HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Adition to Hommocks Middle School 3/27/1995 IAN ASSOCIATES
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
ADDITION TO HOMMOCKS MIDDLE SCHOOL
HOMMOCKS ROAD
MAMARONECK, NY
LAN JOB #2.2320.49
MARCH 27, 1995
Submitted to:
Mamaroneck Union Free School District
1000 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Attention: Ms. Sarah Tate,
Assistant Superintendent of Operations
LAN ASSOCIATES
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
PROPOSED ADDITION TO HOMMOCKS MS
HOMMOCKS ROAD
MAMARONECK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY
LAN JOB #2.2320.49
MARCH 27, 1995
Report Prepared for:
Mamaroneck Union Free School District
1000 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Attention: Ms. Sarah Tate,
Assistant Superintendent of Operations
For Submission to and Review by:
The Town of Mamaroneck - Village of Larchmont
Coastal Zone Management Commission
740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Attention: Ms. Phyllis Wittner, Chairperson
#914-381 -7845
Prepared by:
LAN Associates, Inc.
Engineering • Planning • Architecture
662 Goffle Road
Hawthorne, NJ 07506
Mr. Kenneth H. Karle, RA
1-1
LAN ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
No. Title
Page No.
1 .0 COVER SHEET 1 - 1
1.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 - 2
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 - 1
3.0 INTRODUCTION 3 - 1
3.1 Project Purpose, Need & Benefits 3 - 1
3.2 Location 3 - 1
3.3 Proposed Facility Description 3 - 2
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4 - 1
4.1 Geology, Soils, & Topography 4 - 1
4.2 Water Resources & Flood Plain 4 - 1
4.3 Wetlands 4 - 2
4.4 Human Resources 4 - 4
5.0 SHORT AND LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5 - 1
5. 1 Topography & Soil 5 - 1
5.2 Drainage, Wetlands, & Flood Plains 5 - 1
5.3 Utilities 5 - 1
5.4 Socio-Economic 5 - 1
5.5 Traffic 5 - 2
6.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 6 - 1
7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 7 - 1
7. 1 Geology, Soils, & Topography 7 - 1
7.2 Water Resources 7 - 1
7.3 Wetlands And Flood Plains 7 - 1
7.4 Human Resources 7 - 1
8.0 ALTERNATIVES 8 - 1
8. 1 Alternative Design 8 - 1
8.2 Alternative Site 8 - 1
8.3 Alternative Size 8 - 1
8.4 No Action Alternative 8 - 2
9.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION 9 - 1
10.0 ASSESSMENT OF UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION 1 0 - 1
1 1 .0 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES 1 1 - 1
1-2
LAN ASSOCIATES
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Att.
No. Title
1 Key Map & Topographic Survey of the Site
2 Key Map & Detailed Portion of Plumbing Plan From Original Contract Drawings
3 Soils Survey Map
4 Soil Borings Field Observations
5 Soils Analysis Results & Chain of Custody
6 Soils Engineer's Report and Recommendations
7 Aerial Photograph Dated April 5, 1959
LIST OF APPENDICES
App. Title
A Photographs And Captions
B List of Underlying Studies, Reports, and Information Considered and Relied on in
Preparing this Environmental Impact Statement
C List of Organizations, Consultants, and Private Persons Consulted in Preparing this
Environmental Impact Statement
D Technical Exhibits
I 1-3
LAN ASSOCIATES
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in response to concerns
that an addition proposed for the east side of the present Hommocks Middle School facility may
impact environmental criteria and a tidal marsh in the general vicinity.
The proposed addition is being considered to allow the relocation of sixth grade students
from the four elementary schools in the Town and Village of Mamaroneck and Village of
Larchmont to a consolidated location at the Hommocks Middle School. This will ease
overcrowding at the four elementary facilities and provide an efficient solution to the growth of
the school population.
The proposed site at Hommocks Middle School was originally planned for a future
addition during the original design of the building in 1966. As the remainder of this report will
demonstrate, the proposed site will not have an impact on tidal wetlands located to the south of
the adjoining municipal playing fields. This draft statement concludes that a Tidal Wetlands
Permit will not be required nor will there be other substantially detrimental environmental
impact to the area. This draft statement also concludes that the site is partially within a flood
plain and that a flood plain permit will be necessary. The elevation of the building will be
sufficient to mitigate any impact from flooding.
The proposed student population to be housed in the addition will be relocated from
other schools and represent the same number of children (except for normal growth) as are
currently being housed in nearby elementary school locations. The proposal serves an inherent
public need, is for the good of the population, and will provide improved access to the excellent
middle school facilities for an additional year for the students. It will also mitigate the need to
construct additions at other sites within the same environmental area with similar or greater
environmental impacts due to the need for multiple construction sites.
The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement is to allow the project to
move to a local voter referendum with assurance that environmental considerations, permits,
or fatal flaws that could prevent construction in this location have been explored in the proper
community forum and that the proposed construction is feasible and reasonable.
2 - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
3.0 INTRODUCTION:
3.1 Project Purpose, Need, and Benefits: As is commonly occurring in many communities
throughout the state, continued growth of student population is occurring necessitating
additional educational space. This is caused by a combination of factors including changing
demographics, the need for more specialized educational facilities within existing buildings, and
secondary growth sometimes referred to as the "echo boom" being seen as the "baby boom"
generation raises families.
Since public education of school children is mandated, the proposed project provides a
mandatory public need. Possible alternatives to provide for this need have been studied at
length by the Mamaroneck Union Free School District over the past year.
The first alternative studied required multiple construction sites to allow the sixth
grade to remain at the four existing elementary schools. This alternative would necessitate
construction on at least two and possibly three different sites.
A second alternative of leasing space was ruled out as impractical and having
complications with logistics, long term viability, and being financially responsible.
A third option studied was to move only part of the sixth grade to Hommocks Middle
School. This option required major scheduling changes to allow a limited number of sixth grade
classes to move. It still required some construction and allowed no flexibility or growth
potential. It also caused disparity between elementary schools with some having a sixth grade
and some ending at fifth grade. Changing demographics could result in inbalances between
number of sections needing to be sent and this option was ruled out as being very inflexible and
not a long term solution.
The final option studied was to move the entire sixth grade to the Hommocks Middle
School site which presently houses only seventh and eighth graders. This option allows the
previous sixth grade classrooms at the four elementary schools to absorb the kindergarten
through fifth grade growth needs and to allow the students to enjoy a three year experience at
the middle school and be exposed to the existing facilities of the middle school. Some of these
facilities are not readily available at the other elementary sites including specialized
3 - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
instructional spaces and recreational spaces. It is believed that the proposed solution provides
reasonable social and economic benefits and long term viability and flexibility.
3.2 Location: The existing Hommocks Middle School site is located on Hommocks Road
approximately one block south of Boston Post Road (Route #1). The site is well known to the
community and adjoining the site is the municipal ice rink, Flint Park, and other residential
uses such as a private golf course and the Department of Public Works uses. Since the site
presently contains the Hommocks Middle School, it is inherently well suited to continuing this
use, it is centrally located, and is located one block off of the major community artery (Boston
Post Road) with access via an improved intersection with traffic light.
3.3 Proposed Facility Description: The proposed addition is estimated to contain 42,120
gross square feet on two floors with a 21,060 SF footprint. The actual site area required for
the building is one half acre. It is not proposed to establish additional vehicular circulation or
parking since the present facilities are adequate. Therefore, the total site disturbance is limited
and efficient. It is estimated that one acre or less of land will be disturbed during construction
with only one half acre being dedicated to the building.
The present site was reserved for this use and is labeled as such on original
construction plans dating to 1966. Attachment No. 2 to this report contains a key map of the
building reproduced from those plans clearly indicating a proposed future "F" wing. The
proposed addition would be in the same location with the same circulation scheme. This site was
prepared at that time including the relocation of Hommocks Road and the clearing, leveling, and
grading of the area. The remaining site disturbance needed is minimal. The site is presently
used as a softball field.
Attachment No. 2 also contains a detailed portion of a plumbing plan from the original
contract drawings clearly indicating that gas, cold water, and sanitary sewer was roughed in and
capped off for the future building addition envisioned even at that time. The excerpt was red
lined with an arrow indicating the actual utility locations which are consistent with the
proposed addition.
The construction period is estimated to be approximately twelve months. Construction
activities would be confined within the one acre site.
3 - 2
LAN ASSOCIATES
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
4.1 Geology. Soils, and Topography: The present site consists of a grass area presently
used as a softball field with typical worn base paths, grass field, and some fencing. The field is
worn and uneven and in need of regrading. There are no other distinguishing features to the site.
The actual area of construction contains no trees, however, there are some deciduous and
evergreen ornamental trees in nearby locations presumably planted when the school was
constructed. These will remain after construction. Based on review of past topographic
mapping of this area, it is believed that prior to the present school construction in
approximately 1966 this area was traversed by Hommocks Road which was a straight away
connecting the adjoining straight portions that still exist. The loop in Hommocks Road presently
occurring was constructed in 1966 at the time of the school construction for the purpose of
clearing this area for the present building and the possible future expansion. Based on those
maps, it is believed that this area was a residential neighborhood since at least two house
structures, and possibly two free-standing garage type structures are shown to be demolished at
that time. We were able to obtain an aerial photograph from 1959 which shows those houses
existing at that time. It is evident that these houses were fronting on the east side of Hommocks
Road. The topography also shows that at that time the existing grades were leveled off in this
area. The portion of the site nearest the existing school has approximately 4' to 6' of fill. The
portion of the site nearest the present Hommocks Road location appears to be very near original
grade or possibly even lower in some locations. Review of the area shows a combination of
sedimentary type deposits with rock outcroppings visible in random locations, even in the tidal
marsh area which is located 800' to 1000' to the south. The published Soils Survey Map for
this area (Attachment No. 3), which is based on aerial photography, clearly shows the present
facility and the proposed site all within the Uf soils boundary. Uf soils are simply described as
"urban land". The soils survey also recommends that they be treated as impervious under the
hydrologic group classification. Uf lands are also described as "This unit consists of areas
where at least 60% of the land surface is covered with impervious materials or buildings.
These impervious materials are parking lots, shopping centers, industrial parks, or
institutional sites. . . . Slopes range from 0% to 8%. Included in mapping and making up 5% to
20% of the unit are small areas of soil that have not been appreciably altered such as
Riverhead, Chatfield, Sutton, and Unadilla."
4 - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
The Town Administrator was able to produce a copy of an application to construct a
landfill from the early 1960's. Concern was expressed that a landfill may be on site.
Observations made at the collapsed drainage structure located on the far side of the playing field
(see photographs) did show some construction debris and landfill waste to be present.
Therefore, to rule out the possibility of a landfill under the proposed addition site,
soils borings were commissioned through the soils engineering firm of Melick-Tully and
Associates, Inc., 117 Canal Road, South Bound Brook, NJ 08880. The results of their borings
and conclusions and recommendations can be found in Attachment No. 6. Additionally, LAN
Associates, Inc.'s personnel witnessed the borings and also collected samples for analysis. These
results can be found in Attachments No. 4 and 5.
Based on this exploratory work, there were no obvious signs of landfill materials.
There were signs of general fill which would be expected based on the 1966 construction
drawings which raised the elevation on part of the site. Additionally, the 1959 aerial
photograph shows the houses on this portion of the property which are still shown on the 1966
survey which would tend to verify that this portion of the property was not used as a landfill
even though there is reason to believe that other remote portions of the site were.
Two concerns raised as a result of these studies include the presence of methane gas.
This is possibly occurring from natural vegetation or materials at the original grade elevation
which have been buried. The soils engineer's recommendations are that the area below the new
building slab should be designed to be ventilated to protect against any methane intrusion.
Another option to mitigate this problem would be to excavate to the methane layer which is
preliminarily thought to be 0' to 6' below grade corresponding with the pre-existing natural
terrain and remove the materials. It is believed that the methane could be mitigated through
proper engineering.
The other parameters tested included priority pollutants and volatile organic
compounds +15. All came in well below acceptable levels with the exception of arsenic which
slightly exceeded published guidelines. Arsenic can occur naturally. Additional sampling is
recommended to further check for this contaminant. Only one sample was checked based on a
visual assessment of what appeared to be the worst case.
4 - 2
LAN ASSOCIATES
Concerning the methane, there is a possibility that it is trapped at the initial surface
layer and may ventilate quickly upon excavation. One soil boring reading dropped rapidly after
the first reading. Additional testing should be made.
4.2 Water Resources and Flood Plain: It is generally known that groundwater in the area is
relatively close to the surface. The school site borders municipally owned lands upon which the
school athletic fields are placed. Immediately south of this area is the previous East Creek
which has been piped and discharges to a tidal marsh tributary to Monroe Inlet, Larchmont
Harbor, and Long Island Sound. These resources will be discussed further under Section 4.3.
The groundwater is seasonally high in the area due to the close proximity of the drainage
structures and the coastal flood zone.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map clearly shows the entire site as being within Zone AE,
which is defined as a Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by 100 Year Flood with a base flood
elevation of 13' referring to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. However, we did
have some confusion in reviewing the map since it shows Hommocks Road as a straight road from
Boston Post Road to an area past Eagle Knolls Road when in fact we know there is a curve through
this section. We were able to solve this disparity by reviewing the 1966 blue prints for the
school which clearly show a straight Hommocks Road being relocated as part of the school
construction. In fact, the old road bed would nudge the corners of the north and south wings of
the school as presently built. The original blue prints show the road to be removed in this area
and relocated to the curve alignment now existing. Additionally, at least two (2) dwellings in
the area of the new road and baseball field were removed at the time of construction. The aerial
photograph from 1959 also confirms the road as a straight road at that time.
It was also determined that the flooding in this area is considered riverine flooding as a
result of East Creek (now mostly piped) which runs to the south and southwest of the site. The
East Creek is tributary to the Monroe Inlet and Larchmont Harbor. The impact of coastal
flooding per the published maps does not extend past Monroe Inlet which is located at the end of
Hommocks Road and Cedar Island. The coastal flood hazard area includes a velocity hazard from
wave action and the flood elevations actually are listed as 16' to 19' above sea level, even though
the Hommocks site is listed as 13' above sea level, maximum 100 year flood hazard.
4 - 3
LAN ASSOCIATES rJ
Based on the change in topography and based on the alignment of Hummocks Road as
shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, we believe the Flood Insurance Rate Map was derived
from data preceding the construction of Hommocks School even though the revision date on the
map contradicts this. The Flood Insurance Rate Map was initially prepared June 15, 1979 and
revised through September 15, 1989, but it does not show the realignment of Hummocks Road
and hence is not representative of the present physical conditions at the Hommocks School Site.
In reviewing the school drawings from 1966 our concern is whether the first floor
elevation of the school exceeds the flood hazard elevation. Therefore, we commissioned a new
survey to be made of the proposed construction area. A copy of this survey can be found in
Attachment No. 1. This shows that a portion of the site is above the 13' flood hazard level. The
majority of the site is 1' or less below the flood hazard elevation and a limited area is more than
1' below. The lowest area is less than 1.8' below. Therefore, a flood plain permit will be
needed. From an engineering standpoint, the lowest floor of the addition should be set 1' above
the flood hazard elevation. Since the existing first floor is at elevation 13.02', minor ramping
should be included between the existing building and new wing. These proposed elevations should
not present any difficulties in designing a suitable addition.
Across Hummocks Road and to the east are some small water hazard pond areas
associated with the golf course.
4.3 Wetlands: One of the primary areas investigated by this Draft Environmental Impact
Study is the effect that the proposed addition may have on adjoining tidal wetlands. The rear
(south) playing fields of the school are on municipally owned land. Further south from this is a
natural tidal wetlands. This is the point of discharge of the East Creek drainage structure which
was originally an open channel. This area has been discussed extensively in the coastal zone
management document entitled, "Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program" adopted in 1986 and concurred with by the US Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management in 1987. A key extract from this report from Section II 2.d
indicates that ". . . the south end of the 12.5 acre Hummocks athletic field abuts the Hummocks
Marsh and Little Harbor Sound (LHS). The field is owned by the Town, and its use is shared by
the Town Recreation Department and the Board of Education whose property to the north of the
field is the site of the Hummocks Middle School. The field was built on a sanitary landfill in the
1960's and early 1970's (in the process burying the lower ends of East Creek and Gut Creek in
4 - 4
LAN ASSOCIATES
culverts). Defects in covering, grading, and seeding have severely limited its recreational use,
but are being gradually overcome."
The tidal wetlands area behind the property has the 5 acre Hommocks Conservation
Area which includes an elevated boardwalk in severe disrepair through the marsh area. During
our observations, we noted that the walkway was collapsed in some locations and is hazardous
both through rot and deterioration of the planks as well as no handrails and collapsed
approaches. It is also unfortunate that there was obvious oil sheen in the tidal wetlands area.
Photographs depicting the conditions can be found in Appendix A. Piped discharges of East Creek
and Gut Creek combine at a large drainage chamber before discharging to the marsh area.
Coincidentally, this chamber had collapsed several months before the start of this study and it
was possible to take photographs of the collapsed area which had just been cleaned out by the
Department of Public Works. It is evident that the corrugated metal pipes are in poor repair.
It was easy to observe by frost lines that the mean high water was well above the tops of the pipe
as well as the inverts of the pipe and a twice daily change in flow will occur which possibly
accelerated the erosion at this point. In the photographs a high water line frost residue can be
seen. During our observations, the marsh was near mean low water condition and at that point
the inverts of the drainage pipes were above mean low water. There was obvious oil sheen on
the water which can be seen in the photographs. Also observed was an abandoned hull of a
structure. The mean high water line can be easily inferred from the ice and frost line
coinciding exactly at the foot of the high marsh grasses. The high marsh can also be clearly seen
in the photographs with the surrounding upper tree areas also defined as "adjacent area" in
accordance with the Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations 6 NYCRR Part 661. All of these
conditions are situated approximately 800' to 1000' from the existing building. Construction
within 300' of the adjacent areas is not allowed without special application. The proposed site
is well beyond this limitation. Additionally, the proposed site is more remote from the tidal
marsh area than the existing facility. Further, lawfully existing structures as of August 20,
1977 are also exempt. Since none of the structures are within a 300' adjacent area zone, a
permit would not be needed.
One of the most environmentally significant findings of the local waterfront
revitalization program report can be found on Page 11-31. Excerpts applicable to this study
include the following: "East Creek . . . reappears for approximately 100 yards as a highly
4 - 5
LAN ASSOCIATES>+
polluted stream behind automobile dealers car park, then enters a large pipe which runs
beneath the Hommocks playing field."
