DGEIS Full Report

Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement
(DGEIS) for the
Southwest Quadrant Area
Town of Henrietta, Monroe County,
New York
Available for Public Review
TownofHenrietta.org
March, 2016
Lead Agency:
DGEIS Status:
Town of Henrietta Town Board
Submission Date
Acceptance Date
Public Hearing Date
DGEIS Comment Period
Jack W. Moore, Town Supervisor

Janet B. Zinck, Councilmember
M. Rick Page, Councilmember
Kenneth H. Breese, Councilmember
Scott Adair, Councilmember
Contact: Peter C. Minotti, Deputy Town Supervisor /
Planning Board Chairman
pminotti@henrietta.org
March 7, 2016
March 16, 2016
April 6, 2016
March 16
April 18, 2016
475 Calkins Road

Henrietta, NY 14467
585.334.7000
P.N. 20141848.0001
CONTACT: John F. Caruso, PE

EMAIL: jcaruso@passero.com
Passero Associates | 242 West Main Street, Suite 100 | Rochester, NY 14614 | 585.325.1000 | www.passero.com
Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Town of Henrietta, Monroe County, New York
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
Executive Summary
Project Description
A. Background, Purpose and Goals of the Project
B. Location of Study Area
C. Background
D. Public Need and Benefit
E. Project Description Details
i.
Potential Land Use Industrial
ii.
Town Building Permit Process and Requirements
iii. SEQR Process
iv. DGEIS/FGEIS Schedule
F. Required Permits and Approvals
Environmental Setting
A. Natural Resources
i.
Geology, Topography and Soils
ii.
Water Resources
iii. Agricultural Resources
B. Public Resources
i.
Historical Preservation and Archeological Resources
ii.
Aesthetic Resources
C. Transportation
D. Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
i.
Public Sanitary Sewer Availability and Capacity
ii.
Public Water Supply and Capacity
iii. School District
iv. Community Services
v.
Impact on the Town Recreation System
E. Impact on the Towns Adopted Comprehensive Plan
F. Cumulative Impact
G. Energy
1|Page

IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Potential Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

A. Natural Resources
i.
ii.
Water Resources
iii. Agricultural Resources
B. Public Resources
i.
ii.
Aesthetic Resources
C. Transportation
D. Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
i.
ii.
iii. School District
v.
E. Impact on the Towns Adopted Comprehensive Plan
F. Cumulative Impact
G. Energy
i. Alternative Energy
Alternative Analysis
Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
Growth Inducing Impacts
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
IX.
References
X.
Appendix
2|Page
COACHWOOD
LANE
HI
RY
ER
SO
WB
I AR
BR
RA
ST
CR
IM
WIL
D
I VE
DR
VE
DRI
VE
ME
MO
RI A
L
DRI
BU S
UM
C OL
www.passero.com
CE
AD
DR
AD
E R AI L
RO
ND
IN
DR
LI VON I ,
A AVO
N, & L A
KE VI L L
FL O
RE
DR .
GR EE N
OK
LO
AD
HAYDEN
STREET
D AR D
DR.
TIS S
WA
Y
POCATELLO
TRAIL
VI N
S
NE
D R I VE
AU T
PREN
CL OON E Y
HO
RS
RO
S CT
.
TON
NIN G
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
STUDY AREA:
AREA 1 = 343 ACRES
AREA 2 = 242 ACRES
AREA 3 = 337 ACRES
AREA 4 = 27 ACRES
AREA 5 = 79 ACRES
AREA 6 = 280 ACRES
AREA 7 = 33 ACRES
TOTAL = 1, 341 ACRES
H
UT
S TOD
BE N
ROUTE FROM AREAS 1

AND 2 TO INTERSTATE
390 EXIT 12
SO
HI L L
DR.
STILLINGTON
CRT.
N/F
JAYNES RIVERVIEW, LLC.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-5
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
OV
ER
WIN
E
S T.
T
AR
MP
RA
TERR.
L EHI GH
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-21
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
RO
AY
D
GA
LW
ST
UR
E
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
W AY
AREA 1
LOVE
LACE
LANE
ST
HI L
DA
RH
N/F
VASILE, MARY C. -- TRUST
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.1
1520 JOHN STREET
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-15.1
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
M O OR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-43
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
RI V
E
PO
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
Architecture
Engineering
I VE
PL A
WI TH
D R I VE
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
CR EEK D R.
B E CK
R-
D R I VE
VAS
N/F
ILE,
TAX MARY C
ACC
.
OU -- TRU
LEHI 175.01 NT NO ST
.
GH
STAT 1-2.1
ION
ROA
D
F AI
CA
MP
RO AD
JO
PAR
N/F
VASILE - TRUST MARY C
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.2
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
N/F
WALLMAN MARY & WALLMAN
MICHAEL
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-20.1
3860 EAST RIVER ROAD
IL L
DR I VE
O AK
D R I VE
PAR K
L OR E TO AVE.
US
M I CR O N
WAY
WIL D
FL O
HY
L AN
R EID S
R I VE R
100
SCALE: 1:1000
GR O VE
N/F
LARKIN, ASHLEY P. JR-TRUST
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-17
EAST RIVER ROAD
RU
RD
LO
NO
LE O
R D.
FR IE L
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0
250
500
1000
TO
VIE W DR .
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
M..O P .
OVERALL STUDY AREA

9.68 SQUARE MILES
WAY
R O AD
RE
T YLE R TO N
DA
ME
D R I VE
VAL L E Y
AVE
.
SI
TR .
B AILE Y
LE
C AP E
CI R .
YO R K
KU S
AK
FE ASE
NIGHTFROST
LANE
L
RD .
TR
LIPPMAN
ROAD
WA
LLM
TA
N/F
YOST, DONALD W. AND
ISABELLE R.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-17.1
208 BROOKS ROAD
ROUTE FROM AREA 7 TO

INTERSTATE 390 EXIT 12
IE T
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-18.1
24 BROOKS ROAD
N/F
ROCHESTER GAS AND
ELEC. CORP.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-18.2
MARTIN ROAD
77
E LE
R
RO
NE W
AD
Revisions
B E D F ORD SH IR E
No.
B
GE RW O
AN E
OD
By
Description
BR
H I L L CIR .
RO
AY
DR
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
BR
D R I VE
AN
C
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
DR
TR AIL
PA
RK
K
ROO
Date
LI VON
R D.
TR.
PR A
IR E
BE
TRADITION
PLACE
AN
AD
HU M M I N G BIR D
( AB AND O
.
DR
D R.
NG
LO
IV
E
IV
E
NED
N/F
THREE CORNERS
PROPERTIES, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.03-1-4.111
MIDDLE ROAD
ALVE R S TO NE
DR
STARFLOWER
DRIVE
ID E
.
DR
DR
IE
AYR SH IR E
H E I GH TS
HO
RN
PE
ER
HILLINGDON
COURT
WAY
TR AI L
O VE R L AN D
RA
WH
Y
FL
WAY
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
WARBLER
LANE
TE
R
OW
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

Karl M. Waelder, E.I.T.
Designed by
LN.
SPA
RR
LN.
John F. Caruso, P.E.
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
R O AD
R O AD
MAYAPPLE LANE
OSPREY
DRIVE
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
Project Manager
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
R E D B R I D GE
W AY
S
M I CK E N
HE N R IE T TA
WE S T
S C O TTS VI LL E -
DR.
N/F
COUNTY OF MONROE IDA
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-20
ERIE STATION ROAD
RU N
C OU
STAR GRASS LN.

PUMPKIN
HOOK
HEPATICA
LANE
MICKENS
BEND RD.
SUNDEW
LANE
Principal-in-Charge
Y
E
EN
.
T
L
DR
FOX
GLOVE LN.
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
242 West Main Street Suite 100
Rochester, New York 14614
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
PECOS
CIR.
WE
S
THISTLE
LANE
N/F
TOBEY, DONALD P.
AND LUCILLE F.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-4
ERIE STATION ROAD
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
DR
NE
I VE
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
L AN E
PAR K WAY
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
AD O
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
R I VE R TO
D R I VE
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
M E R TE NS I A
E R IE
SS
C ON E F L O WE R
R.
W ALL F L O WE R D
S TATI ON
N TE
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
Town of Henrietta
M.O
.P.
SEAR
AREA 7
N/F
SEARCHES HILL
PROPERTIES, LLC.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-1
ERIE STATION ROAD
AREA 6
Client:
S TATE
N/F
ME GOLF, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-5
EAST HENRIETTA ROAD
E
K E VI L L
N, & L A
I A, AVO
H OLLO W
N/F
CHE
SH
TAX ILL PRO
PERT
ACC
IES,
OU
1060 189.01- NT NO. LLC
1-18
ERIE
.1
STAT
ION
ROA
D
M . O. P .
P.
O.
M.
TS
I GH
HE
WH
E
RI X
C AVE
H EN D
E
S TAT
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-19
5500 WEST HENRIETTA
ROAD
M URPH Y
F ARR E L L
CUSHING
WAY
YORK
NE W
E XT.
AN

HE
NR
E AS
AREA 2
I VE
UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THIS DRAWING IS IN
VIOLATION OF STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145 SECTION 7209 AND
ARTICLE 147 SECTION 7307. THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED
AR
.
M. O. P
N/F
TIRABASSI FAMILY
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-15.1
RUSH-HEN TOWN LINE ROAD
AREA 3
N/F
KRENZER, ANNA S.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-13.2
ROUTE FROM AREAS 2, 3 AND

4 TO INTERSTATE 390 EXITT 11
LI N E
AREA 4
H IL
AREA 5
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
N/F
BULLOCK, PAUL D. AND PHILOMENA
202.01-2-6.22
1104 RUSH-HEN TOWN LINE ROAD
Town/City:
County: Monroe
Henrietta
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Drawing No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=1000'
R O AD
EC
IR C
LE
TO WN
ET
RE
R U SH -H E N R I E T TA
N/F
IACULLI, KATHERINE A.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-6.21
N/F
RHTL ROAD, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-47.1
Study Area Map
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
N/F
TOWN OF HENRIETTA
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.01-2-7.1
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
R
DEV USH H
E
TAX LOPM ENRIE
TTA
E
A
20 CCO NT, LL
MA 1.01-2 UNT N C
RIS
SA -28.00 O.
BET
HW 4
AY
M. O .
P.
WE S TC O M BE
N/F
KRENZER, SUSAN
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-8.22
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
SAN
KRENZER, SU
T NO.
N
U
O
TAX ACC
12
3.
201.02-2-1
ROAD
TA
ET
RI
WEST HEN
.P .
N/F
GAFFNEY, JOHN R. AND
CAROLYN W.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-14.11
BIRC H M O
WAY
M AR TI N
M.O
GT
ON
L ON
SEDGLEY
PARK
CR O SSIN G
AT
E
SI N G
P AR
OG
CR O
S
R E AG AN
HA
RR
G AT
E
Date
February 2016

I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With impeding development pressure in and around I-390 / I-90 corridors, the Town of
Henrietta is seeking to implement a smart growth strategy. In 2003 and again in 2011
(update), the Town of Henriettas Comprehensive Plans identify the Southwest (SW)
Quadrant as a desired place for Industrial Development to occur. Inside the SW Quadrant,
seven (7) Study Areas were focused upon for smart growth for numerous reasons (minimal
adjacency, local infrastructure, opportunities to create an economic uplift, etc.). The Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is an industry wide tool used to evaluate the
cumulative potential environmental impact associated with the changes of use recommended
in the 2003 and 2011 Comprehensive Plans (updated).
As a result of the Study, Natural Resources were not a development impairment to the Study
Areas. Geology and water resources impacts have been evaluated and can be reduced
(mitigated) to design issues. Public Resources, such as Historic and Archeological
preservation should be reviewed site specific for each area since the whole area is listed as
sensitive. Due to the rural character of the area, it makes sense that a large number of the
Study Areas are in Agricultural Districts, however, the Towns Comprehensive plans seek
Industrial Areas as the highest and best use. The result of the conversions from Agricultural
to Industrial will not affect the current land owners until the Industrial uses come to fruition.
Improvements to Public infrastructure will be needed, over time, as the areas
develop. Specifically, sanitary sewers and water mains will need to be extended as described
in more detail in the GEIS. Moreover, similarly roadways geometric and traffic control
improvements will be needed to mitigate traffic volume increases.
Impact on the Community Services revealed that the current fire, police and ambulance
services are available, but will need to be monitored as the community develops. Stress on
these services may not be from Industrial Developments, but rather from other residential
developments in and around the Study Areas. Generally, it is anticipated that Industrial
Development will have less impact on community services than the current zoning, which is
residential.
There is a positive impact to the local school district where Industrial Zoned property will
pay school taxes, yet will not generate a burden. Similar results were found when
considering the impact on the Towns Recreation programs.
Finally, in order to assess overall impact; and to maintain the integrity of this document,
cumulative impact needs to be addressed overtime. In order to achieve this, we have
developed a SW Quadrant Site Development Assessment process that is integrated into the
Towns already comprehensive site plan application process. This assessment will ensure
development impacts, as assessed in the technical portions of the GEIS, are at or below the
thresholds established. If not, other actions are then required.
3|Page

In conclusion, the development of a smart growth plan requires on-going and consistent
assessment in order to mitigate impacts as identified in the GEIS. Moreover, some
improvements are required at the onset to provide the necessary infrastructure. Community
services and school impacts will have favorable outcomes as a result of the proposed change
of use. Implementing the Towns Comprehensive Plan and goals, and thereby creating a
smart growth; is a desirable achievement for every municipality. Using the GEIS as a tool
combined with the current Comprehensive Plan and its updates, will create shovel ready,
well-planned Industrial Development opportunities in the Southwest Quadrant of the Town
of Henrietta
4|Page

II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.
Background, Purpose and Goals of the Project
The 2003 Town of Henrietta Comprehensive Plan established a Goal to Direct and Manage
new development - Smart Growth. The purpose of the goal was largely based on the desire
to capitalize on existing infrastructure within the southwest quadrant of the Town to
promote growth resulting in additional jobs and lower taxes. The 2011 Strategic Update to
the Comprehensive Plan further elaborated on the Goal by stating There may also be other
areas that would be highly appropriate for office and industrial development that are not currently zoned for
such uses. In order to assess the potential impact of industrial growth the plan then notes
that a useful tool for evaluating such questions is the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(GEIS).
The action for consideration by the Town Board is the evaluation of the identified lands
using the GEIS. The action will also include the potential rezoning of approximately 1,227
acres (114 acres are currently zoned Industrial) to Industrial to support future development
as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Appendix contains the scope of the DGEIS
which focuses on the potential impact of development on the local infrastructure,
environment and community. As shown, the document will examine the cumulative impact
on the Towns sewers, the local transportation network, water system, etc. Based on the
results of the GEIS, the Town of Henrietta will be able to establish what improvements
(mitigation) will be required in order to responsibly support growth in the identified areas,
identify the boundaries of any desired rezoning, establish SEQR thresholds to monitor
future development opportunity and create a business friendly smart growth environment.
B.
Location of Study Area
The southwest quadrant or Study Area is 9.7 sq. miles in area and has generally been
established as East River Road to the Lehigh Valley Trail and the Rush Townline as far
North as John Street. Within the Study Area, seven areas totaling 1,341 acres have been
identified as containing the potential for development either based on the current zoning or
by a rezoning to Industrial. Those areas are illustrated on the attached Overall Study Map.
C.
Background
Over the past decades the Town has responsibly monitored and updated their Land Use
Plans. In 2003 and 2011, the Land Use plans recognize that the majority of the Industrial
Land in and around the I-390 / I-90 corridor are reaching or will be reaching saturation. As
noted in the comprehensive plans, the opportunities presented by transportation, sewer,
water and local demographics (major infrastructure) has risk to very successful and highly
sought after Industrial Land uses. The Town of Henrietta understands that a plan needs to
be put in place for smart growth to occur in the next 10-20 years. That area was identified as
the Southwest Quadrant. The DGEIS is a useful land use tool to evaluate and identify the
potential environmental impacts associated with the future development of the areas within
the Southwest Quadrant.
5|Page

D.
Public Need and Benefit
The pubic need for this plan is one every community should pursue. Planning for growth
through the described GEIS/SEQR process not only ensures the Town that their vision is
rational, but it gives them the ability to adjust and correct based on the process findings.
These documents also help to preserve lands that might otherwise feel development pressure
to rezone or change use where it is not so compatible with the neighborhood or community.
Preservation and Land Use assignment of land is a common practice and well suited for
Henrietta. The commercial corridors along Jefferson Road; and the East and West Henrietta
Roads are well defined leaving established residential areas in north, east and west Henrietta.
As single family growth continues to develop in the southwest and southeast it is important
to define the next generation of Industrial areas.
The benefits of Industrial zoned land are numerous. Traffic and trip generations are during
core business hours, it does not generate school district demands, it brings people into the
community to live, work and enhance the local economy and pays more taxes than
residential development. Moreover, Industrial Development puts less demand on public
services (police, fire and ambulance). Finally, Study Areas reviewed under the SEQR
process will not have to go through the process again, unless they exceed the DGEIS
thresholds that will be established. The parcels and Study Areas reviewed under this DGEIS
are exempt from having to go through the SEQR process again if it stays with the
parameters or thresholds established in the more technical portions of this report. New
developments within the Study Areas that exceed the thresholds established in this GEIS
will either require the Findings Statement, be amended or a Supplemental GEIS be prepared
to assess the potential impact.
E.
6|Page
Project Description Details

i.
Potential Land Use Industrial

The DGEIS will evaluate the Study Areas within the Southwest Quadrant as
identified in the land use area map. Allowable land uses under the current
Industrial Zoning generally refers to assembly and manufacturing. Thirty-nine
(39) uses are listed but this also includes a reference to allowable uses in the
Commercial District. There are two references to allowable uses by Special
Use Permit. It should be noted that single family duplex and nursing homes
are prohibited, while Multi-family housing is permitted by Special Use Permit
through the Town Board.
ii.
Town Building Permit Process and Requirements

As with any development proposed, the Town has an approval process which
includes a planning, zoning and SEQR approval.

iii.
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)

This Draft Scope has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental Quality Review Act),
and the SEQR regulations contained at 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the
implementing regulations.
This document contains the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
which was prepared pursuant to the adoption of a Positive Declaration of
Environmental Significance by the Henrietta Town Board on March 2, 2016.
The scope is based on the Environmental Assessment Form prepared for the
proposed project, the Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance
dated March 2, 2016, the comments received during various meetings with the
Town of Henrietta, and in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.8(f) of SEQR. Refer
to Appendix.
iv.
F.
Town of Henrietta DGEIS / SEQR Schedule

A schedule of the SEQR process for the DGEIS is available in the Appendix.
A list of future process steps and key dates are shown on the cover of the
DGEIS.
Required Permits and Approvals

Section E, (iv) above describes the Towns approval process. Other permits and
approvals will be required for specific development by the interested and involved
agencies such as: NYSDOT, MCDOT, MCWA, MCHD, MCPW, SHPO, NYSDEC,
ACOE, RG&E, TWC, etc. Reference Table 1.
7|Page

TABLE 1 Potential Permits and Approvals
Approval / Permit / Review
Agency
Town of Henrietta
Special Permits
Site Plan Approvals
Zoning Variance
MS4 Permit
Sanitary Sewer
Subdivision Approval
Monroe County
Access & Highway Permits

Watermain & Sanitary Sewer Extension
Water Supply and Backflow
Approval of Sanitary Sewer Plans
New York State
Highway Work Permit

SPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges
Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation
Wetland Permits
Federal
Individual Wetland Permit or Nation Wide

Permits
Flood Plain Letter of Map Revision
Other
Telecommunication
Gas and Electric services
8|Page
Town Board
Planning Board
Zoning Board
Town Engineering Department
Town Engineering Department & Sewer
Department
Planning Board
Department of Transportation
Department of Public Health (DOH)
Water Authority, DOH
MCDEC Division of Pure Waters
Department of Environmental Conservations
(DEC)
State Historic Preservation Office
DEC
US Army Corps of Engineers
FEMA
Time Warner Cable
Rochester Gas & Electric

III.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
(This section describes the existing environments in the Study Area.)
A.
Natural Resources
i.

The Geology, Topography and Soils vary throughout the seven Study Areas and
are better observed and evaluated by Table 2.
Table 2 Existing Geology, Topography and Soil Characteristics

Geological Formation
Topography
Soils
Prime
Layered
Ground Water
010In Agr.
Rock
Agric.
Soil Strata
Depth (CM)
10% 15%
Dist.
Soils
X
31 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
No
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
8 (varies)
X
X
Yes
Yes
X
54 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Soil Types
(Primary Soil)
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
B, C, D
Potential Impacts Design and Mitigation comments can be found in Section IV.
ii.
Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Water Resources
Table 3 below identifies if surface waters such as streams, ponds or open water
bodies exist in the Study Area. It also addresses Wetlands (Federal or New York
State) and Flood Plain areas. Refer to the Appendix for Natural Resources.
Table 3 Existing Water Resources
Surface Water
Wetlands
Cumulative Parcel
Run off (cfs)
Open
Creeks
Federal State
Water
Existing Proposed
Yes
No
260.68
521.36
Yes
No
Yes
No
183.92
367.84
Yes
No
No
No
256.12
512.24
No
No
Yes
Yes
20.52
41.04
Yes
Yes
No
No
60.04
120.08
No
Yes
Yes
No
212.80
425.6
No
No
No
No
25.08
50.16
No
No
Flood
Plain
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
The Cumulative Parcel Runoff was calculated using the Rational Method (Q=ciA). It was assumed that the Rational
Runoff Coefficient (c) was 0.2 for pre-developed conditions and 0.4 for developed conditions, and that the Rainfall Intensity
was assumed to be 3.8 for a ten-year storm event.
For existing, assumed c=0.2 and i = 3.8 in/hr for a ten year storm event.
For proposed, assumed c=0.4 and i =3.8 in/hr for ten year storm event.
9|Page

iii.
B.
Agricultural Resources
The Southwest Quadrant Study Areas 6 of 7 contain several agricultural districts
where potential development may occur. Refer to Table 2 for more information
on soil types and prime and unique soils for farming.
Public Resources
i.

Table 4 below indicates any Historic Buildings, landmarks and/or Archeological
Resources or potential resources in the Study Areas that may require further
investigation or preservation.
Table 4 Historic Preservation
Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ii.
C.
Historic Preservation
Building
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Land
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Archeological
Sensitive Area
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Aesthetic Resources
All of the parcels in the Study Areas are owned by a private corporation and/or
individuals. The Appendix provides locations, an aerial photo and specific site
photos. None of the Study Areas offer public open space, nor are there specific
views or vistas of any natural resource.
Transportation
An evaluation of existing intersections was conducted within the bounds of the Study
Area. The following five major intersections in the southwest quadrant of the Town of
Henrietta were chosen based on their size and relative location to the individual Study
Areas.
1. West Henrietta Road & Lehigh Station Road
2. Lehigh Station Road & Middle Road
3. West Henrietta Road & Erie Station Road
4. West Henrietta Road & Rush-Henrietta Town Line Road
5. Erie Station Road and Middle Road
The Towns East River Road Corridor Study and Active Transportation Plan were also
considered.
10 | P a g e

Existing Conditions:
West Henrietta Road & Lehigh Station Road currently has an overall Level-of-
Service (LOS) rating of B. The intersection is made up of 13 approach lanes and is the
first intersection west of Exit 12A on I-390, with the majority of traffic travelling
along West Henrietta Road to and from the interstate. The intersection is signalized.
Lehigh Station Road & Middle Road currently has an overall LOS rating of B. The
intersection is made up of 10 approach lanes and is the first intersection east of Exit
12A on I-390. The intersection is signalized and the majority of traffic flows along
Lehigh Station Road to and from the interstate.
West Henrietta Road & Erie Station Road currently has an overall LOS rating of B.
The intersection is made up of seven approach lanes. The intersection is signalized and
the majority of traffic flows along West Henrietta Road.
West Henrietta Road & Rush-Henrietta Town Line Road currently has an overall
LOS rating of A. The intersection is made up of four approach lanes and is the first
intersection north of Exit 11 on I-390. The intersection is un-signalized with a two-way
stop in the east-west direction. The majority of traffic flows along West Henrietta Road
to and from the interstate.
Erie Station Road & Middle Road currently has an overall LOS rating of A. The
intersection if made up of 4 lanes with an unsignalized 4-way stop. Traffic flow is
heaviest along Erie Station Road.
D.
Growth and Character of the Community / Neighborhood

i.
11 | P a g e

Generally, the various Study Areas are not directly served by an on-site municipal
sanitary sewer system. The lack of public sewer is perhaps the most restricting
element for industrial development in these areas. The implementation of the
GEIS allows for a comprehensive review of necessary infrastructure required to
provide sewers to the Study Area. The Sewer Upgrade maps included in the
Appendix illustrates the potential location for regional improvements. The
improvements and connection points to the existing sewer systems were
determined based on a general understanding of the location of interceptor
sewers and larger trunk lines. The Town has also identified specific district
extensions that are currently experiencing capacity issues such as District
Extension #37. The DGEIS will assess necessary improvements or mitigation
to provide public sewers to the service areas.

ii.

