Hudson Heritage Project

Transcription

1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Hudson Heritage Project 3532 North Road (U.S. Route 9) Town of Poughkeepsie, New York Tax Parcel IDs: and Project Sponsor: Lead Agency: Prepared by: EFG/DRA Heritage, LLC 350 Main Road Suite 201 Montville, NJ Town Board, Town of Poughkeepsie 1 Overocker Road Poughkeepsie, New York (845) Contact: Jon J. Baisley Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture Co., D.P.C. 21 Fox Street Poughkeepsie, New York (845) Draft EIS (DEIS) Acceptance Date: November 2, 2016 Public Hearing: December 7, 2016 Last Day for Public Comment: December 21, 2016 Final EIS (FEIS) Adoption Date: September 20, 2017

2 This page intentionally left blank

3 PROJECT SPONSOR AND PARTICIPATING CONSULTANTS Project Sponsor EFG/DRA Heritage, LLC 350 Main Road, Suite 201 Montville, NJ Architecture and Land Planning Looney Ricks Kiss Architects 182 Nassau Street Suite 302 Princeton, New Jersey (609) Site Engineering, Survey, Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture Co., D.P.C. Ecological and Wetlands 21 Fox Street Analyses Poughkeepsie, New York (845) Project Attorneys Teahan & Constantino 2780 South Road Poughkeepsie, New York (845) and DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Wise and Wiederkehr, LLP 1 North Lexington Avenue White Plains, New York (914) info@ddw-law.com Environmental Investigations PVE, LLC 48 Springside Avenue Poughkeepsie, New York (845) cbrown@pvesheffler.com Cultural Resource Investigations Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc Washington Avenue Extension Rensselaer, New York (518) hartgen@hartgen.com Visual Simulations Creative Visuals, Inc. 37 Happy Valley Road Post Office Box 435 Bearsville, New York (845) Ruthecvisuals@aol.com Traffic, Noise and Air Analyses Maser Consulting, P.A. 331 Newman Springs Road Suite 203 Red Bank, New Jersey (877) pgrealy@maserconsulting.com Fiscal and Demographic Analyses Camoin Associates 120 West Ave, Suite 303 Saratoga Springs, NY info@camoinassociates.com

4 This page intentionally left blank 2

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Coordination under SEQRA Description of the FEIS FEIS Organizational Structure PROJECT DESCRIPTION Summary of Project Components Summary of the Project and Action under SEQRA Summary of Project Purpose and Need RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A. Comment Annotation B. Comment Referencing C. Comment Indexing D. Comments and Responses by DEIS Chapter Comments on Executive Summary Comments on Description of the Proposed Action and Project Comments on Land Use Comments on Zoning Comments on Public Policy Comments on Community Character and Visual Impacts Comments on Geology Soils, Topography and Steep Slopes Comments on Subsurface and Surface Water Resources

6 3.7 Comments on Stormwater Management Comments on Water Comments on Wastewater Comments on Solid Waste Comments on Vegetation and Wildlife Comments on Traffic, Transportation, Pedestrians and Transit Comments on Demographics and Community Facilities Comments on Human Health and Safety Comments on Fiscal and Economic Comments on Historic and Cultural Resources Comments on Hazardous Materials Comments on Noise Comments on Air Quality Comments on Construction Comments on Alternatives Comments on Significant Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided Comments on Growth Inducing Aspects Comments on Effects On The Use And Conservation Of Energy Resources Comments on Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitment Of Resources General Comments

7 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. APPENDIX E. SEQRA DOCUMENTS PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT (Annotated) WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC (Annotated) TABLES Development Alternatives Comparison Quantitative Impacts at Full Project Build-Out b Development Alternatives Comparison Qualitative Impacts at Full Project Build-Out Parking Counts by Block for Commercial Program (see Figure 2.1.8) Parking Counts by Block for Residential Program (see Figure 2.1.9) Bulk and Area Standards Table Easements Impacts to Habitat Proposed Project Town of Poughkeepsie Off-Site Recreational Resources Summary of Fiscal Impact (Current 2019) Fairview Fire District Summary of Fiscal Impact (Current 2019) Town and Other Districts Phase 2 Annual Property Tax Revenues Total Annual Property Tax Revenues at Full Buildout Summary of Fiscal Impact Completion of Phase Summary of Fiscal Impact Full Buildout Annual Household Spending Development Alternatives Comparison Quantitative Impacts at Full Project Build-Out b Development Alternatives Comparison Qualitative Impacts at Full Project Build-Out Projected Water Demand and Wastewater Flow Proposed Project Projected Water Demand and Wastewater Flow Project Alternative Projected Water Demand and Wastewater Flow Project Alternative Projected Water Demand and Wastewater Flow Project Alternative Projected Water Demand and Wastewater Flow Project Alternative Projected Water Demand and Wastewater Flow Proposed Project by Phase Impacted Habitat Communities Summary Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives Proposed Area (Ac) Comparison Proposed Project and Project Alternatives Change from Existing Area (Ac) Comparison Proposed Project and Project Alternatives Significant Impacts Summary Impacts by Redevelopment Phase FIGURES Illustrative Site Plan Commercial Program Residential Program 5