"A monitoring report . . . on East Creek and the Hommocks Marsh show these waters to
be severely polluted by fecal and coliform contaminants and waste oil. The oil pollution
originates in street drains north of the Post Road; from county storm drains on the Post Road
itself; and from an automobile dealership adjoining the open stretch of East Creek just south of
the Post Road. An outfall pipe leads from the dealer's work area into the creek; moreover, the
adjacent creek bank is saturated with oil. The fecal and coliform pollution arises mainly from
the first two of the above sources plus purge drains leading from the nearby Hommocks
swimming pool."
The Hommocks swimming pool is part of the Hommocks Middle School structure located
at the extreme far end from the proposed construction area. Although not specifically part of
this study, additional discussion regarding this matter is encouraged.
Later, the report states, "Moreover, the marsh and its ecosystem afford a superb
educational resource convenient to the Hommocks Middle School." Obviously, it is an important
resource and reconstruction of the walkway system and other improvements could make this a
valuable educational tool for the students. This leads to increased awareness by education and
improved conservation efforts by the local citizens through this local educational opportunity.
Although outside the work area covered by this draft Environmental Impact Statement,
the report also contains an important historical fact as follows: "In 1978 homeowners in this
neighborhood financed a dredging project to remove silt and debris which had made Little Harbor
Sound unnavigatable. By arrangement with the Town, the dredge spoil was deposited as landfill
to build the Hommocks Middle School athletic field."
4.4 Human Resources:
4.4.1 Transportation: The site is conveniently located on the main thoroughfare for the town
running parallel with the Long Island Sound which is Boston Post Road (Route 1). This allows
access to the Mamaroneck/Larchmont area and is centrally located. The school is one block from
Route 1 and is accessed through an improved signalized intersection. Traffic studies have been
completed for the recently constructed multi-family residential development immediately
4 - 6
LAN ASSOCIATES
adjoining the site and utilizing the same access road. This traffic study showed an acceptable
level of service with spare capacity for the interchange. It is important to realize that this site
is for public mandated use and that the addition will provide for relocation of the existing sixth
grade students from one location in the local area to this location. As such, additional trips will
not be generated, but existing traffic trips will be rerouted to this location. It is important to
realize that the proposed use is not designed to attract new users, but simply to relocate existing
use patterns within the same district. Bussing is already provided for the more remote areas
and the students will be transported in existing buses when transportation is mandated. It has
been projected by the School District that the existing bus routes will handle the increased
student population. No new bus routes are planned.
Pedestrian access through an existing improved sidewalk system to the local area
would remain as existing.
4.4.2 Land Use: The land use immediately adjoining the proposed site includes the publicly
accessible Flint Park to the south and the Hampshire Country Club to the northeast.
Immediately to the north and west are single family homes and to the west is the new multi-
family townhouse type development now being occupied. One block to the north is the
commercial strip development along Boston Post Road.
4.4.3 Community Service: Obviously, the school is a publicly accessible facility providing a
need for public education. Accessory and community uses for recreation, arts and crafts, and
other specialty groups are also provided.
4 - 7
LAN ASSOCIATES,ti
5.0 SHORT AND LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
5.1 Topography and Soil: The environmental impact to the local topography and soil will be
limited strictly to the area of construction. The short term impact is the potential for some
additional water borne soil transport during construction, however, a soil conservation and
sediment control plan will be provided as part of the construction documents to minimize
siltation and runoff. Since the existing site has no significant resources related to topography
and soil, it is not projected that there will be any long term environmental impact.
5.2 Drainage. Wetlands, and Flood Plains: Since the 21,060 SF roof area of the proposed
addition will have 100% runoff, there will be an increase of discharged water from the site.
The soil survey indicates that the soils classified in this area should be considered having no
absorption capabilities, however, assuming an increase in the coefficient of runoff from .5 for
the grass areas to 1.0, it is projected that the increase in runoff would be less than 2 cubic feet
per second based on a 25 year storm event. The quantity of water would have no impact on
downstream flooding since the drainage would immediately bring it to the tidal waters. Since the
roof runoff would be considered of high quality, siltation or clarification would not be required.
Seepage chambers or pits could be considered. However, due to the seasonal high groundwater in
the area, they may not be practical and may serve limited benefit for groundwater recharge. To
provide for no increase in runoff, a simple retainage system will be designed and an outfall
drainage structure will be engineered for this project. The greater need would be to provide
clarification of the waters discharging from the East Creek area, however, this is so remote
from the proposed site that it would be impossible to incorporate any improvements to this
drainage structure as part of this project. East Creek is completely beyond the extent of the
proposed project.
5.3 Utilities: Preliminary review of the utilities in the area and verbal discussion with
the Town Engineering Department shows no overload conditions or limitations. Local utilities
appear to be adequate. In terms of the regional evaluation of the impact, there will be none since
the students will either be located at this school or at an additional school in the area served by
the same utility grid making any needs or impact the same as at the present time other than the
normal community growth.
5 - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
5.4 Socio-Economic: It is projected that the proposed facility will provide an attractive
amenity to the community, improve the school district, and free up space at the four elementary
schools. The proposed project would have a positive socio-economic impact on the local
community.
5.5 Traffic: Short term impact would result from the minimal increase in traffic due to
the construction vehicles and construction workers.
Long term impact would be the addition to the school population generating some
increase in vehicle trips in the immediate area. The regional impact, however, would be
mitigated by the elimination of the trips that would have otherwise occurred to other schools in
the area. The number of trips, therefore, is self-balancing. However, it is conceivable that the
length of the trips could increase since the regional school will require some additional
commuting as opposed to neighborhood schools. Since the site is centrally located, the increase
would be minimal. Also, existing bussing to the more remote areas will absorb additional
students without adding to trip length or frequency.
A new traffic study was commissioned for purposes of this Environmental Impact
Study. This was prepared by Shuster Associates and is dated March 15, 1995. Their findings
and recommendations for the Post Road/Weaver Street/Hommocks Road intersection are quoted
as follows:
"Findings and Conclusions:
1. The intersection was re-analyzed to determine the resulting level of service
following introduction of traffic generated by the Hommocks School addition
during the two peak hours. Assuming that the addition will be open in 1996 (the
"build" year), a 2% growth rate was also applied to the existing traffic volumes
in the intersection. (See Exhibit B.) The LOS, under these conditions, remained
at an overall LOS D, and the north and south approaches remained at LOS E during
both peak hours.
2. Traffic volumes generated by the Hommocks School expansion will have little
effect upon the overall operating capacity of the Boston Post Road/Weaver
Street/Hommocks Road intersection (see Table No. 1). The intersection is
5 - 2
LAN ASSOCIATES
presently handling over 2,100 vehicles during the mid-afternoon peak hour and
will continue to operate below capacity. The LOS E on Weaver Street and
Hommocks Road is attributable to a brief, but intense loading of the intersection
by vehicles generated by the school. Such a condition is to be expected for a short
duration and does not affect the major through movements on the Boston Post
Road. The change in LOS for the eastbound through and right turn movement lane
group during the morning peak hour, from D to E, is less significant than it
appears. This lane group presently experiences an average stopped delay of 40
seconds (per each cycle), which is at the threshold of change from LOS D to E.
Furthermore, under the "build" condition, the average delay is forecasted to
increase by 1.3 seconds, the same as the increase in the overall intersection
delay (for all movements), and much less than the additional delay expected
(over 3 seconds) for the northbound and southbound approaches.
3. Consideration was given to reversing the flow on Old Hommocks Road to one-way
northbound with the following conclusions:
a. All westbound left-turning vehicles would be required to use the signalized
intersection. These additional volumes are not substantial, possibly less
than the existing number of vehicles presently making the left at the signal.
It is important to note that during both peak hours, the opposing eastbound
left-turn volume into Weaver Street was substantially higher, resulting in
the maximum amount of "protected" green (arrow) time for both left turn
movements during each cycle, which presently results in unused capacity
for the westbound lefts into Hommocks Road.
b. In addition, northbound right turn movements onto the Boston Post Road
were the second heaviest movement (after through movements) on the
Hommocks Road approach during both peak hours, and right turns on red
are prohibited. Changing the direction on Old Hommocks Road to one-way
northbound would remove most of these right turn movements from the
intersection by providing an alternate route. This would improve the
capacity and reduce the delay experienced on the other movements from
Horn mocks Road.
5 - 3
LAN ASSOCIATES
c. Moreover, with Old Hommocks Road operating as a one-way northbound
street, eastbound left turns into the supermarket would no longer be
blocked, thus helping to minimize obstruction of the eastbound through lane
of Boston Post Road at a location so close to the signalized intersection."
5 - 4
LAN ASSOCIATES
6.0 ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED:
1 . Some current grassed area will be replaced by the building, but no existing trees
or environmentally significant vegetation will be lost.
2. There will be an increase in local vehicular traffic, but no increase in total area
traffic.
3. There will be a slight reduction in flood storage volume available in the flood
plain.
6 - 1
IAN ASSOCIATES
7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
7.1 Geology. Soils, & Topography: Topsoil will be stockpiled at the site for reuse in
constructing new landscaping and lawn areas. The remaining site topography and features will
be unchanged. Nearby trees will be protected during construction.
7.2 Water Resources: The slight increase in runoff will be mitigated by either re-
introduction into the local area through seepage structures or perforated piping or by use of in
pipe retention to limit the peak discharge rate to the existing peak runoff condition. Since the
new runoff will result from roof areas, it is possible that the runoff water will have less
sedimentation and be of higher quality than the present runoff from the softball field site.
7.3 Wetlands and Flood Plains: The wetlands identified are outside of the project scope and
no environmental impact is projected. The flood plain is impacted at the very edge and the
impact of construction would remove a very small retention area.
7.4 Human Resources: The increased student population which would result in an expected
increase in the number of traffic trips generated and length of same will be mitigated by the use
of the existing bussing program and by the decreased number of trips to the elementary schools.
7 - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
8.0 ALTERNATIVES:
An important part of an Environmental Impact Study is to evaluate alternatives that
could be used to reduce or eliminate impact on the environment. The alternatives would include
solutions, possibly off site or of different courses of action. These will be discussed as follows:
8.1 Alternative Design: Alternative designs were reviewed and ruled out as being less
effective and efficient than the design proposed. The proposed siting is as remote as possible
from the coastal wetlands resource. It is also the site selected in the 1960's during the initial
planning of the building for which preparation has already been made. This site had been
prepared by relocating the Hommocks Road at that time, removing several residential
structures located at that time, and by stubbing in utilities to serve the proposed new wing
including gas, water, and sewer. The layout is efficient and minimizes circulation and corridor
1 lengths and allows the sixth grade to utilize existing core facilities that do not need to be
duplicated elsewhere such as the gymnasium, swimming pool, and other special facilities. The
design will also incorporate heat supply from the existing gas fired boiler plant eliminating the
need for an additional stack or air discharge.
8.2 Alternative Site: This option was the primary alternative option reviewed by the
school board before proposing this plan. Using an alternative site would require keeping the
sixth grade at the present four elementary schools. It was found that expansion of at least two
and probably three of the buildings would have been necessary. This would have caused multiple
construction sites and the inherent inefficiencies and environmental impact of multiple
construction activities, areas, soil disturbance, and contractor operations as well as higher
costs. Land at the sites was limited, meaning small additions at each school would be needed as
opposed to a larger addition at one elementary school building.
8.3 Alternative Size: Also studied was the possibility of a smaller addition at the
Hommocks Middle School with limited construction at one or two of the elementary schools
allowing only part of the sixth grade class to relocate to this site. Again, the disadvantages of
multiple construction sites and a disparity between the sixth grade classes in different parts of
the community would exist. This option was studied extensively and ultimately ruled out as not
being in the best interest of the community or as efficient.
8 - 1
IAN ASSOCIATES
8.4 Alternative Footprint: An option to provide a three story addition instead of a two story
addition would decrease the footprint size from 21,060 SF to approximately 14,500 SF. The
overall size would need to increase to allow additional space for stairs, corridors, and elevator.
This option requires further study, but would have little impact on the findings of this Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
8.5 No Action Alternative: Since public education is a mandated requirement and must be
provided in an efficient and cost effective method and due to the increased enrollments and
growth projections, a no action alternative was ruled out.
I
I
8 - 2
LAN ASSOCIATES
9.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION:
The proposed addition will be constructed to the current highest standards of energy
conservation including insulation, insulated windows, and low wattage and high output lighting.
The heat supply will be by the existing gas fired boiler with additional hot water zones for
heating added for the new wing eliminating the need for a new stack and discharge source.
The use of existing bussing for the transportation of students will minimize energy
consumption by vehicles. Again, the students are presently transported to other sites.
I
9 - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
10.0 ASSESSMENT OF UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION:
Preliminary soils borings, historic maps and aerial photography do not demonstrate
that this portion of the site was used as a landfill. However, it is recommended that additional
test pits be made prior to beginning detailed design to allow an expanded assessment of sub-soil
conditions to be made.
10- 1
IAN ASSOCIATES
11.0 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES:
It was indicated that the Coastal Zone Management Commission would require additional
input concerning their Policies #5, #6, #7, #7a, #8, #14, #14a. #17, #18, #33, and
#44. The following is a brief discussion of, and a response for, each policy.
Policy #5: "Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and
facilities essential to such development are adequate . . . "
Existing infrastructure and public services are adequate for the proposed use.
Topography, geology, and other environmental conditions are suitable and are able to
accommodate the development. Mitigation measures so as not to over tax storm drainage have
been covered in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Policy #6: "Expedite permit procedures in order to facilitate the siting of
development activities at suitable locations."
Based on the draft Environmental Impact Study, we do not believe that special permits
will be required for the proposed project.
Policies #7 and #7a: "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."
This policy identifies the Hommocks Salt Marsh Complex consisting of 17 acres to be
considered a significant habitat. The proposed structure will not have a detrimental effect on
the Hommocks Salt Marsh Complex. Restoration of this complex is dependent upon upstream
measures to intercept pollution especially attributed with the East Creek runoff which is out of
the range and beyond the scope of this project and to which this project will not be tributary.
Drainage from this project is expected to be of a satisfactory water quality and will drain to the
piped sections of the Gut Creek basin at the Hommocks field location.
Policy #8: "Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the
introduction of hazardous waste and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or
which cause significant sub-lethal or lethal effect on those resources."
11 - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
It is anticipated that runoff associated with the project will be limited in nature, will
be of high quality, and will not introduce hazardous wastes or pollutants.
Policy #14: "Activities and development, including the construction or reconstruction
of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable
increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development or at other
locations."
The limited increase in runoff is proposed to be controlled by retention or on-site
seepage so as to have no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site or downstream of
the site. In fact, sedimentation and runoff from the existing athletic field will decrease.
Policy #14a: "Construction operations on any land larger than 10,000 SF shall be
conducted in accordance with the standards set forth in the most current edition of the
Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual entitled, "Construction Related
Activities: Standards and Specifications" . . ."
Plans developed for the addition will include a separate soil erosion and sediment
control plan to be implemented during the time of construction. This will basically surround
the construction site with siltation fencing, protect yard inlets and catch basins from siltation
runoff. Additionally, construction access mat of large stone to allow tire cleaning for
construction vehicles would also be included. Natural ground contours would not be changed.
High cut and fill will not be necessary. Temporary stockpiling of topsoil will occur and the pile
will be seeded to prevent erosion during construction.
Policy #17: "Whenever possible, use non-structural measures to minimize damage to
natural resources and property from flooding and erosion . . ."
The proposed construction site will be out of any regulated tidal wetlands or tidal
wetland adjacent areas. Flooding is not expected at the site or downstream from the site.
Policy #18: "To safeguard the vital economic, social, and environmental interests of
the state and of its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal area must give full
consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which the state has established to protect
valuable coastal resource areas."
1 1 -2
LAN ASSOCIATES
The proposed addition will not significantly impair valuable coastal waters and
resources and we believe would not impact on this policy.
Policy #33: "The best management practices will be used to ensure the control of
stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters."
Stormwater runoff will be of high quality and of limited increase. It is projected that
the stormwater runoff quality will improve as opposed to the unimproved site. It will also be
retained to result in no net increase in runoff peak flow. There will be no increased pavement
or parking areas with the inherent use of road salt. Combined sewer overflows would not
pertain to this project.
Policy #44: "Preserve and protect tidal and fresh water wetlands and preserve the
benefits derived from these areas."
We believe that the project will preserve the quality and benefits of the tidal wetlands.
The public school facility would benefit from the educational resources that the tidal wetlands
would afford allowing increased community education and respect for these resources.
I
11 -3
I
LAN ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
KEY MAP & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE SITE
.. : ... �•°.. ,.,; .... .. :., _ .. ..
•�
-a ., a :-. •!4 €., �, "�
rn .. y. .. .-.. -. ., ,. ...
..k. ,. - ..... ,f ,.� , ,•' ., x - < .. ._
.. . v4'wa
t > . ,- +. k. \). -. .. ... . ...;d4 >' .. -.
OR
a. .. _ y N.. �.: , Y, gid n- .' _ .. ., x.
a _ - _. t .. t t. +.. ve. j ,yam .. k x 5 i +
c,
.:' - : .... � e. "} :. ,. .. -. ...' :.... .. .. {.: ,, e -i},. � .x
y y
r
5
44'
41,
Or
4. E
CD
ru
Y
-----------
f
�.
a
r C. >
3
0 1S t� 0
y
�u_B CK ini
STUCCEj !V, Tr
_B
UILDING
s
�'.
I c K 9< I ll�_
U c fl _\ 74,
{ ! $ r Pr►ai STY. 0
wr f .f
3r
T)
+iJ I N rj_
— � J r ".. n�+'� r i -/.fir � f � �'r � ...r��^'�'� + \ '�' •'s � r � �' � r
U Oar
RS t l r r i �l / r
S T 1st FUL ELI
t.'3.OR f t►1^' r�i°,P_�Y1�,tiI < 1� ^ } fit, w• yy ` �r ". Y� S.
F1 R y
t
CONCRETE +
PAD
lq' %
i\ ( f _- ._.. -- _ _ a .► - r _tL , L .r ��� r y. _.•• S157 J.mow /:: '�
BRICK ,.� ,,... 1, ✓ -•+ r Q �� RE
UCCE] _ av COIN ! i
_ _ _ _ OVERHANG -_---N CRETE W �.
i � { 1 -- - - - - - �- �.. - - ,� ALK 5{-a +_ _� � � ,,...- j
Ij T L D I N
�— Nem_ f
PA
" MIJ,
v
1' h MACADAM
i� .r f! .r � ,�,.i' _._--.,"-' „`"`^,,.. ..,, ,+•" .,.,E ti'r:' t �1 C_
i-18-95
TOPOGRAMCAL SURVEY
Ml
DATE
REVIS04
DY
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY OF
THE HOMMOCKS MIDDLE SCHOOL
IN THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK
M
� z 19-
ARISTOTLE BDURNAZOS, P,C.