Existing Conditions:
The existing water infrastructure was analyzed for its capacity to support the
proposed development of the Study Areas. The water systems in place at each
Study Area are as follows: (See Appendix for a map depicting the nearby water
mains for each Study Area.) All water mains within the Study Area are part of
the Town of Henrietta water districts and the overall MCWA District.
Area 1:
Area 1 has water main access from John Street to the north, East River Road to
the west, and Lehigh Station Road to the south. The water main on John Street
belongs to Water District 108 and the mains on East River Road and Lehigh
Station Road belong to Water District 2.
Area 2:
Area 2 has water main access from the Lehigh Station Road to the north, East
River Road to the west and Brooks Road from the south. All three of these
mains lie in Water District 2.
Area 3:
Area 3 has water main access from Telephone Road to the west, Martin Road to
the north, West Henrietta Road to the east, and partial access to the south from
Rush Henrietta Townline Road. The water mains along West Henrietta Road and
Rush Henrietta Townline Road belong to the Original District. The main along
Telephone Road lies in Water District 141.
Area 4:
Area 4 has water main access from the south from Rush Henrietta Townline
Road. This main belongs to the Original Water District.
Area 5:
Area 5 has water main access from Middle Road to the east, Martin Road to the
north, and Rush Henrietta Townline Road to the south. The mains along Middle
Road and Rush Henrietta Townline Road are part of the Original Water District
while the main along Martin Road lies in Water District 133.
Area 6:
Area 6 has water main access from the mains running along Middle Road and
Erie Station Road. Both of these mains lie in the Original Water District.
Area 7:
Area 7 has access to water mains from West Henrietta Road to the west and Erie
Station Road to the south. All nearby water mains belong to the Original Water
District.
12 | P a g e

Table 5 Public Water / Sanitary Sewer Comparison
Public Water
Study
Area
District Created
Water
Main Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
2
Original District
Original District
133 and 156
22 and Original District
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
iii.
Sanitary Sewer
Town Wide
District
Nearest
Extension
Sewer Size
Number
75
8
75
27
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
N/A
8
116
8
School District
The Study Area is in the Rush Henrietta Central School District. The DGEIS will
discuss the potential impacts to the school district.

Fire and Rescue Services: Fire and Rescue in the Town of Henrietta is provided
by the Henrietta Fire District. In total, the District is comprised of six stations
located across Henrietta. Of the six stations in the Henrietta Fire District, three
are owned by the district itself and the remaining three are owned privately.
a. District Owned Stations:
i. Station 4 Located at 850 Bailey Road. Station 4 serves as the districts
Headquarters and is staffed with career officers and firefighters at all
times. Assigned one Engine (#642), one Quint (#640), and one
Rescue/Pumper (#646).
ii. Station 5 Located at 230 Pinnacle Road. Station 5 is staffed with at
least one career Lieutenant and two career firefighters at all times.
Assigned one Engine (#652) and one Reserve Engine (#613).
iii. Station 6 Located at 60 Erie Station Road. Station 6 serves as the
Districts training center. Volunteers respond from this station. Assigned
one Engine (#662) and one Training Engine (#663).
b. Company Owned Stations
i.
Station 1 Located at 3129 East Henrietta Road. Staffed by volunteers.
Assigned one Engine (#612) and one Rescue (#618).
ii.
Station 2 Located at 774 Erie Station Road. Staffed by volunteers.
Assigned two engines (#622 & #623) as well as one Heavy Rescue
(#628).
iii.
Station 3 Located at 9 Riverview Drive. Staffed by volunteers.
Assigned one Engine (#632) and one Rescue (#638).
13 | P a g e

In addition to the equipment assigned to each station, the District also owns and
maintains seven fly cars, one pick-up truck, one mechanics vehicle and one
flatbed which are not specifically assigned to any station. Based on the location
of the Study Area, Station 2 and Station 6 will be most heavily impacted by
development in the Study Area.
Volunteer Ambulance: Volunteer ambulance in the Town of Henrietta is
provided by the Henrietta Volunteer Ambulance, Inc. They have one station
located at 280 Calkins Road that services the entire Henrietta area. Henrietta
Volunteer Ambulance, Inc. operates a fleet of ten vehicles, consisting of 6
ambulances and 4 fly cars. The station always has at least two fully staffed
ambulances available 24/7. From 9 AM 10PM the station maintains three fully
staffed ambulances.
Public Safety - Police: The Town of Henrietta is patrolled by the Monroe
County Sheriffs Department. The Town of Henrietta falls into the Sheriffs B
Zone and has a headquarters located at 245 Summit Dr.
v.
E.

The DGEIS will discuss the potential impact on the Towns Park and Recreation
program.
Impact on Towns Adopted Comprehensive Plan

The Town of Henrietta prepared a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 2003. In 2011, a
Strategic Update to the Comprehensive Plan was prepared. These plans map the
development future for the Town of Henrietta. The GEIS will utilize the goals in the
current comprehensive plan as the framework for its evaluations.
F.
Cumulative Impact
Individual site developments can create a cumulative impact over time, and since the
variations of potential impacts is so vast, the DGEIS will need to develop limits,
boundaries and thresholds to monitor future development. The DGEIS will establish
such thresholds for future evaluation of development in the Study Areas to maintain
the validity of SEQR. Such monitoring will be done in conjunction with the Town of
Henriettas standard application to Planning and Zoning process.
G.
Energy
Utility Services is a major factor when considering Industrial Development energy
demands and the ability of todays infrastructure to support it. Within the Study Areas,
gas and electric services are available, but at what capacity? The current provider
Rochester Gas & Electric has been working on a reliability project for electric in the
southwest quadrant for three years, and seems to be in the final stage of the regulatory
process to begin implementation of a new electric substation for back up supply to the
greater Rochester Area.
14 | P a g e

A similar natural gas improvement project has just completed construction in the next
town over, the Town of Chili. To the extent practicable, the DGEIS will assess the
availability of conventional energy services and alternative energy sources made
available in today market place.
15 | P a g e

IV.
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION
A.
Natural Resources
i.
Geological, Topography and Soils

The Study Areas consist of layered soils except for rock in Areas 5 and 7. As
part of the design, Geotechnical Studies should be conducted to identify the
specific soil type, rock depth and ground water elevation. The soils in the 7 areas
were found to be prime soils for agriculture. Actual soils types range from A to
D. The predominate soil type is Hydraulic Soil Group D. Not all of the Study
Areas are in an Agricultural District (Area 4).
The topography in each of the 7 Study Areas range from 1-10% slope. These
types of soil generally tend to behave well under soil erosion measures used to
mitigate potential erosion and sediment impact due to developments. Refer to
Water Resources for specific mitigation measures required. Any future soil
disturbing activity will be regulated through the DECs General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges, including the development of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
ii.
Water Resources
Each of the Study Areas was evaluated for the presences of creeks, open water,
wetlands and flood plains. Table 3 indicates their presences and also includes an
estimate of full build out runoff values.
Creeks and open waters should be avoided for disturbance from new
developments or, seek the appropriate permits necessary for
crossing/disturbance. The presence of State and Federal Wetlands will require
applicants to conduct a jurisdiction wetland delineation and determination in
order to identify the wetland boundary.
Flood Plains exist in 2 of the 7 areas. Construction in the flood plain should be
avoided for numerous reasons, including the insurance expense of any structures.
The amount of fill in any flood plain will require the Town Building
Departments approval and possibly, compensatory volume displacement design
measures to avoid down streams flooding impacts.
Any proposed change of the flood plain may require the applicant to obtain a
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA.
16 | P a g e

iii.
Agricultural Resources
With the Towns current Comprehensive Plan goals seeking to convert the
appropriate Rural Residential Land into Industrial Land, one can see the highest
and best use of these Study Areas has been identified as Industrial. While most
of the Agricultural land in the Southwest Quadrant is suitable for preservation
there are several areas (Study Areas) in which Industrial Development may be a
better land use option:
a) There is ample agricultural land in the Town as a whole;
b) There is no guarantee the agricultural land wont get developed into RR-2
residential development, which is allowed by zoning.
c) The farming occupation in the community is shrinking due to offspring not
continuing the family business, the support business to local farmers are no
longer local, making it difficult to get equipment serviced (moved out of the
area).
d) Farming is not as compatible within these areas as in the adjacent townships
of Rush, Avon and Lima, where farming is prevalent and equipment sales
and support have relocated.
It should be noted that a change in zoning will not affect the real estate taxes
or the Agriculture District Exemption Conversion cost until the subject
parcel is actually removed from the district and /or developed for Industrial
Use.
B.
C.
Public Resources
i.
Historic Preservation and Archeological Resources

Town references were made available to create Table 4. Table 4 should be
reviewed for each proposed Study Area development to determine the need for
further archeological study (Phase 1a, 1b, 2 etc.) or Historic Buildings. Most of
the historical land sites are grave yards. In order to maintain the validity of this
SEQR document, the appropriate SHPO response letters should be provided
through the approval/application process for specific projects as they develop.
ii.
Aesthetic Resources
There are no public spaces or scenic vistas to preserve or protect the Study
Areas. All the lands are privately owned by individuals or businesses.
Transportation
The following traffic study was conducted to assess the traffic impact on the rezoning
of the seven Study Areas from their current zoning to Industrial. Within the Study
Area, we analyzed the five major intersections that would be impacted most directly by
the rezoning. The following intersections were chosen for analysis:
17 | P a g e

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
West Henrietta Road & Lehigh Station Road

Lehigh Station Road & Middle Road
West Henrietta Road & Erie Station Road
West Henrietta Road & Rush-Henrietta Town Line Road
Erie Station Road and Middle Road
In addition to our own analysis, the intersections of West Henrietta Road & Lehigh
Station Road and Lehigh Station Road & Middle Road have been targeted in the
recently adopted Active Transportation Plan by the Town of Henrietta. The Active
Transportation Plan recommends several intersection improvements at each location
in order to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Although the
recommended improvements under the Active Transportation Plan do not affect the
capacity of the intersection, they should be taken into account when any future
improvements are implemented with the intent of mitigating capacity issues. Refer to
the Appendix for the Executive Summary of the adopted Active Transportation Plan.
Each intersection was analyzed based on the existing conditions, the background
conditions assuming a 1.00% Growth Rate Factor (GRF) over the course of 10 years,
and the developed conditions found by adding the background conditions plus trips
generated from the seven Study Areas. The number of trips generated was calculated
using Institute of Traffic Engineers land use group 130 Industrial Park.
The potential development will impact the road network to varying degrees in the
Study Area. Of the five intersections included in the study, only the West Henrietta
Road & Erie Station Road intersection and the Lehigh Station Road & Middle Road
intersection are projected to operate functionally under developed conditions without
any improvements. The remaining three intersections analyzed in the study may
require future improvements to mitigate the additional traffic generated.
Refer to the Appendix for the complete Traffic Report including mapping, tables and
calculations.
D.
Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood

i.

A summary of the future potential improvements required to provide sanitary
sewers to the Study Areas is provided below:
Areas #1 & #2:
There are three existing sewer systems which could potentially service the
development areas. The first of these sewers is situated in Lucius Gordon Drive
with an easement that extends to approximately 75 acres (commonly referred to
as the Wallman Parcel) along the northern portion of Area #1. The second
system is a dedicated trunk sewer which was installed from the MCPW
interceptor sewer along the Genesee River, through the Riverwood Student
Housing project, to the East River Road right-of-way. This sewer was
18 | P a g e

strategically located to provide a direct connection for future development to the
interceptor sewer. The third option is an existing gravity sewer along John
Street. That system has been extended further south towards Lehigh Station
Road with the recent industrial developments in the area.
The development of Areas #1 & #2 will likely utilize connections to each of the
existing sewer systems. The majority of the service area should be directed to
Connection Point #3, through district extension 75 Connection Point #1 will
largely be limited by the depth of the gravity sewer. The eastern portions of
development Areas 1 & 2 will likely be serviced by a future pump station with a
forcemain tie in to Connection Point #2.
Due to the topography, multiple pump stations will be required in conjunction
with potential gravity sewer extensions to provide service to the area. Where
large private developments are proposed, private pump stations are encouraged
to limit future maintenance cost for the Town.
Area #3
Being in the southern portion of the southwest quadrant, Area #3 lacks any
significant public sewers around the perimeter of the potential development area.
There is an existing 8 gravity sewer near the intersection of Martin Road and
West Henrietta Road. This sewer primarily services residential developments east
of West Henrietta Road. There is also an existing 4 low pressure forcemain
along West Henrietta Road, south of Martin Road which provides service to
existing industrial users.
The development of Area #3 will include the contribution of wastewater flow to
the existing gravity sewer at Martin Road and West Henrietta Road (Connection
Point #1). The area tributary to this connection point should be limited as the
sewers are ultimately tributary to district extension #37. Based on the
topography, approximately 30% of Area #3 could tie in at Martin Road and
West Henrietta Road.
The balance of Area #3 will likely require a sewer extension to the west towards
East River Road. This would avoid placing an additional burden on extension
#37 and provide a more direct route to the County interceptor sewer. Due to
the lack of development and existing zoning between Area #3 and East River
Road, a forcemain connection would be the most appropriate improvement with
a pump station along the western side of Area #3. The forcemain could be
installed along Townline Road or Martin Road west to a new sewer along East
River Road.
Area #4
Area #4 is near the end of the existing 4 low pressure forcemain and does not
have the opportunity for a gravity connection. A new private pump station
could service the future development potentially utilizing the existing forcemain
19 | P a g e

Area #5
There are currently no sewers in the vicinity of Area #5 due to the difficulty of
crossing I-390. There are sewers that service the residential areas on the west side
of I-390, however, those sewers are tributary to extension #37 making a
connection from Area #5 undesirable. Furthermore, that connection would
require a crossing of I-390.
The most likely means to provide sewers to Study Area #5 is thru an extension
to the north towards Study Area #6. This could potentially be accomplished with
a combination of gravity sewers and forcemain along Middle Road. The most
likely location for a pump station would be in the area near the existing Henrietta
Christian Fellowship church.
Area #6
Area #6 does not have sewers in the vicinity of the development parcels. There
are three potential connection points. The first is on the west side of I-390
adjacent to the Delphi Complex. A connection at this location would require a
crossing of I-390 and would contribute to district extension #37; therefore, it is
not the preferred route. A second option would be to extend sewers east
towards Henrietta Pump Station #5. Although the existing pump station does
have some reserve capacity, the downstream sewers are small and do not lend
themselves to significant additional contribution of flow.
The third and most likely option for connection is a sewer extension north along
Middle Road to Lehigh Station Road. While this option does require a crossing
of I-90, it provides the opportunity to connect to the trunk line at Lehigh Station
Road and avoid district extension #37. In order to accomplish the crossing, a
dedicated pump station would be required adjacent to Middle Road just south of
the thruway. From there, a forcemain could be extended to a high point in
Middle Road approximately a half mile north of the Study Area. From the high
point gravity sewers could be installed north to a connection point adjacent to
Lehigh Station Road.
Within Study Area #6, gravity sewers would be extended from the proposed
pump station south of Erie Station Road. These sewers would allow for the
connection from Study Area #5 as outlined above.
Area #7
Area 7 is currently the only Study Area that has on-site sanitary sewer access. The
proposed connection point is part of sanitary sewer Extension #37. Sanitary
sewer Extension #37 has a large tributary area consisting of areas east of the
railroad to I-390 and south to Rush Henrietta Townline Road. Extension 37 is
connected to the lands north of the thruway by a 10 sewer main located north
of Study Area 7. The 10 sewer main crossing is fed by 8 and 10 sanitary
sewers running in parallel to the south and runs north to the 12 main at
Bennington Hills. Based on this bottle-neck and the large contributing area, the
crossing is undersized and will need to be upgraded as Area 7 is developed. Refer
20 | P a g e

to the Sewer Upgrade Map for Areas 6 & 7 in the Appendix for a depiction of
the portion of Extension 37 to be upgraded.
Summary
Each of the Study Areas has the opportunity to install sewer improvements in
order to service the sites. The cost of said improvements will be borne by the
developers of the individual parcels. In some cases, the initial improvement will
be a burden on the first developer in the Study Area, therefor, there will be a
mechanism for future developers in the Study Areas to reimburse the individual
who sponsors the cost of the improvement. A generic estimate for the capital
improvements has been provided for each of the Study Areas and shall be used
to assist the Town in determining the contribution for each future development
project.
ii.

Each of the seven study areas were analyzed for feasibility in connecting to the
public water supply. The analysis was based on the potential max build-out of
10% of developable lands in each study area, and the subsequent water usage
calculated from the max build-out square footage. Several assumptions were
made for each of the seven Study Areas; these are outlined in the Appendix
along with the supporting calculations conducted in the analysis.
Based on our preliminary analysis, Study Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 have access to
existing water systems that are sufficient to support the projected domestic and
fire flow demands of development in those areas. However, Study Area 5 may
require improvements to the proposed water infrastructure (such as booster
pumps). The water pressure at the proposed buildings drops below the required
threshold when analyzed for domestic demand. This area should be analyzed
further when the Study Area is being developed in the future; this could be
mitigated through the installation of booster pumps at the proposed buildings.
21 | P a g e
iii.
School District
The proposed action to create smart growth Industrial area will have a positive
impact on the local school district, in that, these lands will replace residential
zoned parcels which could generate demand (school children). Secondly, these
lands (and business) would pay school taxes at a higher rate than residential land.
See the Appendix for the Economic Tax Analysis of the cost of services.
iv.
Community Services
Impact on Emergency Responders is described in Section VII Growth
Industry Impact.

v.
E.

An interview with the Town official and Recreation Department determined that
the development of the Southwest Quadrant for Industrial Development will not
adversely affect the Town capacity to serve the Community or current programs.
Moreover, a comprehensive study was recently completed by the Town which
resulted in the design and construction (completion 1/2017) of a new Recreation
Facility.
Impact on the Towns Adopted Comprehensive Plan

i.
Smart Growth
The DGEIS will have a positive effect on both the Towns 2003 Comprehensive
Plan and the 2011 Strategic Update. The DGEIS offers no changes to the plans,
rather is being used as a tool to assess potential impact on developing the plans
recommendation which is to create a smart growth opportunity for Industrial
Development in the Southwest Quadrant.
ii.
Green Infrastructure
The 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update discusses the Towns vision to create
opportunities for a green belt or corridor, called Green Infrastructure. The
planned development of the 1,300 acres in the Southwest Quadrant provides
multiple opportunities to achieve this goal.
iii.
Economic Opportunity
A component of the Smart Growth Plan is the Economic Community Benefits.
Other sections of this document discuss the real estate tax benefits of Industrial
Land vs. Residential zoned property. Moreover, the lack of a student demand on
the school district but receiving real estate taxes is a major benefit. There are
other collateral economic benefits. One discussed is the lack of demand on
Community Service, Industrial land will likely have less demands on Fire, Police
and Ambulance, thereby reducing the need to expand facilities or purchase
special equipment. Other benefits include the workforce that travels to and from
the development areas will buy gas to groceries, while also patronizing local
restaurants, diners and other support services. There is a portion of this
workforce that will also buy homes in the community, thereby spurring
residential development.
RITs influence is already being seen in Area 1 for student housing and with
RITs real estate holdings, expect the gamut of Industrial, Research and
Development an institutional expansion.
Naturally reoccurring market absorption and reuse of existing sites and facilities
is beginning to take place along Jefferson Road. However, it is not that prevalent
in the rural nature of the Study Areas. Where these opportunities do exist, the
Town may consider providing some relief to developers to encourage reuse of
those parcels. This relief could come in the form of a faster, shorter review
process, tax incentives or a reduction of local permit fees.
22 | P a g e

The Town Board should consider addressing these areas and incentives in an
Economic Development Strategy Process.
F.
Cumulative Impact
It is important to assess the overall potential for cumulative impact. As pointed out
with the utility infrastructure, mitigation for sewer and water capacity could be
addressed with extensions on sewer lines to divide flow to areas and districts whose
sewers are not taxed; or the extension of water lines to connect with other dead end
systems which will increase flow and add redundancy.
For individual sites, assessment will need to be monitored site by site, over the 10-20
year development period, so as not to exceed the limits established in this DGEIS. To
aid in that process, a Southwest Quadrant Site Development Assessment form has
been prepared. Please refer to the Appendix. The assessment packet includes the
Towns current and thorough site development checklist. It also includes an assembly
of this documents SEQR thresholds for quick assessment for sewer, water capacity,
the need for Wetland Delineation or further Archeological/Historic Preservation
studies, etc. Traffic impact can be assessed by comparing trip end quantities and the
need to further study traffic related issues is addressed based upon an individual sites
development proposal exceeding trips by 100 vph.
G.
23 | P a g e
Energy (Electric and Gas)

i.
Electric and Natural Gas

Electric and natural gas supplies in areas where Future Project-Related
Development may occur are currently adequate. Utility providers typically
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate growth in energy demands. In
instances where a project is large enough to diminish energy availability, the
energy providers normally upgrade infrastructure as a means of increasing sales
of their product. No reasonably foreseeable aspect of Future Project-Related
Development could be expected to significantly decrease energy supplies beyond
the capability of the utility provider to remedy the situation. Refer to Energy
Alternatives in Section V.
ii.
Alternative Energy
There is high potential that the proposed action will increase the use of the
Alternative Energy Sources in the Southwest Quadrant, thereby increasing the
capacity of available energy. Today, NYSERDA provides numerous benefits to
construction of new buildings through grants and rebates for energy efficient
equipment and green energy sources. To entice businesses to even further
participate, new energy sources are no longer required to be located on the same
parcel as the new construction. Examples of new energy sources for Industrial
Development are Solar Arrays, Co-generation plants, Wind power and biodigester generators, etc.

V.
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Three alternatives are analyzed for compliance with SEQR.
1. Do Nothing.
The do nothing alternative is eliminated for consideration because it does not meet the
specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Develop Under Current Zoning.
Similarly, developing the parcel under the current zoning is less than desirable because
some of the parcels are zoned residential, and therefore; not rezoning to Industrial does
not meet the smart growth goals established in the 2011 Strategic Update to the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Encourage Potential Future Industrial Development.
Developing the Study Areas identified in the Towns Strategic Plan meets the goals of
the plan, desired amenities and criteria because:
i. The areas are generally rural, and therefore, the proposed use is not compatible or up
against other incompatible uses.
ii. The development of these areas may require the extension of new infrastructure
which will support other development. See Growth Inducing Impact.
iii. Existing infrastructure in the Study Areas maybe underutilized due to the current
rural nature of the area.
iv.
The DGEIS was used as a tool to evaluate the potential large environmental
impacts. Through this evaluation process, several impacts have been identified
for mitigation including a long term monitoring and study area assessment
process to ensure the validity of the SEQR findings.
v.
The development of industrial property will significantly increase the tax base and
provide employment opportunities within the Town.
24 | P a g e

VI.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As with any land use changes, there are unavoidable adverse impacts. Some may be short
term, some may be forever, but less significant.
A.
Natural Resources below is a list of unavoidable impacts:
Loss of Agricultural land uses
View of Industrial Development along I-390
Discharge of stormwater from the development of parking areas & roofs
Potential Erosion Control of disturbed areas
Removal of natural vegetation
Increase generation of refuse
B.
Human Resources
Emergency Respondents Staff & availability
Operations and Management services are required of Public Infrastructure
Property Maintenance is required to maintain the project areas
C.
Transportation & Infrastructure
Increased traffic to the adjacent roadways
Increased water & energy use
Increase sewage discharge
Maintenance to Storm Sewer System
25 | P a g e

VII.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

This section will identify and describe the potential for the project to cause, or increase
further development within the area in a manner to affect such factors as population,
employment, the need for additional support facilities, services and infrastructure. The
implications of both positive and negative, of these demands will be described in the
following categories:
A.
Population
Other than the potential for Multi-Family housing, which is allowed in the Industrial
Zoning, it is not anticipated that rezoning Rural Residential land to Industrial will
induce population growth in this area. Especially, if it is replacing residentially zoned
land which supports population, with Industrial uses. It may induce populations in the
other residential areas of the Town, better suited for residential land uses, which have
previously capitalized on the infrastructure that is available. People will move closer to
work, but largely stay within high density residential areas. Additionally, multi-family
development within Industrial Districts could provide housing options for the future
workforce.
B.
Economic Development
The proposed action will positively induce other similar businesses to locate adjacent
or near it. That is the goal of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan, to focus through smart
growth, Industrial uses in the Southwest Quadrant of the Town. Moreover, as
mentioned above, the housing market in the residential development areas may serve
the people who work in these areas.
C.
Recreation
The proposed development will not create a demand on the Towns recreation
department. Industrial uses typically have 8-6 pm operating hours and minimal work
at night. One positive impact will be the generation of tax dollars for the Town
without an additional burden.
D.
Fire, Ambulance and Public Safety

Local Fire, Rescue, Ambulance and Public Safety are discussed in Section III (D) of
the DGEIS. There is an inherent demand of all of these resources, but to what extent
is difficult to measure in a growth plan that will take 10-20 years to develop. As part
of the DGEIS process, each of these organizations were interviewed to discuss their
ability to service these areas as it developed. All said that they currently have capacity
but future evaluation will be warranted as the parcels develop. All said an Industrial
development will have less of a demand on public services than if it were developed as
residential under the current zoning.
26 | P a g e

E.
Infrastructure
Sewer, water, and transportation capacity are discussed in others parts of the DGEIS
in detail. Generally, these three infrastructure components together support other
developments and opportunities. For example, the extension of a sewer may qualify
for some RR-2 Zoned land to be developed as RR-1 (with sewer).
27 | P a g e

VIII.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

SEQR requires that the DGEIS identify any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which will occur as a result of implementation of the proposed action. Resources
to be considered include natural and man-made resources that consumed, converted or
made unavailable for future use.
Implementation of the GEIS will encourage the permanent elimination of currently
undeveloped areas for new industrial facilities and associated improvements. These
resources will no longer be available for alternative uses, such as green space/park land,
residential development, farming or natural habitat. Other irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of sources required for the proposed action include construction materials,
energy, and labor. Construction materials, energy supplies and labor used to construct the
Project are not retrievable. These resources are readily available within the Project Area.
Table 6
Summary of Irreversible, Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
by the Proposed Action
Irreversible
Impacts
Irretrievable
Impacts
Yes
Yes
Soils & Vegetation
No
Yes
Agricultural
Wildlife (terrestrial
and aquatic)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cultural Resources
Yes
No
Land Use
Yes
Yes
Social and Economic
No
Yes
Air Quality
No
No
Transportation
No
No
Resource
Water Quality &
Quantity
28 | P a g e
Explanation
Failed storm water management discharges techniques.
Stormwater runoff will increase.
Soil lost to increased erosion and vegetation production lost to
conversion of land uses would be irretrievable losses. There
would be an irreversible commitment of resources on land
associated with the aboveground facilities. No irreversible or
irretrievable special plant species impacts are anticipated.
Irreversible or irretrievable impacts are expected.
Removal or disturbance of habitat could create irreversible and
irretrievable impacts.
Removal or disturbance of previously unidentified cultural
resources would result in irreversible loss of data. A Cultural
Resource rate is retrievable.
Land use required for the operation of the Building & Parking
would be an irreversible impact.
There would be increased use of local contractors during
construction. This represents irretrievable loss of workers and
infrastructure during the construction phase.
Project emissions would not exceed federal or state air quality
standards. Air quality would return to existing conditions after
completion of the project.
Short-term obstruction or temporary disruption to local roads
would occur during construction. Even with an increase in
traffic. There would be no long-term impacts to
transportation.

