
The analysis of the Proposed Hidden Cove development is outside the scope of the
DGEIS.
152
APPENDIX A PUBLIC COMMENTS
153
APPENDIX B MARKET AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
154