Land Surveyors - Planners
20 CEDAR STREET
NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y. 10601
TEL. NO, (914) 633-0100
I
2
LAN ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
KEY MAP AND DETAILED PORTION OF PLUMBING PLAN FROM
ORIGINAL CONTRACT DRAWINGS
KEY PLAN rXV--Vt
i RJTItcc 1
.& F 1
PLAN NORTH
LJ
tlt_r' ti
A
MiddleuSchoarl •
Mamaroneck, NewYork
UNITS -A& B
F 1 R ST FLOOR
*PAWING
NUMBER
}'
1111
•
•
Perkins
• Es-Will
:r !'sl< 1 \1IC.I!!"
!GALE DATE . . .' ' pRAWN BY
-441: 11(46:- i;cP
R4 •
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
.w,
Gialrflnkal■Maranberg i.:AssooIstas
MECHANICAL ENSINEERS ' • At
PhU{{>faf •
Assoolftaf • ' �:' I •',
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT • •
A.E.Bye
FOOD SERVICE CONSULTANT •
Max atltzr .' '
a ,js
-cam
•
:.w4 • .../. C . ci.E►.w A t*1. K.4S ; •
— _ .4.1 .. -r" -, :— _---'----
. 'l414" . ` - -'
•
',iv!.-: -;2» ..'......1.--.-, ♦, • . . .. - _ .
_t IM ' . V~ r . . .
•
��..
'KM �*4 `�. -
I i
111" Z" — - - --- . - -• -
— - - b-Z" z-NZ" ' L `'r
— -� p¢,owiroe P a.v. 4 aai...er J... .
3 '
1/42,r . -- e
tlZ ' fr -p 33.1./P
P TORO c.o.'
--• -.. .t j' �..
-- �' 15•t.-W.
tvti.'v. uP -'
. / -... 3-
• ; 1'/4''G'tl.N.
N 'PC N.W. 014.
/ • •- - 1
/ I_ -- - - —
/
•
i . . _.•
tNCLG. .
' ,
1
i--11 :
T _" �'1 L-I 0 S
5.2..9R JP 1-9
�5.. A ♦ ,.
•
WALL HYDRANT IN c:a.--
• ' 2`iv c•..../ CAPPED c a. i
2-v.up �' 4,14ba r'vT D G•f'' -_ -------- ______co
• rd•p
2-v.oN W / 0' /. / L
0 / ,
u ���► b a Y P --- i
5 LOl? ..._._5;yuK4•v:up .._ `\.� ._.. --•-- — ^Z.v.uP `
1.
_L— T 1.•
t url.'•j'F.a i' 0. '
y 1
. 4
EISA
w !asaAdaep. � •.'I YLw ••, 1 ¢• �, coo/�
zW.
- r Gam, A.
1 •f� 4•s•` •' .1. _-.
ri..a. x111 j�+ 4"1-=---= �' . ? _ _.,:._ _ .._. ;+ E
' !I _ _ _ _ •
___ .
31 ' + .,
rems
.... _
4 G ► 6
1 ,. ; _ _ COO(7 ,""
1 •
. ... _ -_.. • • • _. . .._ .. "7__._ _•_c -. a T - 1 try 51
r _ ..�_. UP _ (
�u . i
UProR' L5) r
tilt.2,v� E-,-- _sem_.__ I (GSO�r)
;, 1'
1 ( -
[� . ,. ,,, n
t/) .
•
i 1 Viz^G.ul uP _
.,•
3
LAN ASSOCIATES',
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
SOILS SURVEY MAP
SOIL
0
r)
13"45'
40"56'15" (Joins sheet 179)
�.- : • R �,,.1l .,..; t' T y' . • •tf�s •.t-: ';+may, . ...
rf , ;� 3' ;�:i�. �, A?'► -� f + _ i(► ► 4,-
�•' 41h9 -'err
Js• LL }` �. t
... ® 7 a qt� .. • I4., v� 4. y ti A �
_ .
;tile ' ., r• j ¢• a 4 I" �,,
�`r
•
� i✓ �• t �. . ceGa'. � .✓ : _''"" t. .
a,. -, .
1 �., it::
. �j.'.- •r `{ ~t 6.7..• -4- p.•
y ~ a +,i'.' ,.
- :r i . fr. 4:-,.• 44.4 0 `R ' J •.ms`s `,t._ 4 'f 4
he -me
•
- . :
.?� . , '` i,E' `� ! �; sv:�' u c, ter. !. T ; lit
ale
�i.St it�%, '`_ ', •j ` e •y > A.
1. • .. -ter
c
5.
•
• •• UIC / • UPB^ _
• *IA....
I
t
_LARti1/40t T.te
'UPS°' - •f
. .` --l• .j4, .t.y7••% 1 a.'
.-
` .' rte~
.......... ti:. •ip •r: k 1.4.otr. , /
r. -rte,llIQ (`c).`,• T..4?
•
-. - e.,rnxhllII
R 11 C
m H
w
is{
c
Q
1
1000 M
4
V
LAN ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
SOILS BORINGS FIELD OBSERVATIONS
41111111111111110
LAN ASSOCIATES
Memo to: File #2.2320.49 February 10. 1995
Mamaroneck/Hommocks
Middle School
From: William Manning Subject: Soil Borings Performed
at Hommocks Middle School
On February 8, 1995, the writer was present at Hammocks School along with Dave Carron from
Mellick & Tully to perform investigatory soil borings in the proposed addition area at
Hommocks School. Borings were to be performed to a minimum 50' or refusal. The first soil
boring was performed 200' west of the easternmost corner of the school building and 10' to the
north putting the boring approximately in the old road. The soil from the borings was screened
using a Photovac TIP photoionization detector, and visually inspected and described. The boring
was advanced through some grayish brown, sandy loam and no TIP readings were obtained. Then
a black silt loam with a high percentage of sand was encountered. This is probably fill material
which contains some glass. Then at 7', there was a hard layer of rock encountered and refusal.
The rock is a mica schist. Boring 1A was then performed 5' north of #1 and augered to 10'.
Refusal was hit at 13', above this rock seems to be a layer of water, approximately 9' to water
table. The material above the rock is a black sandy loam border line silty loam. It is very wet.
Another boring 18 was performed 5' north of A. Here was similar material. Methane was
encountered over 1,000 ppm. Upon a second reading it was 400 ppm. Again the mica schist was
hit at about 12'. A layer of clay loam and silty clay loam was encountered about 7-8' and very
wet. Boring 2 was performed and refusal was hit at 4'. Boring 2A was moved 5' to the north.
Black gravely sandy loam fill was encountered until about 10' where natural soil was
encountered. Water was at 9', refusal was at 13'. At this boring, the methane was over 1,000
ppm. Boring #3 was then performed. Boring 3 was finished at 13'. Refusal was encountered
and similar fill material (black sandy loam) was encountered.
On the next day, February 9, 1995, the writer returned and the drill rig was unable to
perform. The writer then returned on February 13, 1995, to finish the soil borings. Three
borings were completed. Boring 4 was stopped at 23.5' due to rock, boring 5 at 6', and boring 6
at 19'. Similar material was encountered and methane was detected at greater than 1,000 ppm
in all borings. Several soil samples were collected from borings 1, 2, and 6. The field screening
did not reveal any evidence of contamination. Therefore, one sample was chosen to represent the
site. Analysis performed on the sample will be volatile organics and priority pollutants + 40.
The sample was reliquished to Laboratory Resources in Teterboro, NJ. Attachment #1 is a plan
of boring locations and Attachment #2 are the soil boring logs.
William Manning
Attachment #1: Location Plan
Attachment #2: Soil Logs
cc: Dick Gardner.
Sara Tate
File #2.2320.49
W M:m w/2,10/95 Msod Bor nq,
w " BORING LOG/WELL LOG /
N%i4SSQCLATES,.In' . "
,,, ,' NUMBER: / —
L"�A682;Gaffle Road,;Hawthorne;NJ'07,.EBfi4: "X
JOB
,,
-<�;�. , y ,
SCIENTIST/ENGINEER:
PROJECT: -),,,,,,,A- -(,Zdi44..-7 DRILLER f i
LOCATION: r:'1a..�... �
.-� „_2., J,L , y DATE STARTED: 7-,F- '. /
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER: DATE FINISHED: 2 - ,i--S'S
VISIBLE WATER TABLE: 9'
CASING SAMPLER -
TYPE SOIL IDENTIFICATION REMARKS
DIAML t tri METHOD: s'i>,4
WEGi-iI
FALL
WELL LOGIFT.I PEC. �
J BLOWS/6" o'_ '
1 I F./'‘' �r., 6.4-.4-L , Sc r'c /.
- 4/ Dla.(_/c , ,./7..s./ ii:9s../1
n / /c r, ,-... /r--a./Q . %/P=O
,-.5" '- 7 ' /3/a c% s,/,z/a,., T
i 4 e-c, ,.,-, ,fT 7� 741S / O
r.
,-,,/%�t �s--,,e, -u,,
/ /- ' 1::;/,„ 4 s, 4^ /N..C 47 /,JCL iYi
i .3' c.k r..-ft.,s:4"/ I
-
20-.-,,,7 Q s- ' ...,-2,,4"1,,,, /-1
!it..114aHVAS
{ �."1, ."(I C'/ij/�/.?.tl irk t7n—
I lI --7r _ " 1�-Y v 101 / q' 1
1 1
I I I 1 1
v r /
BORING LCGJWE_L LOG
Y:IXIV: SSQGI� _S,,IR NUMBER:
6. 2.C Rbad 1auYtharne; J:136 ,
L1�:fY'�G.TUrvJ '!"i«„ [11.%Jr�u' f ^f' :IrsY a :L ^7
rdu�✓.»ri!I *:Lt s� ,X S���.c "
_.;30‘4.
�.,�r+ JCB93
fr >• "" � d..,Y" iii
SC;ENTIST/EVGGNEER: /✓ten
PROJECT:: /5 0.,��,� /c sc / DRILLER: c r E //G .t' T.,/4,v
LOCATION: i'y/-¢,.,F,.ra-r y DATE STARTED: 2- g---9
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER: I DATE E FINISHED: a- 9_ 9 5--
VISIBLE
'VISIBLE WATER TABLE r
CASING SAMPLER
TYPE • I SOIL IDENTIFICATION REMARKS
DIAMETER METHOD:
WE
I FALL
IWELL LCGIFT.JRECDBLOWS/6"1 i?vr-, n 9 4 s-' A2dd4 I
? !ter yr-a. I..X /llvThanP
5,4,4 /�a�r C-//
/ D
f/l n > 1 o v
2 c�6.c� F, /h �JS'Qc,/,"
I S.,t+ttp/ c�•//a c c,//
✓, PPryp
—
r
I � h
L 1
I`II II
r I 1
� I
I i
i I I
I I
I � I
:-:� 7 ' . ' BORING LOGIWE_L LOG
bi.WASSOCIATE ,:ii 3.�.- ; ` . NUMBER: 1
68 'g_affleAoad.:k1}awcttio 6it#:*ilk
21 i a4" a.ilO 7gi� : sc~7. JOB 4: .,? 3.2,5'. (j
`z ..� '., . a,: ° ,4 SC:ENMSi iE:VGiNE=.: i.//-7
PROJECT:: /44, ,-,,me,E s ,•=c-. "L -, I DRILLER G 7J - ,O &c/ I 7T,//,..,
LOCATION: ff'1,l,,,„,„ to 4 )c_ ,1/4.l y I DATE E STARTED: ,-_,2.y- S- /
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER: I DATE EE FINISHED: - g_ qc.s-
VISIBLE WATER TABLE: S ' I
I 'CASING I SAMPLER
TYPE 1 SOIL IDENTIFICATION REMARKS
MAME I tri METHOD: _ •7,'
WEGfT
FALL 1 I
!WELL LOGIFT.1P.M 8LOWS/6'1 '_4, ' l
I i 1 l .FJ r k s,/p//. _// I I
/ ,A74 r -1.:_, //
{ I 1 = " / , A /'/
y_O.,-,,y J7tt ,r I
I /_3 ' 17-!-- c.,cc.c.-P
I 1 I
f 1
1 I
I I
I .► I
I 1 1
I t
I II
1 1 t
1 1
i � 1 1
I
1
1 1
I 1 1
I I I
I I
1 I I
I I
I
I"" ' '•- BORING LOG/WELL LOG
` '1V ,�SSOCt�IrtS �I[1 NUMBER:
'4-7,.,.,,"'"*.. ;
,,%a ' ",mii,�. � '7.7'r JOB T: A/7,1pix - » •r 3" ' S�.IE�JTiSTiE:VGiNEER
PROJECT:' j1-�t��,6 r Ls• .ki'/ , I DRILLER: C%F_ - f11 //,CA 4'' ll<.y
LCCATICN: � . P eic �y I DA i E STARTED: - � 3:.-4) l
DEPTH TO SEASCNAL HIGH WATER: I DA i E riNISHED: ?_7 3-q S'
VISIBLE WATER TABLE: 9'
CASING (SAMPLER I
TYPE SOIL IDENTIFICATION I REMARKS
1 DIAME t.-{ ME HED: I
t WEGHT
IFALL
I WELL LOGI FT.1 REZJ BLOW S/6'7 Q_ s' Q/0-ck s,4 %a.,, ' I
i I I 1 Lr,4tiil
/j,,f� % s,/f-, o�•+, I i i P= o
6 6.,wr) S,/f /oa.., S,//4 7/ cus,e7 fp"rl
C icAl 176Lft
/
;CS / / oc
, J ( .S‘Aon QQ c( - / f , ro(
1 I
i I
I I
I I I I
I I I
j I I
I I l
I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I
( � BORING LOG/WELL LOG
I LN7ASS_OCZATES,.1NUMBER: S— 1
66 G;afflAtRoad^ awtt ame;icl�.I'� ClEut.
= JOB 4 ,49 . 232ce. (I
�,,4--, ,.� r :. x SC1EfrIST/E:VGzNE_R 4,,
PROJECT: /1Q�,...,� / �;C,.-� DRILLER: ,k,(/,c Cif IL's
LCCAT1CN: i/,,, �� A) v I DATE E STARTED: /
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER: J DATE E FiiNISHED:
!VISIBLE WATER TABLE: 5
CASING I SAMPLER I I
(
TYPE I I SOIL IDENTIFICATION I REMARKS
DIAMt= t-1. METHOD:
WEG-f r : Q,,
FALL (�" 4�'
' «-+;-`P
IWELL LOG FT.1REr..JBLOW S/6'l I Sl..acJs Ii/c
I sq ' l u. / C
J s i1, ,z.v..12 /Y r t 1 I (^JO S
i G,1CGA l�
r'° rtv-fy-C-
I , , crP /s
Adivae
! I I (y/7' c/o r CJ )fir, (•-• u.k, S , I
l /,—� t, ct S 2of9r•.,��c�,�
i I
I (
` 1
r ! I
I ( 1
I (
I II i
I �
I I
I I
I I
I � I
BORING LOG/WELL LOG
bV7tt.-. •• 1��J ylL►�I�/ n ►�J NUMBER:
6§P#4.ga:A'03d,.; dvYttlocae;Ikalr-O#1I ?,
2iT1gV23=iali.6 , ` *�,a 5 JOB 2
�,b„-� ftr.rri.. sao,b: +Si_',"i�.'.✓/ja.N'7�s .w+C. `
,u SC B ffl5!/1'1GiNE_—?:
PROJECT: /�•�,..,cc.ES ~- 5�.1.- 1 DRILLER: C i F — �� //, A. 56 77,//7
LOCATION: CATE EE STARTED:ED: -, ,—s I--
DEPTH
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER: I DATE E FINISHED: - /3 S(s-
VISIBLE WATER TABLE: S'
CASING 1 SAMPLER I I
TYPE I SOIL IDENTIFICATION I REMARKS
DIAMETER C, I ME HOD:
WEGHT
IFALL p- $-`
W Et.L LCGI FTJ Real BLOWS/6' A/a c lc c.�.cs2
- I-e l
/.. c z� �,P I 7-1 � = o
«ks - y ""4 ) /cycnotone
be ," - s 4.--0,77
1 I o.us� r t L % /c2#41
I 1 I i
ci., /Vet z..7
i I I Q/U L-L) - : yep .S--0 I
I I I i ' r"., 4-J,{s
I I 1 I
I I
I I I
I I I I
I I
I I I I
I I I
I I
i I I
. ,,_ -. ...1.111....-...-;-....--.—.• ":,D4 6 Bill' Min -p.:-.::-1.
L .......
_.t.ir 1 ;
• -.2,--." -::.
- _.--- - - ••-: ,.. —, ,__•_.. : •„.. ./.... /
.: -.. •.-- ..
, 2 eci c•ix; ..--- ,
�� i yam./ � ���• 9CC,� ="'t t ,b 1 I .
ol.
- •' •• s, .,- ' -' ' 1at1��i�%'%;;. ' :Illi IMO 1 _
:i. • f :�.`��t - :4' -'r%. 1 :�-7jib , •.N.- .,/!•-,.. •..,.. ,-.., :,„,7_ ,-,.,.,•r. „•/_ ./-.7,•-,;:-.. 1.. -.••• '•i' mss_»� f- • -- • 4 D r ' �r�
..-
,• .,
• ' - •� — -�:�. .. .. -:' is• • :'' --!i1 %-"•-',- •••-• 1 e. ,...! 4, ....-- •-•-•• _`
-;"ra , _. .. . . .looloirsiv..,-.•-. ..-. ....-,iplisii ci:us...,..i.„
,......,
. - b , ___-_-,- --
„ _ .. _ . .
A ID ...4...• - ....--.
--.-_-.- ____ . (5
•• '2. Slid „fit •-•......., „. .Firmr...........ftprii.,,,i4r4i. tirsz,
diSila 1 -
_ .
___,_
........... .
4 ...1
..,. A
i='` i�~' _ �`'i: M1E4 ..• r•_ % 1� •cx= .Z/t «�: N_S3S1dS ....:.„....E.,_____:_:___
:� ,, _ ' i2 !, it_ l ....; ,
:: .r ♦ • �/ \ •
1 - a� �.. � � "� _: - - ter. .s
-, ! i ._ .• r` ! i-
fit: �.li t - Y���i„.---/. Z:CCI� �,� ,x t-,
-oc:.! ( , - --s-i--.7
eli• in....... ,...40 _-,/
9 A6 -• ,
(� .1_11311111,17,.. '�'13Clt=, -MINN! AO i :
Fes-- `,
( -tV' %jlV � (, r
•
•.'vim. S,�'� .- •--://- ../.../..-- --,„_,...,
// ,' - `
1IiiIIiIIIII . /
. - trim
. •• • a _-----1 - 1 ...•• ., 1 •. ---. .41 • s • NM 1111111-:-...----,:--; : --..•-• -----•• -I . ,
r - • - _ � . S_ - 1`�••••/, - : • _ __ '' - , ,.4-• �' 'S►' -'--. .i 41 '-i -,,�• \� �I.