IX.
REFERENCES
1.
Town of Henrietta 2003 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
2.
Town of Henrietta 2011 Strategic Update to the Comprehensive Plan.
3.
Town of Henrietta Zoning Ordinance.
4.
Town of Henrietta Planning Maps.
5.
NYSDEC Law 6NYCRR, Part 617 SEQR Section 617.1-617.20.
29 | P a g e

X.
APPENDIX
1.
Project Description Information
Letter of Intent
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Environmental Parts II and III
Project Area Map
SEQR Process Steps / Schedule
2.
Public and Natural Resource Mapping
Study Area Map
Zoning Map
Sanitary District Map
Archeologically Sensitive Areas
Agricultural Districts
Water District Map
Wetland Map
Sanitary Sewer Map
Flood Plain Map
3.
Traffic and Transportation Study
4.
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mitigation and Improvements in the Study Area and
Cost Estimates
5.
Public Water Supply and Capacity Evaluation
6.
2003 and 2011 Town Comprehensive Plan Goal Excerpts
7.
Town of Henrietta Zoning Code Chapter 295 Industrial District Permitted Uses
Chapter 295 Commercial Districts Permitted Uses
8.
Southwest Quadrant Development Assessment Form
9.
Economic Tax Analysis
10.
Public Hearing Notices and Comments
30 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1
Project Description Information
Letter of Intent
Environmental Parts II and III
SEQR Process Steps / Schedules
Project Area Map (Not included, located behind the TOC of the
DGEIS Report)
February 15, 2016
Mr. Jack Moore

Supervisor
Town of Henrietta
475 Calkins Road
Henrietta, New York 14467
Re:
Letter of Intent to Henrietta Town Board

Southwest Quadrant Generic Environmental Impact Study (GEIS)
Dear Members of the Town Board:

The 2003 Town of Henrietta Comprehensive Plan established a Goal to Direct and Manage new
development - Smart Growth. The purpose of the goal was largely based on the desire to capitalize
on existing infrastructure within the southwest quadrant of the Town to promote growth resulting in
additional jobs and lower taxes. The 2011 Strategic Update to the Comprehensive Plan further
elaborated on the Goal by stating There may also be other areas that would be highly appropriate for office and
industrial development that are not currently zoned for such uses. In order to assess the potential impact of
industrial growth the plan then notes that a useful tool for evaluating such questions is the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS).
In response to the findings of the 2003 Plan and subsequent 2011 update, the Town of Henrietta
has commissioned Passero Associates to assist them in evaluating the southwest quadrant of Town
for the potential of new development. The southwest quadrant or Study Area has generally been
established as East River Road to the Lehigh Valley Trail and the Rush Townline as far North as
John Street. Within the Study Area, seven areas totaling 1,354 acres have been identified as
containing the potential for development either based on the current zoning or by a rezoning to
Industrial. Those areas are illustrated on the attached Overall Study Map.
Action
The action for consideration by the Town Board is the evaluation of the identified lands using the
GEIS. The action will also include the potential rezoning of approximately 717 acres (635 acres are
currently zoned Industrial) to Industrial to support future development as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. Attached with this letter is the scope of the GEIS which focuses on the
potential impact of development on the local infrastructure, environment and community. As
shown, the document will examine the cumulative impact on the Towns sewers, the local
transportation network, water system, etc. Based on the results of the GEIS, the Town of Henrietta
will be able to establish what improvements (mitigation) will be required in order to responsibly
support growth in the identified areas.
The first step in conducting the comprehensive environmental review is for the Town Board to
issue a positive declaration based on the attached Environmental Assessment form. Once
complete, Passero Associates in conjunction with Town staff, will begin to complete the studies
outlined in the attached scope. It is anticipated that within one month, the Town Board will have a
Draft GEIS for consideration.
Attached for your submission to interested and involved agencies, please find the following
documents:
Letter of Intent
Town Hall Powerpoint presentation dated March 31, 2014
South West Quadrant Area Map
Full Environmental Assessment Form (Parts 1-3)
Please feel free to contact me directly with questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John F. Caruso, PE
President
cc:
Peter Minotti, Town of Henrietta

File
2|Page

Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either Yes or No. If the answer to the initial question is Yes, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is No, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in
Part 1is accurate and complete.
A. Project and Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Town of Henrietta Southwest Quadrant Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):

Southwest Quadrant of the Town of Henrietta (refer to Maps)
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):

The Town of Henrietta is following the update to the Comprehensive Plan, to review and promote smart growth for Industrial Development while preserving
prime agricultural land (8.84 sq. miles) in the southwest quadrant of the Town. The application and associated documents are in support of rezoning
portions of this area to Industrial.
Name of Applicant/Sponsor:
Telephone: 585.334.7700
Town of Henrietta, Town Board
E-Mail: jmoore@townofhenrietta.org
Address: 475 Calkins Road

City/PO: Henrietta
State:
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role):
Telephone: 585.325.1000
John Caruso, PE, Engineer
NY
Zip Code:
E-Mail:
Address:
242 West Main Street, Suite 100
City/PO:
Rochester
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor):
State:
Zip Code:
NY
14614
Telephone:
SAME
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:
State:
Page 1 of 13
Zip Code:
14467
B. Government Approvals
B. Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. (Funding includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity
a. City Council, Town Board,
9 Yes 9 No
or Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village
9 Yes
9 No
Planning Board or Commission
c. City Council, Town or
9 Yes
9 No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s)

Required
Application Date
(Actual or projected)
SEQR
1/7/2016
Town Planning Board
1/7/2016
Town Engineering
SWPPP
1/7/2016
e. County agencies
9 Yes 9 No
MCWA, MCDOT, MCPW, MCDPH
1/7/2016
f. Regional agencies
9 Yes 9 No
NYSDOT
1/7/2016
g. State agencies
9 Yes 9 No
NYSDEC
1/7/2016
h. Federal agencies
9 Yes
9 No
SHPO
i. Coastal Resources.
i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?
ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program?
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?
9 Yes
9 No
9 Yes
9 No
9 Yes
9 No
C. Planning and Zoning

C.1. Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
9 Yes 9 No
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site
9 Yes 9 No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action
9 Yes 9 No
would be located?
b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway
9 Yes
9 No
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, 9 Yes
9 No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13
C.3. Zoning
a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance.
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Residential, Industrial and Commercial.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? Some rezoning will be required. 9 Yes
9 No
c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action?

9 Yes 9 No
If Yes,
i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? Industrial
___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.

a. In what school district is the project site located?
________________________________________________________________
Rush
Henrietta Central School District
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Monroe
County Sheriffs Department
c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Several
Henrietta local fire districts and Henrietta Volunteer Ambulances
d. What parks serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
There
are several Town parks that serve this community.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)? Industrial
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed?
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?
9.68 SQ MILES acres

_____________
_____________0 acres
9.68 SQ MILES acres

_____________
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?

9 Yes
9 No
i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
Units: ____________________
square feet)? % ____________________
No
d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision?
9 Yes 9
If Yes,
i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?
9 Yes 9
No
iii. Number of lots proposed? ________
iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
e. Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?

9 Yes
9 No
_____ months
i. If No, anticipated period of construction:
ii. If Yes:
Total number of phases anticipated
_____
Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition)
_____ month _____ year
Anticipated completion date of final phase
_____ month _____year
Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13
f. Does the project include new residential uses?

If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
Two Family
One Family
Initial Phase
At completion
of all phases
9 Yes
9 No
Three Family
Multiple Family (four or more)
___________
___________
____________
________________________
___________
___________
____________
________________________
g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?
If Yes,
i. Total number of structures ___________
ii. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length
iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet
9 Yes
9 No
h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any
9 Yes
9 No
liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i. Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________
9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify:
ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment.
Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres
v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure:
________ height; _______ length
vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.2. Project Operations
a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? 9 Yes
9 No
(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii. How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?
Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________
Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials?
9 Yes 9 No
If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres
vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet
viii. Will the excavation require blasting?
9 Yes 9 No
ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment
9 Yes
9 No
into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13
ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or
alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments?
9 Yes
9 No
If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation?
9 Yes
9 No
If Yes:
acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________
expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________
purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________
if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? TBD thru GEIS Process.
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day
ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
TBD thru GEIS Process.
Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?
9 Yes 9 No
Is the project site in the existing district?
9 Yes 9 No
Is expansion of the district needed?
9 Yes 9 No
Do existing lines serve the project site?
9 Yes 9 No
iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?
9 Yes 9 No
If, Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________
Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v. If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? TBD thru GEIS Process.
9 Yes
9 No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day
ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________
Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?
9 Yes 9 No
Is the project site in the existing district?

9 Yes 9 No
Is expansion of the district needed?

9 Yes 9 No
Page 5 of 13
Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?

9 Yes 9 No
Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site?
9 Yes
9 No
If Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________
What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________

v. If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed
receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge, or describe subsurface disposal plans):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NONE
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point
9 Yes 9 No
sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?
TB discussed in the GEIS Process.
If Yes:
i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size)
ii. Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?
9 Yes 9 No
iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater?
9 Yes 9 No
f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel
9 Yes 9 No
combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?

If Yes, identify:
i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit,
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs)
___________Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Page 6 of 13
9 Yes 9 No
9 Yes
9 No
h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants,
9 Yes
9 No
landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or
electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as
9 Yes
9 No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial
9 Yes 9 No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?

If Yes:
Evening
Weekend
i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.
ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: _______________________
iii. Parking spaces:
Existing _____________
Proposed ___________
Net increase/decrease _____________
iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?
9 Yes 9 No
v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within mile of the proposed site?
9 Yes 9 No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric
9 Yes 9 No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
9 Yes 9 No
viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand
9 Yes 9 No
for energy?
If Yes:
i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade to, an existing substation?
9 Yes
9 No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.
i. During Construction:
7:00 AM - 6:00 PM
Monday - Friday: _________________________
7:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Saturday: ________________________________
None
Sunday: _________________________________
None
Holidays: ________________________________
ii. During Operations:

7:00 AM - 7:00 PM
Monday - Friday: ____________________________

7:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Saturday: ___________________________________
None
Sunday: ____________________________________
None
Holidays: ___________________________________
Page 7 of 13

m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,
9 Yes 9 No
operation, or both?
If yes:
i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Construction 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Yes
9 No
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting?

9 Yes 9 No
If yes:
i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TB to review during the GEIS process.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen?
9 Yes
9 No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest
occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To be reviewed during the GEIS process.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)
9 Yes 9 No
or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage?
If Yes:
To be reviewed during the GEIS process
i. Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)
iii. Generally describe proposed storage facilities: ___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes 9 No
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides,
9
insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i. Describe proposed treatment(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For typical on site landscaping and lawn maintenance only.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?
9 Yes 9 No
r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal
9 Yes 9 No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
Refuse.
Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 13
s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility?
9 Yes
9 No
If Yes:
i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or
other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or
________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii. If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t. Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
9 Yes 9 No
waste? To be reviewed during the GEIS process.

If Yes:
i. Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month
iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site
a. Existing land uses.
i. Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
9 Urban
9 Industrial
9 Commercial
9 Residential (suburban) 9 Rural (non-farm)
9 Forest
9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic
9 Other (specify): ____________________________________
ii. If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
N/A
Land use or
Covertype
Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious
surfaces
Forested
Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (nonagricultural, including abandoned agricultural)
Agricultural
(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.)
Surface water features
(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.)
Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)
Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)
Current
Acreage
Other
Describe: _______________________________
________________________________________
Page 9 of 13
Acreage After
Project Completion
Change
(Acres +/-)
c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation?
9 Yes
9 No
i. If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed
9 Yes
9 No
day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i. Identify Facilities:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam?
9 Yes
9 No
If Yes:
i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
Dam height:
_________________________________ feet
Dam length:
_________________________________ feet
Surface area:
_________________________________ acres
Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii. Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________
iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility,
9 Yes
9 No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i. Has the facility been formally closed?
9 Yes 9 No
If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin
9 Yes
9 No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any
9 Yes
9 No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? To be reviewed during the GEIS process.
If Yes:
i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site
9 Yes 9 No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
9 Yes Spills Incidents database
Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
9 Yes Environmental Site Remediation database
Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
9 Neither database
ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database?
9 Yes 9 No
If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________
iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 13
v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses?

9 Yes
9 No
If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________
Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________
Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________
Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________
Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place?
9 Yes 9 No
Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site To be reviewed for each sub area during the GEIS process.
a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site?
________________ feet
9 Yes 9 No
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site?

If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site:
___________________________
___________________________
____________________________
__________%
__________%
__________%
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained:
9 Moderately Well Drained:
9 Poorly Drained
_____% of site
_____% of site
_____% of site
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%:

9 10-15%:
9 15% or greater:
_____% of site
_____% of site
_____% of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site?

9 Yes 9 No
If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.
i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers,
9 Yes 9 No
ponds or lakes)?
ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.
iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal,
9 Yes 9 No
state or local agency?
iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information:
Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________
Streams:
Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________
Wetlands:
Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________
Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired
9 Yes 9 No
waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway?
9 Yes 9 No
j. Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain?
9 Yes 9 No
k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain?
9 Yes 9 No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i. Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 13
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: To be reviewed
______________________________
during the GEIS process.
______________________________
_______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
_______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community?
9 Yes
9 No
If Yes:
i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________
iii. Extent of community/habitat:
______________________ acres
Currently:
Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres
Gain or loss (indicate + or -):
______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as
9 Yes 9 No
endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of
special concern?
9 Yes 9 No
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing?
9 Yes
9 No
If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site
a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to
9 Yes 9 No
Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
be reviewed during the GEIS process.
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: To
_________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present?
9 Yes 9 No
be reviewed during the GEIS process.

i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? To
___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National
9 Yes
9 No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i. Nature of the natural landmark:
9 Biological Community
9 Geological Feature
ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes: To be reviewed during the GEIS process.

i. CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 13

e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district
9 Yes 9 No
which is listed on, or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on, the
State or National Register of Historic Places?
If Yes:
i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: 9 Archaeological Site
9 Historic Building or District
ii. Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?
9 Yes 9 No
g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site?
9 Yes 9 No
If Yes:
i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________
ii. Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________
h. Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local
9 Yes 9 No
scenic or aesthetic resource? To be reviewed during the GEIS process.

If Yes:
i. Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway,
etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles.
i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
9 Yes
9 No
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
If Yes:
i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________
ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666?
9 Yes 9 No
F. Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G. Verification
I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
March 10, 2016
John F. Caruso, PE
Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________
Date_______________________________________
President
Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________
PRINT FORM
Page 13 of 13

Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts
Agency Use Only [If applicable]

Project :
Date :
SW Quadrant GEIS
2/2016
Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could
be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental
professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that
can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the
most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the
lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity.
If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
Tips for completing Part 2:
Review all of the information provided in Part 1.
Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook.
Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2.
If you answer Yes to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section.
If you answer No to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question.
Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact.
Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency
checking the box Moderate to large impact may occur.
The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis.
If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general
question and consult the workbook.
When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@.
Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts.
Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project.
1. Impact on Land
Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of,
the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1)
If Yes, answer questions a - j. If No, move on to Section 2.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is
less than 3 feet.
E2d
b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater.
E2f
c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or
generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface.
E2a
d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons
of natural material.
D2a
e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year
or in multiple phases.
D1e
f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical
disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides).
D2e, D2q
g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.
B1i
impacts.
_______________________________________________________
h. Other impacts: Cumulative
___________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 10
2. Impact on Geological Features

The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit
access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes,
minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g)
If Yes, answer questions a - c. If No, move on to Section 3.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
E2g
b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a

registered National Natural Landmark.
Specific feature: _____________________________________________________
E3c
c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________
3. Impacts on Surface Water

The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water
bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h)
If Yes, answer questions a - l. If No, move on to Section 4.
YES
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may create a new water body.
D2b, D1h
b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a
10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water.
D2b
c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material
from a wetland or water body.
D2a
d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or

tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body.
E2h
e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion,
runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments.
D2a, D2h
f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal
of water from surface water.
D2c
g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge
of wastewater to surface water(s).
D2d
h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of
stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving
water bodies.
D2e
i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or
downstream of the site of the proposed action.
E2h
j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or

around any water body.
D2q, E2h
k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing,
wastewater treatment facilities.
D1a, D2d
Page 2 of 10
l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________

Cumulative impacts.
___________________________________________________________________
4. Impact on groundwater
The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or
may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer.
(See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t)
If Yes, answer questions a - h. If No, move on to Section 5.
YES
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand
on supplies from existing water supply wells.
D2c
b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable
withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer.
Cite Source: ________________________________________________________
D2c
c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and
sewer services.
D1a, D2c
d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.
D2d, E2l
e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations
where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated.
D2c, E1f,
E1g, E1h
f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products
over ground water or an aquifer.
D2p, E2l
g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100
feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources.
E2h, D2q,
E2l, D2c
h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
5. Impact on Flooding
The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding.
(See Part 1. E.2)
If Yes, answer questions a - g. If No, move on to Section 6.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.
E2i
b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.
E2j
c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.
E2k
d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage
patterns.
D2b, D2e
e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.
D2b, E2i,
E2j, E2k
f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair,
or upgrade?
E1e
Page 3 of 10
Cumulative effects.
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
6. Impacts on Air
The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.
(See Part 1. D.2.f., D,2,h, D.2.g)
If Yes, answer questions a - f. If No, move on to Section 7.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
D2h
b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated
hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous
air pollutants.
c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions
rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat
source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour.
D2g
D2f, D2g
d. The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in a through c,
above.
D2g
e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1
ton of refuse per hour.
D2s
a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may
also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels:
i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2)
ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2O)
iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of
hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions
vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
7.
Impact on Plants and Animals

The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.)
If Yes, answer questions a - j. If No, move on to Section 8.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
NO
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any
threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal
government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2o
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal
government.
E2o
c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any
species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the
Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2p
d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or
the Federal government.
E2p
Page 4 of 10
e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural
Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect.
E3c
f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any
portion of a designated significant natural community.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E2n
E2m
g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or

over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.
h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,
grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat.
Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
E1b
i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of

herbicides or pesticides.
D2q
j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
8.
Impact on Agricultural Resources

The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.)
If Yes, answer questions a - h. If No, move on to Section 9.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
NO
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the
NYS Land Classification System.
E2c, E3b
b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land
(includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc).
E1a, Elb
c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of
active agricultural land.
E3b
d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural

uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10
acres if not within an Agricultural District.
E1b, E3a
e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land

management system.
El a, E1b
f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development

potential or pressure on farmland.
C2c, C3,
D2c, D2d
g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland
Protection Plan.
C2c
h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 10
9.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources

The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in
sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and
a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.)
If Yes, answer questions a - g. If No, go to Section 10.
YES
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource.
E3h
b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant

screening of one or more officially designated scenic views.
E3h, C2b
c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:
i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons)
ii. Year round
E3h
9
9
d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed
action is:
i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work
ii. Recreational or tourism based activities
E3h
E1c
9
9
e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and
appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource.
E3h
f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed
project:
0-1/2 mile
-3 mile
3-5 mile
5+ mile
D1a, E1a,
D1f, D1g
E2q,
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources

The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological
resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.)
If Yes, answer questions a - e. If No, go to Section 11.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been
nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or
National Register of Historic Places.
E3e
b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory.
E3f
c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E3g
Page 6 of 10
d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
If any of the above (a-d) are answered Moderate to large impact may
e. occur, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3:
i.
The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part
of the site or property.
E3e, E3g,
E3f
ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the propertys setting or
integrity.
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E1a,
E1b
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E3h,
C2, C3
iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which
are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting.
11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation

The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a
reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted
municipal open space plan.
(See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.)
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or ecosystem

services, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater
storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat.
D2e, E1b
E2h,
E2m, E2o,
E2n, E2p
b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.
C2a, E1c,
C2c, E2q
c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area
with few such resources.
C2a, C2c
E1c, E2q
d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the
community as an open space resource.
C2c, E1c
e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas

The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical
environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d)
If Yes, answer questions a - c. If No, go to Section 13.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d
c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 10
13. Impact on Transportation

The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems.
(See Part 1. D.2.j)
If Yes, answer questions a - f. If No, go to Section 14.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.
D2j
No, or
small
impact
may occur
9
b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or
more vehicles.
D2j
c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.
D2j
d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.
D2j
e. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.
D2j
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
14. Impact on Energy

The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy.
(See Part 1. D.2.k)
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation.
D2k
b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission
or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a
commercial or industrial use.
D1f,
D1q, D2k
c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.
D2k
d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square
feet of building area when completed.
e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________
Cumulative impacts.
____________________________________________________________________
D1g
15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light

The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting.
(See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.)
If Yes, answer questions a - f. If No, go to Section 16.
YES
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
9
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
9
a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local
regulation.
D2m
b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,
hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home.
D2m, E1d
c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.
D2o
Page 8 of 10
d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.
D2n
e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing
area conditions.
D2n, E1a
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
16. Impact on Human Health

The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure
to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.)
If Yes, answer questions a - m. If No, go to Section 17.
YES
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may cccur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day
care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community.
E1d
b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.
E1g, E1h
c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site

remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action.
E1g, E1h
d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the
property (e.g., easement or deed restriction).
E1g, E1h
e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place
to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health.
E1g, E1h
f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future
generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the
environment and human health.
D2t
g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste

management facility.
D2q, E1f
h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.
D2q, E1f
i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of
solid waste.
D2r, D2s
j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of
a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
E1f, E1g
E1h
k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill
site to adjacent off site structures.
E1f, E1g
l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the
project site.
D2s, E1f,
D2r
m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 10
17. Consistency with Community Plans

The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans.
(See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.)
If Yes, answer questions a - h. If No, go to Section 18.
NO
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
YES
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed actions land use components may be different from, or in sharp
contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s).
b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village
in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%.
c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations.
C2, C3, D1a

E1a, E1b
C2
C2, C2, C3
d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use
plans.
C2, C2
e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not
supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.
C3, D1c,
D1d, D1f,
D1d, Elb
C4, D2c, D2d
D2j
C2a
f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development

that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.
g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or
commercial development not included in the proposed action)
h. Other: _____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18. Consistency with Community Character

The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character.
(See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3)
If Yes, answer questions a - g. If No, proceed to Part 3.
NO
YES
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas
of historic importance to the community.
E3e, E3f, E3g
b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g.
schools, police and fire)
C4
c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where
there is a shortage of such housing.
C2, C3, D1f

D1g, E1a
d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized
or designated public resources.
C2, E3
e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and
character.
C2, C3
f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape.
C2, C3
E1a, E1b
E2g, E2h
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
PRINT FULL FORM
Page 10 of 10
Project :
Date :
Agency Use Only [IfApplicable]

SW Quadrant GEIS
2/2016

Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts
and
Determination of Significance
Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question
in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact.
Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess
the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not
have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its
determination of significance.
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
To complete this section:
Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity,
size or extent of an impact.
Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact
occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to
occur.
The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes.
Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where
there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse
environmental impact.
Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact
For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that
no significant adverse environmental impacts will result.
Attach additional sheets, as needed.
Determination of Significance -- The Town of Henrietta is executing recommendations from its Comprehensive Plan for smart growth. Valuable
Industrial land has been utilized and in demand. The local transportation systems I-390 and NYS I-90, continues to foster growth and spur economic
development to the area. The Town has identified through the Comprehensive Plan process this area for smart growth. The GEIS will evaluate the
potential impacts and cumulative impacts in an effort to rezone the subject areas and obtain development ready status.
REFERENCE: The Draft Scope of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (January 11, 2016) which supports the determination of significance
identified above.
Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions

SEQR Status:
Type 1
Unlisted
Part 1
Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project:
Part 2
Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information
Please reference Full EAF and Parts 2.
and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the
Town of Henrietta
as lead agency that:
A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided or
substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency:
There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative
declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.d).
C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact
statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those
impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued.
Name of Action:
Town of Henrietta Southwest Quadrant GEIS
Name of Lead Agency:
Town of Henrietta Town Board
Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency:

Title of Responsible Officer:
Jack Moore, Supervisor
Town Supervisor
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency:

Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)
John F. Caruso, PE
Date:
2/17/2016
Date:
2/17/2016
For Further Information:

Contact Person: John F. Caruso, PE, Passero Associates
Address:
242 West Main Street, Suite 100, Rochester, NY 14614
Telephone Number: 585.325.1000

E-mail: jcaruso@passero.com
For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to:
Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of)
Other involved agencies (if any)
Applicant (if any)
Environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html
PRINT FULL FORM
Page 2 of 2
Town of Henrietta GEIS for Southwest Quadrant