8 2.1.4 Trail Network Plan Pedestrian Network Plan Open Space Plan Former Landfill Areas and Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Area Parking Blocks and Counts for Commercial Program (see Table 2.1.8) Parking Blocks for Counts Residential Program (see Table 2.1.9) Pedestrian Experience Hotel (and Residential) Area Pedestrian Experience Commercial Area Easements Former Landfills and Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) Area Impacts to Habitat Communities Proposed Project Impacts to Habitat Communities Alternative Impacts to Habitat Communities Alternative Impacts to Habitat Communities Alternative Impacts to Habitat Communities Alternative 4 APPENDIX F. APPENDIX G. APPENDIX H. APPENDIX I. APPENDIX J. APPENDIX K. APPENDIX L. PROPOSED HRDD ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS HRPC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT TABLE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER DESCRIPTION CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DESIGN GUIDELINES (REPORT) STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (REPORT) WATER MAIN DISTRIBUTION CONCEPT PLAN APPENDIX M. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM CONCEPT PLAN APPENDIX N. APPENDIX O. APPENDIX P. APPENDIX Q. APPENDIX R. APPENDIX S. APPENDIX T. APPENDIX U VEGETATION AND HABITAT COMMUNITY ANALYSIS REPORT NEW ENGLAND COTTONTAIL CONSERVATION FOCUS AREAS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ( TIS ) AND REVISED TRAFFIC TABLES SYNCHRO FILES REVISED TNM MODEL FILES, TRAFFIC INPUT AND NOISE OUTPUT TABLES WHAT IS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS? WHAT IS FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS? AIR QUALITY MEMORANDUM 6

9 APPENDIX V. CORRESPONDENCE OPRHP LETTER OF JULY 16, 2015 USDOI FWS LETTER JULY 30, 2015 OPRHP LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 2015 OPRHP LETTER OF OCTOBER 23, 2015 OPRHP LETTER OF APRIL 14, 2016 POLICE DEPARTMENT RE: CAMOIN FISCAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY CGR LETTER OF JULY 16, MEMORANDUM (SURVEY INFO) TO FAIRVIEW FIRE DISTRICT FAIRVIEW FIRE DISTRICT LETTER OF AUGUST 15, 2017 RE: OCTOBER 15, 2015 MEETING FAIRVIEW FIRE DISTRICT LETTER OF NOVEMBER 2, 2015 TO CAMOIN ASSOCIATES EFG/DRA HERITAGE, LLC LETTER OF JUNE 1, 2017 TO FAIRVIEW FIRE DISTRICT RE: MITIGATION APPENDIX W. MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2017 RE: TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION 7

10 This page intentionally left blank 8

11 Hudson Heritage Project Page INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Statement ( FEIS ) has been prepared in compliance with Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law, the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( SEQRA or SEQR ), and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617. It has been prepared at the request of the Town of Poughkeepsie Town Board, acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Hudson Heritage project (the Project ). The Proposed Action includes the amendment of the zoning regulations of the Historic Revitalization Development District ( HRDD ), approval of the Development Master Plan ( DMP ) of the Project, and site plan and subdivision approvals for the Project. 1.1 Coordination under SEQRA In accordance with SEQRA regulations, the following process has been undertaken: On June 5, 2015, EFG/DRA Heritage, LLC (the Project Sponsor, or Applicant ) submitted Part 1 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to the Town of Poughkeepsie together with a petition for amendments to the HRDD regulations and an application for approval of the DMP for the Project. The Poughkeepsie Town Board circulated its intent to be Lead Agency to all involved agencies on June 17, On July 22, 2015, the Poughkeepsie Town Board established itself as Lead Agency and issued a positive declaration. A draft scoping document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) was accepted on July 22, The Town Board held a public scoping session on August 19, 2015, and written comments were accepted through August 31, On September 16, 2015 the Final Scoping Document for the DEIS was adopted by the Lead Agency. On May 16, 2016 the Project Sponsor submitted the preliminary DEIS to the Lead Agency. On September 15, 2016 the Project Sponsor submitted a revised preliminary DEIS to the Lead Agency. On October 27, 2016 the Project Sponsor submitted a second revised preliminary DEIS to the Lead Agency. On November 2, 2016, the Lead Agency formally accepted the DEIS as complete for public review and circulation to the interested and involved agencies. The DEIS and Notice of Completion were duly circulated to all involved and interested agencies. In accordance with Section 617.9(b)(7) of the SEQRA regulations, this FEIS incorporates by reference the DEIS and all supporting appendices dated October 2016, as accepted by the Town Board on November 2,