- i`' `Ek;•• � _ `:�6 • •
'211 40 ti : I- ..--
'
r+. - - . N N 1 iSty — '...*'•\ 40 . 1 .. i . .
c
G,:!,,,k
...-- •,• f-r-7iTi
... .4-,,1 L. . 'i''r: L'.:11 —-.-- ”
•
, _ _. - - fJrJ •
, -Gris L` ,- ^'y' -• ` S ;O i - �_ --,- -- - _ _ - ,\`
\ . .,
� • \ i f• - • \. • 1 1 �� Uiltf 7-"-:f;--t..- a./rte ��
� - i .- G'8• l' z! `; a �,.,� r �` r^J
az i � 'Lk y 6k i ' V4D ... , lc .-..,...,z . 43 ...r.•'',;.....„
6 "' il
•
'191 S. - - _ ��,)-,�br--r'. °---- U� ��
k - '—N. 6.'L b ,tea `-"' �z'3-I xl� 10 Lie- c :f'L - /`
•
•
i• % ; '' �' 201 ? l \ • c'
`� • ��� 111'•• N �\ V 11 .i ' �; j �' ' : �r ,
•.
5
IAN ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
SOILS ANALYSIS RESULTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY
_. . 11•411,111111plaW litAliplkwagilindwooliimpipmpli!
•
CHAIN OF CUSTODY PAGE_ OF
til
CUSTOMER INFORMATION i PROJECT INFORMATION... r
A , Q -WMINTORMATION
a.
CUSTOMER: —/—41'J 4 Sc' i --PS PROJECT: . ,S44111 Orkc -c./1•40)-‘__/, BILL TO: _
ADDRESS: _ - __ /I/ ) PROJECT LOCATION:•/J!QN1 ortrra j(STATE: ADDRESS:
PROJECT MANAGER: f7,/ e 1--,441--1,---// C.4
• •/ ' . ♦ 4. INCASE NE NAVE MEOUES110HST#0.11SA .%ESAHgvEWESIDUIDL•
CAL -----
1 Lin)6 NAME: ATTENTION:
TEL EPIDOtIE: ---_01,___.-48_, TELEPHONE: _ TELEPHONE: --
FAX _ FAX: Lg 3 "s-7__7 ( Po r: e . 2 32c9, X/-
u) SAMPLE TYPE - [ -� ANALYSIS --- --- --- --- PHESEIIVAIh'IW lA8DATE TACE SAMPLE 10
ncooE SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION COIIECTEO CClLECTF0 MATRIX /\1(/‘14//
/ / / / LW/
2
o 1 t
uiW
LI) °�� i;:j 4 7- c)' Z- �� ° / tel/ — -- - - - -
6z- S-S. a 7-, ;f ,300 // 1 _X , — - - -
1
Co
111
CI
0
Q TURNAROUND(INDICATE IN CALENDAR DAYS): FAX I IAN()COPY - DELIV.PKG. U RETURN TO CLIENT FOR DISPOSAL U LAB DISPOSAL
NAME OF LAB PERSONNEL CONFIRMING: KNOWN HAZARD(FLAMMABLE,EXPLOSIVE,TOXIC)
In DELIVERABLES I(CIRCLE ONE):DATA DATA/QC CSV NJ/CLP I NJ/CLP II 0 YES U NO (IF YES EXPLAIN UNDER COMMENTS)
al
Q' NJ/REGL a CLP OTHER =am CONOTRONS OF BOTTLES AND COOLER AT RECEIPT:
cn
SAMPLER/AFFILIATION: 1 .4.4,0 DATE: 2-/ -y..s---- 0 COMPLIANT 0 NOT COMPLIANT(IF NOT EXPLAIN UNDER COMMENTS)
` RECEIVED AFFILIATION: TIME: y j 0 COMMENTS
m REUt0UIStIED/AFFILIATIO
N: DATE: '..41:17 � Sa . i. /
; +
12:
I� '
0 _
r. RECEIVED I AFFILIATION: >µ•.' •
TIME: ' • ;$,• %+i• ' aI
iRELNCIUISIBED/AFFILIATION:- . yy ti :ay,r . - ,,,DATE., 2J /fTL. O ' •
-
Laborz ry Resources, Inc. cI Lan.�sociates. Inc.
New Jersey Division Project: Hommocks Sclzooi
Report No.: T502:91
, It43
Report Date: 03/08/95
SUNIMARY SPREADSHEET REPORT
<LR1 Sampic No> Client Sample Description
Collection Due
< 1>82A 7.9' <2>82 1.9'
GC Semivoluilee 02/08/95 02108/95
Aldrin `!D
Aroclor 1016 ND
Aroclor 1221 ND
Aroclor 1232 ND
Arocior 1242 ND
Arocior 1248 ND
Arocior 1254 210 ug/kg
Aroctor 1260 ND
alpha-8HC Np
beta-BHC ND
delve
BHC ND
gamma-814C(Lindane) ND
Chlordane ND
4,W-DDD ND
4.4'-DDE ND
4.4'-DDT ,1D
Dletdrut ND
Endosuifan I ND
Endosuifan II ND
Endosulfan sulfate ND
Endrin ND
Endrin aldehyde ND
Heptachlor ND
Heptachlor epoxide ND
Toxaphene ND
Page: 1
Laborat / Resources, Inc. Clic Lan Associates.Inc.
!A New Jersey Division Project: Hammocks School
Report No.: T302191
Report Date: 03/08/95
SUMMARY SPREADSHEET REPORT
<LRI Sample No> Client Samoie Description
Collection Date
< I>82A 7-9' <2>132 7-9'
3C1MS Semivolatiles 02/08/93 02!08/95
Acenaphthene 931 ug/kg
lcenaphthylene ND
►nthracene 190J ug/kg
_Jeraldine ND
Benzo(alanthraccnc 330! ug/kg
enzo(ajpyr'ene 2901 ug/kg
enzo(blfuortanthene 3201 ug/kg
oenzo(g.h.i)peryiene 1.801 ug/kg
Bcnzo(klIluoranthene 2101 ug/kg
iiiway!bury!phthalate 481 ughg
Is(2-chtoroethouy)mcthane ND
ts(Z<hloroethyl)ether ND
Bla(Z•ehlorouopropyl)ether ND
11s0.-ethyihcxyl)phthalate 3901 ug/kg
-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND
a-Chloro•3•methylphcnol ND
''-Chioronaphthalene ND
Chlorophenol ND
-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND
Chrysen0 4101 ug/kg
^i-n-butyl phthalate 941 ug/kg
i-n-oeyi phthalate ND
ibenzo(a.hianthrscene 931 ug/kg
l.2.Oichlorobenzene ND
3-Oichlorobenzcne ND
4-Dlcnlorobenzene ND
_.3'-Dichlorobenudine ND
2.4-Dichlorophcnol ND
ethyl phthalate ND
methyl phthalate ND
-.1-Dimethylphenol ND
2.4-Dinurophenol ND
1-Dlrurrotoluene ND
i-Dinutrotoluene ND
rtuoranthene 820 ug/kg
Ftuorenc 991 ug/kg
xachlorobenzene ND
xachlarobutadlene ND
Hexach1orocyclopentadiene ND
u-xachlorocthane `1D
eno(1.2.3-cdlpyrzne [70! ug/kg
phorone ND
2-,Methyl-4,6-dlnitrophenol ND
!"--hthalene 621 ug/kg
1 obcnzene xi)
_ Itrophenol ND
4-Nitropnenot ND
NIrrosod -n-propylaminc ND
1 iltrosodimethylunine ND
: .tltrosaliphenylamme MD
Pentachlorophenol ND
F- nantntene 690 ug/kg
i nol ND
Page:2
Labora y Resources, Inc. C1. • Lan Associates. Inc.
New Jersey Division Project: Hotnm«ics school
, tiM
Report No.: T50219 t
Report Date: 03/08195
SUMMARY SPREADSHEET REPORT
<1.RI Sample No> Client Sample Description
Collection Date
Pym 710 ug/kg
1,2,4-Triehlorobcnzene ND
2.4,6-Trichlorophenol ND
< 1>82A 7-9' <2>82 7-9'
GC/MS Volatiles 02/08/95 02/08/95
Acetone
ND
Benzene ND ND
B tomodichloromethane ND ND
Bromofor a ND ND
Bromomethane ND ND
2.8utsnone(MEK) ND
Carbon disulfide ND
Carbon tetrachloride ND ND
l Calorobcnzene ND ND
Chloroethane ND ND
2•C1lloroethyl vinyl ether ND ND
Chloroform 31 ug/kg ND
Chloromethane ND ND
Dibromochloromethane ND ND
1,2.Oichlorobenz nc ND
1J'0ichlorobenzene ND
1.s-Dichlorobenzene ND
1.1.Olchloroethane ND ND
l.2•Oichloroethane ND ND
1,l-Oichloroethcna ND ND
trans-1,2-D!chloroethane ND ND
;.2.Oichloropropane ND ND
:is-l.3-Dlehloropropene `rD ND
1 wins-1.3-Diehloropropene ND ND
Ethylbenzcne ND ND
I-Hcsanonc ND
-Methyl-2•pentanone(M K) ND
Methylene chloride 12 ug/kg 9 ug/kg
Styrene
ND
.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND
'ctrachlorocthcne ,ND ND
Toluene ND ND
',1.1-Trichloroethane ND ND
1.1.2•Trichloroethane ND ND
'iichloroethene(TCE) ND ND
Tnchlorofluoromethanc ND
vinyl acetate ND
inyl chloride ND ND
ylenes(total)
ND I
< l>B2A 7-9' <2>82 7.9'
General Chemistry 02/08/95 02/08/95
Cyanide
ND
tenolics
ND
Page:3
Labora y Resources, Inc. a: lin Associates. Inc.
ti4 Hommocks School
New Jersey Division Project:
Report No.: T30219 l
Report D21e: 03/08/95
SUAAVaY SPREADSHEET REPORT
<LRI Sample No> Client Sample Description
Collection Date
< 1>82A 7-9' <2>82 7-9'
i Metals 02108/91 02/08/95
Antunony ND
Ar3enlc 23000S ug/kg
Beryllium 680 ug/kg
Cadmium 470 ug/kg
' Chromium 26000 ug/kg
Comer 44000 ug/kg
Lead 200000 ug/kg
Mercury ND
N'tckrl 19000 ug/kg
Selenium 420 ug/kg
Silver ND
Thallium ND
Zinc 220000 ug/kg
N0N-CLP
Qrtanie fisc.hInies Raault 4aeJ»a
at �.
tynfc Flaw'!Twirl In Rnu1t Shut
'B'•Found in method blank 'EC•Estimated count
"1"•Estimated result.lemma than the quaruiation limit "TNTC"•Too nutnenvus to count
'E-•aztsaeds calibration range '5'.Result quantified by method of standard addition
IP,
gD'a Dilution performed 'ND'•Not Detected
ND'■Not Demand
CL?
nrranle Flare lilted In Result Sher(
re-•Pound in method blank
'1".Estimated result.lots than the quantitation limit
"-'P".This nag is used fora peaticide/aroclor urge analyze when there is greater than 25%difference for detected concentrations between the two CC columns
_'E'•This flag identifies compounds wnose concenuotiocu exceed the calibrwon range of the CCMS insavment
D" .Dilution performed
U'■Not Detected
in rz nlr uzilbss nn -_
E' •The reported value is estimated because of the presence of interference
IA"•Duplicate injection prtetsion not met
N'•Spiked&unpie recovery not within control limits
'S'•Result quatutfled by method of standard addition
4 a/'.Post-digestion rpike for furnace AA Analysis is ow of control Iimiu
•Duplicate analysis not within consul limits
..•C.rrelauon coefficient for the MSA is leas than 0.995
U .Not Detected
Page:4
s
LAN ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
SOILS ENGINEER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a°T11
Report
Preliminary Subsurface Investigation
Proposed Hommocks School Addition
Mamaroneck, New York
Mamaroneck Union Free School District
` PgINC:PALS.
�.
7.,-c`AAS E. 7ULLY. P E.
V IVIELICK-TULLY cHARLFsr. MEucx. P=_
� �c9ERr ;. iAN cacEN, li
9\ IS . . PAYMONO "LILLY,I.B � ' GECTECHNIC.�LNGINES ANDEUGENEM. SAL.LAGHER .R.. P
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ROBERT E. SCHWANKERT, P E.
�`oe .17 c.^^NAL PO . Cu rH BCUNC BROOK.Biu C8880 TOGO E. HORCWITZ. P E.
ASSCOATES:
PETER G. MICKLUS. P E.
WILLIAM M. STRUBEL. P.E.
February 24, 1995
Lan Associates
662 Goffel Road
Hawthorne, New Jersey 07056
Attention: Mr. Kenneth Karle
Gentlemen:
Report
Preliminary Subsurface Investigation
Proposed Hammocks School Addition
Mamaroneck, New York
Mamaroneck Union Free School District
Introduction
In this report we present the results of our preliminary subsurface investigation for a
proposed addition to I-lommocks School in Mamaroneck, New York. The school is located on the
south side of Hammocks Road to the east of U.S. Route I (Boston Post Road).
It is anticipated the proposed addition will be a two and three-story structure covering a
plan area of approximately 21,000 square feet. The addition will be located to the north and east
of the existing school building and there will be no basement areas within the addition.. We
estimate that the maximum column and wall loads for the addition would be on the order of 250
kips and 200 pounds per square foot, respectively.
Lan Associates
February 24, 1995
Page 2
Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of our services was to:
1) investigate, in a preliminary manner, the subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions within the proposed addition area;
2) evaluate the relevant geotechnical engineering properties of the
encountered materials;
3) discuss types of foundations which appear suitable for support of the
structure and provide preliminary design criteria for the various foundation
types
4) provide preliminary recommendations for the support and subdrainage of
the lowest level floor slab;
5) screen the explorations to detect the presence of methane gas in the
existing soils; and
6) discuss preliminary earthwork operations or considerations consistent with
the proposed construction and the encountered subsurface conditions.
To accomplish these purposes a program of seven supervised test borings was performed at
the site. The borings were advanced using hollow-stern auger drilling equipment mounted on an
all-terrain vehicle and extended to depths ranging from approximately 9 to 24 feet below the
presently existing grades. Numerous closely spaced samples of the encountered soils were
extracted from the borings using the procedures of the Standard Penetration Test. The
approximate location of the borings in relation to the existing school building are shown on the
Plot Plan, Plate I.
All field work was performed under the direct technical observation of a geotechnical engineer
from our office. Our representative located the borings in the field, maintained continuous logs of
the explorations as the work proceeded and technically directed the soil sampling operations in
Lan Associates
February 24, 1995
Page 3
order to develop the desired subsurface information. Our representative also screened the holes
with an OVA meter to detect the presence of methane.
All soil samples obtained from the borings were brought to our office and laboratory where
they were examined. Detailed descriptions of the encountered materials are shown on the Logs of
Borings, Plates 2A through 2G. The soils have been visually classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System described on Plate 3. OVA meter readings obtained from the
borings are shown on the appropriate boring logs.
Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and an examination of the soil samples we
have formulated our conclusions and recommendations. The following discussions of our findings
are subject to the limitations attached as an appendix to this report.
Site Conditions
Surface Features: The area of the proposed school addition is primarily a grass covered
softball field. Topographic data provided to us indicate that the grades across the area are
relatively flat and level ranging from approximately Elevation +100 to +102 feet. An abandoned
road traverses the western portion of the proposed building area while two former structures were
located in the eastern portion of the area. The topographic plan provided to us indicates
previously existing and proposed site grades, presumably from the time of the original school
construction. This grading information indicates that approximately 0 to 6 feet of fill was placed
within the addition area at the time of construction of the existing school.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions encountered at the site were highly
variable. In many of the explorations a laver of topsoil was encountered at the ground surface.
The topsoil varied from approximately 2 to 12 inches in thickness. Beneath the topsoil the
Lan Associates
February 24, 1995
Page 4
materials consisted of fill. The fill consisted of silty sand with gravel, cobbles, boulders and
occasional small brick or concrete fragments. A concrete slab was encountered at depth of
approximately 3-1/2 feet at the original location of Boring 5. This is believed to be the slab of the
former building which was located in that area.
Decomposed schist bedrock was encountered beneath the fill in Borings 3, 5, and 7. The
decomposed schist generally consisted of micaceous silty sand with gravel, cobbles and boulders.
In Borings 2, 4 and 6, the materials beneath the fill consisted of a thin layer of topsoil and/or a
stratum of organic silt and sandy silt containing small amounts of roots and vegetation. These
materials appeared to be medium in consistency and extended to depths ranging from
approximately 9-1/2 to I I-I/2 feet below grade. Beneath the silt deposits in Borings 2, 4 and 6
and beneath the fill in Boring I, the soils consisted of medium dense to very dense micaceous silty
sands and gravels containing cobbles and boulders. These deposits may be of glacial in origin or
may be residual soils formed by the total decomposition of the underlying schist bedrock. All
borings terminated at refusal to the sampler and/or auger within the decomposed schist bedrock at
depths ranging From approximately 9 to 24 feet below the existing grades.
Groundwater was encountered in most of the explorations at depths of approximately eight to
eight and one-half feet below the presently existing grades. The groundwater may be perched on
the silt deposits or very dense decomposed bedrock, as soils obtained at depths well below the
observed water level appeared relatively dry in Boring 4.
Conclusions and Recommendations
General: Based on the results of our preliminary study, it is our opinion that the subsurface
conditions at the location of the proposed school addition are highly variable. The fill materials
Lan Associates
February 24, 1995
Page 5
and underlying organic silts and silts are not suitable for the support of the foundations of the
structure. Therefore these materials must be improved or the foundations must derive their
support from the competent natural soils or rock beneath the fill materials and silts. Provided that
the grades are not to be raised significantly and that the risk of minor floor slab settlement is
acceptable, we believe that the floor slab could be supported on grade and the existing fill
materials.
Consideration was given to improving the fill and organic soils using the method of deep
dynamic compaction. However, based on the presence of the relatively thick organic silt layers
encountered at several locations, we do not believe that this method would be effective.
Surcharging of the area to pre-consolidate the soils does not appear practical. Therefore we
believe that the building foundations will have to achieve their support from the competent
materials beneath the fill and organic deposits.