Detailed SEQR Process / Schedule
February 15, 2016
STEPS
SEQR PROCESS STEP / DELIVERABLE
Town Board solicits for Lead Agency

status.
Town Board declares itself as Lead Agency
and issues Positive Declaration.
Draft GEIS is prepared
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NOTES:
*
Town Board determines Draft GEIS is

complete and ready for public review.
Public Comment Period:
i) Notice of Public Hearing published
14 days prior to Public Hearing
Meeting.
ii) SEQR Public Hearing on Draft GEIS.
10 Day Public Comment Period ends. 10
days after close of Public Hearing.
FGEIS is prepared and reviewed.
FGEIS Findings Statement is adopted. File
Notice after FGEIS adopted.
Town Board Rezones Subject parcels.
MIN / MAX
TIMEFRAME
APPROXIMATE
START*
APPROXIMATE
COMPLETION*
30 days min
1/6/2016 -- EM
2/17/2016 - WS
2/17/2016 - EM
2/17/2016
No timeframe
required.
2/17/2016 - EM
3/16/2016
3/16/2016
3/16/2016
30 days min
3/16/2016 - EM
3/16/2016
4/18/2016
4/6/2016 PH
4/6/2016
4/6/2016
4/6/2016
4/16/2016
4/18/2016 - WS
5/4/2016 - EM
5/2/2016
5/16/2016
5/16/2016
6/8/2016
10 days min after

FEIS
all dates approximate, based on minimum/maximum timeframes and are subject to change due to
the time necessary for Town and agencies to complete reviews and issue notices.
EM = Executive Meeting
WS = Workshop: Executive Session
Z:\2014\20141848\20141848.0001\Tech Docs\Reports\TofH_SEQR Process_Schedule_02152016.docx

APPENDIX 2
Public and Natural Resource Mapping
Study Area Map
Zoning Map
Archeologically Sensitive Areas
Sanitary Sewer Districts
Agricultural Districts
Wetland Map
Water District Map
Sanitary Sewer Map
Flood Plain Map
KU S
AD
LRO
R AI
ON
AW
BE
I AR
CR
S TR
IM S
WIL
D
VE
DR I
RI A
L
ME
MO
D RI
VE
BU S
CLOVER
GR E E N
AVE.
CL O ONE Y
R AV
ENS
RD.
AU T
HO
RS
SILVERBERRY RD.
Principal-in-Charge
IE
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691

Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
DRI
VE
NORTH
Revisions
SOUTH
BRANCH B
K
ROO
DR
Date
By
Description
N
PE
AS
BR
AN
AD
HI L L CI R .
I VE
AN
CH
DR

ARTICLE 147 SECTION 7307. THESE PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED c
NG
LO
WARD
Study Area Map
TR AIL
CH
UR
CH
HIL
L
E AS
T
L
No.
RO
TER
R AC
E
WOO
DRID
GE
N/F
202.01-2-6.22
LN.
HORSESHOE
BE D F ORD SH I R E
BR
RD.
R E D B R I D GE
VIL LE
HORSESHOE LN.
HIL

AREA 5
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
Town/City: Henrietta
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Drawing No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
R O AD
1"=1000'
LE
EC
IR C
ET
RE
INE
TRE
ET
RAI
67
ANE
AREA 4
TECH DRIVE
TO WN
TRA
I
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
LIN 202.01-2-6.21
CAI T
N/F
RHTL ROAD, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-47.1
APR
ILLE
L
DR.
LI N E
R U SH -H E NR I E T TA
ER
TRADITION
PLACE
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
N/F
TOWN OF HENRIETTA
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.01-2-7.1
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
R
DEV USH H
E
TAX LOPM ENRIE
TTA
E
A
20 CCO NT, L
MA 1.01-2 UNT N LC
RIS
SA -28.00 O.
BET
HW 4
AY
N/F
KRENZER, ANNA S.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-13.2
CIRCLE
BI R CH M O U
CIRCLE
MORIN
AREA 3
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
.
M. O. P
N/F
TIRABASSI FAMILY
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-15.1
N/F
KRENZER, SUSAN
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-8.22
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
SAN
KRENZER, SU
T NO.
N
U
O
TAX ACC
12
3.
201.02-2-1
ROAD
TA
ET
RI
WEST HEN
P.
M. O .
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
WES TC OM BE
WAY
RI CK
DER
.P .
M.O
K
PAR
L ON
D
ROA
M AR TI N
N/F
CAROLYN W.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-14.11
TR AIL
75
FI TZPATRI CK
RE AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
DONCAS
TER
PLACE
BRACKN
ELL
CIRCLE
ON
GT
CR O SSI N G
.
.P
.O
M
WE
ST
CO
MB
E
SEDGLEY
PARK
MO
ORE
AT
E
WAGON TR.

Designed by
SOUTHER
N
DR I VE
OG
SI N G
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
AY
AR
HA
RR
COVERED
Y
E
EN
.
T
L
DR
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
PAR K WAY
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
OD DEL AN E
Y
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
CR O
S
NE D
TR.
DR
.
BE
PR A
IRE
GE RW O
GIN
TR AI L
PA
RK
G AT
E
( AB AND O
ALVE R S TONE
AR
MIDDLE
WA
Y
DR
D R.
AD O
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
FA
LC
ON
NG
IV
E
DR
HU M MI N G BI R D
EGR
ET
STARFLOWER
DRIVE
DR
N/F
THREE CORNERS
PROPERTIES, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.03-1-4.111
MIDDLE ROAD
CIR
.
.
DR
H
GOLDFINC
DRI VE
L AN E
AYR SHI R E
HO
RN
SWEET P
E
RD
.
DR.
WARBLER
LANE
LO
T
BU
COU
G
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
HILLINGDON
COURT
H E I G H TS
R
SALZE
TR AI L
CASCADE
IV
E
OW
RD.
Y
TE
R
FL
LN.
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
E
IV
DR
SCOTTSVILLE - WEST
HENRIETTA ROAD
SP A
RR
WAY
MAYAPPLE LANE
OSPREY
DRIVE
Town of Henrietta
PEAK VIEW
R O AD
Client:
S TATE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
WAY
ALTON
86
O VE R L AN D
CUSHING
WAY
LN .
SC O T TS VI LL E -
RA
WH
ID
LN.
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
RU N
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
WE
S
SS
N TE
MacKAY
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
71
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
PECOS
CIR.
D R.
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-20
ERIE STATION ROAD
STAR GRASS LN.

S
M I CK E N
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
.
BEND RD
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE N R I E T TA
WES T
PHLOX
TREE TOP L ANE

YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
DR
NE
I VE
i
Ra
a
ni
i vo
L
ad
lro
E
CH
NIGHTFROST
LANE
L
DR.
KE
N, & L A
I A, AVO
LI VON
MICKENS
BEND RD.
SUNDEW
LANE
WAY
RI VE R TO
HTS.
253
ISL AND
GROVE
&
FE ASE
GARDEN
ERIE
PIN
ON
THISTLE
LANE
FOX
GLOVE LN.
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
LANE
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
on
Av
ke
La
DR
.
POCATELLO
TRAIL
M E R TE NS I A
ROAD
STATION
le
vil
M.O.P.
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
C OU
L ANE
LN.
BUTTONBUSH
LN.
BE AKRUSH
ANEMONE
C ON E F L O WE R
IE
ER
DRI VE
COUNTESS
FARRELL RD.
FIELD STO
NE
DESSIE
DR I VE
SHADBUSH WAY
DR
.
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
ROAD
R.
WALL F L O WE R D
S TATI ON
M .O
.P.
SEAR
AREA 7
AGA
R
WA
Y
HIG
AD
PL.
HEN
RIE
TTA
DAV
IE S
RO
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
JUS
TINS
HIRE
DR.
MA
RB
ER
TH
DR
DR.
YORK
N/F
TOBEY, DONALD P.
AND LUCILLE F.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-4
ERIE STATION ROAD
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
STUDY AREA:
AREA 1 = 343 ACRES
AREA 2 = 242 ACRES
AREA 3 = 337 ACRES
AREA 4 = 27 ACRES
AREA 5 = 79 ACRES
AREA 6 = 280 ACRES
AREA 7 = 33 ACRES
TOTAL = 1, 341 ACRES
HAYDEN
STREET
N/F
ME GOLF, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-5
EAST HENRIETTA ROAD
N/F
SEARCHES HILL
PROPERTIES, LLC.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-1
ERIE STATION ROAD
AREA 6
D AR D
WIN
DEL
IN
PLA
CE
N/F
CHE
SH
TAX ILL PRO
ACC
P
OU ERTIES
1060 189.01- NT NO. , LLC
1ERIE
STAT 18.1
ION
ROA
D
46
E LE
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-19
5500 WEST HENRIETTA
ROAD
AVE
.
D.
ER R
BECK
M.
O.
TS
I GH
HE
GRANGERFORD
WH
E
RI X
NE W
H OLL O W
C AVE
YORK
MUR PH Y
P.
E
S TAT
F AR R E LL
E
DRI V
ARK
AY P
W
U
THR
H EN D
ROAD
RD.
. P.
M. O
WAY
THRU
E XT.
ACORN LA
.
PU
TA
IE T
NR
HE
T
E AS
M. O. P .
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
CE
AVE
.
AN
NE W
IN
TIS S
AK
AP
A
M..O P
.
77
I-90
RR
YH
NE
VI N
S
RO
AD
CO
NN
OR

N/F
ROCHESTER GAS AND
ELEC. CORP.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-18.2
MARTIN ROAD
ROAD
BROOKS
C OL
DR
ND
RE
FL O
AD
RO
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
HI L L
DR I VE

BUC
KLE
Y
P RE N
WA
LLM
N/F
YOST, DONALD W. AND
ISABELLE R.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-17.1
208 BROOKS ROAD
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-18.1
24 BROOKS ROAD
DR .
GREEN
253
RD.
AREA 2
GRE
EN
I SLE
RO
AD
BEMI
S WAY
SUMMI T POINT DR.
www.passero.com
GRO
VE
PL A
GRE
EN
AST
ER
IN
LI VONI ,
A AVO ,
N & LA
KE
KE
NN
ET
H
STATION
TR
TH AMES
UM
CR EE K D R.
88
S CT
.
IN G T
ROUTE FROM AREAS 1

AND 2 TO INTERSTATE
390 EXIT 12
.
RD
AD
DRI VE
VIL LE R
AILR O
AD
RO
S TOD
EN N
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-5
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
N
BI
CA
Architecture
Engineering
DR.
ON
EA ME AD OWS D R.
CHELS
B
STILLINGTON
CRT.
TOWN
LIBR ARY
TOWN
HALL
VETER ANS
MEMORI AL
PARK
HANOVER DR.
79
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
RE
D
TOW
NC
ENT
RE
DR.
I VE
DR
I-390
METHODIST HILL DRI VE
H
UT
BR
DR
HY
L AN
BEL
DO
N
VOL
LME
R
SO
DR I VE
39
OK
WIN
E
T
AR
MP
RA
VO
LL
ME
R
HI L L
WIL D
FL O WER
CALKINS
RLO
PK
W
Y.
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
ND Y
BRA
S T.
ST
DA
RH
UR
TERR.
ST
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
RI V
E
AY
D
GA
LW
D R I VE
WI TH
LAK
E VI
LLE
R
VAS
DAWN
VALLEY
LEHI GH
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-21
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
PO
WAY
AREA 1
LOVE
LACE
LANE
E
WIN
N/F
ILE,
TAX MARY C
ACC
.
O U -- TRU
GH
.
LI V
STAT 1-2.1
ONI
ION
A, A
ROA
VON
,&
D
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.1
1520 JOHN STREET
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
15
100
M O OR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-15.1
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
Y
AND
BR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-43
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
.
DR
CK
O
R
AM
SH
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
M..O P
.
D R I VE
WOOD
GALWAY DR.
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
BE C K
LINHOME
JO
I VE
DR.
ALT
O
TO
RE
LO
IRI S
SCALE: 1:1000
PAL
O
SE
L OR E TO AVE.
PAR
KER
HOU
GLEN
DR.
PKW
Y.
RD
.
DR.
DRI VE
AVE
.
KEN
FOX
DA
ME
DR
I VE
ACA
DEM
Y
US
COACHWOOD
LANE
AILR
OAD
N/F
MICHAEL
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-20.1
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.2
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
PAR
PAR K
RI VE R
R-
263
EN
GRE
F AI
RD
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
DEE
R
RUN
1000
LE O
RD.
FR I E L
T RE
CA
MP
RO AD
DR I VE
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-17
EAST RIVER ROAD
N
EA
P
MI CR ON
DRI VE
RU
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
LEHMANN DRI VE
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0
250
500
CATTARAGUS DR.
WESTMINSTER
S
RI VER
TEC
H
STR
EE
T
D R I VE
M.O.
DRI VE
GORDON
WAY
M..O P .
DRI VE
ND
PO
ST IL L
LUCIUS
NO
CENTRE
R EI D S
GR O VE
O AK
WAY
RIVE
R
ROAD
OVERALL STUDY AREA

9.68 SQUARE MILES
ELK
81
P.
TR .
T YLE R TON
VI E W DR .
DING
R O AD
CHESAPE A
SI N
L AN
VALLE Y
SHORE
B AI LE Y
MAP
L
C AP E
S
LL
MI
TE
RR
.
BAY
CI R .
YOR K
S
CR O
Date
February 2016
HI
SO
AW
B
I AR
ER
RY
CO
NN
OR
KU S
S TR
WIL
D
VE
DR I
ME
MO
RI A
L
D RI
VE
BU S
CLOVER
GR E E N
AVE.
RS
PL.
AGA
R
AVE
.
DR
.
POCATELLO
TRAIL
FE ASE
E
CH
AP
A
DR.
WA
Y
AK
WA
LL M
HAYDEN
STREET
CL O ONE Y
TIS S
D AR D
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
NIGHTFROST
LANE
L
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
NE
VI N
S
RO
AD
DR I VE
M..O P
.
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
AN
CUSHING
WAY
HE
E AS
NR
77
IN
I-90
RR-2
46
AVE
.
R
AD
AREA 7
M .O
DRI
VE
BRANCH BR O
Date
By
Description
N
PE
AS
BR
AD
AN
I VE
AN
CH
DR

NG
LO
WARD
Zoning Map
TR AIL
WOO
DRID
GE
AREA 5
IN
CAI TL
WE S TC OM B E
DR
HI L L CI R .
HIL
L
EAS
T
L
HI L
DR.
OK
RO
TER
R AC
E
TRA
I
CIRCLE
BI R C H M O U
CIRCLE
MORIN
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
M.O
.P .
RI CK
DER
No.
BR
RD.
RE D BR I D GE
)
NED
( AB AND O
MIDDLE
TR.
WAY
D
ROA
M AR TI N
P AR
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
R O AD
1"=1000'
67
LE
EC
IR C
ET
RE
TRE
ET
RAI
TO WN
Sheet No.
Scale:
INE
R U SH -H E NR IE TTA
Drawing No.
LI N E
20141848.001
ANE
M. O. P
AREA 4
State: New York
Project No.
APR
ILLE
L
AREA 3
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
M. O .
P.
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
County: Monroe
TECH DRI VE
L ON
TR AIL
75
R E AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
PLACE
DONCAS
TER
BRACKN
ELL
CIRCLE
ON
GT
CR O S SI N G
.
.P
.O
M
WE
ST
CO
MB
E
MO
ORE
SEDGLEY
PARK
WAGON TR.
D RI VE
AT
E
SI N G
Revisions
SOUTH
SOUTHER
N
FI TZPATRI CK
LN.
HORSESHOE
OD DEL AN E
Y
WENRICH
CIRCLE
NORTH
B E D F O R D SH I R E
AY
AR
OG
COVERED
IE
HORSESHOE LN.
HA
RR
CR O
S
TRADITION
PLACE
CH
UR
CH
BE
PR A
IRE
GE RWO
GIN
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
G AT
E
R AI
WA
Y
DR
DR
.
D R.
ALVE R S TONE
AR
TR AI L
PA
RK
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

JUSTIN
CIRCLE
AYR SHI R E
CIR
.
AD O
NG
LO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
DR
IV
E
FA
LC
ON
DR
H U M M I N G BI R D
DR
EGR
ET
STARFLOWER
DRIVE
HO
RN
SWEET P
EA
GOLDFINCH
RD
.
DR.
WARBLER
LANE
DRI VE
COU
G
T
BU
TR AI L
CASCADE
IV
E
OW
RD.
Y
TE
R
FL
LN.
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
E
IV
DR
SCOTTSVILLE - WEST
HENRIETTA ROAD
SP A
RR
WAY
MAYAPPLE LANE
OSPREY
DRIVE
ER
Project Manager
Designed by
HILLINGDON
COURT
HEI G H TS
R
SALZE
R O AD
Principal-in-Charge
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
PEAK VIEW
86
O VE R L AN D

OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
LN .
S C O TTS VI LL E -
RA
WH
ID
LN.
DR
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
WAY
ALTON
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
WE
S
RU N
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
PECOS
CIR.
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
DR
NE
I VE
MacK AY
STAR GRASS LN.

S
M I CK EN
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
D.
D
BEN R
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE N R I E T TA
WES T
PHLOX
AD
LRO
TREE TOP L ANE
DR .
71
ERIE
PIN
ON
a
ni
i vo
L
doa
ilr
a
R
&
E
KE VIL L
N, & L A
I A, AVO
N
O
V
I
L
SS
SUNDEW
LANE
WAY
RI VE R TO
DESSIE
HTS.
MICKENS
BEND RD.
C OU
L ANE
FOX
GLOVE LN.
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
LANE
THISTLE
LANE
253
ISLAND
GROVE
on
Av
ROAD
STATION
le
vil
ke
a
L
M.O. P.
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
DRI VE
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
N TE
C ON E F L O WE R
LN.
BUTTONBUSH
LN.
BEAKRUSH
FARRELL RD.
FIELD STO
NE
ANEMONE
IE
ER
COUNTESS
DR I VE
SH ADBUSH WAY
DR
.
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
ROAD
R.
WALL F L O WE R D
S TATI ON
EN
LT
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
JUS
TINS
HIRE
DR.
MA
RB
ER
TH
DR
DAV
IE S
RO
DR.
WIN
DEL
IN
D.
ER R
BECK
E LE
PAR K WAY
GARDEN
AREA 6
.P .
GRANGERFORD
WH
E
PL A
CE
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
HEN
RIE
TTA
RD.
. P.
M. O
P.
O.
M.
TS
I GH
HE
NE W
H OLL O W
C AVE
YORK
E
S TAT
L AN E
M E R TE NS I A
M UR P H Y
RI X
F ARR E LL
E
DRI V
ARK
AY P
W
U
THR
H EN D
ROAD
Town of Henrietta
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
WAY
THRU
E XT.
Client:
S TATE
HIG
M . O. P .
RR-1
YORK
NE W
SILVERBERRY RD.
ROAD
BROOKS
PU
R-2-15
IE T
TA
AREA 2
UM
DR
ND
RE
FL O
AD
RO
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
HI L L
SUMMI T POINT DR.
P RE N
RD.
R-1-20
BUC
KLE
Y
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
TR
TH AMES
ACORN LA
.
BEMI
S WAY
S CT
.
IN G T
ON
EN N
R-1-15
DR .
GREEN
253
S TOD
EA ME AD OWS DR.
CHELS
B
PUD
STILLINGTON
CRT.
GRE
EN
I SLE
RO
AD
GRE
EN
AST
ER
IN
LI VO NI ,
A AVON ,
& L AKE
STATION
H ANOVER DR.
79
C OL
RE
D
88
H
UT
DR.
VIL LE R
AILR O A
D
CE
AU T
HO
METHODI ST HILL DRI VE
www.passero.com
GRO
VE
PL A
R AV
ENS
RD.
LEHI G H
SO
VETER ANS
MEMORI AL
PARK
KE
NN
ET
H
T
AR
MP
RA
TERR.
AD
I VE
IN E
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
NDY
BRA
W
S T.
ST
VO
LL
ME
R
DA
RH
E
C
DAWN
VALLEY
I-390
RO
PK
W
Y.
AY
D
GA
LW
DR I VE
WI TH
AILR
OAD
BE CK
UR
E
WIN
PCD
N
BI
CA
Architecture
Engineering
WAY
AREA 1
Y
AND
BR
M..O P
.
INDUSTRIAL W SPECS
LOVE
LACE
LANE
HI L L
.
RD
M O OR
L AK
E VI
LLE
R
DR I VE
WOOD
LI VO
NI A,
AVO
N, &
R-
RI VE R
F AI
LE
ST
MAP
RU
PO
TOWN
LIBR ARY
TOWN
H ALL
EN
GRE
S
RI VER
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
TE
RR
.
INDUSTRIAL
RI V
E
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
15
RL O
DRI VE
SH
R.
KD
OC
R
AM
DRI VE
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
LINHOME
TOW
NC
ENT
RE
DR.
GALWAY DR.
BR
DR
CR E E K D R.
VOL
LME
R
M..O P .
IND - LIMITED COMMERCIAL
DR
PAR
JO
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
39
OK
P AR K
DR I VE
CALKINS
CATTARAGUS DR.
WESTMINSTER
WIL D
FL O WER
HY
L AN
BEL
DON
L OR E TO AVE.
263
DR.
100
CR
IM
IRI S
I VE
GLEN
ALT
O
TO
RE
LO
SCALE: 1:1000
PAL
O
SE
DRI VE
DR.
PKW
Y.
DR.
PAR
KER
HOU
DR I VE
COACHWOOD
LANE
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0
250
500
1000
RD
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
DEE
R
RUN
LEHMANN DRI VE
LE O
RD.
FR I E L
RD
.
DR
I VE
DA
ME
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
ACA
DEM
Y
MI CR ON
AVE
.
KEN
FOX
EA
TEC
H
STR
EE
T
D RI VE
M.O.
GORDON
WAY
R O AD
T RE
US
ND
PO
LUCIUS
NO
RO AD
DRI VE
O AK
81
CENTRE
R EI D S
GR O VE
ST IL L
WAY
RIVE
R
ROAD
B-2
DRI VE
ELK
DING
CA
MP
L AN
T YLE R TON
VI E W D R .
B-2 W/SPECS
B AI L E Y
P.
S
LL
MI
VALL E Y
SHORE
SI N
TR .
CHESAPEA
C APE
B AY
CI R .
ZONING MAP
B-1
YOR K
S
CR O
Date
February 2016
DR
KU S
AP
A
AREA 7
AD
LRO
RAI
SO
AW
B
I AR
BR
S TR
VE
DRI
RI A
L
D RI
VE
BU S
ME
CLOVER
GR EE N
AVE.
RS
R AV
ENS
RD.
CL O O NE Y
AU T
HO
K
ROO
DR
By
Description
N
PE
AS
BR
AN
RO
TER
R AC
E
AD
HI L L CI R .
Date
I VE
DR
AN
C

NG
LO
TR AIL
WARD
WOO
DRID
GE
Archeologically
Sensitive Areas
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Drawing No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
R O AD
1"=1000'
ET
RE
EC
IR C
LE
67
INE
TRE
ET
RAI
TECH DRI VE
TO WN
EAS
T
L
HI L

N/F
202.01-2-6.22
ANE
AREA 4
AREA 5
APR
ILLE
L
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
LIN 202.01-2-6.21
CAI T
N/F
RHTL ROAD, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-47.1
LI N E
TRA
IL
TR AIL
DR.
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
N/F
TOWN OF HENRIETTA
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.01-2-7.1
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
R
DEV USH H
E
TAX LOPM ENRIE
TTA
E
A
20 CCO NT, L
MA 1.01-2 UNT N LC
RIS
SA -28.00 O.
BET
HW 4
AY
N/F
KRENZER, ANNA S.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-13.2
CIRCLE
BI R CH M O U
CIRCLE
MORIN
AREA 3
N/F
SAN
KRENZER, SU
T NO.
N
U
O
TAX ACC
12
3.
201.02-2-1
ROAD
TA
ET
RI
WEST HEN
N/F
KRENZER, SUSAN
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-8.22
MARTIN ROAD
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
.
M. O. P
WAY
RI CK
DER
.P .
M.O
P.
M. O .
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
N/F
TIRABASSI FAMILY
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-15.1
D
ROA
M AR TI N
N/F
CAROLYN W.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-14.11
RE AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
MO
ORE
75
.
.P
.O
M
DR I VE
WAGON TR.
No.
BR
RD .
R E D B R I D GE
VIL LE
)
NE D
( AB AND O
DRI
VE
BRANCH B
SOUTHER
N
FI TZPATRI CK
Revisions
SOUTH
AY
COVERED
LN.
HORSESHOE
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

NORTH
BE D F ORD SH I R E
OD DEL AN E
Y
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
IE
Project Manager
HORSESHOE LN.
HIL
L
GE RWO
GIN
R AI L
KINGLET
ER
TRADITION
PLACE
CH
UR
CH
PR
AI R
E
TR.
DR
.
BE
AD O
FA
LC
ON
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
DR
IV
E
MIDDLE
DR
D R.
DR.
NG
HO
.
DR
EGR
ET
N GBI R D
DR
ALVE R S TONE
AR
E
IV
DR
GOLDFINCH
DRI VE
N/F
THREE CORNERS
PROPERTIES, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.03-1-4.111
MIDDLE ROAD
CIR
.
SWEET P
E
RD
.
RN
RD.
WARBLER
LANE
LO
T
BU
COU
G
Principal-in-Charge
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
AYR SHI R E
HEI GH TS
SALZER
TR AI L
CASCADE
IV
E
TE
R
FL
WAY
LN.
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
HILLINGDON
COURT
WA
Y
MAYAPPLE LANE
OSPREY

PEAKVIEW
R O AD
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Designed by
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
WAY
86
O VE R L AN D
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
Y
E
EN
.
T
L
DR
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
ALTON
L AN E
PAR K WAY
LN .
T TS VI LL E -
Town of Henrietta
71
RU N
RA
WH
ID
LN.
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
WE
S
MacK AY
STAR GRASS LN.