12 Hudson Heritage Project Page 10 A public hearing on the DEIS was held by the Lead Agency on December 7, 2016 at the Poughkeepsie Town Hall. The public comment period remained open until December 23, Copies of the transcript from the public hearing and the written comments received on the DEIS are provided in this FEIS as Appendices A and B, respectively. 1.2 Description of the FEIS This document is the FEIS for the Hudson Heritage Project prepared pursuant to SEQRA and its implementing regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 617. The EIS for the Project, consisting of the DEIS and this FEIS, will be the basis for the Lead Agency s SEQR Findings Statement, which will set forth specific conditions under which the Project and related future actions (i.e. site specific development) can be undertaken. No further SEQRA review will be necessary if a future action associated with the Hudson Heritage Project is undertaken in conformance with the Lead Agency s Findings Statement. 1.3 FEIS Organizational Structure This FEIS responds to substantive comments about the proposed Project and content of the DEIS received at the December 7, 2016 public hearing and during the subsequent comment period. This FEIS incorporates, by reference, the accepted DEIS for the Project. Section 1.0 of this FEIS describes the purpose and function of the FEIS and how this document is organized. Section 2.0 of this FEIS provides a summary of the Project s components, SEQR requirements, a description of the Project s purpose and objectives, and the need for the Project in the Town of Poughkeepsie with respect to increased tax revenue supporting vital Town functions, job creation, and new amenities for current and prospective residents. Section 3.0 of the FEIS are responses to comments received on the DEIS. Part A.) describes the annotation scheme, Part B.) describes the referencing scheme, Part C.) provides an index of all commenters. All commenters have been indexed by Agency or surname, enabling the reader to easily identify all relevant page numbers of the FEIS where his/her comments are addressed. Part D.) of Section 3.0 then follows the DEIS by chapter (from 1.0 Executive Summary to 8.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources), and provides an indexed, comprehensive listing of comments received as relevant to each chapter with the Applicant s responses. Comments for which a specific, substantive response is not warranted are not required to be responded to in FEIS Section 3.0, and, if included, may be responded to as Comment noted. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project has been modified since the DEIS was accepted in November The modified Project is described in detail below. 2.1 Summary of Project Components The site development program for the Project has evolved in response to comments. The changes primarily refine certain aspects of the proposed Project, including mitigation measures. In some instances, the Engineering Plan Set for the Project will need to be revised to address a comment. In such cases, the 10

13 Hudson Heritage Project Page 11 relevant response in Section 3.0 of this FEIS will identify the required revision. However, in general, Engineering Plan Set revisions will be made during the site plan review stage of Project, as noted in the responses. Refinement of the site development program has resulted in a modified Project that includes: A total of 750 new residential units, including single-family, multi-family and townhouses; 350,000 feet ( SF ) of commercial space (not including the hotel); Adaptive reuse of six (6) existing buildings from the former Hudson River Psychiatric Center ( HRPC ), one (1) additional building - the North Tower - than proposed in the DEIS; Adaptive reuse of the historic, former Main Administration Building, which will be converted into 80,000 SF of hotel space with amenities; Adaptive reuse of the former Director s Residence, which will be converted into a museum (or bed and breakfast/inn); Adaptive reuse of the North Tower, likely as an observatory, and of the Library, Entertainment Hall, and Avery Chapel as private amenities for residents including a library or internet café, a community center, and flex office/work space; and New, public and private amenities including 3.7 miles of pathways and trails throughout the Project site (the Site ) connecting to off-site features, 58 acres of publicly accessible open space and 9 acres of private open space (a total of 67 acres of open space). Site and infrastructure improvements related to the proposed Project include: general site grading, roadway grading and paving; demolition of deteriorated structures; adaptive reuse of six (6) former HRPC structures; installation of a stormwater drainage system designed in accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ( NYSDEC ) Stormwater Design Manual (2015); water supply and sanitary sewer installation; abandonment and closure (and where necessary for construction purposes, collapse and backfill) of existing steam tunnels; landscaping that includes restoration of the Great Lawn; and to the extent practicable, protection of some existing, mature vegetation, preservation of some undeveloped areas along the perimeter of the Site, and restoration of lost habitat in some formerly developed areas. 2.2 Summary of the Project and Action under SEQRA The proposed Project includes three (3) primary actions under SEQRA: 1.) Amendment of the Regulations of the Historic Revitalization Development District The Project Site is currently zoned Historic Revitalization Development District ( HRDD ). Implementation of the Project, as proposed, can only be achieved with amendments to the existing HRDD regulations in Section of the Zoning Code of the Town of Poughkeepsie (the Zoning Code, or Zoning Ordinance ), by legislative action of the Town Board. In order to create a development plan that is both financially viable for the Applicant and beneficial to the Town and region in terms of economic 11