We have evaluated the use of pile and caisson foundations, as well as removal of the
unsuitable soils at the foundation locations and replacement of these materials with clean three-
quarter inch stone. Conventional driven pile foundations do not appear feasible due to the
cobbles and boulders present in the fill and natural soils. These would obstruct the piles, and
could prevent them from reaching the competent soils. The use of caissons extending into the
bedrock or removal and replacement of the unsuitable soils at the foundation locations both
appear to be feasible alternates for foundation support.
OVA meter readings taken during the clrillins of the borings indicate that high levels of
methane gas arc present in the soils. Numerous readings of methane levels greater than 1,000
ppm (the limit of the meter) were obtained. The source of the methane is unknown. Portions of
Lan Associates
February 24, 1995
Page 6
may be the result of the decomposition of the underlying organic deposits, however, the levels
appear to be too high to be the result ofjust this process. The methane may be migrating laterally
from other areas, possibly along old abandoned pipe trenches or other conduits.
Further exploration is required at the site to define the subsurface conditions and methane
levels prior to the final design of the structure.
Foundation Design: The existing fill soils and underlying organic deposits are not suitable for
the support of the foundations of the structure. To develop adequate foundation support it will be
necessary to bypass these materials and derive the support for the foundations from the underlying
natural soils or decomposed bedrock. The simplest manner in which to accomplish this would to
be to excavate the fill and organic soils at the foundation locations, backfill the excavations with
clean washed stone or gravel and support the foundations on the stone. The base of the
excavations would have to extend laterally beyond the edues of the foundations by a distance
equal to at least one-third of the depth of the stone beneath the foundations with a minimum of
two feet. Foundations established on the stone could be proportioned for bearing pressures of
two to three tons per square foot.
Due to the relatively shallow depths to decomposed bedrock in some areas, as well as the
numerous obstructions in the till and natural soils, the use of conventional driven pile foundations
does not appear to be feasible. Drilled caissons extending into the decomposed bedrock could be
utilized for support. The caissons could be designed for estimated end-bearing pressures ranging
from 4 to 20 tons per square Foot, depending on the character of the rock at the bottom depth of
the caissons. Side friction could also be developed between the shafts of the caissons and the
adjoining decomposed bedrock. Side friction values could range from 1,000 to over 20,000
Lan Associates
February 24, 1995
Page 7
pounds per square foot depending on the condition of the rock. For preliminary design purposes
we would assume that caissons would extend approximately three feet below the level at which
refusal was encountered in the borings and that at these levels an allowable bearing pressure of 15
tons per square foot is available. A value of 5,000 psf for side friction between the caissons and
adjoining rock could be utilized for preliminary design.
For either of the above alternates, grade beams spanning between piers should be considered
for support of building walls in order to minimize the amount of overexcavation and/or number of
caissons that may be required.
Floor Slab: Provided that the risk of minor floor slab settlements is acceptable and that the
grades will not be raised significantly within the proposed building area, we believe that the floor
slab of the structure could be supported on grade. Proof'rolling and compaction of the existing fill
would be required using a very heavy vibratory compactor. Floor slab settlements could range
from almost negligible amounts to possibly as high as one-half inch.
Methane: Based on the relatively high concentrations of methane observed in the preliminary
borings, it is likely that a methane venting system would be required beneath the structure. The
system would likely consist of a layer of porous stone in which a series of perforated or slotted
pipes is installed to collect any methane that migrates upward through the fill. Piping could
connect to a series of vents which the methane could be dispersed into the air. Positive venting
using fans or pumps may be required to aid in the removal of the methane.
Fait' r� Wnrk Additional explorations are required at the site of the proposed addition in
order to further define the subsurface conditions including, the levels of methane gas. Based on
the conditions which were encountered in the preliminary borings we believe that the explorations
Lan Associates
February 24, 1995
Page 8
could be best performed utilizing test pits. The test pits would allow a large scale view of the
existing fill materials as well as the underlying natural soils and would aid in defining the boundary
between the varying deposits. The test pits would be relatively inexpensive compared to the cost
of the soil borings.
If it is decided to utilize caissons for support of the structure, additional soil borings extending
into the bedrock would be necessary to investigate the character of the bedrock. Borings
extending 10 to 15 feet below the surface of the bedrock would likely be required. Test pits
should still be performed, even if the caissons are utilized for support, in order to gauge the size
and character of the obstructions that may be encountered in the till or natural soils.
During performance of the Future test pits and borings. additional screening should be
performed to help define the levels of methane that are present in the soils. Use of test pits may
also aid in defining a specific zone or layer that may be transmitting methane to the proposed
addition area.
The following Plates and Appendix are attached and complete this report:
Plate I - Plot Plan
Plates 2A through 2G - Logs of Borings
Plate 3 - Unified Soil Classification System
Appendix - Limitations
Very truly yours,
MELICK-TULLY and ASSOCIATES, P.C. / •
Charles T. ;`lelick, P.F.
5449-00 I
CTM/cr
5 copies submitted
i
\\ \
\ \
9-1 \ 2, B-3
\ -' \
c3 FORMER
\ 73 \ STRUCTUFTE-7 __---3
\ xJ \
B-4 \ z" B-5
\ A
im
a
J \ y
0 ..• p \ 1
O \ ` \
• \,J 1 if
`n ■ Gb B-b 8-7
err
r EXISTING PAVED
\ DRIVEWAY
i J \ 1 ,s �.
. ( ------
1
\ i
1 I 1 1 1 \
F / I . r I ri r, : c H O O L ( PLOT P L r i N
PROPOSED HOMMOCKS SCHOOL ADDITION
f
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK MAMAPONECK UNION
I;_,; FPEE SCHOOL DISTRICT
NUMBER AND APPPDX IMArE FINAL LaAr IIIN
OF BORING DRILLED FOR rHI Cri1DY MELICK - TULLY AND ASSOCIATES
117 CANAL ROAD
:OUTH BOUND BROOK, NEW JERSEY
908-356-3400
JOB NO. 5449-001 [ SEO. NO. 11327
DR. BY CHK BY SCALE DATE
AS CTM l'.40' 02-17-95 PLATE 1
LOG OF BORING
BORING NO. 1
SURFACE ELEV. + 100' It
COMPLETION DATE: 02/08/95 WATER LEVEL: 8'-4"
JOB NUMBER: 5449-001 READING DATE: 02/08/95
Z F=-
OwO �
cn a—UO a.
a_wCI- 01_ g DESCRIPTION
ww 2 ZwCf)
�
Ctl < <ZcnC >w N
v) F-
w w
cfla . 02
— • 25 8" Topsoil
- • 17 FILL - Brown micaceous silty sand, little fine to
coarse gravel
5-
- • 56 >1000 -concrete fragments @ 2.5 '
-boulder @ 6'-10" - Boring shifted 5' east and
drilled to 10 '
10- SM
• 61/11"* >1000 Brown micaceous fine to coarse sand, some silt,
Little fine gravel with cobbles & boulders
(medium dense)
15- -refusal to sampler and auger @ 11'-5" - Boring
shifted 6' north and drilled to 10'
Decomposed mica schist
20- Refusal to auger @ 13 '
BORING COMPLETED @ 13 '
25- Penetration resistance for second sample @ 10'
was 41 blows/foot
30-
35-
40-
45-
50-
�
NOTES: SOIL DESCRIPTION MODIFIERS:
1. • IN 'SAMPLES' COLUMN INDICATES THE AVERAGE DEPTH OF SAMPLER PENETRATION. TRACE 0 • 10%
2. NUMBER IN 'STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE' COLUMN INDICATES THE NUMBER LITTLE 10 -20%
OF BLOWS TO ADVANCE A 2" 0.D., 1-5/8" 1.0. SOIL SAMPLER A DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES SOME 20 -35%
USING A 140 POUND WEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. AND OVER 35%
MELICK TULLY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. PLATE 2A
LOG OF BORING
BORING NO. 2
SURFACE ELEV. + 100-1/2' ±
COMPLETION DATE: 02/08/95 WATER LEVEL: 8'-6"
JOB NUMBER: 5449-001 READING DATE: 02/08/95
z 2
owO a.
(n -v0 LL
w cr zu_
I— QQQ' C7 m
a_W or'cn z g DESCRIPTION
ww 2 zuj •
0LL' < Qzcn 3u1 (/)
(n f—w w
(na_cm CD cc
- • 20 FILL - Brown silt and fine to coarse sand, little
fine gravel
- • 50/4" -grading with cobbles & boulders
5 ML/OL
- • 13 >1000 Dark gray sandy silt with traces of roots and
vegetation (topsoil) (medium dense)
- • 12
Gray and dark gray silt and sandy silt with traces
10- of roots and vegetation (medium dense)
- • 20 >1000 SM
Yellow brown and gray micaceous fine to medium sand
and silt, little fine to coarse gravel
(medium dense)
15-
Decomposed mica schist
-refusal to auger @ 13 '-6"
20-
BORING COMPLETED @ 13 ' -6"
25-
30-
35-
40-
45-
50-
1 I I
NO TES: SOIL DESCRIPTION MODIFIERS:
I. • IN 'SAMPLES' COLUMN INDICATES THE AVERAGE DEPTH OF SAMPLER PENETRATION. TRACE 0 • 10%
2. NUMBER IN 'STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE' COLUMN INDICATES THE NUMBER LITTLE 10 • 20%
OF BLOWS To ADVANCE A 2' O.D., 1-5/d" I.D. SOIL SAMPLER A DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES SOME 20 • 35%
USING A 140 POUND WEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. AND OVER 35%
MELICK •"TULLY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. PLATE 2B
LOG OF BORING
BORING NO. 3
SURFACE ELEV. + 102'
COMPLETION DATE: 02/13/95 WATER LEVEL: 8'-2"
JOB NUMBER: 5449-001 READING DATE: 02/13/95
z
0U40 a
—Up
C a
CnLL, cc} Z
QaQs co
3_ C�f—� Z>
DESCRIPTION
LU Zwcni QC }
C=" Q QZv)0
cn >w cn
i—w w
c 33 C CC
na�___
• 17 kx 12" Topsoil
- • 48 >1000 FILL - Brown silty sand and gravel with occaisional
brick fragments, trace of roots
5_ 50/4" >1000
- • 50/2"* Cobbles and boulders - possible decomposed schist
Probable decomposed mica schist
10- • 50/2"* >1000
-Refusal to auger @ 13 '
15- BORING COMPLETED @ 13 '
* No recovery
20-
25-
30-
35-
40-
45-
50-
1 L__J 1
NOTES: SOIL DESCRIPTION MODIFIERS:
1. • IN 'SAMPLES' COLUMN INDICATES THE AVERAGE DEPTH OF SAMPLER PENETRATION. TRACE 0 - 10%
2. NUMBER IN 'STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE' COLUMN INDICATES THE NUMBER LITTLE 10 - 20%
OF BLOWS TO ADVANCE A 2" 0.D., 1-5/B" I.D. SOIL SAMPLER A DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES SOME 20 - 35%
USING A 140 POUND WEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. AND OVER 35%
MELICK - TULLY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. PLATE 2C
LOG OF BORING
BORING NO. 4
SURFACE ELEV. + 101'
COMPLETION DATE: 02/13/95 WATER LEVEL: 8'-0"
JOB NUMBER: 5449-001 READING DATE: 02/13/95
Z0 3--
(j) ��UO a
C7 0
�wCO
a�H�> Z DESCRIPTION
Lu Z w cn i )-•,
Q QZcnC j
LOG OF BORING
BORING NO. 5
SURFACE ELEV. , 100-1/2'
COMPLETION DATE: 02/13/95 WATER LEVEL:
JOB NUMBER: 5449-001 READING DATE: 02/13/95
z 2
Ow0 a.
C ° a.
w m Zu_
Q C 03
C7 O
LU 2 zw00 „ca DESCRIPTION
o_ Q QZC/)° >< CI)
cn �-u u
cna_cc__ Oct
• 11 \ 2" Topsoil
- • 30 FILL - Brown silty sand, little fine to coarse
gravel, occaisional brick fragments
5- • 50/0" >1000
-concrete slab @ 3 '-6" - Shifted boring 15' east
and drilled to 5 '
Probable weathered schist bedrock
10- Augered to 11 ' - Steady hard drilling
- • 100/0"
BORING COMPLETED @ 11
* WATER LEVEL NOT ENCOUNTERED
15-
20-
25-
30-
35-
40-
45-
50-
NOTES: SOIL DESCRIPTION MODIFIERS:
1. • IN •SAMPLES' COLUMN INDICATES THE AVERAGE DEPTH OF SAMPLER PENETRATION. TRACE 0 • 10%
2. NUMBER IN 'STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE' COLUMN INDICATES THE NUMBER LITTLE 10 • 20%
OF BLOWS To ADVANCE A 2- O.D.. 1-6/8" I.D. SOIL SAMPLER A DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES SOME 20 • 35%
USING A 140 POUND WEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. AND OVER 35%
MELICK TULLY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. PLATE 2E
LOG OF BORING
BORING NO. 6
SURFACE ELEV. - 100' -1-
COMPLETION
COMPLETION DATE: 02/13/95 WATER LEVEL: 8'-4"
JOB NUMBER: 5449-001 READING DATE: 02/13/95
Z 1-
CwO 0-
c~-rJ C n- -J
( C
w CC Z`
wwCL Z��3 DESCRIPTION
Cu- Zcn Q }
Q Q )
cn 1-ww� wv
u)a_cccci
• 49 \ 4" Topsoil
• 44 \ FILL - Dark brown silt and sand, little fine to
coarse gravel, occaisional brick fragments
5-
- • 11 >1000 FILL - Brown micaceous silty sand, little fine to
- 8
OL/PT coarse gravel
Brown and gray organic silt and peat (medium)
10-
-
• 45 >1000 ML/SM Yellow brown and gray silt and fine to medium sand
\ (dense)
SM
Yellow brown fine to coarse sand, little silt,
15_ • 50/11" >1000 trace fine gravel (dense)
Light gray silt and decomposed schist (very dense)
-refusal to sampler and auger @ 19 '
20-
BORING COMPLETED @ 19 '
25-
30-
35-
40-
45-
50-
NOTES: SOIL DESCRIPTION MODIFIERS:
1. • IN 'SAMPLES' COLUMN INDICATES THE AVERAGE DEPTH OF SAMPLER PENETRATION. TRACE 0 • 10%
2. NUMBER IN 'STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE' COLUMN INDICATES THE NUMBER LITTLE 10 -20%
OF BLOWS TO ADVANCE A 2" O.D., 1.51H" I.D. SOIL SAMPLER A DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES SOME 20 - 35%
USING A 140 POUND WEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. AND OVER 35%
MELICK - TULLY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. PLATE 2F...<. . .:..;
LOG OF BORING
BORING NO. 7
SURFACE ELEV. +-9 9-1/2'
COMPLETION DATE: 02/13/95 WATER LEVEL: 7'-11'
JOB NUMBER: 5449-001 READING DATE: 02/13/95
z 1=- 2
owo a_
cn Q-Vo n-
� Lu QaQcj Z 0
zw�� a g DESCRIPTION
wW
alb a azcno as c)
Cl) I-will >�
(f)CL. O.CCm
• 57 2" Topsoil
- • 48 FILL - Dark brown silt and sand with trace of brick
SM fragments
5- >1000
POSSIBLE FILL - Brown fine to coarse sand and silt
- • 50/1" >1000 some fine to coarse gravel (dense)
ML/SM
-drilled through boulder from 4'-8" to 6 '-6"
10-
Light gray micaceous silt, some fine to coarse sand
(decomposed schist) (very dense)
-refusal to auger @ 9 '
15-
BORING COMPLETED @ 9 '
20-
25-
30-
35-
40-
45-
50-
I I 1 1
NO TES: SOIL DESCRIPTION MODIFIERS:
1. • IN 'SAMPLES' COLUMN INDICATES THE AVERAGE DEPTH OF SAMPLER PENETRATION. TRACE 0 • 10%
2. NUMBER IN 'STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE' COLUMN INDICATES THE NUMBER LITTLE 10 • 20%
OF BLOWS TO ADVANCE A 2" O.D.. 1-5/8" I.D. SOIL SAMPLER A DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES SOME 20 • 35%
USING A 140 POUND WEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. AND OVER 35%
MELICK - TULLY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. PLATE 2G
MAJOR DIVISIONS .LETTER ,TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
SYMBOL
.(LL-4 .D(D o*AV(Li, CAAV0.-
GRAYa ..
GW tAO N141wrS. LITTLE 04
AND CLEW C 4VL7.5 W rlNcs
GRAVELLY (LITHE 04 w 1
SOILS (IMCS) •004LY-4•AD(D 44AV(LS,44AV(L-
0042Z AI
GP 04D 414T14Et. Ln
irc 04
GRAINEDMO PINES
SOILS I
SILTY 'worms. seAV(�- Ama-
MDaC THAW r te_ ■I FIFES GM GILT MIATUACk
Of 00AASC /aAC-
TIOM ((TAI$ APf4CC I..LC ^rOi.4IT1 4
ON 02.4 SICK or /INCL)
GC CLAYEY 44AV2S, 4AAVQ.-.WAD-
CLAV MIATUACS
1
RLL-4AAD(D SAMOS. 4 K
AALLY
0J,40SW SANDS. 1.I1'11C 04 40 /I4C1
ANO CLEAN SMO (LI TLC
$JI@( 04 MO /INC' 1
SOIL.;
It04i TN4N SOf SP poo . -taa
ADCD SANDS, 4AvtLLY
LAMA*. LITTLC 04 NO /IMC%
Or MATQIAL II
THAM NO. r !
SICVC a1ZC
4040 T1A/I SOz 5.Aj 11'17H FINE.. SM SILTY a.Aos, auo-SILT .111Tvaa
Of Q04 (444- AIf•4CCIAALC ANOI.MT ,
0104 pA11Ii Of (IMC3)
Mo, t 11 CK
SC CLAYEY SAND{. SAND-CLAY MIzTU.CS
I
14044AM10 SILTS AND VCAY (INC
M L LANDS. 4004 MOUS. SILTY 04
CLAYCY (INC 14401 04 CLAYCY
SILTS .ITN SLI.Nr PLASTICITY
FINE SILTS IMoauMlc CLAYS Of Lo. To MEDIUM
CRAMO LIQUID LIMIT (LA&TIOI Tr, 4AVQ.Lr OLArt,
SOILS LS CLAYS ( ; TMA, SO C L SANDY CLAYS. SILTY Ci Ars. L;IUP
CLAYS
Q L O44AMIC 114.1.24m s A044AMIC
SILTY CLAYS Of LO. PLASTICITY
M H I1AacIAMIC SILTS. MIC4CCOU1 04
OI ATONAL COUS 'AMC LAND 04
SILTY SOILS
404E num '
I
Of MATCAIAL IS ALIQUID LINIT IMOa4ANIC CLAYS Of MI.W
�i 1 -LS T11411 110- SYS WIATE9 TMAN SO C M PLASTICITY, (AT CLAY%
SICK 11ZC
O H 041L441C CLAYS O/ Mm IUM To 11104
r PLASTICITY, OR44NIC SILTS
NI(74.Y ORGANIC :OIL_; PT (CAT. .444111, w..✓ 10ILI
WITH 4144 0444.IC CONTENTS
.i
1•OrC; 00.4. ST.4o4,t 4A( QUO To I..01C41( 404O(ALINC SOIL. CLA11I(ICATIO.t.
