CAMPUS DRIVE / THE PUBLIC RECORD
Read the evidence.
Ask better questions.
The campaign’s concerns, the applicant’s filings, and the public sources behind the rezoning debate.
Ask the Board for answersTHE EAF EVIDENCE HUB
Five questions.
Answers before a vote.
Follow the filings, examine the assumptions, and ask for independent analysis before the zoning map changes.
Agency links are reference sources, not endorsements. Estimates and unresolved claims are identified below.
01Zoning & demolitionTwo zoning changes. One lasting decision.
The proposed route takes 8 Carey Court from the RRR residential district to Campus Office, then brings the assembled site into a Planned Unit Development district. The campaign opposes this two-step approach and asks the Board to explain its compatibility with the Village’s planning goals.
The August memorandum lists 144,000 and 24,000 square feet of office space, 429 parking spaces, and a house. Those are applicant-reported figures, not an independent survey.
Publish a parcel-by-parcel explanation of the rezoning, the demolition plan, and enforceable protections for neighboring properties.
Read: August 5 technical memorandum, pp. 2–3 · Draft zoning amendment
02Excavation & demolition safeguards“General site preparation” still needs a construction plan.
The campaign questions the original EAF’s treatment of excavation under D.2.a. Before rezoning, residents deserve a clear account of rock removal, demolition, and work near the Catskill Aqueduct.
How much rock would be removed? Would blasting be used? What dust controls, asbestos surveys and abatement, vibration monitoring, and aqueduct protections would apply?
DEC’s land-impact workbook considers steep slopes and shallow bedrock. USDA soil reports can inform erosion review. A site-specific report is needed to substantiate the campaign’s cited CsD and ChE erosion ratings.
Independent engineering review, a construction sequence, and a published determination of applicable permits and disturbance limits. A checkbox does not remove other permit obligations.
Reference: NYS DEC land-impact workbook · USDA Web Soil Survey · DEC construction stormwater permits
03Traffic baselines & a seven-day studyMeasure the roads people use today.
Residents need measured current conditions alongside any comparison with a fully reoccupied office campus. The latest applicant memorandum describes the second office building as occupied; a zero-traffic baseline for the entire site is not supported by that document.
Using the brief’s 6,651-vehicle daily road volume gives 13.5% (895 ÷ 6,651), rounded to one decimal. These inputs need a dated source, route assignment, and a check for double-counting deliveries. This is not a verified net increase.
The brief’s 8% peak-hour assumption gives approximately 532 vehicles per hour, or a 6.8-second average interval. An average interval does not establish safe gaps or intersection capacity.
Continuous 24-hour counts over seven representative days, including Broadway/Bedford Road, with turning movements, school travel, deliveries, and pedestrian crossings. Explain the representativeness of the reported May 9, 2025 Friday count.
Compare: Applicant traffic comparison, p. 25 · NYS DOT station 870403 · Official traffic-study filings
04Crashes & pedestrian safetyA traffic count is only part of the safety picture.
The campaign brief cites 226 Bedford Road crashes and 165 Manville Road crashes: 391 of a cited 1,947 Village total, or approximately 20.1%. A dated crash-data export, geographic filters, and deduplication of intersection crashes are needed before treating this as a verified corridor statistic.
The campaign’s 895 daily-trip scenario equates to 6,265 trips per week. That estimate is not a count of vehicles crossing a particular sidewalk. The Board should examine the Campus Drive exit, Bedford Road crossings toward Chappaqua, and the Old Town Light intersection.
A corridor safety review covering crash severity, sight distance, turning conflicts, walking routes, and safe access for people of all ages.
Explore: Westchester County crash dashboard · NYS DOT traffic dashboard
05Stormwater & sewer capacityShow the downstream capacity. Put the commitments in writing.
The campaign asks for independent review of Pond 1P, the cited 31,577-cubic-foot storage figure, and drainage toward Foxwood. Storage volume is not a discharge rate; the review should show storm-by-storm flows, downstream capacity, easements, and maintenance obligations.
The applicant projects 33,660 gallons per day using 306 bedrooms at 110 gallons each. This is a design estimate. Residents need peak-hour capacity findings and clarification of the original EAF capacity answers reported as “TBD.”
Publish independent hydraulic checks and the applicable stormwater standards. Identify who owns, maintains, and pays for each system before the Board votes.
Read: Applicant demand calculation, Table 26 · Village SWPPP and hydraulic-loading filings · NYS Stormwater Design Manual · DEC wastewater design standards
Use the latest revisions. The Village’s project page contains submissions from multiple dates; earlier EAF answers may have been supplemented.
Put the record to work.
Contact the Board, sign the public petition, and prepare for the next meeting.