14 Hudson Heritage Project Page 12 development, residential and retail offerings, and desirable amenities, the HRDD regulations are proposed to be amended to allow certain uses not currently permitted, to increase maximum commercial square footage, and to permit residential densities without reliance on density bonuses. The proposed zoning amendments would allow the Site to be developed with a variety of housing types and commercial uses, at densities that are expected to create jobs and significant tax revenues, and increase the range of services and facilities available to serve the Town s present and future populations. The amendments would accommodate a redevelopment of the Site that is consistent with the goals and intent of the 2007 Poughkeepsie Town Plan and maintains the character of the surrounding Town. A maximum of 750 dwelling units are proposed on the Site, equating to a density of approximately five (5) units per acre. This proposed density aligns with the nearby and comparable town centers of Crown Heights, Salt Point Turnpike and MacDonnell Heights, which are zoned to accommodate four (4) to six (6) units per acre. The adaptive reuse of the historic Main Administration Building into an 80,000 SF hotel with amenities and the addition of 350,000 SF of commercial development is also consistent with neighborhood surroundings, such as Marist College, Culinary Institute of America and the Mid-Hudson Plaza. 2.) Approval of the Development Master Plan As stated in the DEIS, the Applicant s proposed development master plan ( DMP ) must be approved by the Town Board prior to the Town s granting of any other land use or zoning approval for redevelopment of the Site. The procedure for DMP approval is contained in Section (Development Master Plan Approval) of the Zoning Code, and also in the HRDD regulations in Section of the Zoning Code, and are discussed in chapter 3.2 of the DEIS. 3.) Site Plan, Special Use Permit and Subdivision Approvals Following the Town Board s approval of the DMP, the Applicant must apply for and receive site plan approval for each specific phase of development. It is also likely that that Applicant would request subdivision approval in conjunction with applications for site plan approval for purposes of financing and conveyance. Site plan and subdivision approval requirements are in Section of the Zoning Code, and Town Code Chapter 177, respectively, and are discussed in chapter 3.2 of the DEIS. 12

15 Hudson Heritage Project Page Summary of Project Purpose and Need As expressed in Section of the Zoning Code, the Town s objectives for redevelopment of the HRDD are as follows: 1) Promote the preservation and adaptive reuse of landmark structures in historic districts and historically significant open spaces where feasible. 2) Promote the preservation of open space by clustering of dwelling units and concentrating mixed development within an integrated design plan creating residential areas and accessible neighborhood commercial centers and recreational spaces. 3) Promote a mix of commercial and residential uses within a planned community environment where building bulk and architecture, as well as the location of use types, complement each other and harmonize with open spaces and the surrounding landscape. 4) Promote pedestrian activity through a safe and walkable environment and establish an integrated circulation network of streets, sidewalks and other pathways linking the residential, commercial and recreational areas in the HRDD. As modified, the Project would accomplish these objectives by: 1) Providing housing opportunities; 2) Providing commercial development; 3) Creating jobs; 4) Generating tax revenue; 5) Eliminating an existing public safety hazard; 6) Eliminating an existing burden to Town and County public safety resources; 7) Redeveloping the Site and restoring it to productive use; 8) Increasing public open space and expanding the Town s trail network: and 9) Adaptively reusing certain historic buildings and site elements, such as the Great Lawn, to the extent practicable. The Project would also address the following needs in the Town: 1) Create new jobs; 2) Create new public open space and trail amenities; 3) Provide a variety of new residential options in an area that already has infrastructure and amenities nearby; and 4) Increase the tax base, which would provide financial support to police and fire services, the Hyde Park School District and the Town and County. The proposed Project would achieve the Town s objectives as expressed in the Zoning Code as well as in the most recent, 2007 Town Plan, through the remediation of existing environmental conditions, selective preservation/demolition of existing buildings, and development of a vibrant, new, mixed-use community. In addition, the Project would provide over 67 acres of open space (both public and private), 3.7-miles of pedestrian trails throughout the Site and with off-site connections, and various amenities to serve both Project residents and patrons. 13

16 Hudson Heritage Project Page RESPONSE TO COMMENTS This section addresses all substantive comments received during the public comment period on the DEIS, which remained open until December 21, Comments were recited aloud to the Lead Agency during the December 7, 2016 public hearing, and in written memos, letters, and s throughout the public comment period. A copy of the public hearing transcript is included in Appendix B and copies of written comments are included in Appendix C, in chronological order by date received. The following tables identify the commenters: Public Hearing Comments Table 2 - List of Public Hearing Speakers (see APPENDIX B) Name Date Yvonne Laube, Preservation Works 12/7/2016 John Penna, Town Historian 12/7/2016 Ann Shershin, Councilwoman 12/7/2016 Joseph Lepore, Councilman 12/7/2016 Richard Golden, Esq., representing Fairview Fire District 12/7/2016 Written Comments Table 3 - List of Written Comments on the DEIS (alphabetical order) (see APPENDIX C) Name Date AKRF, Inc. Environmental Planning Consultants 12/21/2016 AKRF, Inc. Environmental Planning Consultants Air Quality review 2/10/2017 Dutchess County Department of Planning & Development, Brian Kehoe 12/21/2016 Gerry Deavers (via ) 12/18/2016 Kelly Ljutich (via ) 12/20/2016 Morris Associates, Engineering & Surveying Consultants 12/21/2016 Neil Wilson, Esq., Director of Municipal Development (via ) 12/20/2016 NYS Department of Transportation, Gregory V. Bentley Sr., P.E. 12/7/2016 NYS Department of Transportation, Hudson Valley, Christopher T. Lee 12/7/2016 Richard Golden, Esq. Letter 1 on behalf of Fairview Fire District 12/7/2016 Richard Golden, Esq. Letter 2 on behalf of Fairview Fire District 06/08/2017 Rob R. (via ) 12/19/2016 Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Department 12/14/2016 All comments have been categorized into the corresponding topics of the DEIS chapters, 3.0 through 8.0. Note that some comments categorized by the writer as concerning one topic area, are addressed here under a different topic area, or with respect to a different DEIS chapter (i.e. an Executive Summary comment responded to in the responses to stormwater comments). These have been reorganized 14