Ca.oAri ON '* CO4PACTTES:. * CCK,I STENCY
woo A.0/04 4444(1. CLAY 44.4/04 SILT
% 4,40.4. 41, 4(14«I -(LATIv( 4......4( O/ 114wI.c
tr.(4arw
•4c( 0% ro LOX oc«sl,. '. .0...01 •(4 1CW4( rcor
LITTIC 10% ro 20% Loo11 01: ro 40%% v(.. soy! LC11 1..A. 250
So..( 207E TO 55% •.(1•l.. of«1(..40% ro 70% torr 250 ro 500
4..CI 55%Ye 50% o(1.1C
701 ro 90% ..f 0.w 500 ro 1000
*1 v4LI.(1 Aw( roc.. 4.44(14,04. o4 r.<lo "(,V o(w1(....90% TO ICO% Trvr
ICOO ra 2000
Tfa, 0414. ^'(R w..I.CuIC. ...<w .o v(.Y tllrr 2000 TO 4000
4(11444 4.1 •(.r0..K0. V4Iv(1 A.( •440 44(41(4 Iw.w 41000
(1I4..w.(0.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
IT
PLATE 3
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
Limitations
A. Subsurface Information
Locations: The locations of the explorations were approximately determined by tape and
compass measurements from the existing school building. Elevations of the explorations
were approximately determined by interpolation between contours shown on topographic
plans provided to us. The locations and elevations of the explorations should be
considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
Interface of Strata: The stratification lines shown on the individual logs of the subsurface
explorations represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transitions
may be gradual.
Field Logs/Final Logs: A field log was prepared for each exploration by a member of our
staff The field log contains factual information and interpretation of the soil conditions
between samples. Our recommendations are based on the final logs and the information
contained therein, and not on the field logs. The final logs represent our interpretation of
the contents of the field logs, and the results of the laboratory observations and tests of the
field samples. The final logs are included on Plates 2A through 2G.
Water Levels: Water level readings have been made in the explorations at times and under
conditions stated on the individual logs. These data have been reviewed and
interpretations made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations
in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and
other factors.
Pollution/Contamination: Unless specifically indicated to the contrary in this report, the
scope of our services was limited only to investigation and evaluation of'the geotechnical
engineering aspects of the site conditions, and did not include any consideration of
potential site pollution or contamination resulting from the presence of chemicals, metals,
radioactive elements, etc. This report offers no facts or opinions related to potential
pollution/contamination of the site.
Environmental Considerations: Unless specifically indicated to the contrary in this report,
this report does not address environmental considerations which may affect the site
development, e.g., wetlands determinations, flora and fauna, wildlife, etc. The conclusions
and recommendations of this report are not intended to supersede any environmental
conditions which should be reflected in the site planning
B. Applicability of Report
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soils and foundation
engineering practices for the exclusive use of Mamaroneck Union Free School District for
specific application to the preliminary design of the proposed school addition. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
C. Reinterpretation of Recommendations
Change in Location or Nature of Facilities: In the event that any changes in the nature,
design or location of the addition are planned, the preliminary conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing.
Changed Conditions During Construction: The analyses and recommendations submitted
in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from seven widely-spaced test
borings performed for this preliminary study. As the site conditions are highly variable,
additional explorations will be necessary prior to final design of the addition.
Changes in State-of-the-Art: The conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report are based upon the applicable standards of our profession at the time this report
was prepared.
7
IAN ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH DATED APRIL 5, 1959
't11111.
+•t ' MI!
v.
S�v� a fix` � . '-, 4 it .. _ ' •...r•�. '-a'e" ••,• .. - r' •. •
Ya' 4.J' ' � ��1' ` !t p .r;I •f1/ r :�, `' .`, •
"•c'+'• •'�+!!• •' • • ° Y • 1
•>• r - ' J l.} t*S T f"\., ��t •• �_ '/ • •�,�`,..st •.•�J !t R. r , .�: • • `..
•
"e�y-�'i T.s tc''„{-.:•Y' �- r/ - r� *,rot ••�� • t. rt,l .., •t;;; '-'-• ••y • \ .yr ,' •�1 • - '''''•', • '••
•
a.
:,......,:. V,,........._;?;;:x-...:::.•,..i,'.•- .. ....W..7..".:,,-....,.;,0",. 0 - , . ..1 4( V.I• .1
•
fc : �••, K ; :ifs.0.� j{.w • I
•. ,. /' - 1 t A'� .• :...•:,-1�' X11 c .•!,• �� w ,.
et "1 ,r..-•_..;-.-..-. --- ::1• .'A. at•0art 1.
�♦ a t `♦ •ye•!r{pI 4'S �A-.• ii*. — . !.• "♦�Affr tv
i a Jam, •.a rX• l.- • ' i- '✓7#y 'z lei!'.• • a •�lit s tit •C �,` �a `�v...1� �.
`-1-04'•!•-=.2;` :r` : 44 • !t �tAl `''}► L_ •• j� It.• ...... ra'- ..��`„��1 •••'
t -+�- Y: !` _ �` { �_ • �+{ e r '.44/A4.
• t @ eri.,',S��e..�.,' !., �'..Ir J..
j[f:` ? - t•Ci- • '-1 !tC , •• r e ` 1 •. ". , -'_ Oyy P.1.--••'� •t•.r• ^t,_ I.e;3:4;:.
r)� Al!'
•
' •.r •AJC'♦ al.,li �1 • Al, -' ek• ♦ l t 14 e i 1 • l: '1'. •4 .
.- . - if e;f7,',--;;;" - • '1%,,,3 4,4 c • -) % •° -.. ..- 4.7k , 4: ' `O ' ' ' , ' ,ft* 4i.,2,74,1- l• 1.-.r.lt.tot:..! . ,./ .- .„-
• '1.P.
s• `t3 •ci t ., y. • 1 kt• r 7 t j �' .,tv�s • 7 it, `+ •'
r•' = - .--_ ; a S ., to •:ati Lt1 ••w ,t . ••. . •.,; T ;. f tSP� ,� ;R,'P •�'. , i't
.. ,
�.: v- a t 44 '..,Ino, / .`• •0 ••.•'• •a.� �� k� , 7 + Thi►�f"�,:_' ,P T.�b�J ` 1. .\••,�1�,•i•:.
.....
...,,,,),,. . .. ,
•s
�i.i ' /)� r� y t: t 3,t ' • • ! �,1 ".;\t • ..
•��14 .t;aNe: '`t4••' .i
;ate- •
.�:.f tA'• . 4 ,a-'J. '#• .1,, Q • f •w•. ••`•r. t•• ♦' 4
Y •
"7
YI • ;k.� •:sipwi. ..:!-4*'...4'
i :.4s,+'1'' '; i•It I.'.11a,�,.ut" - ''rV{a� •
'0 f•• .k ....4....
... .:�Ir�,. ,..
•, .,r, J.'af, y Y:�.C. I 'S•• • C i,. ,r `y ; \`�`t' ♦• Il' • ' k 't'Ntr-� •,i• ice•• •i:
.- . . ' 4-. -/ k. ....r.;,•=4)1144 ' '. ..11 I, ' i•t'.. •,.1,-,4'.1^. .'-i.i. -t 4114 •‘ gt :•. 4..,/ ..,- , -e ro.... . 1•
,...„6„:1. it :
, :
.. , .lies,„.
...... ,........
, . . .,. •
4,, ..., ,. •..
•
♦ fad#.. - - • �•.!.C�•f• f•�`'` •C�� 1r:' 1• v��-' rs f• ll71
'J►••,.. !'.. �•iyj. ''
ii:`,�,.
'•,~ffl ` fa „
' i :'
4 t` rr ,i.•e :4e) '• - •.. r '' t:17,c.�' ,1
• -' - ,r i�. 4'.. .1'.' i ! r` • a1 7' � � u;•. +i 'k , t _ ' ,'' ' , ! e 1 • 11 4'' 4 .°11?‘;'• '--t r•1 4.' .•• - 4•1 •, ,.,.4� •i ,v ' . , .4 • . . , ;�' _
> f ;
. .; •
. .,._,, ... .,... ..,,,-, ,...„,„, ; ,..... -. , t.... ..„,,, :,,,... —4.rz,':. ...••I'..j.•
•
.S/ �Ni /..I.‘ f(,! •)41 Aa {e/ �d1.' • ..`! y �-Z 1 J� ,a '.01;:. �;J � . t .
• '? .I. •' x� •�., a• ' 4', ilEl,• • ,*�'ti -;a?i�+r` 1�� �t `� , tj ',ry ` �,l�, f�•, ,Y?i• / 1', ;• ?It
f "� •�i� \ :\ '' �'•• .r a •
.: nTi;`r 2:.J •.. ; L�: . tai ?:.
•
7..` 1 6 Qr d , �•,• t. 'j 1 •a' ' 1.0.' 1 '1.• • , !j eyj• s,.tl.,. ....1;•,,Ia. 1- t.4.di!
j•�; �' .41•••77‘'
� ,'t � ve `=.i;• .1 1 9 b A yf ,. tjr. tjt,..J .t .EL>i�:`�1�'�' .1".....f• b-N
'�'••C Iy t ' 9 •
,:� op,\1 .f? „' •.t 4.;› (/Yii .inx'c\i;"• -.elk• •Y.. 1'..• ;-.• ...•)•a4. .4 , r1. y..• ` ,..1.1 . t.:-. \ ' 44.e• 1 '.� •lar )Jj�' • 4:Y' ` (•;I' Lt.i .,'
• .•
., .1
: le' �• • ',f 4.••Wr ve-1_ t• •• i f'• al••'•-r• .i,5. ♦. •/ ., bS; • '.c .. �.i 'r
.� .{y. ;. .Z •:.1 :; :.r�. �1`t'1 f f �fi -�tiea 1' .; ,4,7 �4,t ,i
••., �••• � ,''• A, ,, f,�i 1 .t-1\.♦ * r.: ..Al)t- I ..;..;,_1- ` - d.s. A 1 •�• Q
1 -• .V:47
♦ + 44' • • ,g•,'�;• r h- 1 r.- `ii•• ...�'� �,{ • • • •
• . r= •-i.r` !'• hI.;,4.1a t •4� f r,A'ANA,A / ,.k. •-..-T .. `gt" e • .F7_+- •. -
•C.,w 4•.;:i•y •. 'C•:?.!...:•;>•1,...!•'::".f.•,•:•••r�k ..tt -w1`, A.S . ', .4. Cu•,••••% . •. '. ,%
- — •,
et
c
ac
SNOIldVO aNd SHdVEID010Hd
V XION3ddV
N SRVI OSS WI
LAN ASSOCIATES
Photos taken by K. Karle & B. Manning on 1/10/95 LAN Job #2.2320.49
Mamaroneck UFSD/Draft EIS
Hommocks Middle School
Photo No. 1
vs
View of collapsed drainage �` `" �" ,4, ', 'tit yeti r
structure where the two piped , , ' , °,;;: �, ,.. ) •, 4
brooks intersect behind
Hommocks Field. The inlet from • • • '
the left is believed to be the old d -�• f ,.• + .~. srK, �
East Creek. The inlet on the - �- , 1' ..
right goes to the far east side of .,.'r, .7. .... . .• •-''.'`••`' `•
the Hommocks Field to the golf •' .; `;• .c
course area and is believed to be •, . • ;� i'
at
the old Gut Creek. Piping is i : is .0 .
i.
corrugated metal , i. - • 4.A*1
approximately 30" to 36" ' . E-
,. ..
diameter to the Gut Creek side , _ . ,r + - a ` . ; •
and approximately 4' to 5' . , , iii,.„, 4,...;.:.,-4,, ,,,,e1
diameter on the East Creek side. ,. vy' -
The frost ring partially visible i , - ,',4ii(• /,'
at the extreme left edge of photo . �� a"5'' �, .,t:.� . �+ •,ti'
and center foreground may T.1+ `� ' !4 -I. �j,
indicate high tide 2' to 3' above �i .� r : `t `+-0 ' 'A .- � ~ ,
the top of pipe and 4' to 5' below N` . (. • - 0,_as 4 - •, :'•;=
the surface.
Photo No. 2 :. sr ,
View of tidal marsh behind ; '" . •r -, `4 ` ''v •sefi ,, .-ri.�: • - ,-
playing field behind Hommocks .,,i t, •••_j • ,. -
School. In center appears to be a `_
rotting hull. There is obvious . '`•`�+� `—U- • ' _ •
tidal action, possibly 5'. There 40 s- -�-
are at least two corrugated pipe , •• `'l• -
outfalls at this location. One is ..
approximately 30" diameter and =�--
one is approximately 5' ti h
diameter with a rip rap head -
wall, loose laid. High marsh is
clearly seen to the left and rear.
1
1 1_I 1'_1_1
LAN ASSOCIATES { r � I -
c
Photo No. 3 `, •
Close up of noticeable oil sheen
on water. r r �`
.‘,..\ r
•
•
,.
r
t - ,i .• l., `tea 6s�'Z;•.`' ' ti
Photo No. 4
• .:�,t.
View of the presumed Zamboni '`+ 'w .. y
deposit along the ice rink which • ' ' •
has not been melting due to the g,
cold weather. Hommocks School ,, -_ '
.tom«;.,_ -- '''''K y`°Y .•S.,. a•--,... y ". �N, r-_- _
is to the far right. Tidal y � sy
wetlands are out of view to the • -- `. `- .. ', .,� ~{r , - �' -''
left. The grass field is not part •----_ •1' "AA `"V.. C'° xr'''`0' ;4-4',,4'':1."'- •
of the school property, nor is . �-,� ,« ': �% w�^ :` -
the ice rink. .,_„ ,- ,0.. , +iu � 'vs. L
•
.y 4
• K 1 �'• ItsL,...j ..I V; ,-•
/ ,1./ 4 'Ar.�'. - • • • •, rV ,X17^ V
Photo No. 5 -14,....,01.'
Z ' ! � !*Jr `� 0,-,, l
View of proposed expansion site. ,' �� `+a :�.
Connector point would be at the ....,!:114.:::
.., f ,s.
corner of the projectingr:-.44'‘.:71
, / • �_
cantilever near center of photo,
roughly in line with third base. ' " -� -:\;;:,1:-.1.---'44''''
'-' :.‘. '
The addition would he on the °�'� .r� ; ■,. - ,i,,,�, 1
softball field. ,
z z
2 ' try 4,,. 4,
..hS. y�t :.+ •-••+. - ....%,-..-......'-,,,-„..,-..f.4..,-fie„
'4. ,•, e d tt `` � vier: .v..1,4;-4• , ,,.
LAN �yOC LATE S
Photo No. 6n
View of the corner of the - • . -' ■ u.
building where the addition �� fill '
would extend from. i - . ill
f I�
.." 'l -'3. K -VL -Nt h , TTS .. '
4.
,/•Mme' ,..r+b 4'„
-a L.; y -�
•
Photo No. 7 r ; t' y
1
,.sai•.ei,:y
_ 3 ci
Panoramic view from the center �' ° a• ,
of the ball field looking south. - 'r ransoma �17: ' [
�' -� #'
_r ___
rd = y iY�rs
y
'«'-.cam "'f•2 t-7.7": •••'---' 's, sa...�. ..
r' . n.« .;
f
. . iima nV<14c .v.ii. ., v„,,,,�r .
. .K. r.
. •+Lax• .{ ,:--,4::::,,,•7---..,,,4 4,,.
.
; •
19wa-.•—>✓.• 1r 4 x •'••• - �. i UI. 'tea r'J 3
'113 �'..aV ►
p!4 Y_)r
Photo No. 8
h,
Panoramic view from the center i ;+
of the ball field looking q , it � ""? fi .', r
southwest. qui. �_
- 1 i. I
'•' '� Maw •...ryc. „
'..""4 * t
71-
..,`Y '( •{« YA fir '^ 4.... ',• f s V+... t. .ti
•+t4 r y • -OS. . of
1} i.:,*b:Is
LAV ASSOCIATES A' ,mss
�_ { • ate! � �k'�"• ? ��P � y f-1--.....-,.-
41
`I
Photo No. 9 srr• _,,„.....2... k ` - . - ! i ..
111
oak allittui,Ass it
Panoramic view from the center -_:, ;~ __ ., i �'�'"
of the ball field looking west. 'atn MIER NMI Irk _ ! _
;F, .
tL+ �n
•
.r .-
r
'.-. q,M ,fi,., ..• `4, •:. ,. .".�. I'. a!..,....w„,„:,:
. %�
,.
Photo No. 10
__ A ��• , • ;
•
Panoramic view from the center
of the ball field looking !;`4%' ,;
LAN ASSOCIATES •
r4 N
Photo No. 12 '' X" = ,
k IIA-
Panoramic view from the center 1t. II _ -: -'- 'f r�. �'` •."`',.,., i
of the ball field looking east. '�I •
jr{ _ I l' .t w.
•
I
_. R a_!. ;
•
t iv A� zp_ `C'aa,_
(�
-..C.7:..,,
:�•---...1-:-4,6•••77.z....:-.....,..,--..', gy.7 . ., -.---=•-,,,•:'",,:,_ -
I el 1 1'?
Photo No. 13 '+�;?,, re �� �
•17- .ftl:IT' 1. \.',/
_h^ rf O ;'
Panoramic view from the center
of the ball field looking _ • ''
southeast. x
i.Y�-
, '
KK: I i .,,i'o-. , inn -=-----''"�'►i r..M:.Ti:- -=—- ---- { -' - _..„ ;u'7;,.L•, I I Pia...,,,oh
cc: Ms. Sarah Tate :
Mr. Richard Gardner •: -,,,,,,,,4„44....„.2„:„.:4„,.., .