S
M I CK E N
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
D.
BEND R
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE NR I E T TA
WES T
PHLOX
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
DR
NE
I VE
DR.
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-20
ERIE STATION ROAD
Client:
S TATE
DR.
TREE TOP L ANE

PECOS
CIR.
CUSHING
WAY
YORK
N/F
TOBEY, DONALD P.
AND LUCILLE F.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-4
ERIE STATION ROAD
ERIE
PIN
ON
SUNDEW
LANE
a
ni
i vo
L
doa
ilr
a
R
&
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
GARDEN
KE
N, & L A
I A, AVO
LI VON
MICKENS
WAY
R I VE R TO
HTS.
253
ISL AND
GROVE
BEND RD.
SS
FOX
GLOVE LN.
M .O
.P.
THISTLE
LANE
C OU
L ANE
LN.
BUTTONBUSH
DRI VE
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
on
Av
ke
La
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
M E R TE NS I A
ROAD
STATION
le
vil
M.O.P.
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
N TE
C ON E F L O WE R
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
DESSIE
DR I VE
SHADBUSH WAY
DR
.
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
ROAD
R.
WALL F L O WE R D
S TATI ON
E
CH
NIGHTFROST
LANE
L
HIG
AD
FE ASE
HEN
RIE
TTA
DAV
IES
RO
DR
.
POCATELLO
TRAIL
JUS
TINS
HIRE
DR.
MA
RB
ER
TH
DR
AREA 6
AGA
R
WA
Y
N/F
ME GOLF, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-5
EAST HENRIETTA ROAD
N/F
SEARCHES HILL
PROPERTIES, LLC.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-1
ERIE STATION ROAD
SEAR
E LE
PLA
CE
DR.
PL.
WIN
DEL
IN
46
D.
ER R
BECK
M.
O.
S
HT
IG
HE
GRANGERFORD
WH
E
RI X
NE W
H OLL O W
C AVE
YORK
P.
E
S TAT
F AR R E LL
MUR PH Y
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-19
5500 WEST HENRIETTA
ROAD
AVE
.
ROAD
E
DRI V
ARK
AY P
W
U
THR
H EN D
E XT.
RD.
. P.
M. O
WAY
THRU
N/F
CHE
SH
TAX ILL PRO
ACC
P
OU ERTIES
1060 189.01- NT NO. , LLC
1ERIE
STAT 18.1
ION
ROA
D
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
HAYDEN
STREET
SILVERBERRY RD.
TA
IE T
NR
HE
T
E AS
M. O. P .
IN
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
AVE
.
AN
NE W
I-90
D AR D
PU
M..O P
.
77
TIS S
AK

N/F
ROCHESTER GAS AND
ELEC. CORP.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-18.2
MARTIN ROAD
ROAD
BROOKS
DR .
GREEN
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
D R I VE

C OL
DR
IN
ND
FL O
RE
AD
RO
NE
VI N
S
RO
AD
CO
NN
OR
WA
LLM
N/F
YOST, DONALD W. AND
ISABELLE R.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-17.1
208 BROOKS ROAD
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-18.1
24 BROOKS ROAD
BUC
KLE
Y
P RE N
RD.
AREA 2
GRE
EN
AST
ER
253
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
HI L L
SUMMI T POINT DR.
CE
TR
TH AMES
GRE
EN
I SLE
RO
AD
BEMI
S WAY
S CT
.
IN G T
ROUTE FROM AREAS 1

AND 2 TO INTERSTATE
390 EXIT 12
PL A
ACORN LA
.
S TOD
ENN
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-5
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
UM
CR EE K D R.
RE
D
LI VONI ,
A AVO ,
N & LA
KE
STATION
www.passero.com
GRO
VE
AD
DRI VE
88
ON
E A ME AD OWS D R.
CHELS
B
STILLINGTON
CRT.
WIL
D
HY
L AN
ALT
O
BEL
DO
N
TOW
NC
ENT
RE
DR.
RO
HANOVER DR.
79
.
RD
Architecture
Engineering
DR.
VIL LE R
AILR O
AD
METHODIST HILL DRI VE
H
UT
N
BI
CA
VETER ANS
MEMORI AL
PARK
KE
NN
ET
H
T
AR
MP
RA
VO
LL
ME
R
DR
I VE
WIN
E
SO
I-390
RLO
PK
W
Y.
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
ND Y
BRA
S T.
ST
DA
RH
E
C
HI L L
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
RI V
E
AY
D
GA
LW
DR I VE
WI TH
BE CK
AKE
VILL
ER
UR
TERR.
ST
TOWN
LIBR ARY
TOWN
HALL
WAY
DAWN
VALLEY
LEHI G H
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-21
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
PO
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
M O OR
AREA 1
LOVE
LACE
LANE
E
WIN
LEGEND:
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.1
1520 JOHN STREET
Y
AND
BR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-43
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-15.1
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
N/F
ILE,
TAX MARY C
ACC
.
OU -- TRU
GH
.
LI V
STAT 1-2.1
ONI
ION
A, A
ROA
VON
,&
D
L
DR I VE
WOOD
VAS
R-
M..O P
.
F AI
RI VE R
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
DR I VE
EN
GRE
RU
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
15
WIL D
FL O WER
39
OK
K
PAR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-17
EAST RIVER ROAD
S
RI VER
.
DR
CK
O
R
AM
SH
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
AILR
OAD
DRI VE
GALWAY DR.
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
LINHOME
JO
MAP
L
N/F
MICHAEL
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-20.1
M..O P .
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.2
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
TE
RR
.
PAR K
CALKINS
CATTARAGUS DR.
WESTMINSTER
ER
RY
DR.
MO
IRI S
I VE
GLEN
100
CR
IM
DRI VE
DR.
TO
LO
263
SCALE: 1:1000
PAL
O
SE
L OR E TO AVE.
VOL
LME
R
DR I VE
DEE
R
RUN
COACHWOOD
LANE
PAR
KER
HOU
US
MI CR ON
ACA
DEM
Y
DR.
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0
250
500
1000
RD
RE
T RE
LEHMANN DRI VE
LE O
RD .
FR I E L
RD
.
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
DR
I VE
DA
ME
R O AD
PKW
Y.
TEC
H
STR
EE
T
D RI VE
GORDON
WAY
RO AD
DRI VE
ND
PO
ST IL L
LUCIUS
NO
CENTRE
ROAD
R EI D S
O AK
WAY
RIVE
R
G R O VE
DRI VE
ELK
81
M.O.
T YLE R TON
VI E W D R .
DING
CA
MP
L AN
VALLE Y
SHORE
B AI LE Y
P.
TR .
S
LL
MI
AVE
CHESAP
C AP E
BAY
CI R .
YOR K
CR OS
Date
February 2016
HORIZONTAL SCALE
1000
SANITARY SEWER
DISTRICT MAP
500
1000
2000
SCALE: 1"=1000'
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Engineering
www.passero.com
AREA 1
Client:
Town of Henrietta
475 Calkins Road
Rochester, NY 14467
AREA 2
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Principal-in-Charge
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691

Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
Designed by
AREA 6
AREA 7
Revisions
No.
Date
By
Description

SANITARY SEWER
DISTRICTS
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
AREA 5
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
AREA 3
Drawing No.
AREA 4
Sheet No.
Scale:
1" = 1000'
Date
February 2016
HI
CO
NN
OR
KU S
AW
B
I AR
BR
SO
S TR
WIL
D
VE
DR I
ME
MO
RI A
L
VE
D RI
CLOVER
GRE EN
CL OO NE Y
AGA
R
AU T
HO
RS
RD.
HAYDEN
STREET
RAV
ENS
PL.
AVE
.
DR
.
POCATELLO
TRAIL
FE AS
E
CH
AP
A
M..O P
.
AR D
DR .
WA
Y
AK
WA
L LM
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
NIGHTFROST
LANE
EL
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
D RI VE
TIS S
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
TR
NE
VIN
S
RO
AD
SUMMI T POINT DR.
ER
RY
I VE
DR
HY
L AN
AD
RO
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
C T.
IN G T
ON
BUC
KLE
Y
P RE N
RD .
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
AN
CUSHING
WAY
HE
E AS
NR
IE T
TA
AREA 2
BU S
.
IN
ND
FL O
RE
BEMI
S WAY
HI L L
S
ENN
TH AMES
DR .
253
S TODD
EA MEAD OWS D R.
CHELS
B
STILLINGTON
CRT.
UM
CR EE K D R.
RE
D
& L AKE
LI VONI ,
A AVON ,
STATION
GRE
EN
AST
ER
GREEN
ACORN L A
.
H ANOVER DR.
79
GRE
EN
ISLE
RO
AD
AVE.
SO
H
UT
CE
DR.
DR
AD
RO
88
KE
NN
ET
H
www.passero.com
GRO
VE
PL A
AD
I VE
WIN
E
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
ND Y
BRA
T
AR
TERR.
VALLE Y
LEHI GH
VETER ANS
MEMORI AL
PARK
RLO
PK
W
Y.
AY
D
GA
LW
MP
RA
C
E
VO
LL
ME
DA
RH
UR
ST
B E CK
S T.
WI TH
DRI VE
AD
AILR
O
LI V
ONI
A, A
VON
,&
E
WIN
DAWN
N
BI
CA
Architecture
Engineering
WAY
AREA 1
Y
AND
BR
M..O P
.
LOVE
LACE
LANE
HI L L
.
RD
M OOR
LAK
E VI
LLE
R
DR I VE
WOOD
RI VE R
R-
LE
F AI
ST
I-390
METHODI ST HILL DRIVE
MAP
TE
RR
.
RU
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
PO
TOWN
HALL
EN
GRE
S
RI VER
RI V
E
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
15
TOWN
LIBR ARY
VILLE R
AILR O
.
DR
CK
RO
AM
SH
DRIVE
GALWAY DR.
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
DRI VE
TOW
NC
ENT
RE
DR.
DR
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
39
OK
M..O P .
LINHOME
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
K
PAR
PAR K
DRI VE
CALKINS
CATTAR AGUS DR.
WESTMINSTER
100
WIL D
F L O WER
C OL
L OR E TO AVE.
263
DR.
ALT
O
TO
BEL
DO
N
LO
RE
IRIS
CR
IM
DRI VE
AVE
.
GLEN
SCALE: 1:1000
PAL
O
SE
COACHWOOD
LANE
VOL
LME
R
DEE
R
RUN
DR.
PKW
Y.
RD
.
DR
I VE
ACA
DEM
DR I VE
RD
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
PAR
KER
HOU
MI CR O N
LEHMANN DRI V
HORIZONTAL SCALEE
0
250
500
1000
LE O
R D.
FRIE L
YD
R.
CENTRE
GORDON
KEN
FOX
EA
DA
ME
STR
EE T
DRI VE
P.
LUCIUS
WAY
R O AD
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
T RE
US
ND
PO
NO
RO AD
DRI VE
O AK
GR O VE
ST ILL
WAY
RIVE
R
R EI D S
DRI VE
ELK
81
M.O.
T YLE R TON
VI E W DR .
DING
CA
MP
L AN
TEC
H
B AIL E Y
VAL LE Y
SHORE
SI N
TR .
CHESAPEA
C AP E
S
CR O
LL
MI
CI R .
BAY
ROAD
AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICTS
YOR K
77
IN
DR.
AD
AREA 7
.P.
AD
LRO
RAI
D
ROA
M AR TI N
RI CK
DER
K
P AR
DRI
VE
Date
By
Description
N
PE
AS
BR
AN
AD
RO
ACE
AREA 5
LIN
CAI T
WE S TC OM BE
DR
HI LL CI R .
DR
I VE
AN
CH
TER
R

NG
LO
HIL
L
E AS
T
L
HIL
DR.
CH
UR
CH
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
M. O
.P .
TRA
IL
CIRCLE
B IR CH M O U
W AY
CIRCLE
MORIN
No.
OK
BR
R D.
R E D BR I D G E
NE D
( AB AND O
BR ANCH B R O
WOO
DRID
GE
75
TR AIL
FI TZPATRICK
RE AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
WARD
Agricultural
Districts
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
1"=1000'
APR
ILLE
L
E
CL
EC
IR
ANE
67
ET
RE
TO WN
Sheet No.
Scale:
R O AD
AIL
LI N E
R U SH -H E N R IE T TA
20141848.001
Drawing No.
TRE
E TR
M . O. P
AREA 4
State: New York
Project No.
INE
AREA 3
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
M. O .
P.
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
County: Monroe
TECH DRI VE
PLACE
CR O S SI N G
GT
ON
DONCAS
TER
BRACKN
ELL
CIRCLE
L ON
SEDGLEY
PARK
.
.P
.O
M
WE
ST
CO
MB
E
AT
E
WAGON TR.
MO
ORE
OG
COVERED
SI N G
Revisions
SOUTH
SOUTHERN
DR I VE
HA
RR
CR O
S
LN.
HORSESHOE
AY
AR
G AT
E
NORTH
B E D F ORD SHI R E
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
HORSESHOE LN.
OD DEL AN E
Y
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
RK
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
TRAIL
GE RWO
GIN
TR AI L
PA
MIDDLE
TR .
DR
.
BE
AI R
E
AD O
PR
FA
LC
ON
LO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
DR
IV
E
VIL LE
WA
Y
ALVE R S TONE
CIR
.
E
N, & L AK
I A, AVO
LI VON
D RI
COU
GAR
DR
DR.
D R.
RN
NG
HO
DR
IE
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
PEAKVIEW
TR AI L
RD
.
TRADITION
PLACE
AYR SHI R E
DR
GOLDFINCH
EGR
ET
HU M M IN G BI RD
ER
HILLINGDON
COURT
HE I G H T S
R
SALZE
R O AD
CASCADE
SWEET P
E
DRI VE
STARFLOWER
DRIVE
O VE R L AN D
WARBLER
LANE
IV
E
Y
FL
T
BU
RD.
WAY
TE
R
OW
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
E
IV
DR
SCOTTSVILLE - WEST
HENRIETTA ROAD
SPA
RR
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
86
MAYAPPLE LANE
LN.
Principal-in-Charge
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
LN .
SC O T TS VI LL E -
OSPREY
DRIVE
RA
WH
ID
LN.
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
WAY
ALTON

Designed by
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
R UN
WE
S
MacK AY
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
PECOS
CIR.
DR .
E
EN
.
LT
DR
71
TREE TOP L ANE
STAR GRASS LN.

S
MI CKE N
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
.
BEND RD
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE N RI E TTA
WE S T
PHLOX
E RI E
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W ITE CI
R.
S TO
NE
VE
STATION
e
vill
ke
La
PIN
ON
a
ni
vo
&
M.O.P.
-L
ad
ro
ail
n
vo
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
JUS
TINS
HIRE
DR.
MA
RB
ER
TH
DR
M .O
WAY
RI VE R TO
SS
BEND RD.
SUNDEW
LANE
N TE
FOX
GLOVE LN.
253
ISLAND
GROVE
MICKENS
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
THISTLE
LANE
C OU
LANE
LN.
BUTTONBUSH
ANEMONE
LN.
BE AKRUSH
HTS.
SHADBUSH WAY
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
LANE
DESSIE
DR I VE
CON E F L O WE R
IE
ER
DRI VE
COUNTESS
FARRELL RD.
FIELD STO
NE
ROAD
.
W ALLF L O WE R D R
S TATI ON
DR
.
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
ROAD
PU
DAV
I ES
RO
P AR K WAY
GARDEN
AREA 6
WIN
DEL
IN
LE R
AVE
.
D.
ER R
BECK
EE
PL A
CE
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
HEN
RIE
TTA
RD.
. P.
M. O
P.
O.
M.
TS
IGH
HE
GRANGERFORD
WH
IX
NE W
H OL L O W
C AVE
L AN E
M E R TE NS I A
M UR P H Y
H EN DR
E
S TAT
YORK
E
DRI V
PARK
WAY
THRU
ROAD
Town of Henrietta
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
WAY
THRU
F AR R E LL
Client:
S TATE
HIG
M. O . P .
I-90
E XT.
YORK
NE W
SILVERBERR Y RD.
ROAD
BROOKS
Date
February 2016
HI
CO
NN
OR
KU S
AW
B
I AR
BR
SO
S TR
WIL
D
VE
DR I
ME
MO
RI A
L
VE
D RI
CLOVER
GRE EN
CL OO NE Y
AGA
R
AU T
HO
RS
RD.
HAYDEN
STREET
RAV
ENS
PL.
AVE
.
DR
.
POCATELLO
TRAIL
FE AS
E
CH
AP
A
M..O P
.
AR D
DR .
WA
Y
AK
WA
L LM
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
NIGHTFROST
LANE
EL
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
D RI VE
TIS S
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
TR
NE
VIN
S
RO
AD
SUMMI T POINT DR.
ER
RY
I VE
DR
HY
L AN
BU S
.
DR
IN
ND
FL O
RE
AD
RO
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
C T.
IN G T
ON
BUC
KLE
Y
P RE N
RD .
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
AN
CUSHING
WAY
HE
E AS
NR
IE T
TA
AREA 2
DR .
BEMI
S WAY
HI L L
S
ENN
TH AMES
GRE
EN
AST
ER
GREEN
253
S TODD
EA MEAD OWS D R.
CHELS
B
STILLINGTON
CRT.
UM
CR EE K D R.
RE
D
& L AKE
LI VONI ,
A AVON ,
STATION
CE
AVE.
SO
GRE
EN
ISLE
RO
AD
ACORN L A
.
H ANOVER DR.
79
www.passero.com
GRO
VE
PL A
AD
AD
KE
NN
ET
H
88
Architecture
Engineering
DR.
VILLE R
AILR O
I VE
WIN
E
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
ND Y
BRA
T
AR
TERR.
VALLE Y
LEHI GH
H
UT
N
BI
CA
VETER ANS
MEMORI AL
PARK
RO
PK
W
Y.
AY
D
GA
LW
MP
RA
C
E
VO
LL
ME
DA
RH
UR
ST
B E CK
S T.
WI TH
DRI VE
AD
AILR
O
LI V
ONI
A, A
VON
,&
E
WIN
DAWN
.
RD
WAY
AREA 1
Y
AND
BR
M..O P
.
LOVE
LACE
LANE
HI L L
TOWN
HALL
M OOR
LAK
E VI
LLE
R
DR I VE
WOOD
RI VE R
R-
LE
F AI
ST
I-390
MAP
TE
RR
.
RU
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
PO
TOWN
LIBR ARY
EN
GRE
S
RI VER
RI V
E
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
15
RLO
DRI VE
.
DR
CK
RO
AM
SH
DRIVE
GALWAY DR.
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
LINHOME
TOW
NC
ENT
RE
DR.
DR
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
39
OK
K
PAR
M..O P .
WETLAND UNDER NYSDEC JURISTICTION
PAR K
DRI VE
CALKINS
CATTAR AGUS DR.
WESTMINSTER
100
WIL D
F L O WER
C OL
L OR E TO AVE.
263
DR.
ALT
O
TO
BEL
DO
N
LO
RE
IRIS
CR
IM
DRI VE
GLEN
SCALE: 1:1000
PAL
O
SE
COACHWOOD
LANE
VOL
LME
R
DEE
R
RUN
DR.
PKW
Y.
RD
.
DR
I VE
RD
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
YD
R.
DR I VE
LEHMANN DRI V
HORIZONTAL SCALEE
0
250
500
1000
LE O
R D.
FRIE L
T RE
ACA
DEM
MI CR O N
AVE
.
R O AD
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
PAR
KER
HOU
GORDON
WAY
KEN
FOX
EA
DA
ME
STR
EE T
DRI VE
M.O.
CENTRE
LUCIUS
NO
US
ND
PO
TEC
H
81
RO AD
DRI VE
O AK
ROAD
GR O VE
ST ILL
WAY
RIVE
R
R EI D S
DRI VE
ELK
DING
CA
MP
L AN
T YLE R TON
VI E W DR .
WETLAND UNDER US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

(FEDERAL) JURISTICTION
B AIL E Y
P.
LL
MI
VAL LE Y
SHORE
SI N
S
CR O
TR .
CHESAPEA
C AP E
BAY
CI R .
WETLAND MAP
YOR K
77
IN
DR.
AD
AREA 7
.P.
AD
LRO
RAI
D
ROA
M AR TI N
RI CK
DER
K
P AR
DRI
VE
Date
By
Description
N
PE
AS
BR
AN
AD
RO
ACE
AREA 5
LIN
CAI T
WE S TC OM BE
DR
HI LL CI R .
DR
I VE
AN
CH
TER
R

NG
LO
HIL
L
E AS
T
L
HIL
DR.
CH
UR
CH
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
M. O
.P .
TRA
IL
CIRCLE
B IR CH M O U
W AY
CIRCLE
MORIN
No.
OK
BR
R D.
R E D BR I D G E
NE D
( AB AND O
BR ANCH B R O
WOO
DRID
GE
75
TR AIL
FI TZPATRICK
RE AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
WARD
Wetland Map
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
1"=1000'
APR
ILLE
L
E
CL
EC
IR
ANE
67
ET
RE
TO WN
Sheet No.
Scale:
R O AD
AIL
LI N E
20141848.001
Drawing No.
TRE
E TR
M . O. P
AREA 4
State: New York
Project No.
INE
AREA 3
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
M. O .
P.
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
County: Monroe
TECH DRI VE
PLACE
CR O S SI N G
GT
ON
DONCAS
TER
BRACKN
ELL
CIRCLE
L ON
SEDGLEY
PARK
.
.P
.O
M
WE
ST
CO
MB
E
AT
E
WAGON TR.
MO
ORE
OG
COVERED
SI N G
Revisions
SOUTH
SOUTHERN
DR I VE
HA
RR
CR O
S
LN.
HORSESHOE
AY
AR
G AT
E
NORTH
B E D F ORD SHI R E
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
HORSESHOE LN.
OD DEL AN E
Y
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
RK
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
TRAIL
GE RWO
GIN
TR AI L
PA
MIDDLE
TR .
DR
.
BE
AI R
E
AD O
PR
FA
LC
ON
LO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
DR
IV
E
VIL LE
WA
Y
ALVE R S TONE
CIR
.
E
N, & L AK
I A, AVO
LI VON
D RI
COU
GAR
DR
DR.
D R.
RN
NG
HO
DR
IE
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
PEAKVIEW
TR AI L
RD
.
TRADITION
PLACE
AYR SHI R E
DR
GOLDFINCH
EGR
ET
HU M M IN G BI RD
ER
HILLINGDON
COURT
HE I G H T S
R
SALZE
R O AD
CASCADE
SWEET P
E
DRI VE
STARFLOWER
DRIVE
O VE R L AN D
WARBLER
LANE
IV
E
Y
FL
T
BU
RD.
WAY
TE
R
OW
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
E
IV
DR
SCOTTSVILLE - WEST
HENRIETTA ROAD
SPA
RR
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
86
MAYAPPLE LANE
LN.
Principal-in-Charge
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
LN .
SC O T TS VI LL E -
OSPREY
DRIVE
RA
WH
ID
LN.
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
WAY
ALTON

Designed by
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
R UN
WE
S
MacK AY
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
PECOS
CIR.
DR .
E
EN
.
LT
DR
71
TREE TOP L ANE
STAR GRASS LN.