17 Hudson Heritage Project Page 15 accordingly in cases where the comment necessitated a more substantial response better addressed elsewhere. A. Comment Annotation Appendix B of the FEIS contains the public hearing transcript and Appendix C contains all written comments received during the public comment period. These documents are organized in chronological order, and annotated in the document margins with a unique annotation number. In cases where text must be visually separated to identify different comments warranting separate response, the full phrase or comment is highlighted in a unique color with a corresponding annotation. B. Comment Referencing All comments below are followed by a full reference, shown in brackets, to indicate the original source of the comment, date of the document, original DEIS section/topic area, original number, and page number of the original source, to the extent applicable and available. For example, a comment made by Mr. John Doe via is referenced at the end of his comment as [Public Comment John Doe, of 12/20/2016, Page 1]. The following example illustrates the FEIS comment referencing (left) and annotation (right) system: ANNOTATION ORIGINAL COMMENT EXAMPLE 1. Per Section 2.1, the Project contemplates Special Permit uses. Please revise Description of the Proposed Action to include Special Permit Approval, and note which uses would require a Special Use Permit. [AKRF Memo of 12/21/2016, Executive Summary Comments, #11.), Page 2] Response to this comment is found in the FEIS at PROJECT DESCRIPTION comments, chapter 2.0, commentresponse number one (1) of the section. [Comment Source is the AKRF Memo dated 12/21/2016, Comment found in AKRF s Executive Summary Comments section, AKRF comment number #11.), Comment found on Page 2 of the AKRF Memo] C. Comment Indexing To enable commenters to easily locate comments submitted, an Index is provided here, organized by agency name and/or the individual s surname. The Index is a listing of each agency/individual who provided comments, and all page numbers herein where a comment from that agency/individual appears in the FEIS. Comments made by individuals are indexed below by name and corresponding FEIS page number. 15

18 Hudson Heritage Project Page 16 A AKRF, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 99, 100, 114, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 146, 147, 148, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 179, 185, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203, 204 B Brian Kehoe, 14, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 112, 113, 180, 181, 182, 183 C Councilman Joseph Lepore, 146 Councilwoman Ann Shershin, 146 D Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 112, 113, 180, 181, 182, 183 G Gerry Deavers, 14, 149 K Kelly Ljutich, 14, 150, 151, 152 M Morris Associates, 14, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 155, 156, 157, 166, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213 N Neil Wilson, Esq., 14, 30 NYS Department of Transportation, 14, 41, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 R Richard Golden, 14, 119, 120 Richard Golden, Esq., 14, 119, 120 Rob R., 14, 150 Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Department, 14, 110, 111, 112, 148 Yvonne Laube, 14, 134, 142, 143, 144 T Y John Penna, 14, 144, 145 J 16

19 Hudson Heritage Project Page 17 D. Comments and Responses by DEIS Chapter Substantive comments raised by the public and involved and interested agencies are addressed below. Comments for which a specific, substantive response is not warranted are not required to be responded to in FEIS Section 3.0, and, if included, may be responded to as Comment noted. In general, the order and categories of topics follow the DEIS. General comments and those which do not concern a specific section of the DEIS are addressed first. For example, as seen below, 1.0 Comments on Executive Summary, which corresponds with chapter 1.0 from the DEIS, would provide a listing of comments received and the Applicant s response. 17

20 Hudson Heritage Project Page Comments on Executive Summary Comments on the Executive Summary chapter are addressed in their respective chapter topic area. 2.0 Comments on Description of the Proposed Action and Project COMMENT : Per Section 2.1, the Project contemplates Special Permit uses. Please revise Description of the Proposed Action to include Special Permit Approval, and note which uses would require a Special Use Permit. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Executive Summary Comments, #11.), Page 2] RESPONSE : Comment noted. Certain uses for example, outdoor recreation, would require special permit approval in accordance with Section , Special Use Permits, and in accordance with regulations pursuant to the respective, special use as identified in Chapter 210, Article VIII, Supplementary Regulations, (i.e. Section and , governing indoor and outdoor recreational uses) of the Town Zoning Ordinance. COMMENT : The various roadway designations are difficult to follow. Color designations and names should be reconciled with the Roadway Cross Section plan included in the Site Plan set (which would be extremely helpful if made legible as an FEIS graphic). [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #13.), Page 2] RESPONSE : Comment noted. The roadway cross section plan is too detailed to be legible as an 8.5 x 11 graphic, and therefore is shown in the Plan Set. Further changes and revisions to the roadway designations, color designations and/or names will occur during site plan review. COMMENT : Please clarify: "There would be a main access road that would allow traffic to move in a north-south direction to access both the commercial stores and would also create a connector to Hudson View Drive, which traverses across the Site." [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #14.), Page 2] RESPONSE : This refers to the road that would run parallel to Route 9 in the south western area of the Site. As shown on the Illustrative Site Plan, it would create a connection between Winslow Gate Road and Hudson View Drive where the latter bends in a southerly direction around the Great Lawn. Hudson View Drive would then provide access to the hotel and residential components of the Project. COMMENT : Table presents current "permitted" (allowed) uses in the HRDD. The table and the narrative should discuss and analyze the proposed revisions to the HRDD zoning text required for the Proposed Project to proceed. The DEIS is an analysis of the impacts of the Proposed Action, which includes the zone text amendment, therefore the document needs to provide a meaningful analysis of this impact. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #15.) Page 2] RESPONSE : The proposed amendments to the HRDD regulations are discussed in Chapter 3.2, Zoning, of the DEIS. In summary, if approved, the amendments would: 18