File #2.2320.49
+.•,.rte+ •.,f
5 M r :,
� x
.. ..__,fid !. r aA { 3{,. . . ry
m
LAN ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX B
LIST OF UNDERLYING STUDIES, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
CONSIDERED AND RELIED ON IN PREPARING THIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LAN ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX B
LIST OF UNDERLYING STUDIES, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
CONSIDERED AND RELIED ON IN PREPARING THIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1 . Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for
Town of Mamaroneck, NY, Westchester County, Panel 3 of 5, Community Panel Number
360917 0003 B Revised 9/15/89.
2. Hagstroms Road Map
3. USGS Topographical Map
4. Original Construction Blueprints for "Middle School, Mamaroneck, NY" by The Perkins
& Will Partnership dated April 29, 1966, partial set, marked-up field set, and
preliminary sheets.
5. Soil Survey of Putnam & Westchester Counties, NY - Sheet No. 184 compiled by US
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, based on orthophotographs
prepared by US Department of Interior, Geological Survey from 1984-1985 aerial
photography.
6. Westchester County 1989 Soil Survey Identification Legend
7. "Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program" Report adopted June 30, 1986, approved October 28, 1986, concurred April
21, 1987. PP II - 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20, 31-33; Section III; PP IV - 4, 5, 8; V - 4
and Map 5.
8. "Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations 6 NYCRR Part 661" effective January 16, 1991,
promulgated by NYDEC and "617.21 Appendix D State Environmental Quality Review
Scoping Checklist"
9. "Tidal Wetlands Program" Applicants Guide, October 1, 1991
10. "Traffic Analysis of Post Road/Weaver Street Intersection" prepared by Shuster
Associates, Planning and Zoning, RD 1, Box 259, Stone Ridge, NY 12484, telephone
#914-687-0758 dated March 12, 1991. Also "Intersection Analysis, Boston Post
Road and Weaver Street" dated September 3, 1992 by Shuster Associates.
11 . "Intersection Analysis, Boston Post Road and Weaver Street" prepared by Shuster
Associates dated March 15, 1995.
12. Contact print of Aerial Survey, Mamaroneck JER-5W-16 dated April 5, 1959
furnished by Robinson Aerial Surveys, 43 Sparta Avenue, Newton, NJ.
B - 1
LAN ASSOCIATES
13. "Topographical Survey of a portion of property of the Hommocks Middle School in the
Town of Mamaroneck, Westchester County, NY" by Aristotle Bournazos, PC, 20 Cedar
Street, New Rochelle, NY 10801 dated January 25, 1995.
8 -2
c)
LAN ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX C
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS, CONSULTANTS, AND
PRIVATE PERSONS CONSULTED IN PREPARING THIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LAN ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX C
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS, CONSULTANTS, AND
PRIVATE PERSONS CONSULTED IN PREPARING THIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Persons Contacted (Verbal Only):
1 . Mr. Steve Altieri, Town Administrator, Mamaroneck Town Hall, #914-381-7815
2. Robert Davis, Esq., Private Attorney Representing Town Environmental Matters,
#212-541 -2386
3. Mr. Shamon Getlitz, Staff Engineer and Highway Superintendent, Mamaroneck Town Hall,
#914-381 -7825
4. Mr. Kevin Millington, NYDEC, #518-474-3643
5. Ms. Sarah Tate, Assistant Superintendent of Operations, Mamaroneck Union Free School
District, #914-698-9000
6. Mrs. Phyllis Whittner, Chairperson, Town of Mamaroneck - Village of Larchmont
Coastal Zone Management Commission, #914-381-7845
7. LAN Associates, Inc. - Personnel:
a. Mr. Kenneth H. Karle, RA, Vice President, Principal in Charge
b. Mr. William Manning, Soils Scientist, Field Review
c. Mr. Richard Wostbrock, EIT, Civil Engineer, Data Collection
d. Drafting
e. Clerical
8. Mr. Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates, Traffic Engineer, #914-687-0758.
9. Mr. Charles Melick, Melick-Tully and Associates, Soils Engineer, #908-356-3400.
10. Mr. Aristotle Bournazos, Land Surveyor, #914-633-0100.
C- 1
CI
LAN ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX D
TECHNICAL EXHIBITS
#1 - TIDAL WETLANDS MAP
#2 - HOMMOCKS ROAD RELOCATION PLAN-1966
•
\ ;�� }/ , N' �., '. t� __ Y ' r••4‘� - _ �:\': '• ' '• ''•:f 7,. i-'''`-V— L. 4. • , */-4�/4� •}te t
‘' • •. '. 415;10:6111% ....„O... \ .....- •,.,... 1.. ,. ,.... . . ., ,...... • •.••••• •• • '11.:. .. . \ •
- F.,. -.‘ I.-. . • -- i - Air" --. .v ‘::-..s, ••••\/ - 4 ,t- -, iy . . 0.:•• s.:_sxi...-. .-ct E
•.LL . �,, .3 `,ii - - - `•,- .T , )`„ s-----, .-.. :►/• .:•~<^ ' _,,. j. -'- . ,t_. .. ''...-
r \ . ' )iI s! '\ 4 `� -• •• SCI - •�%
f'4-: - t1 �' • is - `' r �'""1 •s =c.: •.� —,.�!j �1,� \ �'� :.1. .,'�` ' • .
:.,:.::: -. _,
. .
•
„,..
` .-. 1i(). ....11 .1 •, -,' . J4 •,, `.....
`.` 7:-..
'- •• 1 / 1 c. "I” \\
:• "I';-'L•O).,rk'',-i.. •:..%4-
..i.: -1. _ l .♦ r, ♦..
' . f• "
0,1PI),%•
. 6X.' `° :: :M,... - ... —'• ; :;; ` - Al i♦•.. ;C& . IN - ' • :\ (` )l
>• v �� 04 K' r _ to - ' r'. / ,f. :: ;^ •_t
._... 6/I. ..c,. . , •„„,„,„.......
•
J.
a., • t--.4 4'L'll Ni .• -,.',. • (9:x . , • • *
1.
_. % i i .., i ....".___.,./.. .., \,. N C.,‘"-)' ,
cs+-• ti) ....,, :::-.• •-x.-.7:••,- . IA .,-, -` • --- c\ - - cr<--)S) --''\'''."-c'C.I'z K ..-7-- ----.-f':.-•I -'—----/--1---:--;- -- --
aAA 3
N in. -O ..i7�
♦? 0 it� r \ TIDAL WETLANDS
• • ' ,� r- _ Formerly Connected FC
•.�S - t_ N ._ Coastal Fresh Marsh FM
- : ...\*-----
.,\t.` oe._•-';\„ �,3 High Marsh or Salt Meadow HM
.• Inti:rural Marsh IM
, —,12- . 4,/ S-�,�-�• ' = Coastal Shoal. Bar. Mudflats SM
(13
n j.•
L.tt�r3l Zone LZ
i
_ . . .
;. .•••• -- *. ' . -.0.•••" • -
f • . ,-. 1.- ••• • _ ••......: .
.... .--'1•.,'", k ••••S•• _... . ••••• - 44
'• - : . ' •- - - ....;-- i 3k ''. t.1...,, .,„ '' . ...71144 . ' ,..-..
T 7. "•?•*'t'.• :- ' • ' ' .r 7 -". .•'11,1,44.,...t....k • .
,•.-* -•. .- • . - ,. . • -•
.. • 4 .• .
''14-'-• • - ....1 -,- t •
•• 1 - .- ,, • - ,. • - k*• . -• •
. I•i: ^',.--.4k • '. 44..?.17 . - . •• . -•,,,,•,-,..,e,.; . ..„. . .,1..,„,, .. ,..,„...,. ...„... . , . . ,.., ..; . ....:- Hommocks Road Relocation
,
-' •
,•
. • . _ . - • ‘,.. _ •
_ . • . : •4 4 •
.. • 4 Plan - 1966
• • • , • • .
,,i.• .
. . . .
- . •
- - - ,....-•-• •., . . ..
.
•.
-,, . • • :-.. • ...: , , "-1,, 1 r•-,.... 1.-... , • -•-• - . •.0- .. ,.....- • ..
,--- • , - .....
,-.„.. .-
1 , .
• _ •
•
•
,, .• i z . ...z e • . - •
• .
44', ,• ..i. , - - • . , __. ,..„,• .. ,_ , , -et. - ..-- •.-... . ••...-. .. - _ . •,\----;,,z,...
• , ,. . 1•4 -.1%, - •--;* -
•
-;-"4:-
-
. .
, - .1 - , - -•
- •-.•'•• . - •• - •• -,,,. •_.: -. '• • ,•ti•-• .---.. ',.. ‘..;'..,. - ..e.-•• --! , •.• ....• •. -' . t ..-. - •-‘...ir •.... <‘• x .. . , „ •., 7 •.. -
• ..., _),, .,,t....1, , -„ • . . _,.. .,;..........„... ........II. J.,_-_:........,.......-7.:.•_,...7+:........• ".. .......• ..1.2 -•*_.L..........• ..• .•.- .!:„.„.....". • ' ....1 ••••,. ,c7,..„. .4.,..r.,• ..'.••.:•,- ..,...',....'''...1-... . ,...••• .' „.• „••-.7 i.'• •• -,..• ,:• • . ,.• : ...". ..••...., •:%.r4'SOLI,, ..
... •
4"4, .
• • . ... .. ..,. ....• .........it„ ,.., ... ....::::i• ..:. ...: ':i..•.::......::::7.1.,..1.7.....:,,,..4:416.'
. • • . „ , . 1. - . •.,.. - • ..... ,. .... , .- - •• ' -: • :- . ' • ' .,:-i` -:: ,_ -..•:'• --:.•• • ;4.. ')-,;f14,..
Aki•...
C.,4:a , •'1 , //1.- •
. .-
• :..7,\N, - .• s
, .,.
.14,0444.
0 J (. • .• • '•I- . ' : iV •."` ' 1." ' *.t...••.-'4U;s:41"r•a
e•v•' • I. • - • * - " ' .•- .", "• • 1 ••..‘%'"`1,* .." S •• ` • 7:• . . . • .••.. s:. • * . ••..:" • . . . .s• •••i424-1,1 t“.t.;
41.:• - ••• - • „ • . - - ..,..••: tio„
.r• •••• ....7.-` ' `.."`...•V?..; .•r„ . ,t - 4 . • . . ': .. • \ : ‘ 1- ' . * :.• ‘:.•..-.• ' Inc tSeRt....•
' /, . ...... kif%I. . •S...... .• . 1..••••,,..:„.. . ' .. le -•
...,.t. .• • .: .,. •.i .. . • • . • :., .:' • 'r!‘°"4""414` '
,g.: , .1 i . r,„.•---;;•4„„t.f 4.,„" . -• „' .... ' ••••• ,.. %.....„ ' ..,•:•.., .. • . ' 1`414*."1•11`4V•%•'" ...1
. . , , - "--- ''' -c'-•••• •rc----s------"•*-: • •• . • ..t•'1,fattiumi,*•.1!` -
• - '.•;„ . - .•
'A',.: .. iii. , . .• .'e:s 1,...-11.:A.".rig Ft 1
• • ..,... - --
... .0)••,, ......ii+e•A-J..=au•St. •
.
,....,,.,i,, - •
. .,,r .74ri. \ : . . ..'•• 2 ' ss.7.2 l'•-•7 ' -. •11:41S.?\,.. . '". ••..• 2.....r•"co.....i.. x...•;! 'T ...
er.vo./. ,•. -• 1.: : • . • ..• .: . ,.. •,•7,4`apsiln•L'i jitiad;
..
'''./ ,t? i' . -',..' .'',7'. .r•• ' . ,,1 -••.; 1,-......... ..te 1,4: ah".2•01........aa.., ".'• . - '.: .' ;., . .. ,‘ :.' '.-'". .,'4'r ,-.la. ,i.p+44".15,1/L4210.4
, ... .y/,.pz.., , .. t . • .
• ..' 7 • •:pl.,...•
A•••• • , • •.... :. . _ _ . ..,..• ..
• •• .
1 •• -.; .. • • : • : •,1X.- .N.,• 1 t ,_ . ..... - •'• • , • • •- '' ' /111101_1111iii•••!
1 't i .‘,: • • a '
•• - • ? . . •....".: • - . . • I/ •,, '''',,•,'„,•• N.,,,•• •i . ..r IlIto I%c.we-rat••••• -.. - -• ••11 '._ . •
, af,', . tRa...../. mt.••....nom.
•.•-• .. * •. •• ,/ % '."...., . 1 S., -•...Sets, .1 :AI A4.4 • ,5 ' L':±*:'17;4.-.... .,,..4;•
ij• _. ,. ....... ....'...".... -...• - .dr....•........A....•...*1...el..-..0. ...011.1 ,.......;_,.............._=............._-rj.,...,,,,...... ..._,,,„..„ k • - •,• - •
_I_. -._, ., ,...:-. ... - •••''` ''''S''''''''..".-.,..-...-7=...r.....=:.,•.. .....••••••••••i •••••-•7....''''''J'' '--....- f.. - Zi .1-. -..... ..1........ -**,..4; ./..nr.... ::::',..t.s.
•‘,...",, . „.,. „, . -. . - - - - - •. a . ••.1.•1.7r '''9%,''A'S
. .•• it •• " '*•:"C•7"--:-4.7-.-4,•,e•-••••••••'''.4-•4-- -.•,--........._.....---..' -'‘ • " ,'. -• , , :„.41,:wis...wTIAlf-
„ • .. - r -. t.e. s .4...44.a•.•••se.e••••re•..••• • ..' ' ' a•I,I": 6
. . ..,..,,: /7 i . Pi 1 T.•a•:.....71,12. 4 0:•-
Ai: • - -...., r c:.,••
•' ..,... - • ,.. f*. •• *.fariiifies•,-•sit
.
• • 4.-.ObIl ar,a 4.•.-ro
IA 1 . •••,..s,. ,1,4 ;,::.ao,..:- _ _ - ••• , : 4 . .. s- I i ••4.:.4....f C a 4.1.4.•..7....t al . •, _ • r •
1,1:: '/4.14•)11.4•4/1 II-14 ,
t:1•••„ :**:?...,;*.;". -.!''.!..--•'. *"...i 1•, ,-,.,.....__ ___, . - . . ... _ _
t '••• ' .....,•...*0 f •••.°4
. •L'• . l...,
..C. ,•- ' r • • ' : i i. . . • , .
. . •. . .
,. '. '44..4,••';„ 'Iti.i..
. . . 4
• I . ' ;3
• • , . • , - •• .. .c -.Art,.. •t 7
a 'eta-- -.• .. 1 )
• '''' . • • - ---.''.-.1,/ ,,2PC::.. •-1; . ' . • . . • ' - -. .• • •••••• 4•
• • •• •- E44't.''' • .0 1'. .
_
• .
, .....,
' - .
. . . • .-----.....-...X.....Are ci.•.tx fill gur..f.....
.• . .
, . .
. - '11%•-•--e----4 ••••07.4S 4-,i.C•70.,-r..... • ' .. ' .... • •ve''''''''--;
--.e, . • . .. _ ' .** • ' lr:, ' 147-
1 4.' • " • • • I"••••••.,.c....7.
L , .01 1••'`. s `, **- .01 - •
• _' • ..'
.,,,... ,
•,,......7....„, .......
'
•--,.;',. ' f••I 0.03•414.1.;* 11.4'../4 •7-`•••••••\.....•. ,...._ ...
},..'•• •. . • 1.'2.•• ."re \ --"•`..•••••:. . . •
• ••'..**e4:$C el• •*
---••••--::•-.•‘- . c,,,s --....;..........,.... . ''
jai, ,
4,- -:
V. • • c.".". C.,T:.:NA.4 gi:
' -.
'.4`$•••4;•,7 '"--."." ...1 ,' • , .. • •
i e- . _ •_ P..,,,,
: . _ . . , ; ...!s .• '. ... ...•-
1 elf, ,z
V. . , ,„ 1,im4rekt t IA*.
NI * ' •
:01 s • e.
Ix
Ix,
' ,.
..... ,
-. • ., .
•-. . _
•
. . .
. i.' e 4...At!•L-,...n.ft;
• I ti-1= .. • • _
• • , . .r. - 4. . .
' - l
'' : rttlf•fs)..i. ..., • •
V . , • •e • t.•'.. 'i..•Vci*isa -4-14.
. .
.
- •• . •i5 t.. • ' •• .
. -
", • • 'el. iitieste
-1- 1 • - C5"--:--ZI:
i - • •..
. , . ... , •
. : • . ....
, .... - .
I ,•••••
• . . r ,
I'':• 1 .
1 • .
- . .
. .
_ •
. . .
' • -
. ' . . .
. ,
. .. ... S"
. '...
i • ' •
• .. . •
. •
n--, • ' .1 .•
. .... -..• • .
• •'%'• '- -
-
• •••1 .. •
?••••. - ''`....• .. ,
••
S''•'. • _ -
. . . - ,, 1 s t.'••... "7-,
' .friztV.
-4 r
- .
., P •$,' ..,. t...-L.•
i.:_ : -.. . 't•-,•-•p• '''..• .....e.
' . .
•
' i ,. • . - • : it / * .
;--,
i-7-1 -- . - ......„ , ..„„. ,4 • ...,
• .. . •
. - .
--.
. I ' , - - - • - -r • -- • • '
- -
It lt
. a. ,..• .. • . •
,ot'- •
. •., .
•
. • . '••ss ••.• ' 4 •:AI.4..•..,:4.
.. . .
. . •
. •
.• ,, \ .•' •,i,. .......
.4 . • • . I . . .
• • • • . • . ..
• -
•
. .
..., ,.... ...),,, .
•
• -• ,.. .
.. . • . , A .. • , • .A.,,., ....:t• ..ta ..i....0
•4• 'Z ..•:.:S": .. ...'• ' - -
.....* , • ' . • '
‘' • • ••••••• .. L , ;
l 4-14-95 :12:03PM ; 464147000000083291914 2/ 4
\
I•
' IRNI MALCOLM PIRNIE,INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS,SCIENTISTS S PLANNERS
April 14, 1995
Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont
Coastal Zone Management Commission
740 West Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, NY 10543-3319
Attn: Ms. Phyllis Wittner
Re: Proposed Addition to Hommocks School
Dear Ms. Wittner:
At the request of the Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont Coastal Zone
Management Commission,we have reviewed the DEIS prepared for the referenced project
by LAN Associates,Inc. for the Mamaroneck Union Free School District, dated March 27,
1995. Our review was limited to assessing the completeness of the document regarding the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and does not address the structural design
of the building, other than potential associated environmental impacts of construction. We
offer the following comments and questions.