S
MI CKE N
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
.
BEND RD
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE N RI E TTA
WE S T
PHLOX
E RI E
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W ITE CI
R.
S TO
NE
VE
STATION
e
vill
ke
La
PIN
ON
a
ni
vo
&
M.O.P.
-L
ad
ro
ail
n
vo
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
JUS
TINS
HIRE
DR.
MA
RB
ER
TH
DR
M .O
WAY
RI VE R TO
SS
BEND RD.
SUNDEW
LANE
N TE
FOX
GLOVE LN.
253
ISLAND
GROVE
MICKENS
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
THISTLE
LANE
C OU
LANE
LN.
BUTTONBUSH
ANEMONE
LN.
BE AKRUSH
HTS.
SHADBUSH WAY
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
LANE
DESSIE
DR I VE
CON E F L O WE R
IE
ER
DRI VE
COUNTESS
FARRELL RD.
FIELD STO
NE
ROAD
.
W ALLF L O WE R D R
S TATI ON
DR
.
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
ROAD
PU
DAV
I ES
RO
P AR K WAY
GARDEN
AREA 6
WIN
DEL
IN
LE R
AVE
.
D.
ER R
BECK
EE
PL A
CE
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
HEN
RIE
TTA
RD.
. P.
M. O
P.
O.
M.
TS
IGH
HE
GRANGERFORD
WH
IX
NE W
H OL L O W
C AVE
L AN E
M E R TE NS I A
M UR P H Y
H EN DR
E
S TAT
YORK
E
DRI V
PARK
WAY
THRU
ROAD
Town of Henrietta
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
WAY
THRU
F AR R E LL
Client:
S TATE
HIG
M. O . P .
I-90
E XT.
YORK
NE W
SILVERBERR Y RD.
ROAD
BROOKS
Date
February 2016
HORIZONTAL SCALE
1000
WATER DISTRICT MAP
500
1000
2000
SCALE: 1"=1000'
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Engineering
www.passero.com
AREA 1
Client:
Town of Henrietta
475 Calkins Road
Rochester, NY 14467
AREA 2
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Principal-in-Charge
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691

Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
Designed by
AREA 6
AREA 7
Revisions
No.
Date
By
Description

WATER DISTRICTS
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
AREA 5
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
AREA 3
Drawing No.
AREA 4
Sheet No.
Scale:
1" = 1000'
Date
February 2016
HI
AW
B
I AR
SO
S TR
CR
IM
WIL
D
VE
DR I
RI A
L
VE
ME
CLOVER
GRE EN
RD.
CL OO NE Y
AU T
HO
RS
SILVERBERR Y RD.
HEN
RIE
TTA
HIG
IE
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

DRI
VE
HORSESHOE LN.
NORTH
LN.
HORSESHOE
B E D F ORD SHI R E
Revisions
SOUTH
BR ANCH B R O
DR
Date
By
Description
N
PE
AS
BR
AN
RO
ACE
AD
HI LL CI R .
DR
I VE
AN
CH
TER
R

NG
LO
HIL
L
E AS
T
WARD
Sanitary Sewer
Map
TRAIL
CH
UR
CH
HIL
No.
OK
WOO
DRID
GE
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Drawing No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
R O AD
1"=1000'
APR
ILLE
L
E
CL
EC
IR
ANE
67
ET
RE
TECH DRI VE
N/F
202.01-2-6.22
AIL
M . O. P
TO WN
AREA 5
TRE
E TR
AREA 4
N/F
TOWN OF HENRIETTA
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.01-2-7.1
MARTIN ROAD
INE
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-6.21
N/F
RHTL ROAD, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-47.1
LIN
CAI T
LI N E
D RI
RAV
ENS
TRADITION
PLACE
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
N/F
DEV RUSH H
TAX ELOPM ENRIE
TTA
E
A
20 CCO NT, L
MA 1.01-2 UNT N LC
RIS
SA -28.00 O.
BET
HW 4
AY
DR.
N/F
KRENZER, ANNA S.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-13.2
ER
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
Project Manager
BR
R D.
R E D BR I D G E
NE D
VIL LE
( AB AND O
MIDDLE
CIRCLE
B IR CH M O U
W AY
CIRCLE
FI TZPATRICK
N
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
AREA 3
Principal-in-Charge
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
SOUTHERN
TRA
IL
WENRICH
CIRCLE
MORIN
N/F
KRENZER, SUSAN
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-8.22
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
AN
KRENZER, SUS
UNT NO.
TAX ACCO
12
201.02-2-13.
TTA ROAD
WEST HENRIE
M. O .
P.
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
N/F
TIRABASSI FAMILY
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-15.1
ER
RY
AD
LRO
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
OD DEL AN E
Y
RI CK
DER
.P .
M. O
N/F
CAROLYN W.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-14.11
WE S TC OM BE

JUS
TINS
HIRE
DR.
MA
RB
ER
TH
DR
WE
S
WA
Y
DR
.
TR .
GE RWO
GIN
D
ROA
M AR TI N
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Designed by
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
N/F
THREE CORNERS
PROPERTIES, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.03-1-4.111
MIDDLE ROAD
AI R
E
PR
BE
AD O
E
EN
.
LT
DR
AYR SHI R E
ALVE R S TONE
TR AIL
75
P AR
L ON
71
RAI
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W ITE CI
R.
S TO
NE
VE
DR
COU
GAR
RE AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
PLACE
DONCAS
TER
BRACKN
ELL
CIRCLE
ON
GT
CR O S SI N G
.
.P
.O
M
WE
ST
CO
MB
E
MO
ORE
SEDGLEY
PARK
WAGON TR.
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
PEAKVIEW
DR I VE
AT
E
COVERED
SI N G
L AN E
P AR K WAY
AY
AR
OG
Town of Henrietta
HA
RR
CR O
S
Client:
S TATE
HILLINGDON
COURT
CIR
.
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
RK
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
G AT
E
HE I G H T S
R
SALZE
TR AI L
PA
CUSHING
WAY
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
D RI
PIN
ON
D R.
DR.
RD
.
FA
LC
ON
LO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
DR
IV
E
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
AN
WAY
ALTON
TR AI L
RN
NG
HO
DR
EGR
ET
HU M M IN G BI RD
ROAD
DR
GOLDFINCH
DRI VE
STARFLOWER
DRIVE
SWEET P
E
NIGHTFROST
LANE
EL
DR.
DR.
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
R O AD
CASCADE
WARBLER
LANE
IV
E
Y
FL
T
BU
RD.
WAY
TE
R
OW
O VE R L AN D
E
IV
DR
SCOTTSVILLE - WEST
HENRIETTA ROAD
SPA
RR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-20
ERIE STATION ROAD
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
FE AS
PU
AREA 7
86
MAYAPPLE LANE
LN.
POCATELLO
TRAIL
LN .
SC O T TS VI LL E -
OSPREY
DRIVE
BR
DR
HY
L AN
AD
RO
AD
PECOS
CIR.
DR .
RA
WH
ID
LN.
DR
.
GARDEN
TREE TOP L ANE
STAR GRASS LN.

S
MI CKE N
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
.
BEND RD
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE N RI E TTA
WE S T
PHLOX
AVE
.
YORK
N/F
TOBEY, DONALD P.
AND LUCILLE F.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-4
ERIE STATION ROAD
E RI E
R UN
AGA
R
WA
Y
E
CH
AP
A
DAV
I ES
RO
AREA 6
STATION
e
vill
ke
La
MacK AY
PL.
WIN
DEL
IN
LE R
.P.
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
HAYDEN
STREET
M E R TE NS I A
E
N, & L AK
I A, AVO
LI VON
D.
ER R
BECK
EE
AVE
.
WH
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-19
5500 WEST HENRIETTA
ROAD
PL A
CE
M .O
WAY
RI VE R TO
a
ni
vo
&
M.O.P.
N TE
SS
BEND RD.
SUNDEW
LANE
-L
ad
ro
ail
n
vo
DR
.
FOX
GLOVE LN.
253
ISLAND
GROVE
MICKENS
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
THISTLE
LANE
C OU
LANE
LN.
BUTTONBUSH
ANEMONE
LN.
BE AKRUSH
HTS.
SHADBUSH WAY
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
LANE
DESSIE
DR I VE
CON E F L O WE R
IE
ER
DRI VE
COUNTESS
FARRELL RD.
FIELD STO
NE
ROAD
.
W ALLF L O WE R D R
S TATI ON
AR D
DR .
N/F
ME GOLF, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-5
EAST HENRIETTA ROAD
N/F
SEARCHES HILL
PROPERTIES, LLC.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-1
ERIE STATION ROAD
SEAR
N/F
CHE
SH
TAX ILL PRO
ACC
P
OU ERTIES
1060 189.01-1 NT NO. , LLC
ERIE
-1
STATI 8.1
ON
ROA
D
RD.
. P.
M. O
P.
O.
M.
TS
IGH
M UR P H Y
IX
HE
E
DRI V
PARK
WAY
THRU
GRANGERFORD
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
TR
VIN
S
NE
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
4
H EN DR
NE W
H OL L O W
C AVE
CE
TA
IE T
NR
HE
E AS
M. O . P .
IN
WAY
THRU
E
S TAT
TIS S
AK
NE W
I-90
YORK
BU S
.
DR
IN
ND
FL O
RE
LI VONI ,
A AVON ,
RO
AD
M..O P
.
77
ROAD
UM
CR EE K D R.
RE
D
& L AKE
C T.
IN G T
ON
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
CO
NN
OR
KU S
N/F
ROCHESTER GAS AND
ELEC. CORP.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-18.2
MARTIN ROAD
ROAD
F AR R E LL
BUC
KLE
Y
P RE N
WA
L LM
BROOKS
E XT.
DR .
253
D RI VE
N/F
YOST, DONALD W. AND
ISABELLE R.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-17.1
208 BROOKS ROAD
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-18.1
24 BROOKS ROAD
GRE
EN
AST
ER
GREEN
ACORN L A
.
RD .
AREA 2
GRE
EN
ISLE
RO
AD
BEMI
S WAY
SUMMI T POINT DR.
www.passero.com
GRO
VE
PL A
AD
DRIVE
KE
NN
ET
H
STATION
HI L L
S
ENN
TH AMES
N
BI
CA
Architecture
Engineering
DR.
VILLE R
AILR O
AD
RO
88
S TODD
EA MEAD OWS D R.
CHELS
B
STILLINGTON
CRT.
C OL
PAL
O
TOW
NC
ENT
RE
DR.
I VE
DR
H ANOVER DR.
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-5
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
.
RD
VETER ANS
MEMORI AL
PARK
H
UT
TOWN
HALL
AVE.
SO
I-390
RLO
WIN
E
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
ND Y
BRA
T
AR
MP
RA
R
VO
LL
ME
DA
RH
C
E
HI L L
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
PK
W
Y.
AY
D
GA
LW
ST
B E CK
UR
TERR.
VALLE Y
LEHI GH
79
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-21
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
E
WIN
DAWN
ST
TOWN
LIBR ARY
WAY
AREA 1
S T.
WI TH
DRI VE
AD
AILR
O
AKE
VILL
ER
LOVE
LACE
LANE
PO
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
M OOR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.1
1520 JOHN STREET
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
Y
AND
BR
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-43
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-15.1
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
&L
DR I VE
WOOD
V AS
N/F
ILE,
TAX MARY C
ACC
.
OU -- TRU
LEHIG 175.01 NT NO ST
-1
.
H STA -2.1
LI V
ONI
TION
A, A
ROA
VON
,
D
R-
M..O P
.
F AI
RI VE R
RI V
E
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
15
DRI VE
EN
GRE
RU
.
DR
CK
RO
AM
SH
WIL D
F L O WER
39
OK
K
PAR
GALWAY DR.
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-17
EAST RIVER ROAD
S
RI VER
LE
DRI VE
MAP
LINHOME
M..O P .
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.2
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
N/F
MICHAEL
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-20.1
TE
RR
.
PAR K
100
CALKINS
CATTAR AGUS DR.
WESTMINSTER
263
DR.
ALT
O
TO
LO
RE
IRIS
MO
DR.
GLEN
I VE
SCALE: 1:1000
BEL
DO
N
L OR E TO AVE.
VOL
LME
R
DEE
R
COACHWOOD
LANE
SE
ACA
DEM
YD
R.
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
RUN
DRI VE
RD
PKW
Y.
RD
.
DR
I VE
DA
ME
DR I VE
LEHMANN DRI V
HORIZONTAL SCALEE
0
250
500
1000
LE O
R D.
FRIE L
T RE
US
MI CR O N
AVE
.
KEN
FOX
TEC
H
STR
EE T
DRI VE
GORDON
R O AD
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
PAR
KER
HOU
LUCIUS
WAY
RO AD
ND
PO
NO
CENTRE
ROAD
DRI VE
O AK
WAY
RIVE
R
GR O VE
ST ILL
P.
T YLE R TON
R EI D S
81
M.O.
ELK
VI E W DR .
DING
CA
MP
L AN
VAL LE Y
SHORE
B AIL E Y
DRI VE
TR .
LL
MI
EA
SI N
CHESAPEA
BAY
CI R .
C AP E
S
CR O
SEWER LOCATIONS
YOR K
Date
February 2016
HI
AW
B
I AR
BR
SO
S TR
WIL
D
VE
DR I
MO
RI A
L
VE
D RI
ME
KU S
CLOVER
GRE EN
HAYDEN
STREET
AGA
R
AU T
HO
RS
RD.
PL.
AVE
.
DR
.
POCATELLO
TRAIL
FE AS
E
CH
NIGHTFROST
LANE
EL
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
AP
A
M..O P
.
AR D
DR .
WA
Y
AK
WA
L LM
GREEN
APPLE
PARK
TR
NE
D RI VE
TIS S
GREEN
ALDER
PARK
CL OO NE Y
FL O
RE
AD
RO
CO
NN
OR
VIN
S
RO
AD
SUMMI T POINT DR.
ER
RY
I VE
DR
HY
L AN
BU S
.
DR
ND
IN
& L AKE
LI VONI ,
A AVON ,
KE
NN
ET
H
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
C T.
IN G T
ON
BUC
KLE
Y
P RE N
RD .
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
AN
CUSHING
WAY
HE
E AS
NR
IE T
TA
AREA 2
DR .
BEMI
S WAY
HI L L
S
ENN
TH AMES
GRE
EN
AST
ER
GREEN
253
S TODD
EA MEAD OWS D R.
CHELS
B
STILLINGTON
CRT.
UM
CR EE K D R.
RE
D
AD
AD
STATION
CE
AVE.
SO
GRE
EN
ISLE
RO
AD
ACORN L A
.
H ANOVER DR.
79
www.passero.com
GRO
VE
PL A
RAV
ENS
88
Architecture
Engineering
DR.
VILLE R
AILR O
I VE
WIN
E
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
ND Y
BRA
S T.
T
AR
DA
RH
C
E
VO
LL
ME
MP
RA
TERR.
VALLE Y
LEHI GH
H
UT
N
BI
CA
VETER ANS
MEMORI AL
PARK
RLO
PK
W
Y.
AY
D
ST
B E CK
GA
LW
DRI VE
WI TH
AILR
O
AD
UR
E
WIN
DAWN
.
RD
WAY
AREA 1
Y
AND
BR
M..O P
.
LOVE
LACE
LANE
HI L L
TOWN
HALL
M OOR
LAK
E VI
LLE
R
DR I VE
WOOD
LI V
ONI
A, A
VON
,&
R-
RI VE R
F AI
LE
ST
I-390
MAP
RU
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
PO
TE
RR
.
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
15
TOWN
LIBR ARY
EN
GRE
S
RI VER
RI V
E
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
DRI VE
.
DR
CK
RO
AM
SH
DRIVE
GALWAY DR.
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
M..O P .
LINHOME
TOW
NC
ENT
RE
DR.
RO
DR
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
39
OK
K
PAR
PAR K
DRI VE
CALKINS
CATTAR AGUS DR.
WESTMINSTER
100
WIL D
F L O WER
C OL
L OR E TO AVE.
263
DR.
ALT
O
TO
BEL
DO
N
LO
RE
IRIS
CR
IM
DRI VE
AVE
.
GLEN
SCALE: 1:1000
PAL
O
SE
COACHWOOD
LANE
VOL
LME
R
DEE
R
RUN
DR.
PKW
Y.
YD
R.
ACA
DEM
DR I VE
RD
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
PAR
KER
HOU
MI CR O N
LEHMANN DRI V
HORIZONTAL SCALEE
0
250
500
1000
LE O
R D.
FRIE L
RD
.
DR
I VE
DA
ME
CENTRE
GORDON
KEN
FOX
EA
TEC
H
STR
EE T
DRI VE
P.
LUCIUS
WAY
R O AD
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
T RE
US
ND
PO
NO
RO AD
DRI VE
O AK
ROAD
GR O VE
ST ILL
WAY
RIVE
R
R EI D S
81
M.O.
ELK
DING
CA
MP
L AN
T YLE R TON
VI E W DR .
FEDERAL FLOODPLAIN
B AIL E Y
DRI VE
TR .
LL
MI
VAL LE Y
SHORE
SI N
CHESAPEA
BAY
CI R .
C AP E
S
CR O
FLOODPLAIN MAP
YOR K
77
IN
DR.
AD
AREA 7
.P.
AD
LRO
RAI
D
ROA
M AR TI N
RI CK
DER
K
P AR
DRI
VE
Date
By
Description
N
PE
AS
BR
AN
AD
RO
ACE
AREA 5
LIN
CAI T
WE S TC OM BE
DR
HI LL CI R .
DR
I VE
AN
CH
TER
R

NG
LO
HIL
L
E AS
T
L
HIL
DR.
CH
UR
CH
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
M. O
.P .
TRA
IL
CIRCLE
B IR CH M O U
W AY
CIRCLE
MORIN
No.
OK
BR
R D.
R E D BR I D G E
NE D
( AB AND O
BR ANCH B R O
WOO
DRID
GE
75
TR AIL
FI TZPATRICK
RE AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
WARD
Floodplain Map
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
1"=1000'
APR
ILLE
L
E
CL
EC
IR
ANE
67
ET
RE
TO WN
Sheet No.
Scale:
R O AD
AIL
LI N E
20141848.001
Drawing No.
TRE
E TR
M . O. P
AREA 4
State: New York
Project No.
INE
AREA 3
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
M. O .
P.
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
County: Monroe
TECH DRI VE
PLACE
CR O S SI N G
GT
ON
DONCAS
TER
BRACKN
ELL
CIRCLE
L ON
SEDGLEY
PARK
.
.P
.O
M
WE
ST
CO
MB
E
AT
E
WAGON TR.
MO
ORE
OG
COVERED
SI N G
Revisions
SOUTH
SOUTHERN
DR I VE
HA
RR
CR O
S
LN.
HORSESHOE
AY
AR
G AT
E
NORTH
B E D F ORD SHI R E
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
HORSESHOE LN.
OD DEL AN E
Y
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
RK
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
TRAIL
GE RWO
GIN
TR AI L
PA
MIDDLE
TR .
DR
.
BE
AI R
E
AD O
PR
FA
LC
ON
LO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
DR
IV
E
VIL LE
WA
Y
ALVE R S TONE
CIR
.
E
N, & L AK
I A, AVO
LI VON
D RI
COU
GAR
DR
DR.
D R.
RN
NG
HO
DR
IE
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
PEAKVIEW
TR AI L
RD
.
TRADITION
PLACE
AYR SHI R E
DR
GOLDFINCH
EGR
ET
HU M M IN G BI RD
ER
HILLINGDON
COURT
HE I G H T S
R
SALZE
R O AD
CASCADE
SWEET P
E
DRI VE
STARFLOWER
DRIVE
O VE R L AN D
WARBLER
LANE
IV
E
Y
FL
T
BU
RD.
WAY
TE
R
OW
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
MEADOWRUE
WAY
E
IV
DR
SCOTTSVILLE - WEST
HENRIETTA ROAD
SPA
RR
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
86
MAYAPPLE LANE
LN.
Principal-in-Charge
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
LN .
SC O T TS VI LL E -
OSPREY
DRIVE
RA
WH
ID
LN.
CARRIAGE
HOUSE LANE
WAY
ALTON

Designed by
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
R UN
WE
S
MacK AY
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
PECOS
CIR.
DR .
E
EN
.
LT
DR
71
TREE TOP L ANE
STAR GRASS LN.

S
MI CKE N
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
.
BEND RD
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE N RI E TTA
WE S T
PHLOX
E RI E
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W ITE CI
R.
S TO
NE
VE
STATION
e
vill
ke
La
PIN
ON
a
ni
vo
&
M.O.P.
-L
ad
ro
ail
n
vo
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
JUS
TINS
HIRE
DR.
MA
RB
ER
TH
DR
M .O
WAY
RI VE R TO
SS
BEND RD.
SUNDEW
LANE
N TE
FOX
GLOVE LN.
253
ISLAND
GROVE
MICKENS
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
THISTLE
LANE
C OU
LANE
LN.
BUTTONBUSH
ANEMONE
LN.
BE AKRUSH
HTS.
SHADBUSH WAY
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
LANE
LANE
DESSIE
DR I VE
CON E F L O WE R
IE
ER
DRI VE
COUNTESS
FARRELL RD.
FIELD STO
NE
ROAD
.
W ALLF L O WE R D R
S TATI ON
DR
.
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
ROAD
PU
DAV
I ES
RO
P AR K WAY
GARDEN
AREA 6
WIN
DEL
IN
LE R
AVE
.
D.
ER R
BECK
EE
PL A
CE
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
HEN
RIE
TTA
RD.
. P.
M. O
P.
O.
M.
TS
IGH
HE
GRANGERFORD
WH
IX
NE W
H OL L O W
C AVE
L AN E
M E R TE NS I A
M UR P H Y
H EN DR
E
S TAT
YORK
E
DRI V
PARK
WAY
THRU
ROAD
Town of Henrietta
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
WAY
THRU
F AR R E LL
Client:
S TATE
HIG
M. O . P .
I-90
E XT.
YORK
NE W
SILVERBERR Y RD.
ROAD
BROOKS
Date
February 2016

APPENDIX 3
Traffic and Transportation Study
Generic Traffic Impact Study

Methodology:
A. Passero Associates conducted field observations and traffic counts at each of the five major
intersections. The traffic counts were done between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM over the course
of February 2016. For the scope of this study, only the afternoon peak traffic volumes were
analyzed because the afternoon volumes represent the worst case scenario for each
intersection.
B. The growth rate factor (GRF) of 1.0% was applied annually for 10 years to develop the
background 2026 traffic volumes. The GRF is based on the Monroe County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) Memorandum dated April 2, 2013 and titled Monroe County
Traffic Volumes. The memorandum calls for a 1.5% straight GRF in the Town of
Henrietta, however we chose to use a compounding 1.0% GRF since our study area lies in
the rural southwest quadrant of Henrietta.
C. Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 8th-Edition, Volume 2 of 3,
for Industrial Park (Land Use 130) with Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs 1,000 SF gross floor
area on a weekday with peak hour of adjacent street traffic, one hour between 4 PM and 6
PM. The following equation was used:
T = 0.77(X) +42.11
T = Trips Generated
X = 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area
Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Totals
Total Developable Area

(Acres)
311
218
337
25
75
276
33
1,275
Gross Floor Area

10% of Total Area (SF)
1,354,716
949,608
1,466,688
109,989
326,700
1,200,688
143,748
5,552,332
Trips
Generated
1,085
773
1,172
127
294
967
153
4,571
The directional distribution used was 21% entering and 79% exiting.
D. We determined trip distribution patterns based on the traffic count data collected,
engineering knowledge and judgment of the area. The main destination for traffic in the
study area is I-390, the closest means of travelling the Rochester Area or points south other
destination point included Henriettas Commercial District and the Airport.
1|Page

E. The existing traffic volumes were modeled using Synchro9 to determine the current Levels
of Service (LOS) for the studied intersections. LOS is an engineering standard gauge used to
measure the operation of functionality of an intersection. A LOS of A represents a best
case scenario with little to no traffic delays. A LOS of F represents a failure or
unacceptable delays. A D level of service is considered an acceptable level of service in
rural conditions for individual intersections.
F. A comparison of the intersection Level-of-Service is provided to demonstrate any difference
in the operation of the studied intersections under four different scenarios.
a. Existing Condition (2016)
b. Background Conditions (2026) Includes the 1.0% GRF trips generated.
c. Developed Conditions (2026) Background conditions as well as the trips generated
from the development of the seven study areas.
d. After Recommended Improvements (2026) Developed conditions modeled with
the recommended intersection improvements.
The following tables stem from the Intersection Capacity Analysis (ICA) for the five intersections.
The recommended intersection improvements are aimed at increasing the Level-of-Service of the
intersection under developed conditions, but are not strictly necessary for the intersections to
function. The peak hour volumes may generate some congestion but the intersections should
operate functionally without any improvements.
2|Page

Table C-1
Lehigh Station Road and West Henrietta Road
Approach
Eastbound
Left
Through
Right
Westbound
Left
Through
Right
Northbound
Left
Through
Right
Southbound
Left
Through
Right
Overall LOS
Existing
(2016) Level
of Service
Background
(2026) Level of
Service
Developed (2026)
Level of Service
PM
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
PM
C
C
C
B
B
B
C
C
B
C
B
B
B
B
PM
F
F
F
C
E
B
E
F
C
F
D
F
C
E
Recommended Intersection Improvements:

1. Add a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane.
2. Add a second dedicated northbound right-turn lane.
3. Add a second dedicated southbound left-turn lane.
3|Page
Level of Service
After
Recommended
Improvements
(2026)
PM
D
F
D
B
C
D
B
C
F
C
C
B
B
B
C

Table C-2
Lehigh Station Road and Middle Road
Approach
Eastbound
Left
Through
Right
Westbound
Left
Through
Right
Northbound
Left
Through
Right
Southbound
Left
Through
Right
Overall LOS
Existing
(2016) Level
of Service
Background
(2026) Level of
Service
Developed (2026)
Level of Service
PM
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
PM
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
PM
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
B
B
B
B
B

1. No recommendations for intersection improvements.
4|Page
Level of Service
After
Recommended
Improvements
(2026)
PM
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
B
B
B
B
B

Table C-3
West Henrietta Road and Erie Station Road
Approach
Eastbound
Left
Through
Right
Westbound
Left
Through
Right
Northbound
Left
Through
Right
Southbound
Left
Through
Right
Overall LOS
Existing
(2016) Level
of Service
Background
(2026) Level of
Service
Developed (2026)
Level of Service
PM
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
PM
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
PM
B
B
C
C
A
B
B
B
B
B

1. No recommendations for intersection improvement.
5|Page
Level of Service
After
Recommended
Improvements
(2026)
PM
B
B
C
C
A
B
B
B
B
B

Table C-4
West Henrietta Road and Rush-Henrietta Town Line Road
Approach
Eastbound
Left
Through
Right
Westbound
Left
Through
Right
Northbound
Left
Through
Right
Southbound
Left
Through
Right
Overall LOS
Existing
(2016) Level
of Service
Background
(2026) Level of
Service
Developed Level of
Service
PM
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
PM
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
PM
F
F
F
F
A
A
A
A
E
Level of Service
After
Recommended
Improvements
(2026)
PM
C
C
C
C
A
A
B
B
B

1. Make the intersection signalized to improve eastbound and westbound travel conditions.
6|Page

Table C-5
Erie Station Road and Middle Road
Approach
Eastbound
Left
Through
Right
Westbound
Left
Through
Right
Northbound
Left
Through
Right
Southbound
Left
Through
Right
Overall LOS
Existing
(2016) Level
of Service
Background
(2026) Level of
Service
Developed Level of
Service
PM
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
PM
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
PM
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
D

1. Add a dedicated southbound right-turn lane.
7|Page
Level of Service
After
Recommended
Improvements
(2026)
PM
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
C