21 Hudson Heritage Project Page 19 - Allow increased commercial square footage to accommodate adaptive reuse of the Main Administration Building as a hotel, and permit 750 residential units without bonus incentives; AND - Allow development flexibility over time, by permitting new uses such as gas stations, business parks, indoor recreation facilities, libraries, among others. There is no other land in the Town zoned HRDD. Therefore, the potential impacts of the proposed amendments are the same as the potential impacts of the development project they would facilitate, which is the subject of the DEIS. Please see Appendix F, "Proposed HRDD Zoning Text Amendments," for the complete, redline version of the document. The Town Board has carefully considered all comments on the DEIS and determined that no further analysis of the zoning text amendments is warranted. COMMENT : The Developer's Agreement and the HRDD zoning require connections between the commercial and residential components and phases to achieve an integrated plan. The Applicant has opined that such integration between uses would not be feasible, primarily for economic reasons. As such, the FEIS needs to disclose that the Proposed Project does not meet this requirement and provide an analysis of the impact thereof. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #16.) Page 2] RESPONSE : The proposed development master plan is an integrated plan for the development of the Site under HRDD regulations, as proposed to be amended, and does provide connections between the commercial and residential components of the Project. All on-site uses would be accessible by foot or car. The Applicant has proposed a multitude of trails/paths throughout the Site to encourage and promote pedestrian activity between the two components, and an internal road network provides vehicle connections In the future, if residential demand warrants it a bus line stop may also be possible, further increasing mobility. Finally, the MDP currently includes six (6) multi-family housing units along Hudson View Drive, directly abutting the commercial development, and six (6) more just east, separated only by the South Buffer, which is meant to minimize noise and visual impacts for the residents. The remaining single-family houses, townhouses, multi-family units and hotel all would enjoy easy, safe access to the commercial component along tree-lined, landscaped, neighborhood streets, or via pedestrian pathways. It should also be noted that the current HRDD regulations do not require or incentivize mixed-use buildings, and that the proposed regulation would only require an integrated design plan creating residential spaces and accessible neighborhood commercial centers and recreational spaces, a standard met by the proposed development master plan. The commenter s request for additional details on future bus stops will be addressed by the Applicant when each site plan is formulated and presented to the Town Planning Board for approval. COMMENT : The quantity of all on-street (and off-street) parking for each use and any contemplated shared parking arrangements should be provided. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #17.) Page 2] 19

22 Hudson Heritage Project Page 20 RESPONSE : The parking provided for the conceptual development master plan meets or exceeds the requirements in Section O of the Zoning Ordinance (see Table of the DEIS), without shared parking. Parking count and layout will be refined - and shared parking utilized, if warranted - with each successive application for site plan approval. Parking Count Figures (2.1.8 and 2.1.9) and Tables (2.1.8 and 2.1.9) for the Commercial and the Residential components are provided in Appendices E and G. The commenter s request for additional site specific details will be addressed by the Applicant when each site plan is formulated and presented to the Town Planning Board for approval. COMMENT : Please provide the contemplated project phases and start/completion date for each phase. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #19.) Page 3] RESPONSE : For analysis purposes, the DEIS assumes that the commercial component of the Project will be completed by 2019, and the remainder of the Project, including the residential component, by The assumptions are subject to change based on economic and marketplace conditions over which the Applicant has no control. COMMENT : Please describe in detail the nature of the trail segment, which runs along the western edge of the project site - in front of the retail component. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #21.) Page 3] RESPONSE : On Page 41 of the DEIS, the trail is described as a landscaped, pedestrian walkway running along the west buffer of the commercial area. There is an existing, DOT-owned sidewalk along this area of the Site which will be retained, and likely improved. Additional site specific details will be determined in consultation with NYSDOT and addressed by the Applicant when each site plan is formulated and presented to the Town Planning Board for approval. COMMENT : Please clarify what is meant by "Block Boundary." Is this for subdivision purposes? [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #22.) Page 3] RESPONSE : As used in the DEIS, the term "Block" refers to a particular area of the development master plan that has been organized and labeled as a "Block" for identification purposes. "Block Boundary" refers to the boundary of (one of) these designated Blocks. "Blocks" are not necessarily coterminous with future subdivided lots. COMMENT : A legible lighting plan graphic should be provided in the FEIS. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #23.) Page 3] RESPONSE : The Engineering Plan Set provided to the Town includes the Conceptual Lighting Plan, at the size/scale that was requested. The Conceptual Lighting and Conceptual Landscaping Plans from the Engineering Plan Set have been resubmitted in size 36 x48 format. 20

