Zoning Board of Appeals weighs in with DEIS comments

October 2, 2009

Editor’s Note: The text of the ZBA’s comments, which were submitted to the town last Friday, September 25, follows.

Zoning Board of Appeal members:

Kenneth J. Cooper, Chairman
Gabriel Rosenfeld, Chairman Emeritus
Gerry Golub, Secretary
Anthony Giardina
Harvey Boneparth

September 17, 2009

RE: SG Chappaqua Crossing DEIS

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a discussion at its July 29, 2009,* Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting and also held a special meeting on August 31, 2009 to discuss the SG Chappaqua Crossing DEIS. The Zoning Board discussed the DEIS in relation to the parking variance for the commercial space that may be required (although no application has yet been submitted for same) and the application submitted for a variance eliminating (i) restrictions on the number of tenant users of the commercial portion of the site and (ii) the square footage requirements for the tenants. A compilation of the Zoning Board’s comments to be addressed in the FEIS follows.

1. The application for an area variance seeking the elimination of (i) restrictions on the number of tenant users of the commercial portion of the site and (ii) the square footage requirements for the tenants may require both a use variance and an area variance. A use variance may be required to eliminate the restrictions on the number of tenant users and an area variance would be required to eliminate the square footage requirements.

2. What is the effect, if any, of the Readers Digest’s bankruptcy filing on the occupancy of the site?

3. The charts explaining the impacts to support the applicant’s conclusion that there will not be a significant change in parking needs and traffic operations in comparison to existing operations if there is an increase in the number of tenants are highly complex and difficult to understand. Abbreviations are not spelled out and there is no narrative to explain the significance of the charts. In several cases, insufficient substantiation is provided for global summary statements on potential impacts.

4. The DEIS does not sufficiently analyze the traffic and parking impacts that will result from all potential types of tenant uses, including all types of office tenancies, in the building.

5. The DEIS asserts that there will be different operating hours depending upon the different needs of the individual tenants. The DEIS does not sufficiently address the traffic and parking impacts resulting from that assertion.

6.  Assertions and assumptions made by the applicant concerning traffic and parking will need to be vetted by professional consultant staff. For example, the Applicant asserts that parking has historically been adequate at peak occupancy. However, the Zoning Board understands that historically, at full occupancy, employees were bussed to the site from several regional locations. The availability of that service would have reduced the need for parking on the site itself. In addition, the DEIS does not provide details on how many employees occupied the building during each of the three eight-hour shifts that previously existed when Reader’s Digest Corporation was operating at its peak level. Therefore, direct comparisons cannot be made between historical operations and future operations under the Applicant’s Proposed Action. In general, therefore, reliance on past parking needs for the site may not be a valid basis upon which to analyze the future parking requirements at full occupancy.

7. It is our understanding that the Applicant’s traffic impact analysis is being revised in response to technical review comments submitted by the Town’s traffic engineering consultant. For that reason, it is not yet possible to draw any final conclusions from the information presented in the DEIS. Nonetheless, it is known that traffic congestion on roads surrounding the subject site occurs at different times of the day. The possibility of alleviating such congestion through the creation of an additional vehicular access to the subject site should also be examined in addition to mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant.

8. The DEIS does not adequately address the impacts that an increase in parking requirements will have in the event a variance is not granted or alternatives to increasing the number of on ground parking spaces to meet the Town Code requirements.

9. The DEIS does not address the impacts of granting an area variance reducing the required number of parking spaces.

10. Explain in detail the genesis of the Applicant’s assumption regarding assumed amount of floor area in square feet per employee. Any assumption about projected building occupancy (in terms of population) is directly related to that standard, and that may have a direct bearing on the Applicant’s assumptions about parking adequacy.

*See NCNOW’s report of the ZBA’s July 29, 2009 meeting by clicking here.

Find DEIS documents here.

Find other documents, such as those on alternative (town) uses, the finances of the project, and the school board’s report on the effects of the project on the school district, here.

Want to catch up?  From NCNOW’s archives:  Click here for access to links to all our articles on this subject.