Findings and Observations:
Intersection Capacity:
West Henrietta Road & Lehigh Station Road is projected as having an overall Level-of-Service
(LOS) rating of B under background growth conditions and a rating of E during developed
conditions. The northbound left and right-turn approach as well as the southbound left-turn
approach received failing ratings under developed conditions. In order to remediate some of the
congestion at this intersection during peak hour volumes, it is advised that the town look for future
opportunities to add a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane, a second dedicated northbound rightturn lane, and a second dedicated southbound left-turn lane. With these recommended
improvements, it is modeled that the intersection will receive an overall LOS rating of C. It should
be noted that even with the recommended upgrades, the eastbound left-turn and through
approaches, the westbound left-turn approach, and the northbound left-turn approach still receive a
rating of D or lower. This may still leave lingering congestion problems during peak hours, but the
intersection is projected to operate functionally. Prior to any improvements, a full traffic study
should be completed along Lehigh Station Road to fully assess all intersections between West
Henrietta Road and Middle Road. Based on project specific proposals, this intersection receives
traffic from most of the Study Areas so it is unlikely the full impact will be realized in the near
future. In addition to the findings of this traffic study, the intersection of West Henrietta
Road & Lehigh Station Road has been targeted in the recently adopted Active
Transportation Plan by the Town of Henrietta. The Active Transportation Plan calls for
several intersection improvements to better service pedestrian and bike travel across the
intersection; these improvements include pedestrian refuge islands, reduced radius,
relocated stop bars, relocated high visibility crosswalks, and the installation of shark teeth
yield lines.
Lehigh Station Road & Middle Road is projected as having an overall LOS rating of A under
background growth conditions and a rating of B under developed conditions. Under developed
conditions, all approach lanes maintain an individual LOS rating of at least C or better. The
proposed development will not negatively impact the intersection and no intersection improvements
are recommended. In addition to the findings of this traffic study, the intersection of Lehigh
Station Road and Middle Road has been targeted in the recently adopted Active
Transportation Plan by the Town of Henrietta. The Active Transportation Plan calls for
several intersection improvements to better service pedestrian and bike travel across the
intersection; these improvements include pedestrian refuge islands, reduced radius,
relocated stop bars, and relocated high visibility crosswalks.
West Henrietta Road & Erie Station Road is projected as having an overall LOS rating of A under
background growth conditions and a rating of B under developed conditions. Under developed
conditions, all approaches maintain a LOS rating of C or better. The proposed development will not
negatively impact the intersection and no intersection improvements are recommended.
8|Page

West Henrietta Road & Rush-Henrietta Town Line Road is projected as having a LOS rating of
A under background growth conditions and a rating of E under developed conditions. Under
developed conditions, the eastbound and westbound approaches receive individual LOS ratings of F.
Due to the increase in traffic volumes along the free flowing southbound and northbound approaches,
traffic from the east and west (Rush-Henrietta Town Line Road) would encounter long delays when
trying to cross or merge into north/south bound (West Henrietta Road) traffic. Based on future
specific development proposals the Town will determine when the threshold is met to warrant the
installation of the signal.
Erie Station Road & Middle Road is projected as having a LOS rating of A under background
growth conditions and a rating of D under developed conditions. The east-bound, north-bound, and
west-bound lanes are projected as LOS rating of C, while the south-bound lane was projected with
an F rating. If development is proposed in the project area, a southbound left turn land should be
installed prior to exceeding 250,000 sq. ft. of industrial development.
9|Page

APPENDIX 4
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mitigation
and Improvements in the Study Area and Cost Estimates
GORDON
TRIBUTARY AREA TO
CONNECTION POINT #3
STR
EET
US
RO AD
D R I VE
RIVERWOOD STUDENT
HOUSING TRUNK LINE
HP
GRAVITY SEWER
FM
FORCE MAIN
Town of Henrietta
475 Calkins Road
Rochester, NY 14467
VALLEY
HANOV
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
P
STILLINGTON
CRT.
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-21
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
Client:
DAWN
79
RI V
E
UR
ST
LOVE
LACE
LANE
LEHI GH
GRAVITY
DEE
R
RUN
AY
D
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
DA
RH
AREA 1
Architecture
GA
LW
CONNECTION POINT
#2
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.1
1520 JOHN STREET
TRIBUTARY AREA TO
CONNECTION POINT #1
TRIBUTARY AREA TO
CONNECTION POINT #2
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
WI TH
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-15.1
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
T RE
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-43
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
CONNECTION POINT
#3
JO
BE CK
WOOD
UPGRADE EXISTING
PUMP STATION
FM
M..O P
.
DR I VE
RI VE R
S
RI VER
NO
www.passero.com
D R I VE
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-17
EAST RIVER ROAD
R-
SCALE: 1"=500'
AILR
OAD
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-9.2
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
N/F
MICHAEL
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.02-1-20.1
DRI VE
F AI
1000
CA
MP
CONNECTION POINT
#1
LINHOME
N
RU
500
MI CR ON
WAY
PAR K
WESTMINSTER
250
Engineering
AKE
VILL
ER
DRI VE
D
ON
P
ST IL L
GRAVITY
LUCIUS
&L
GR O VE
500
CENTRE
ROAD
REID S
O AK
WAY
RIVE
R
K
PAR
ELK
VIE W DR .
M.O
.
T YLE R TON
HORIZONTAL SCALE
M..O P .
SHORE
81
VO
LL
ME
R
SEWER UPGRADES - AREA 1 & 2

VALL E Y
DING
DA
ME
B AI LE Y
VAS
N/F
ILE,
M
AR
TAX
ACC Y C. -TRUS
OUN
1
7
T
T
5
LEHI
GH .01-1-2 NO.
.1
LI VO
STAT
NI A,
ION
AVO
ROA
N,
D
L AN
D RI VE
S
LL
I
M
DRI VE
B AY
P.
YOR K

Principal-in-Charge
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-5
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
GRAVITY
D R I VE
E AS
GRAVITY
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-18.1
24 BROOKS ROAD
Revisions
M.O
. P.
AREA 2
No.
N/F
YOST, DONALD W. AND
ISABELLE R.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-17.1
208 BROOKS ROAD
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Sheet No.
Scale:
MURPH Y
PLA
CE
VE.
P.
County: Monroe
1"=500'
E
DRI V
H EN D
PARK
Y
A
W
THRU
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
Drawing No.
RD.
. P.
M. O
AY
W
U
R
TH
E
S TAT
Description
UPGRADE MAP
I-90
F AR R E LL
By
PROPOSED SEWER
77
M . O. P .
BROOKS
ROAD
Date

ROAD
E XT.
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

Designed by
FM
Project Manager
TH AMES
PROPOSED PUMP
STATION (TYP.)
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
Date
February 2016
500
E LE
AVE
.
O.
M.
TRIBUTARY AREA TO EAST RIVER

ROAD SEWER EXTENSION
HORIZONTAL SCALE
250
500
1000
RO
A
SCALE:D1"=500'
AREA 7
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
.P.
FORD
WH
E
DAV
IES
H OL L O W
C AVE
HE
NE W
D.
ER R
BECK
I GH
TS

YORK
RI X
P.
E
S TAT
ARR E L L
CE
EN D
WAY
THRU
ROAD
M .O
TREE TOP L ANE
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-20
ERIE STATION ROAD
RU N
TR AI L
DR
MEADOWRUE
WAY
O VE R L AND
CASCADE
D R.
DR
.
BE
AD O
HO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
LO
IV
E
DR
EGR
ET
DR
IV
E
CH
GOLDFIN
NG
DR
E
IV
DR
RN
SWEET P
EA
COU
GAR
CIR
.
ALVE R S TONE
PR A
IR E
WARBLER
LANE
RD
.
FA
LC
ON
RD.
HEI
R
SALZE
R O AD
G E RW O
GIN
Client:
OD DEL AN E
Y
W
Town of Henrietta
N/F
KRENZER, SUSAN
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-8.22
MARTIN ROAD
AREA 3
N/F
KRENZER, ANNA S.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-13.2
LI N E
CIRCLE
DR.
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
LIN 202.01-2-6.21
CAI T
N/F
RHTL ROAD, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-47.1
AREA 4
FM OPTION
Revisions
No.
Date
By
PROPOSED SEWER
UPGRADE MAP
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
EXISTING 4" LOW PRESSURE FM

TO BE REPLACED WITH 8" LOW
PRESSURE FM
Description

Drawing No.
GRAVITY
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

Designed by
HIGH TECH DRIVE
P
TO WN
TRA
I
.
M. O. P
N/F
TIRABASSI FAMILY
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-15.1
BI RCH M O U
RI CK
DER
.P .
M.O
P.
M. O.
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
N/F
CAROLYN W.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-14.11
CIRCLE
D
ROA
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
Project Manager
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
M AR TIN
Principal-in-Charge
TR AIL
.
.P
.O
M
75
CONNECTION
POINT #1
MORIN
WAGON TR.
WAY
PROPOSED PUMP
STATION (TYP.)
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
FI TZPATRICK
R E AG AN
COVERED
RO
AD
FM OPTION
M.O. P.
FUTURE GRAVITY SEWER

EXTENSION ALONG EAST
RIVER ROAD
DR I VE
NUTHATCH
DRIVE
AY
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
KINGLET
N/F
SAN
KRENZER, SU
UNT NO.
O
C
C
A
X
TA
3.12
201.02-2-1
ROAD
TA
ET
RI
WEST HEN
T
BU
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
DR.
TE
R
FL
WAY
MAYAPPLE LANE
LN.
ALTON
86
LN.
WE
S
MacK AY
DR.
STAR GRASS LN.

S
M I CK E N
PUMPKIN
WINTERYARROW
HOOK
D.
D
BEN R
HEPATICA
HILL BERRY LOOP
LANE
R O AD
HE NR I E T TA
WE S T
PHLOX
PECOS
CIR.
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
D RI
NE
VE
on
Av
E RI E
TR.
SS
C OU
SUNDEW
LANE
d
oa
ilr
Ra
BEND RD.
N TE
FOX
GLOVE LN.
FORCE MAIN
MICKENS
a
ni
i vo
-L
le
vil
ke
a
L
PIN
ON
THISTLE
LANE
253
ISLAND
GROVE
www.passero.com
RA
WH
ID
BLAZING
STAR
CIRCLE
WAKE
ROBIN
TERR.
&
Architecture
Engineering
M.O.P.
SH ADBUSH WAY
WAY
GRAVITY SEWER
RI VE R TO
HTS.
DR I VE
O WE R
PARTRIDGE
BERRY WY.
TRILLIUM
DESSIE
ROAD
.
WALL F L O WE R D R
S TATI ON
DR
.
SCARLET
FLAX
CIRCLE
TRIBUTARY AREA TO
CONNECTION POINT #1
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=500'
Date
February 2016
AD
AREA 7
ROAD
STATION
HORIZONTAL SCALE
500
AD
LRO
R AI
PROPOSED PUMP
STATION (TYP.)
TR.
RD .
DRI
VE
VI LLE
SOUT
OD DEL AN E
Y
E AS
T
TRA
I
L
HI L
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
Designed by
WOO
D
Revisions
Date
By
Description

PROPOSED SEWER
UPGRADE MAP
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
County: Monroe
R O AD
20141848.001
ANE
APR
ILLE
L
EC
IR C
LE
State: New York
Project No.
67
ET
RE
EXISTING 4" LOW PRESSURE FM

TO BE REPLACED WITH 8" LOW
PRESSURE FM
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
N/F
202.01-2-6.22
PI N
GRAVITY
AREA 5
TRE
ET
RAI
LI N E
AREA 4

No.
PIN
E
N/F
KRENZER, ANNA S.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-13.2
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
LIN 202.01-2-6.21
CAI T
N/F
RHTL ROAD, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
202.01-2-47.1
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
AREA 3
DR.
HIGH TECH DRIVE
N/F
KRENZER, SUSAN
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.02-2-8.22
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
SAN
KRENZER, SU
UNT NO.
O
C
C
A
X
TA
3.12
201.02-2-1
ETTA ROAD
WEST HENRI
RICK
DER
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
WOODRIDGE
CROSSING
N/F
TOWN OF HENRIETTA
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
201.01-2-7.1
MARTIN ROAD
N/F
R
DEV USH H
E
TAX LOPM ENRIE
TTA
E
A
20 CCO NT, LL
MA 1.01-2 UNT N C
RIS
SA -28.00 O.
BET
HW 4
AY
D
ROA
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
Principal-in-Charge
TR AIL
GRAVITY
CIRCLE
BI RCH M O U
CIRCLE
MORIN
CONNECTION
POINT #1
WAY
WAGON TR.
FI TZPATRICK
R E AG AN
PROPOSED PUMP
STATION (TYP.)
DR I VE
COVERED
AY
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE
Client:
Town of Henrietta
TER
R AC
E
FORCE MAIN
CH
UR
CH
GE RWO
GIN
TR
.
R E D BR ID GE
ALVE R S TONE
PR A
IR E
BE
AD O
FA
LC
ON
RA
WH
ID
DR
.
COU
GAR
CIR
.
FM
N/F
THREE CORNERS
PROPERTIES, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.03-1-4.111
MIDDLE ROAD
NE
( AB AN D O
D R.
DR.
RD
.
RN
HO
NG
LO
OV
ER
LA
GRAVITY SEWER
ND
AYR SHI R E
WA
Y
DR
CASCADE
TRADITION
PLACE
HILLINGDON
COURT
MIDDLE
WE
S
TR AI L
.
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
Architecture
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
LN .
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Engineering
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
HE I G H T S
R
SALZE
R O AD
Y
E
EN
.
LT
DR
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
WAY
ALTON
1000
www.passero.com
HIGH
POINT
86
O VE R L AND
GRAVITY
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
D)
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
D RI
NE
VE
PIN
ON
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-20
ERIE STATION ROAD
500
71
TREE TOP L ANE
DR.
250
SCALE: 1"=500'
ERIE
PECOS
CIR.
PU
DAV
I ES
RO
N/F
TOBEY, DONALD P.
AND LUCILLE F.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-4
ERIE STATION ROAD
WIN
DEL
IN
AREA 6
KE
N, & L A
I A, AVO
LI VON
D.
ER R
BECK
E LE
SEAR
N /F
CHE
SH
TAX ILL PRO
P
AC C
OU ERTIES
1060 189.01- NT NO.
1ERIE
STAT 18.1
ION
ROA
D
AVE
.
189.01-1-19
5500 WEST HENRIETTA
ROAD
CONNECTION
POINT #1
SEWER UPGRADES - AREA 5

WH
E
RI X
.P
CE
EN D
WAY
THRU
Drawing No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=500'
Date
February 2016
500
1000
AD
P RE N
PL.
KU S
AGA
R
WA
Y
AK
RD.
FE ASE
AP
A
E
CH
WA
LL M
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Engineering
www.passero.com
AVE
.
LIPPMAN
ROAD
DR.
D RI VE
TIS S
D R.
CO
POCATELLO
NN
OR
TRAIL
DR
.
VI N
S
HIGH
POINT
NE
C T.
SUMMI T POINT DR.
GRAVITY
D AR D
TR
TH AMES
S TOD
IN
TE
RS
TA
TE
GRAVITY
250
BUC
KLE
Y
RO
ON
IN G T
EN N
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
174.04-1-5
LEHIGH STATION ROAD
CONNECTION
POINT
HI L L
S
EA MEAD OWS D R.
CHELS
B
STILLINGTON
CRT.
500
253
BEMI
S
SCALE: 1"=500' WAY
HANOVER DR.
HORIZONTAL SCALE
STATION
AVE.
AU T
HO
RS
UT
RO
AD
LEHI GH
SO
RAV
ENS
RD.
TERR.
LI V
KE
MP
RA
VA S
ILE,
TAX MARY
ACC
O
LEHI
GH
LI VO
STAT
NI A
IO
E
WIN

DAWN
VALLEY
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
AN
CUSHING
WAY
TA
FM
IN
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
RD.
46
FORCE MAIN
WAY
THRU
M U RPH Y
LE R
DAV
I ES
RO
AD
AREA 7
N/F
TOBEY, DONALD P.
AND LUCILLE F.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-4
ERIE STATION ROAD
AD
LRO
RAI
PROPOSED PUMP
STATION (TYP.)
RD .
FM
NE D
WA
Y
TR.
ALVE R S TONE
AI R
E
PR
BE
AD O
FA
LC
ON
RA
WH
ID
DR
.
RN
HO
NG
LO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
COU
GAR
CIR
.
N/F
THREE CORNERS
PROPERTIES, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.03-1-4.111
MIDDLE ROAD
Revisions
By
Description

PROPOSED SEWER
UPGRADE MAP
AYR SHIR E
R ED BR I D GE
RD
.
D R.
DR.
CASCADE
TRADITION
PLACE
HILLINGDON
COURT
( AB AND O
DR
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
TR AI L
JUSTIN
CIRCLE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
LN .
CARRIAGE
HOUSENo.LANE
Date
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
HE I G H T S
86
O VE R L AND
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
Y
E
EN
.
LT
DR
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
WAY
MIDDLE
R
SALZE
R O AD
P AR K
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
71
HIGH
POINT
ALTON
Principal-in-Charge
DR.
GRAVITY
T
WE
S
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
DR I
NE
VE
PIN
ON
DR .
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-20
ERIE STATION ROAD
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Designed by
TREE TOP L ANE

NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
GARDEN
AREA 6
E RI E
PECOS
CIR.
Town of Henrietta

ROAD
STATION
Client:
M E R TE NS I A
VIL LE
D.
ER R
BECK
RI X
EE
S TA
N/F
ME GOLF, LLC
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-5
EAST HENRIETTA ROAD
PROPOSED PUMP
STATION (TYP.)
N/F
SEARCHES HILL
PROPERTIES, LLC.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.02-1-1
ERIE STATION ROAD
E
N, & L AK
I A, AVO
LI VO N
H EN D
WH
PL A
CE
AVE
.
E
DRI V
RK
Y PA
A
W
THRU
N/F
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-19
5500 WEST HENRIETTA
ROAD
CONNECTION
POINT #1
SEAR
N/F
CHE
SH
TAX ILL PRO
ACC
P
OU ERTIES
1060 189.01- NT NO. , LLC
1ERIE
STAT 18.1
ION
ROA
D
I-90
GRAVITY SEWER
YORK
NE W
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
DRI
VE
77
PU
UPGRADE EXISTING SEWER

FROM THRUWAY UNDERPASS
TO BENNINGTON HILLS
ROAD
WIN
DEL
IN
HE
NR
IE T
N/F
ROCHESTER GAS AND
ELEC. CORP.
TAX ACCOUNT NO.
189.01-1-18.2
MARTIN ROAD
HORS
County: Monroe
State: New York
SOUProject No.
20141848.001
BRANCH BDrawing No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=500'
Date
GE RW O
GIN
OD DEL AN E
Y
SOUTHER
N
HIL
February 2016

APPENDIX 5
Public Water Supply and Capacity Evaluation
Water Report- Appendix:

A summary for the potential connection of the study areas to the public water system is included below.
Assumptions:
When conducting the analysis of the potential water systems connecting to the existing water network,
several assumptions were made for the entirety of the study area.
1. All water systems are looped and back-fed, causing negligible friction losses.
2. Fire Flow Demand = 1,200 GPM
a. Sprinkler Demand = 200 GPM
b. Hydrant Demand = 1,000 GPM
3. A 15 PSI drop in pressure through the master meter and back flow prevention device (RPZ).
4. A 5 PSI drop in pressure due to the reduction of combined service size from the water main size
for domestic demand and a 10 PSI drop in pressure due to the reduction of combined service
size from the water main for fire demand..
5. Domestic Water demand was calculated based on the assumption of 0.1
of gross floor area.
The gross floor area was calculated using a 10% max build out of developable lands in each
study area. Included below is a table showing the water demand for each of the seven study
areas and the elevation of the potential development.
Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Developable
Land (Acres)
311
218
337
25
75
276
33
Max Build-Out
(SF)
(10% Coverage)
1,354,716
949,608
1,466,883
109,989
326,670
1,200,688
143,748
Water Demand
(GPD)
(0.1 )
135,472
94,961
146,688
10,999
32,670
120,069
14,375
Water
Demand
(GPM)
Elevation
94
66
102
8
23
83
10
550
545
675
675
700
585
595
6. The following calculations were conducted using Hydrant Flow Test Data provided by Monroe
County Water Authority (MCWA) that is specific to each site.
7. For fire flow demand, if Q20 Fire Flow Demand and the water pressure does not drop below 20
PSI, the existing water system can support the proposed development without improvements.
8. For domestic demand, if pressure in the system under each developments area does not drop
below 35 PSI, the existing water system is adequate to support the proposed development
without improvements.
9. Assume all services are combined 6 services 100 in length.
Area 1:
Site Data:
The following is the hydrant flow data for 380 Lehigh Station Road, provided by MCWA. The full Hydrant
Flow Data sheet can be found later in the Appendix.
Calculations:
Hydrant Flow Data @ 380 Lehigh Station Road

Static Pressure, Ps
70 PSI
Residual Pressure, PR
60 PSI
Flow at 20 PSI, Q20
2,984 GPM
Main Size
12
Elevation
535
Based on the site data shown above and the assumptions made for each site, the following calculations
were performed to analyze the capacity of the existing water infrastructure in regards to the water
demand for Study Area 1.
Domestic Demand:
Since the water system is assumed as being looped and back-fed, the friction loss in the pipe is
negligible.
Ps = 70 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI
P(Service Size Reduction/Pipe Loss) = -5 PSI

P(Elevation) = 535 550 = -15 x 0.433 = -6.5 PSI
Residual Pressure = Ps P(RPZ) P(Service Size Reduction/Pipe Loss) = 70 PSI 15 PSI- 5 PSI 6.5 PSI = 43.5 PSI
43.5 PSI 35 PSI (Recommended)
Fire Demand:
Pressure:
Ps = 70 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 535 550 = -15 x 0.433 = -6.5 PSI
Flow Rate:
Q20 = 2,984 GPM
Fire Flow Demand = 1,200 GPM
Q20 Fire Flow Demand
Conclusion:
Since the Residual Pressure 35 PSI and the flow rate at 20 PSI is greater than the fire flow demand, the
existing 12 water main on Lehigh Station Road is sufficient to receive the additional load of
development on Area 1.
Area 2:
Site Data:
The following is the hydrant flow data for 380 Lehigh Station Road, provided by MCWA. The full Hydrant
Flow Data sheet can be found later in the Appendix.
Calculations:
Hydrant Flow Data @ 380 Lehigh Station Road

Static Pressure, Ps
70 PSI
60 PSI
Flow at 20 PSI, Q20
2,984 GPM
Main Size
12
Elevation
535
Domestic Demand:
negligible.
Ps = 70 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 535 545 = -10 x 0.433 = -4.3 PSI
Fire Demand:
Pressure:
Ps = 70 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 535 550 = -15 x 0.433 = -6.5 PSI
Flow Rate:
Q20 = 2,984 GPM
Conclusion:
existing 12 water main on Lehigh Station Road is sufficient to receive the additional load of
Area 3:
Site Data:
The following is the hydrant flow data for 1000 Rush Henrietta Townline Road, provided by MCWA. The
full Hydrant Flow Data sheet can be found later in the Appendix.
Calculations:
Hydrant Flow Data @ 1000 Rush Henrietta Townline Road

Static Pressure, Ps
54 PSI
48 PSI
Flow at 20 PSI, Q20
2,547 GPM
Main Size
12
Elevation
685
Domestic Demand:
negligible.
Ps = 54 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 685 675 = 10 x 0.433 = 4.3 PSI
Residual Pressure = Ps P(RPZ) P(Service Size Reduction/Pipe Loss) = 54 PSI 15 PSI- 5 PSI + 4.3 PSI = 38.3 PSI
Fire Demand:
Pressure:
Ps = 54 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 685 675 = 10 x 0.433 = 4.3 PSI
Flow Rate:
Q20 = 2,574 GPM
Conclusion:
existing 12 water main on Rush Henrietta Townline Road is sufficient to receive the additional load of
Area 4:
Site Data:
The following is the hydrant flow data for 1000 Rush Henrietta Townline Road, provided by MCWA. The
full Hydrant Flow Data sheet can be found later in the Appendix.
Calculations:
Hydrant Flow Data @ 1000 Rush Henrietta Townline Road

Static Pressure, Ps
54 PSI
48 PSI
Flow at 20 PSI, Q20
2,547 GPM
Main Size
12
Elevation
685
Domestic Demand:
negligible.
Ps = 54 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 685 675 = 10 x 0.433 = 4.3 PSI
Fire Demand:
Pressure:
Ps = 54 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 685 675 = 10 x 0.433 = 4.3 PSI
Flow Rate:
Q20 = 2,574 GPM
Conclusion:
existing 12 water main on Rush Henrietta Townline Road is sufficient to receive the additional load of
Area 5:
Site Data:
The following is the hydrant flow data for 1375 Middle Road, provided by MCWA. The full Hydrant Flow
Data sheet can be found later in the Appendix.
Calculations:
Hydrant Flow Data @ 1375 Middle Road

Static Pressure, Ps
45 PSI
40 PSI
Flow at 20 PSI, Q20
2,448 GPM
Main Size
10
Elevation
685
Domestic Demand:
negligible.
Ps = 45 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 705 700 = 5 x 0.433 = 2.2 PSI
Fire Demand:
Pressure:
Ps = 45 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 535 550 = -15 x 0.433 = -6.5 PSI
Flow Rate:
Q20 = 2,448 GPM
Conclusion:
Since the Residual Pressure 35 PSI for domestic water demand, the use of booster pumps may be
required at the proposed buildings. Existing water systems supply a sufficient pressure and flow to meet
fire flow demand requirements.
Area 6:
Site Data:
The following is the hydrant flow data for 1040 Middle Road, provided by MCWA. The full Hydrant Flow
Data sheet can be found later in the Appendix.
Calculations:
Hydrant Flow Data @ 1040 Middle Road

Static Pressure, Ps
56 PSI
49 PSI
Flow at 20 PSI, Q20
2,771 GPM
Main Size
10
Elevation
660
Domestic Demand:
negligible.
Ps = 56 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 660 652 = 8 x 0.433 = 3.5 PSI
Fire Demand:
Pressure:
Ps = 56 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 660 652 = 8 x 0.433 = 3.5 PSI
Flow Rate:
Q20 = 2,771 GPM
Conclusion:
existing 10 water main on Middle Road is sufficient to receive the additional load of development on
Area 6.
Area 7:
Site Data:
The following is the hydrant flow data for 5500 West Henrietta Road, provided by MCWA. The full
Hydrant Flow Data sheet can be found later in the Appendix.
Calculations:
Hydrant Flow Data @ 5500 West Henrietta Road

Static Pressure, Ps
59 PSI
55 PSI
Flow at 20 PSI, Q20
4,162 GPM
Main Size
12
Elevation
588
Domestic Demand:
negligible.
Ps = 59 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 588 595 = -7 x 0.433 = -3.0 PSI
36 PSI 35 PSI (Recommended)
Fire Demand:
Pressure:
Ps = 70 PSI
P(RPZ) = -15 PSI

P(Elevation) = 588 595 = -15 x 0.433 = -3.0 PSI
Residual Pressure = Ps P(RPZ) P(Service Size Reduction/Pipe Loss) = 59 PSI 15 PSI- 10 PSI 3.0 PSI = 31 PSI
31 PSI 20 PSI (Recommended)
Flow Rate:
Q20 = 4,162 GPM
Conclusion:
existing 12 water main on West Henrietta Road is sufficient to receive the additional load of
TEC
H
250
RD .
www.passero.com
SE
COACHWOOD
LANE
VOL
LME
R
DEE
R
RUN
Architecture
Engineering
CH AUTAUQU A DR.
DR.
DR I VE
1000
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
T RE
US
M I CR O N
500
RIE L
SCALE:F
1"=500'
RD
.
DA
ME
HORIZONTAL SCALE
PAR
KER
HOU
GORDON
WAY
CA
MP
DRI VE
ND
PO
ST IL L
LUCIUS
NO
CENTRE
ROAD
R EI D S
O AK
WAY
RIVE
R
G R O VE
DRI VE
ELK
VI E W DR .
ACA
DEM
Y
T YLE R TON
IVY
COTTAGE
LANE
R O AD
500
DR
I VE
DING
RO AD
VALLE Y
SHORE
81
STR
EE
T
L AN
B AI LE Y
D RI VE
S
LL
MI
P.
TR .
BAY
M.O.
CHESAP
WATER MAIN LOCATION MAP

AREA 1 & 2
YOR K
CI R .
C AP E
S
CR O
CATTAR AGUS DR.
GALWAY DR.
PK
W
Y.
AY
D
S T.
T
AR
MP
RA
D AWN
TERR.
VALLEY
ST
HI L L
Client:
Town of Henrietta
475 Calkins Road
Rochester, NY 14467
H
UT
SO
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
TH AMES

Principal-in-Charge
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691

Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
S CT
.
Project Manager
Designed by
HI L L
12"
STILLINGTON
CRT.
EA ME AD OWS D R.
CHELS
BE N
NI N G
TON
H ANOVER DR.
79
AD
I VE
VAL
LE Y
CRE
SCE
NT
ND Y
BRA
W
IN E
GA
LW
D R I VE
DA
RH
C
E
LI V
ONI
A,
E
WIN
12" LEHIGH
Y
AND
BR
AREA 1
ST
LOVE
LACE
LANE
UR
WI TH
D R I VE
BE CK
WOOD
VO
LL
ME
R
AD
AILR
O
R-
LAK
E VI
LLE
R
F AI
AVO
N, &
M..O P
.
RU
RI VE R
S
RI VER
EXISTING WATER MAIN
PO
MAP
L
LEGEND:
PALM
DESERT
DRIVE
ROSE
ARBOR
CIR.
TE
RR
.
"
12
RI V
E
BLUEBERRY
CRESCENT
RLO
DRI VE
CRY
STA
L V
ALL
OV
EY
E
LINHOME
.
DR
CK
O
R
AM
SH
PEDDINGTON
CIR.
RO
DR
JO
OK
K
PAR
PAR K
M..O P .
WESTMINSTER
SUMMI T POINT DR.
DR I VE
Revisions
Date
By
Description
M..O P
.
No.
HE
E AS
ROAD
8"
77
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
I-90
County: Monroe
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
State: New York
20141848.001
Drawing No.
46
IN
Project No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=500'
RD.
. P.
M. O
WAY
THRU
E
DRI V
PARK
Water Main
Location Map
M . O. P .
BROOKS
E XT.