23 Hudson Heritage Project Page 21 COMMENT : The Applicant identifies the Great Lawn, Great Lawn Lookout and North Green Buffer as "publicly accessible, privately maintained" open space to be maintained by the Applicant, a homeowner's association, a governmental entity, or a non-profit agency. In the event that these areas are maintained by a private entity, what measures will be undertaken to ensure that the public use of the open space does not adversely impact the residents occupying the units located on the Project Site? For example, would the Applicant record a conservation easement over the Open Space Features containing limitations on the use, hours of public operation, and perpetual maintenance as a historic resource? Where will the public park to access the Great Lawn and North Green Buffer? In the event that maintenance responsibilities are transferred to a governmental agency or a non-profit organization, what measures will be undertaken to ensure that the public use of the open space does not adversely impact the residents occupying the units located on the Project Site? [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #25.) Page 3] RESPONSE : The Applicant has committed to public use of these spaces in response to requests made by the Town and other stakeholders. Analysis of potential impacts of currently unknown public uses on the Applicant s own residents is beyond the scope of the DEIS. The terms and conditions of ownership and use of these spaces will be developed as discussions with the Town and Dutchess County progress and will be presented as part of the site plan approval process. The Town Board has carefully considered all comments on the DEIS and has determined that no further or additional analysis of public use of the Great Lawn is warranted. COMMENT : For the Site Plan set, one black and white legend is provided though the plans are in color. Please either provide a detailed legend on each plan or provide a colored legend as sheet 1 of the site plan package. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #26.) Page 3] RESPONSE : Comment noted. A detailed legend will be provided during site plan review. COMMENT : Additional detail on the location of site remediation activities should be provided. The narrative herein states the project is seeking tax credit from various sources, however, Chapter 3.15 indicates: "Tax Exemptions and Abatements: The Applicant is not seeking real property tax exemptions, historic tax credits or abatements at this time" which contradicts this statement. Please clarify and provide an analysis of the impact of such credits must be analyzed in the document. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #28.) Page 3] RESPONSE : The Applicant has not applied for historic preservation tax credits or any real property tax exemptions or abatements. However, applications for federal and State historic preservation tax credits may be made in the future by the Applicant or successor developers of the Administration Building and the other existing buildings proposed to be adaptively re-used, and for financial assistance for eligible components of the Project from the Dutchess County Industrial Development Agency (in the forms of sales tax, mortgage recording tax and real property tax exemptions), and other sources. The historic preservation credits are credits against federal and State income tax and therefore do not have a fiscal impact on the Town or any other local taxing jurisdiction. Because it is unknown whether and when sales tax, mortgage recording tax, and/or real property tax exemptions or abatements will be provided (and if so, in what amounts), potential fiscal impacts of this assistance, if any, cannot currently be assessed. 21

24 Hudson Heritage Project Page 22 COMMENT : On-street parking is assumed to accommodate project generated demand and therefore must be quantified to definitively determine whether sufficient parking exists. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #29.) Page 3] RESPONSE : Tables and (and corresponding Figures and for visualization) were provided quantifying and depicting the breakdown of on-street parking by block. See Appendices D and E. Each area identified at Table and is shown on the corresponding Figures, and Each area is depicted using conventional parking striping on the illustrative plan shown on Figures and COMMENT : Currently contemplated project phasing and components of each must be disclosed in the document. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #30.) Page 3] RESPONSE : See response COMMENT : The landscape plan provided in the engineering plan set is difficult to read. Please provide a graphic of this plan that is legible/reproducible at a size and scale appropriate for the FEIS. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #30.) Page 3] RESPONSE : Comment noted. The requested plan has been provided at Appendix I. COMMENT : We suggest that the Roadway Cross Section plan included in the Site Plan set, be reformatted and provided in the FEIS. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #32.) Page 3] RESPONSE : See response to COMMENT : It is not clear how exactly the proposed internal site trail network would "connect" to adjacent trails. Simply ending the trail at the property line does not provide a connection. Please clarify. Please also provide evidence of consultation with adjacent property owners for "connection." [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #33.) Page 3] RESPONSE : The Applicant proposes a Pedestrian Network Plan (DEIS Figure 2.1.5) with three connections to off-site locations. One trail aligns with Hudson View Drive, and will connect to Quiet Cove Park off-site, another trail aligns with Winslow Gate Road, and will connect to the Mid-Hudson Plaza and Marist College, and another trail runs along the CSX railroad right-of-way, and could continue in that path. The Applicant has had preliminary discussions with Dutchess County about these trail connections. The Applicant will keep the Town informed as these discussions progress. The Applicant does not own or control adjoining properties, and therefore cannot assure the creation of off-site trails. 22