Lhemica Ouallty of Su,sgr pr.ol
Based on the findings of the limited chemical testing performed on the subsurface soils at
the project site,methane gas is present in sufficient quantities to require venting. The DEIS
notes on page 4-2 that the installation of a venting system could require removal of some
of the existing subsurface soils. What"published guidelines"are referenced as the basis for
stating"acceptability"of the subsurface soils? The DEIS, on page 4-2, indicates that of the
potential contaminants analyzed for, only arsenic was found to be present in a high enough
concentration to require further testing. Has the testing conducted to-date been determined
to serve as a sufficient basis to classify the material as non-hazardous, so that special
handling and disposal will not be required? If nut, what further tests would be required?
The DEIS, on page 10-1, notes that additional test pits will be required, prior to detailed
design, to allow expanded assessment of subsoil conditions. This work should he
coordinated with any additional chemical analyses of the soil that may be required to
determine the disposition of excavated material as a result of construction.
ONE INTERNATIONAL tiUUIFVARO MAHWAH,NJ 0/4955-0018 701 h?y-4700 FAX 201 529 1415
RPCYCLED PAPER
StAl tsr- 4-14-95 ;12:03PM : -46414700000008329191 ;# 3/ 4
1RN1
Coastal Zone Management Commission April 14, 1995
Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont, New York Page 2
Floud.Damm Prevention
The DEIS, on page 4-3, notes that the site is within the 100-year flood plain. This will
require a review by the Town Building and Engineering Department for compliance with
the Town Flood Damage Prevention Law.
Adequacy of Utilities
The DEIS,on page 5-1,states that local utilities appear to be adequate,based on discussions
with Town Engineering Department staff regarding potential overload conditions or other
limitations. Although the drawings for the original school construction show that the
connections for the new building sewer will be facilitated, has the projected additional
loading on the Town sewer system from the proposed addition been identified?
Stormweter Ostallty Impar g
The DEIS, on page 4-6, indicates that previous monitoring reports of the East Creek
identified waste oil coming from a nearby automobile dealership. Is this referring to the
existing dealership or a previous dealership?
It is also indicated that"purge drains"from the 1-lommocks School pool arc a source of fecal
and [total] coliforms entering East Creek. It is not clear what "purge drains" are being
referred to. Further investigations should be performed to confirm this. If appropriate, the
discharge from these drains should be directed to the sanitary sewer system.
On page 5-1 of the DEIS, the discussion of stormwater control includes provision of a
"simple retainage system" to offset the increase in runoff from the additional impervious
surface of the building addition. We believe that because of the location of the site within
the drainage basin, retention for stormwater quantity control is not as important as the
potential water quality benefits to be gained from installation of an appropriate system.
While sedimentation may decline as a result of less soil surface, studies have shown that
roof runoff can contain high concentrations of copper, lead,and zinc. The drainage system
for the proposed project should address the need to minimize the introduction of these
metals to East Creek.
Sn l by 4-14-95 :12:04P1f : 464147000000083291914 4/ 4
IRNI
Coastal Zone Management Commission April 14, 1995
Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont, New York Page 3
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. Should you have any questions
in this regard, please contact me. We will continue our review as additional information is
provided.
Very truly yours,
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
G4B. Trachtman, P.E.
Associate
gbt
c: Mr. Stephen Alfieri, Town Administrator
0849-202
nr;..,l. Ec a.,rrfi
Jtfv OT : 4-14-n ;12:02111 -46414700000008328131 ;# 1,' 4
hAVE4.,
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
One International Boulevard
Maher, NJ 07493-0016
TEL: (201) S29-4700
PLEASE NOTE: NEW FAX NUMBER FAX __iallig
a-WATERSAL
TO;
i
OF: A • .efy.
FAX NO.: t ) 2-71_ — 0
3,g 7g.
RE:
S G 4)"1".-
FROM; G
DATE:
'TTME:
v
JOB NUMBER: ¢ z z
NUMBER OF PAGES: plc/skiing par meet) 4-
RETURN
RETURN ORIGINALS TO SENDEIJ (citric ane) ( )
No
MESSAGE:
If you do not maws all pages or if portiortt Qts ilkgthk
please colt(201) Fri 254 for Its iow
Town of Mamaroneck — Village of Larchmont
I COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
I I 1' TOWN CENTER: 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543
914-381-6133
April 28, 1995
Dr. Michael Mirsky
State Education Department
Facilities Planning
Room 514- Education Building
Albany, New York 12234
Dear Dr. Mirsky:
Re: Mamaroneck Union Free School District- Hommocks Middle School Addition
Control Number: 66-07-01-03-0-011-010
Department of State #: S-95-010
The responsibility of the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) is to identify areas of
conflict, if any, arising from this proposed project with the Town of Mamaroneck-Village of
Larchmont Local Waterfront Revitalisation Program (LWRP), and to advise the State Education
Department (SED) accordingly so that a consistency determination can be made.
Since there was no response to my letter of March 2, 1995 to Charles A. Szuberla, Jr. of your office,
I shall reiterate its substance. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should have been
required by the SED because the proposed project is a Type I action and may have a significant
effect on the environment. (The proposed project lies within a Westchester County Critical
Environmental Area, it lies in a Flood Plain [see 8 NYCRR 155.5 (b) and (b) (iii)], and the fact that
a 12 acre sanitary landfill existed at the Hommocks site in 1963 required further investigation.)
Therefore, the Notice of Determination filed by the SED should have been amended to indicate
that this proposal may have a significant effect on the environment. The draft EIS (DEIS)prepared
at the request of the Mamaroneck School Board should have been requested by your office for a
determination of scope and content before a final EIS (FEIS) was prepared. Instead, the CZMC
reviewed the DEIS at its regular meeting on April 25, 1995, and it is our understanding that no
FEIS will be provided.
The CZMC found some areas deficient and in need of correction in the DEIS, but agreed to
summarize the conditions that should be met to avoid conflict with the LWRP.
POLICY 5 ENCOURAGE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC
SERVICES & FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE
ADEQUATE, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT HAS SPECIAL
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS WHICH
Mirsky-SED
4/25/95
Page 2
NECESSITATE ITS LOCATION IN OTHER COASTAL AREAS.
Explanation:
a. While no additional vehicular circulation or parking will be added to the parking lot
adjacent to the proposed building, there will be an increase in traffic, drop-off and pick-up,
and therefore an increase in hydrocarbon runoff in this area that drains into East Creek and
Long Island Sound. In addition,Town of Mamaroneck(TOM) mapped freshwater wetlands
exist directly across the road.
b. Concern was also expressed about the effects of the additional loading on the current
sewer system resulting from an increase in the number of facilities in the proposed addition.
Recommendations:
a. The CZMC recommends that a silt trap which has the capability of removing oil and
grease be installed in the parking/drop-off area. The silt trap should consist of two
elements: one to remove grit and the second for the removal of oil and grease. A regular
maintenance schedule should be established.
Clearly, traffic will have an impact on this narrow, winding heavily used corridor. The EIS
glossed over the real problem, and made one proposal which was tried in the past to
attempt to correct the situation. This subject needs further study.
b. The projected additional loading on the TOM sewer system should be identified.
POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE
SITING OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
Recommendations: A flood plain permit must be obtained from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). A copy should be sent to the TOM
Building Inspector to indicate compliance with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Law.
POLICY 8 PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN COASTAL AREA FROM
THE INTRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES&OTHER POLLUTANTS
WHICH BIO-ACCUMULATE IN THE FOOD CHAIN OR WHICH CAUSE
SIGNIFICANT SUBLETHAL OR LETHAL EFFECT ON THOSE RESOURCES
Explanation: Seven soil borings were taken for construction purposes. From those only one
sample was selected to be tested for priority pollutants and volatile compounds to represent
the entire 1/2 acre building site. The DEIS notes that additional test pits will be required
before beginning detailed design for "an expanded assessment of sub-soil conditions".
Recommendation: Additional chemical analyses should be performed at that time to
determine the disposition of excavated material as a result of construction. An assessment
of soil sampling methods and classification of materials should be made by the DEC. If
Mirsky-SED
4/25/95
Page 3
required by DEC, provisions should be made before the project begins for special handling
and disposal of contaminated soil as this can be a complicated, extremely costly problem.
POLICY 7A THE FOLLOWING LOCALLY IMPORTANT HABITATS• (2) THE
HOMMOCKS SALT MARSH COMPLEX;.... SHALL BE PROTECTED,
PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICABLE, RESTORED, SO AS TO
MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS.
POLICY 14 ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT,INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PRO l'ECTION STRUCTURES,SHALL BE
UNDERTAKEN SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO MEASURABLE INCREASE
IN EROSION OR FLOODING AT THE SITE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OR
DEVELOPMENT, OR AT OTHER LOCATIONS.
POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE
CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS.
POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND
PRESERVE THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THESE AREAS.
Explanation:
The DEIS states that "The quantity of water would have no impact on downstream flooding
since the drainage would immediately bring it to the tidal waters. Since the roof runoff
would be considered of high quality, siltation or clarification would not be required".
Recommendation: The TOM's consultant engineer stated the following: "Because of the
location of the site within the drainage basin, retention for stormwater quantity control is
not as important as the potential water quality benefits to be gained from installation of an
appropriate system. While sedimentation may decline as a result of less soil surface, studies
have shown that roof runoff can contain high concentrations of copper, lead and zinc. The
drainage system should address the need to minimize the introduction of these metals to
East Creek".
The DEIS states that a retention or on-site seepage design will be submitted. Suggested
modes should include a method of hooking roof drains to a facility to allow materials to
settle out.
No information was provided concerning the adequacy of the existing drainage system.
POLICY 14A CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS ON ANY LAND LARGER THAN 10,000
SQUARE FEET IN AREA SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE
WESTCHESTER COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL
•
Mirsky-SED
4/25/95
Page 4
ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES: STANDARDS AND
SPECIFICATIONS". THE COOPERATION OF UPSTREAM MUNICIPALITIES
AND OF COUNTY AGENCIES WILL BE SOUGHT IN APPLYING THESE
STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE WATERSHEDS ENTERING THIS
COASTAL AREA.
Recommendation: The CZMC recommends the use of the following manuals in creating a
surface water, soil and erosion control plan for use during and after construction:
Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Erosion and Sediment
Control;
New York State DEC Division of Water, Technical and Operations Guidance Series
Numbers 5.1.8 and 5.1.10;
Metropoitan Washington Council of Governments' "Controlling Urban Runoff";
"Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds" (US Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service).
POLICY 17 WHENEVER POSSIBLE, USE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO
MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM
FLOODING AND EROSION. SUCH MEASURES SHALL INCLUDE: (1)THE
SETBACK OF BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES; (2) THE PLANTING OF
VEGETATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF SAND FENCING AND
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS; (3) THE RESHAPING OF BLUFFS; (4) THE FLOOD-
PROOFING OF BUILDINGS OR THEIR ELEVATION ABOVE BASE FLOOD
LEVEL.
Recommendation: Emphasis should be placed on the use of native plants in the landscape
design since native species are known to filter and retain water, to require little or no
fertilizers, additional water and no pesticides.
Yours truly,
Phyllis Wittner
Chairman
cc: Mary Anne Mays, Superintendent Mamaroneck UFSD
Penny Oberg, President Board of Education
Regional Office #3, Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Elaine Price, Supervisor Town of Mamaroneck
Cheryl Lewy, Mayor Village of Larchmont
Steven Resler, Consistency Review Supervisor, Department of State
5/3/95 c:Supervisor & TB
Town Admin.
Town of Mamaroneck — Village of Larchmont
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
4 lit' TOWN CENTER: 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543
"' -- — 914-381-6133
April 28, 1995
Dr. Michael Mirsky
State Education Department
Facilities Planning
Room 514- Education Building
Albany, New York 12234
Dear Dr. Mirsky:
Re: Mamaroneck Union Free School District- Hommocks Middle School Addition
Control Number: 66-07-01-03-0-011-010
Department of State #: S-95-010
The responsibility of the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) is to identify areas of
conflict, if any, arising from this proposed project with the Town of Mamaroneck-Village of
Larchmont Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), and to advise the State Education
Department (SED) accordingly so that a consistency determination can be made.
Since there was no response to my letter of March 2, 1995 to Charles A. Szuberla, Jr. of your office,
I shall reiterate its substance. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should have been
required by the SED because the proposed project is a Type I action and may have a significant
effect on the environment. (The proposed project lies within a Westchester County Critical
Environmental Area, it lies in a Flood Plain [see 8 NYCRR 155.5 (b) and (b) (iii)], and the fact that
a 12 acre sanitary landfill existed at the Hommocks site in 1963 required further investigation.)
Therefore, the Notice of Determination filed by the SED should have been amended to indicate
that this proposal may have a significant effect on the environment. The draft EIS (DEIS)prepared
at the request of the Mamaroneck School Board should have been requested by your office for a
determination of scope and content before a final EIS (FEIS) was prepared. Instead, the CZMC
reviewed the DEIS at its regular meeting on April 25, 1995, and it is our understanding that no
FEIS will be provided.
The CZMC found some areas deficient and in need of correction in the DEIS, but agreed to
summarize the conditions that should be met to avoid conflict with the LWRP.
POLICY 5 ENCOURAGE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC
SERVICES & FACILII mS ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE
ADEQUATE, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DEVELOPMENT HAS SPECIAL
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS WHICH
Mirsky-SED
4/25/95
Page 2
NECESSITATE ITS LOCATION IN OTHER COASTAL AREAS.
Explanation:
a. While no additional vehicular circulation or parking will be added to the parking lot
adjacent to the proposed building, there will be an increase in traffic, drop-off and pick-up,
and therefore an increase in hydrocarbon runoff in this area that drains into East Creek and
Long Island Sound. In addition,Town of Mamaroneck(TOM)mapped freshwater wetlands
exist directly across the road.
b. Concern was also expressed about the effects of the additional loading on the current
sewer system resulting from an increase in the number of facilities in the proposed addition.
Recommendations:
a. The CZMC recommends that a silt trap which has the capability of removing oil and
grease be installed in the parking/drop-off area. The silt trap should consist of two
elements: one to remove grit and the second for the removal of oil and grease. A regular
maintenance schedule should be established.
Clearly, traffic will have an impact on this narrow, winding heavily used corridor. The EIS
glossed over the real problem, and made one proposal which was tried in the past to
attempt to correct the situation. This subject needs further study.
b. The projected additional loading on the TOM sewer system should be identified.
POLICY 6 EXPEDITE PERMIT PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE
SITING OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
Recommendations: A flood plain permit must be obtained from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). A copy should be sent to the TOM
Building Inspector to indicate compliance with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Law.
POLICY 8 PROTECT FISH AND WIT DLIFE RESOURCES IN COASTAL AREA FROM
THE INTRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES& OTHER POLLUTANTS
WHICH BIO-ACCUMULATE IN THE FOOD CHAIN OR WHICH CAUSE
SIGNIFICANT SUBLETHAL OR LETHAL EFFECT ON THOSE RESOURCES
Explanation: Seven soil borings were taken for construction purposes. From those only one
sample was selected to be tested for priority pollutants and volatile compounds to represent
the entire 1/2 acre building site. The DEIS notes that additional test pits will be required
before beginning detailed design for "an expanded assessment of sub-soil conditions".
Recommendation: Additional chemical analyses should be performed at that time to
determine the disposition of excavated material as a result of construction. An assessment
of soil sampling methods and classification of materials should be made by the DEC. If
Mirsky-SED
4/25/95
Page 3
required by DEC, provisions should be made before the project begins for special handling
and disposal of contaminated soil as this can be a complicated, extremely costly problem.
POLICY 7A THE FOLLOWING LOCALLY IMPORTANT HABITATS• (2) THE
HOMMOCKS SALT MARSH COMPLEX;.... SHALL BE PROTECTED,
PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICABLE, RESTORED, SO AS TO
MAINTAIN THEIR VIABILITY AS HABITATS.
POLICY 14 ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT,INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EROSION PROTECTION STRUCTURES,SHALL BE
UNDERTAKEN SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO MEASURABLE INCREASE
IN EROSION OR FLOODING AT THE SITE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OR
DEVELOPMENT, OR AT OTHER LOCATIONS.
POLICY 33 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE
CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS.
POLICY 44 PRESERVE AND PROTECT TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND
PRESERVE THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THESE AREAS.
Explanation:
The DEIS states that "The quantity of water would have no impact on downstream flooding
since the drainage would immediately bring it to the tidal waters. Since the roof runoff
would be considered of high quality, siltation or clarification would not be required".
Recommendation: The TOM's consultant engineer stated the following: "Because of the
location of the site within the drainage basin, retention for stormwater quantity control is
not as important as the potential water quality benefits to be gained from installation of an
appropriate system. While sedimentation may decline as a result of less soil surface, studies
have shown that roof runoff can contain high concentrations of copper, lead and zinc. The
drainage system should address the need to minimize the introduction of these metals to
East Creek".
The DEIS states that a retention or on-site seepage design will be submitted. Suggested
modes should include a method of hooking roof drains to a facility to allow materials to
settle out.
No information was provided concerning the adequacy of the existing drainage system.
POLICY 14A CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS ON ANY LAND LARGER THAN 10,000
SQUARE FEET IN AREA SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE
WESTCHESTER COUNTY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL
Mirsky-SED
4/25/95
Page 4
ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES: STANDARDS AND
SPECIFICATIONS". THE COOPERATION OF UPSTREAM MUNICIPALITIES
AND OF COUNTY AGENCIES WILL BE SOUGHT IN APPLYING THESE
STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE WATERSHEDS ENTERING THIS
COASTAL AREA.
Recommendation: The CZMC recommends the use of the following manuals in creating a
surface water, soil and erosion control plan for use during and after construction:
Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual for Erosion and Sediment
Control;
New York State DEC Division of Water, Technical and Operations Guidance Series
Numbers 5.1.8 and 5.1.10;
Metropoitan Washington Council of Governments' "Controlling Urban Runoff;
"Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds" (US Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service).
POLICY 17 WHENEVER POSSIBLE, USE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO
MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM
FLOODING AND EROSION. SUCH MEASURES SHALL INCLUDE: (1)THE
SETBACK OF BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES; (2) THE PLANTING OF
VEGETATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF SAND FENCING AND
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS; (3) THE RESHAPING OF BLUFFS; (4) THE FLOOD-
PROOFING OF BUILDINGS OR THEIR ELEVATION ABOVE BASE FLOOD
LEVEL.
Recommendation: Emphasis should be placed on the use of native plants in the landscape
design since native species are known to filter and retain water, to require little or no
fertilizers, additional water and no pesticides.
Yours truly,
-VAlta,
Phyllis Wittner
Chairman
cc: Mary Anne Mays, Superintendent Mamaroneck UFSD
Penny Oberg, President Board of Education
Regional Office #3, Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Elaine Price, Supervisor Town of Mamaroneck
Cheryl Lewy, Mayor Village of Larchmont
Steven Resler, Consistency Review Supervisor, Department of State