NR
IE T
TA
AREA 2
Date
M UR PH Y
February 2016
PLA

AREA 3, 4 & 5
HORIZONTAL SCALE
500
250
500
1000
SCALE: 1"=500'
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Engineering
www.passero.com
LEGEND:
EXISTING WATER MAIN
AN
DT
R.
OO
GIN
A
D DEL N E Y
W
D
ROA
M AR TIN
.P .
RI CK
DER
TR AIL
CIRCLE
BI RCH M O U
CIRCLE
WAY
MORIN
.
.P
.O
M
DR.
Client:
M.O
Town of Henrietta
M . O. P
AREA 4
Principal-in-Charge
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

Designed by
Revisions
R O AD
No.
By
Description
LE
Date
EC
IR C
ET
RE
PI N
TRE
ET
RAI
PIN
E
HIGH TECH DRIVE
12"
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
Project Manager
LI N E
TO WN
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
GEN
ESE
E E
XPR
ESS
WAY
P.
M. O .
12"
AREA 3
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
10"
AREA 5
LIN
CAI T
TE
LE
PH
ON
E
75
FI TZPATRICK
R E AG AN
M.O. P.
RO
AD
WAGON TR.
DR I VE
COVERED
TRA
IL
AY
WENRICH
CIRCLE
CACTUS
DRIVE

Water Main
Location Map
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Drawing No.
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=500'
Date
February 2016

AREA 6 & 7
HORIZONTAL SCALE
500
250
LEGEND:
500
1000
SCALE: 1"=500'
EXISTING WATER MAIN
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Engineering
www.passero.com
TH A
ASE L
R D.
DR.
DETROI T
TR.
AN
HE
NR
IE T
TA
M..O P
.
WA
LLM
DR.
TR
AP
A
E
CH
ROAD
77
MOP
IN
I-90
TE
RC
HA
NG
E
Client:
46

Principal-in-Charge
24"
ROAD
AD
LRO
R AI
10"
G E RW O
GIN
OD DEL AN E
Y
W
AY
CACTUS
DRIVE
WENRICH
CIRCLE
RD .
Water Main
DRI
VE
)
NED
( AB AND O
MIDDLE
Description

BE D F ORD SH I R E
Location Map
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
County: Monroe
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Drawing No.
SO
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=500'
Date
ERR
AC
TR.
ALVE R S TONE
By
AYR SHI R E
R E D B R I D GE
H E I G H TS
WA
Y
BE
AD O
FA
LC
ON
DR
.
COU
GAR
CIR
.
PR A
IRE
.
DR
D R.
DR.
RN
RA
WH
ID
HO
NG
LO
OV
ER
LA
ND
TR
.
PU
DAV
IES
R
SALZE
Date
TRADITION
PLACE
HILLINGDON
COURT
LN.
RD
.
Revisions
No.
WAY
ALTON
TR AI L
CASCADE
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
OLD HITCHING
CROSSING
86
O VE R L AN D
OLD HITCHING
POST LANE
PIN
ON
NICOLE
CAPRI
WAY
WE
S
YO S
EM
YE L
L O W I TE CI
R.
S TO
DR
NE
I VE
TREE TOP L ANE

PECOS
CIR.
Y
E
EN
LT
DR
71
E RI E
TIMBERLINE
DRIVE
Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

Designed by
AREA 7
R O AD
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691
Project Manager
AD
STATION
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
WIN
DEL
IN
E LE
RO
DR.
475 Calkins Road

Rochester, NY 14467
GARDEN
AREA 6
E
KE VIL L
N, & L A
I A, AVO
LI VO N
D.
ER R
BECK
RI X
WH
E
PLA
CE
AVE
.
M UR P H Y
H EN D
O.
Town of Henrietta
M E R TE NS I A
RD.
E
DRI V
ARK
AY P
W
U
THR
P.
. P.
M. O
WAY
THRU
M.
YORK
NE W
February 2016
HORIZONTAL SCALE
WATER PRESSURE ZONE MAP
1000
500
1000
2000
SCALE: 1"=1000'
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Architecture
Engineering
www.passero.com
LEGEND:
"
12
PRESSURE ZONE 751

PRESSURE ZONE 830
AREA 1
12"
12"
AREA 2
8"
Client:
Town of Henrietta
475 Calkins Road
Rochester, NY 14467
AREA 6
PASSERO ASSOCIATES
Principal-in-Charge
AREA 7
(585) 325-1000
Fax: (585) 325-1691

Jess D. Sudol, P.E.
Project Manager
Designed by
10"
24"
Revisions
No.
Date
By
Description

WATER PRESSURE
AREA 5
12"
AREA 3
10"
ZONE MAP
Town of Henrietta
GEIS
Town/City:
County: Monroe
Henrietta
State: New York
Project No.
20141848.001
Drawing No.
AREA 4
Sheet No.
Scale:
1"=1000'
Date
12"
February 2016
Modified Flow Data

Town/Village
Location
Date
Conducted By
Henreitta
380 Lehigh Station Rd
2/26/2016
EH
Flow Nozzle
2.5
Flow Hydrant
Static
Pitot
Style
#1672
70
55
A
psi
psi
1.00
Residual Hydrant
Static
Residual
#1671
70
60
psi
psi
Corrected
Static
Residual
70
60
Calculations
Q Observed
1251
gpm
Q @ 20 psi
2984
gpm
System Status
Zone
Hydraulic Grade
Ele @ Flow Hyd
Main Size
751S
NA
NA
12"
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION

The pressure and flow data provided herein represents the calculated values for this location in the distribution system based on
typical low operating conditions. These values can vary depending on demands, operational parameters, system configurations,
subsequent modifications and other related criteria. Please contact Ed Heindl at 585-442-2001 ext 411 with any questions or concerns.
Modified Flow Data

Town/Village
Location
Date
Conducted By
Henrietta
1000 Rush - Hen TL Rd
3/3/2016
EH
Flow Nozzle
2.5
Flow Hydrant
Static
Pitot
Style
#1202
54
35
A
psi
psi
1.00
Residual Hydrant
Static
Residual
#1203
54
48
psi
psi
Corrected
Static
Residual
54
48
Calculations
Q Observed
998
gpm
Q @ 20 psi
2547
gpm
System Status
Zone
Hydraulic Grade
Ele @ Flow Hyd
Main Size
830
810'
685'
12"

Modified Flow Data

Town/Village
Location
Date
Conducted By
Henrietta
1375 Middle Rd
3/3/2016
EH
Flow Nozzle
2.5
Flow Hydrant
Static
Pitot
Style
#1652
45
37
A
psi
psi
1.00
Residual Hydrant
Static
Residual
#1654
45
40
psi
psi
Corrected
Static
Residual
45
40
Calculations
Q Observed
1026
gpm
Q @ 20 psi
2448
gpm
System Status
Zone
Hydraulic Grade
Ele @ Flow Hyd
Main Size
830
810'
705'
10"

Modified Flow Data

Town/Village
Location
Date
Conducted By
Henrietta
1040 Middle Rd
3/1/2016
EH
Flow Nozzle
2.5
Flow Hydrant
Static
Pitot
Style
#1646
56
46
A
psi
psi
1.00
Residual Hydrant
Static
Residual
#1647
56
49
psi
psi
Corrected
Static
Residual
56
49
Calculations
Q Observed
1145
gpm
Q @ 20 psi
2771
gpm
System Status
Zone
Hydraulic Grade
Ele @ Flow Hyd
Main Size
830 North
790'
660'
10"

Modified Flow Data
Town
Location
Date
Conducted By
Henrietta
5500 W Henrietta Rd
3//16/15
EH
Flow Nozzle
2.5
Flow Hydrant
Static
Pitot
Style
#1612
59
52
A
psi
psi
1.00
Residual Hydrant
Static
Residual
#1611
59
55
psi
psi
Corrected
Static
Residual
59
55
Calculations
Q Observed
1217
gpm
Q @ 20 psi
4162
gpm
System Status
Zone
Hydraulic Grade
Ele @ Service
Main Size
751S
725'
588'
12"


APPENDIX 6
2003 and 2011 Town Comprehensive Plan Goal Excerpts
Town of Henrietta 2003 Comprehensive

Plan Goal Excerpts
Goal B1 Direct and Manage New

Development Smart Growth
Identify appropriate areas in the

Town to receive future commercial,
residential, industrial and/or
institutional growth.
Encourage land use patterns that

steer development to existing
developed area where adequate
infrastructure exits, and aware from
environmentally sensitive, scenic or
agricultural lands
Goal B1 Direct and Manage New

Development
Ensure that the designated growth

are zoned appropriately to promote
the desired land use patterns. Clearly
delineate commercial and industrial
zones and prohibit the extension of
strip development in undeveloped
areas/corridors. Consider using special permits, incentive zoning, and/or overlay zoning to
accomplish the desired goals.
In infrastructure planning, recognize the connection between extension of roads, water, and
sewer and land development. Extend infrastructure where growth is desired and restrict
infrastructure extensions in designated preservation areas.
Goal B2 - PRESERVE IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LAND USES AND UNDEVELOPED RURAL

LANDS
Goal B4 - MINIMIZE CONFLICTS BETWEEN COMPETING LAND USES.
Goal B5 - MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND UP-TO-DATE PLANNING AND LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
C.
Protect residential neighborhoods from intensive land uses.

Enhance training and awareness of State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
procedures for municipal officials to ensure that project review minimizes and mitigates
land use impacts.
Review and revise zoning, site plan, subdivision, design, and construction standards for
development of land, and other land use regulations on a regular basis.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Goal C1 - PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN A DIVERSIFIED ECONOMY FOR THE TOWN OF

HENRIETTA.
Continue to ensure that adequate infrastructure and municipal services are available to
meet business and industry needs.
Protect and build on the conglomeration of high-tech, biological, pharmaceutical, and other
desirable "clean" industry by creating a business-friendly environment, preserving the
Town's high quality of life, and by making infrastructure improvements to commercial areas.
C2 - KEEP TAXES LOW IN THE TOWN.

Provide continued opportunities for new investment and economic activity in the Town by
designating sufficient land for non-residential development.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITY GOALS
Goal I1: Promote the maintenance, enhancement, and development of municipal utilities that
meet the needs of as many people as practicable in the most cost-effective manner.
Develop and regularly update the Town-wide Capital Improvement Program, or CIP, to plan
for and prioritize capital expenditures.
J. TRANSPORTATION GOALS
Goal J1: Maintain and enhance the existing roadway network and improve traffic flows and
safety in the town.
Commercial-Industrial Performance Zone
high technology, light industrial, and research and development facilitiesnegative
environmental effects on these nearby sensitive land uses
D. ECONOMIC PLAN
INTRODUCTION
desirable place to do business. Low taxes, access to a diverse range of employment opportunities, and
transportation access It is important for Henrietta to facilitate the growth of these sectors while
minimizing the impact on the quality of life for residents.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE TOWN ECONOMY
ACTION: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LAND FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RETAIL USES
As described in the "Land Use Plan," the Town should continue to plan for future needs for
industrial, office, and research and development uses by considering appropriate sites, as set
forth in the "Land Use Plan.
ACTION: ENCOURAGE SMALL, START-UP EMPLOYERS
H. AGRICULTURAL PLAN
ACTION: DO NOT EXTEND SEWER AND WATER INTO PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS
J. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PLAN
ACTION: EVALUATE IMPACTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT
2011 Strategic Update to the Comprehensive Plan Excerpts

Town Land Use Plan
..There may also be other areas that would be
highly appropriate for office and industrial
development that are not currently zoned for
each such uses
There may also be other areas that would be highly
appropriate for office and industrial development
that are not currently zoned for such uses. For
example, the possible extension of John Street
southward to Lehigh Station Road could make some
land that is currently zoned residential more
attractive for light industrial/office development.
Unlike most forms of residential development, light
industrial and office development generally
has a positive fiscal impact. Therefore,
finding new and appropriate locations for
more of this type of development will help
Henrietta to maintain its low town tax rate
into the future.
A useful tool for evaluating such questions is the
Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(GEIS)

APPENDIX 7
Town of Henrietta Zoning Code
Chapter 295 Industrial District Permitted Uses
Chapter 295 Commercial Districts Permitted Uses

APPENDIX 8

1.
How to use this assessment?

Evaluate the subject parcel located within the GEIS study area against these potential
impacts and provide for the appropriate studies, designs and mitigations to maintain the
SEQR findings. Projects that exceed the thresholds established in the 2016 GEIS will
require amendments to the findings statements, the preparation of the supplemental GEIS
or a new SEQR process evaluation. This assessment is to be provided in addition to the
Town of Henriettas Site Plan Check List and Full Environmental Assessment Form.
2.
Geology Topography and Soils
Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Table 2 Existing Geology, Topography and Soil Characteristics

Geological Formation
Topography
Soils
Prime
Layered
Ground Water
010In Agr.
Rock
Agric.
Soil Strata
Depth (CM)
10% 15%
Dist.
Soils
X
31 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
No
Yes
X
20 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
8 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
X
54 (varies)
X
Yes
Yes
Question
Is there rock on site?

If yes, was it determined by deep hole testing?
Is there ground water on site?
How are you dealing with groundwater in your design?
Is there topography that exceeds 0-10%
Are any steep slope erosion control design techniques needed in these plans?
Is the parcel in an Agricultural District?
What are the soil types and how do they affect your design?
1|Page
Soil Types
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D
B, C, D
Yes No

3.
Water Resources
Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Table 3 Existing Water Resources

Surface Water
Wetlands
Cumulative Parcel
Open
Run off (cfs)
Creeks
Federal State
Water
Existing Proposed
Yes
No
260.68
521.36
Yes
No
Yes
No
183.92
367.84
Yes
No
No
No
256.12
512.24
No
No
Yes
Yes
20.52
41.04
Yes
Yes
No
No
60.04
120.08
No
Yes
Yes
No
212.80
425.6
No
No
No
No
25.08
50.16
No
No
Flood
Plain
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
The Cumulative Parcel Runoff was calculated using the Rational Method (Q=ciA). It was assumed that the Rational
Runoff Coefficient (c) was 0.2 for pre-developed conditions and 0.4 for developed conditions, and that the Rainfall Intensity
was assumed to be 3.8 for a ten-year storm event.
For existing, assumed c=0.2 and i = 3.8 in/hr for a ten year storm event.
For proposed, assumed c=0.4 and i =3.8 in/hr for ten year storm event.
Question
Does the parcel contain any streams or water bodies?
Is there any disturbance to these bodies of water?
What is the maximum discharge rate calculated for this parcel and is it less than the
maximum allowable under Table 3.
Is there any State or Federal Wetland (Adjacent Areas) on the parcel?
Is any portion of the parcel in the FEMA Flood Plain?
If so, is Flood Plain compensation planned?
2|Page
Yes No

4.
Historic Preservation and Archeological Sensitive Areas
Table 4 Historic Preservation

Study
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Historic Preservation
Building
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Land
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Archeological
Sensitive Area
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Question
Is the parcel in a Historical Preservation District for a building and/or site?
If yes, how do you plan to account for it?
Is the parcel in an archeological sensitive area?

If yes, has additional studies been conducted to the satisfaction of SHPO? Supply
verification.
3|Page
Yes No

5.
Sanitary Sewer Capacity

Table 5 Sanitary Sewer Capacity
Sanitary Sewer
Study Town Wide
District
Nearest
Area
Extension
Sewer Size
Number
1
75
8
2
75
27
3
N/A
8
4
N/A
8
5
N/A
8
6
N/A
8
7
116
8
Question
What district extension is the subject parcel?
Is there any known down steam capacity issues?
Is there any sanitary sewer mitigation improvements proposed, as identified in the
GEIS for this project?
Estimate the developed discharge rates and supply the calculations for review.
Are grease traps or oil separators proposed?
Is the parcel within the Extension 37 tributary sewer district?
4|Page
Yes No

6.
Public Water Capacity

Table 6 Public Water Capacity
Public Water
Study
Water
Area
District Created
Main Size
1
2
8
2
2
8
3
Original District
8
4
Original District
8
5
133 and 156
8
6
8
7
88 & Original District
8
Question
Is there water supply in the study area?

Is there any known water supply issues?
What is the estimated water demand for the project (provide calculations).
Yes No
Is there any water supply extensions or mitigation improvements, as identified in the

GEIS for this project?
7.
Traffic and Transportation
Question
Does the project generate more than 100vph trip ends?
If yes, provide a supplement traffic study to evaluate the level impacted.
Compare the number of trip ends against the cumulative trip ends stated in the GEIS.
Is traffic/transportation mitigation necessary for this project?
5|Page
Yes No

8.
Permits
Identify the required permits as a result of the assessment for this project.
TABLE 1 Potential Permits and Approvals
Approval / Permit / Review
Town of Henrietta
Special Permits
Site Plan Approvals
Zoning Variance
MS4 Permit
Sanitary Sewer
Subdivision Approval
Monroe County
Access & Highway Permits

Watermain & Sanitary Sewer Extension
Water Supply and Backflow
Approval of Sanitary Sewer Plans
New York State
Highway Work Permit

SPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges
Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation
Wetland Permits
Federal
Wetland Permit or Nation Wide Permits

Flood Main Letter of Map Revision
Other
Telecommunication
Gas and Electric services
6|Page
Agency
Town Board
Planning Board
Zoning Board
Town Engineering Building Department
Town Engineering Building Department
Planning Board
Department of Public Health (DOH)
Water Authority, DOH
MCDEC Division of Pure Waters
Department of Environmental
Conservations (DEC)
State Historic Preservation Office
DEC
US Army Corps of Engineers
FEMA
Time Warner Cable
Rochester Gas & Electric
Permits
Required

APPENDIX 9
Current Developmental Possibilities

Name
Zoning
Total Area
(Sq Ft)
Land Lost
to
Wetland/
Other
Factors
Roads and
Infrastructure
Open Space
Preservation
Remaining Area
Assumed Lot
Size
Assumed
Developable
Lots
Area 1
R-1-15
13,360,464
1,042,504
4,008,139
(30%)
N/A
8,309,821
20,000
415
Area 1
1,561,173
289,777
468,352
(30%)
N/A
803,044
200,000
Area 2
R-1-15
8,480,457
1,513,442
2,544,137
(30%)
N/A
4,422,878
20,000
221
Area 2
2,061,855
451,507
618,557
(30%)
N/A
991,791
200,000
Area 3
RR-2
14,668,811
1,466,881
(10%)
7,334,406
(50%)
13,201,930
50,000
117
Area 4
1,187,008
93,351
237,402
(20%)
N/A
856,255
200,000
Area 5
RR-2
3,421,865
178,250
342,187
(10%)
1,621,808
(50%)
1,279,620
50,000
26
Area 6
RR-2
12,181,133
1,218,113
(10%)
6,090,567
(50%)
4,872,453
50,000
97
DGEIS Study Area

Existing Zoning vs Proposed Rezoning
Name
Zoning
Proposed
Lots
2006
Revenue
per lot
2006
Expenditure
per lot
Cost of
Service
Ratio
2006 Study
Total
Revenues
2006 Study
Total
Expenses
2006 Net
Cost to
Town
2015 Adjusted
Dollars*
Existing Area 1
R-1-15
415
$505
$617
1:1.22
$209,575
$256,055
-$46,480
-$54,646
Existing Area 1
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$35,676
$20,844
$14,832
$17,438
Proposed Area 1
46
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$410,274
$239,706
$170,568
$200,533
Existing Area 2
R-1-15
221
$505
$617
1:1.22
$111,605
$136,357
-$24,752
-$29,100
Existing Area 2
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$44,595
$26,055
$18,540
$21,797
Proposed Area 2
27
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$240,813
$140,697
$100,116
$117,704
Existing Area 3
RR-2
117
$505
$617
1:1.22
$59,085
$36,455
-$36,396
-$42,790
Proposed Area 3
66
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$588,654
$343,926
$244,728
$287,722
Area 4
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$35,676
$20,844
$14,832
$17,438
Existing Area 5
RR-2
26
$505
$617
1:1.22
$13,130
$16,042
-$2,912
-$3,424
Proposed Area 5
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$71,352
$41,688
$29,664
$34,875
Existing Area 6
RR-2
97
$505
$617
1:1.22
$48,985
$59,849
-$10,864
-$12,772
Proposed Area 6
24
$8,919
$5,211
1:0.58
$214,056
$125,064
$88,992
$104,626
Area 7
Revenue per lot taken from Finger Lakes Open Lands Conservation Project: A Profile of Land Use, Demographics, and Socio-Economic Data in the GeneseeFinger Lakes Region Appendix M, Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, September 2010. (http://www.gflrpc.org/Publications/FLOLCP/index.htm)
*2006 Dollars Converted Using BLS Inflation Calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)

APPENDIX 10
Public Hearing Notices and Comments
(To be provided)

DGEIS Full Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DGEIS Full Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Draft Generic Environmental Impact

Town of Henrietta Town Board

Jack W. Moore, Town Supervisor

475 Calkins Road

CONTACT: John F. Caruso, PE

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Potential Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

ROUTE FROM AREAS 1

OVERALL STUDY AREA

ROUTE FROM AREA 7 TO

Jess D. Sudol, P.E.

John F. Caruso, P.E.

STAR GRASS LN.

475 Calkins Road

ROUTE FROM AREA 6 TO

ROUTE FROM AREAS 2, 3 AND

Study Area Map

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Background, Purpose and Goals of the Project

Location of Study Area

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Public Need and Benefit

Project Description Details

Potential Land Use Industrial

Town Building Permit Process and Requirements

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)

Town of Henrietta DGEIS / SEQR Schedule

Required Permits and Approvals

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Access & Highway Permits

New York State

Highway Work Permit

Individual Wetland Permit or Nation Wide

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Geology, Topography and Soils

Table 2 Existing Geology, Topography and Soil Characteristics

was assumed to be 3.8 for a ten-year storm event.

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Historical Preservation and Archeological Resources

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Growth and Character of the Community / Neighborhood

Public Sanitary Sewer Availability and Capacity

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Public Water Supply and Capacity

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

iv. Community Services

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Impact on the Town Recreation System

Impact on Towns Adopted Comprehensive Plan

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

Geological, Topography and Soils

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Historic Preservation and Archeological Resources

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

West Henrietta Road & Lehigh Station Road

Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood

Public Sanitary Sewer Availability and Capacity

Southwest Quadrant Draft Environmental Impact Statement