25 Hudson Heritage Project Page 23 COMMENT : Please include a detailed discussion of need for Special Permit (what for) as part of the required approvals. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #34.) Page 3] RESPONSE : Comment noted. Certain uses (for example, outdoor recreation) would require special permit approval in accordance with Section of the Town Zoning Ordinance. The special permit standards are in Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance. The Town Board has carefully considered all comments on the DEIS and has determined that no further or additional analysis of special permit uses is warranted. COMMENT : Please note that five foot setbacks are not sufficient to accommodate foundation plantings/yards/gardens. Please clarify. [AKRF, Memo of 12/21/2016, Project Description Comments, #35.) Page 3] RESPONSE : Comment noted. Except those set forth in Subsection C. of the revised zoning, there are no minimum or maximum height, area or bulk requirements in the HRDD. However, at the Town s request, the Applicant has proposed Residential and Commercial Bulk & Area Standards tables included at Appendix D and shown below. 23

26 Hudson Heritage Project Page 24 Residential Bulk & Area Standards Minimum Lot Area (SF) Minimum Lot Frontage (feet) Minimum Lot Width (feet) Minimum Front Yard (Feet) Minimum Side Yard (Feet) Minimum Rear Yard (Feet) Usable Open Space set Aside (SF) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Maximum Impervious Surface (%) Maximum Height (Feet) Apartments Townhouses Single-Family Homes Minimum 5 feet from forward most portion of structure to property line, Apartments that do not front on a street, 5 feet from nearest sidewalk or property line, steps/stoops/entry railings/columns or associated entry elements may be 3 feet from property line or sidewalk minimum 5 Feet from forward most portion of structure to property line, steps/stoops/entry railings/columns or associated entry elements may be 3 feet from property line minimum 5 Feet from forward most portion of structure to property line, steps/stoops/entry railings/columns or associated entry elements may be 3 feet from property line 15' min. between buildings Attached or 5' min. Varies depending on specfic site conditions 5' to Alley 50' 5' min. 5' to Alley 50' 50' 24

27 Hudson Heritage Project Page 25 Commercial Bulk & Area Standards Minimum Lot Area (SF) Minimum Lot Frontage (feet) Minimum Lot Width (feet) Minimum Front Yard (Feet) Minimum Side Yard (Feet) Minimum Rear Yard (Feet) Usable Open Space set Aside (SF) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Maximum Impervious Surface (%) Maximum Height (Feet) Large Scale Commercial Building 0' min. 0' min. 10' or 20' if adjacent to residential uses 40' Small Scale Commercial Building 0' min. 0' min. 10' or 20' if adjacent to residential uses 40' Resturant and Pad Buildings 0' min. 0' min. 10' or 20' if adjacent to residential uses 40' 25

28 Hudson Heritage Project Page 26 COMMENT : The Director's Residence should be given an alpha numeric designation and its proposed reuse should be described in Section 2.8. [Morris Associates, Letter of 12/21/2016,Construction Comments, #71.), Page 9] RESPONSE : Section 2.8 of the DEIS provides that "The current Director's Residence, located near the southern edge of the Great Lawn along the main road would also be restored and converted into a Bed and Breakfast, Museum or another similar use."" The specific reuse of the Director's Residence has not yet been determined, and will be driven by discussions with the Dutchess County Historical Society market conditions. As shown on the Historic Buildings & Districts Figure (2.8.1), the existing Director's Residence is known as Building 59. All existing structures proposed for adaptive reuse, including the Director's Residence, are shown on relevant figures, shaded in grey to identify them as former HRPC structures. Only the Main Administration Building has been given an alphanumeric designation ("K1," show on Site Plan 'C'). The Director's Residence and the other 4 structures slated for reuse do not yet have alphanumeric titles/designations as uses have not been fully determined, and therefore calculations for parking, etc. have not been performed for these structures yet. As part of site plan review, each of the 5 other structures will be given alpha numeric titles. COMMENT : Further, with regard to phasing and project completion, all Alternatives show the construction of the project's Phase 1 commercial component to be completed within two years, and the Phase 2 residential component could be completed as late as As the development proposal appears to not require completion of all of Phase 1 or any of Phase 2, it is possible, that only a large box retail store and a few retail pads, with associated parking may be constructed. [Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development, Brian Kehoe, Letter of 12/21/2016, Page 4] RESPONSE : The Development Agreement, dated June 17, 2015, discusses demolition in Section Demolition and Remediation at the HRDD Site, subsections (a) through (d). Section 2.1 (a), Remedial Work, provides that "Prior to the issuance of the first permanent or temporary Certificate of Occupancy for a specific Project use or uses, the [Applicant] shall provide the Town Building Department with reasonably sufficient proof in the form of Certificates of Completion, Letters of No Further Action, Spill Closure Reports and/or other formal documentation issued by the [NYSDEC] (or any other necessary agency), establishing that all Remedial Work required in conjunction with the construction of the specific use(s) for which the Certificate of Occupancy is being issued has been completed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local requirements. COMMENT : As there appears to be no mechanism to ensure construction of residential units, rehabilitation of the Great Lawn or salvageable historical buildings, we are concerned that if only the lower commercial portion of the site were to be constructed, it would be contrary to goals for this site and would add significant traffic impacts without fully realizing the tax, employment or remediation/rehabilitation benefits forwarded in the DEIS. [Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development, Brian Kehoe, Letter of 12/21/2016, Page 4] 26