DECLARING DUTCHESS COUNTY SEQR LEAD AGENCY FOR THE POU DEVELOPMENT LLC COMMERCIAL AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT

PUBLIC WORKS & CAPITAL PROJECTS RESOLUTION NO. 2025067 RE: DECLARING DUTCHESS COUNTY SEQR LEAD AGENCY FOR THE POU DEVELOPMENT LLC COMMERCIAL AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT Legislators METZGER, TRUITT, HOUSTON, POLASEK, PAOLONI, D'AQUANNI, FAUST, VERSACI, and CASWELL offer the following and move its adoption: WHEREAS, in December of 2023, the County entered into a ground lease (the "Lease") with POU Development, LLC, whose parent company is Sky Harbour Group (SHG), to develop, lease and manage general aviation hangars at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport; and WHEREAS, POU Development, LLC intends to build a commercial hangar facility with offices, associated aviation ramp and taxiways, a ground support equipment building, and a land side vehicle parking area, and WHEREAS, POU Development, LL's engineer has completed Part 1 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form which documents that environmental issues have been investigated, and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the Department of Public Works ("DPW") has determined that the proposed project constitutes an Unlisted Action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Part 617 of the NYCRR ("SEQRA"), and WHEREAS, 6 NYCRR 617 requires the designation of a lead agency from among the involved agencies before a determination of significance can be made, and WHEREAS, DPW has circulated the proposed action to all involved agencies for thirty (30) days indicating its desire to be lead agency in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.6 and no objection was received, and it is the purpose of this resolution to establish Dutchess County as lead agency, which will directly undertake and coordinate this Project pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, a copy of Part 1 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, preliminary development plans, and Lead Agency circulation documents are annexed hereto and made a part hereof, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that Dutchess County hereby SHOVed ead agency status for this Project. CA-047-25; EWM/rjw/mar; R-1071 4/15/25; Fiscal Impact: See Attached Susaay Serino STATE OF NEW YORK SUSAN J. SERINO sS: COUNTY EXECUTIVE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS This is to certity that I, the undersigned Clerk of the 1. 0001 / 15/ 2025 Lof Duches have compared the forgoing resolution with the original resolution now on file in the office of said clerk, and which was adopted by said I egislature on the 12' day of May 2025, and that the same is a true and correct transcript of said original resolution and of the whole thercof IN WITNESS WHEREOR, I have hercunto set my hand and scal of said legislature this 12M day of May 2025. Buyklinger FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT • NO FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTED APPROPRIATION RESOLUTIONS (To be completed by requesting department) Total Current Year Cost $ Total Current Year Revenue $ and Source Source of County Funds (check one): • Existing Appropriations, •Contingency, •Transfer of Existing Appropriations, [ Additional Appropriations, 2 Other (explain). Identify Line Items(s): Related Expenses: Nature/Reason: Amount $ Anticipated Savings to County: Net County Cost (this year): Over Five Years: Additional Comments/Explanation: The Department of Public Works is requesting that the Legislature adopt SEQR Lead Agency status on behalf of the County for the environmental review of a project by POU Development LLC (Sky Harbour) to build a new commercial aviation hangar of approximately 88,000 sq/ft at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport. This property is within the Town of Wappinger and is identified by Tax # 135689-6259-03-225301-0000. On April 4, 2025 the Department circulated a Lead Agency Notice for 30 days to Involved and Interested agencies. No agencies responded back indicating that they wanted to assume Lead Agency status for the review of this project. The County has identified this project is a SEQR Unlisted Action. Prepared by: Robert H. Balkind Prepared On: 4/1/25 Dut putt SUE SERINO COUNTY EXECUTIVE ROBERT H. BALKIND, P.E. COMMISSIONER DAVID C. WHALEN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DUTCHESS COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Rachel Kashimer, Deputy County Executive FROM: Robert H. Balkind, P.E., Commissioner Ri DATE: April 1, 2025 RE: RESOLUTION REQUEST - ADOPTION OF SEQR LEAD AGENCY FOR POU DEVELOPMENT LLO'S COMMERCIAL AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT The Department of Public Works is requesting that the Legislature adopt SEQR Lead Agency status on behalf of the County for the environmental review of a project by POU Development LLC (Sky Harbour) to build a new commercial aviation hangar of approximately 88,000 sq/ft at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport. This property is within the Town of Wappinger, identified as Tax Parcel No. 135689-6259-03-225301-0000. POU Development LLC intends to build a commercial hangar facility with offices, associated aviation ramp and taxiways, a ground support equipment building, and a land side vehicle parking area. Their engineer completed Part I of a Full Environmental Assessment Form to describe the project's potential impacts. Attached to this cover memo are the following documents: • SEQR Lead Agency circulation documents • Location map • Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1 • Proposed Site/Permit permit drawings (60% review set) On April 4, 2025 the Department circulated a Lead Agency Notice for 30 days to Involved and Interested agencies. No agencies responded back indicating that they wanted to assume Lead Agency status for the review of this project. The County has identified this project is a SEQR Unlisted Action. Based on the information above and attached, the Department is seeking Legislative approval for the County to declare itself SEQR Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project. c: Mary F. Aldrich, MA, CPFO, Director of Fiscal Services David C. Whalen, Deputy Commissioner Jeff Durand, Airport Director Attch. 626 Dutchess Turnpike, Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 | (845) 486-2085 | www.dutchessny.gov County of Dutchess NOTICE TO INVOLVED AGENCIES THAT LEAD AGENCY MUST BE DESIGNATED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT Date: 4/4/2025 This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617.6 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law to designate a lead agency. POU Development, LLC (Sky Harbour), has proposed to build two aircraft hangars at Hudson Valley Regional Airport. The action has been determined to be an Unlisted Action, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617. The developer's engineer has completed Part 1 of a Full EAF, which has identified other involved agencies for the action. LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION Under the applicable standards of 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(b), the County of Dutchess concludes that it should be designated as the lead agency in the coordinated environmental review of the action. This notification is being sent to involved and interested agencies with the request that you consent to the County of Dutchess serving as lead agency. If, however, you do not agree, you may follow the procedures outlined in 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(5). This Notice is being transmitted on April 4, 2025. We ask that each involved agency complete the annexed form and return it to the contact person for receipt prior to the expiration of the required thirty-day notice period who may be contacted for further information. IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, IT WILL BE INTERPRETED AS CONSENT THAT THE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS SERVE AS LEAD AGENCY. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO BE NOTIFIED OF SEQR DETERMINATIONS AND ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AND HEARINGS, AS PROVIDED BY LAW. LEAD AGENCY NOTICE DATA SHEET Name of Action: SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT Name of Applicant: POU Development, LLC (Sky Harbour) SEQR Status: Type | Action based on the following thresholds: _ Unlisted Action Description of Action: See project description in Section 1 of the attached Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Location of Action: Hudson Valley Regional Airport 4 Citation Drive Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Tax Map No.(s): 6259-03-225301-0007, -0008, -0014, -0018, -0020 Size of parcel(s): 448.21 Acres Size of Action area: 8.89 Acres For further information, please contact: Robert H. Balkind, P.E., Commissioner Dutchess County Department of Public Works 626 Dutchess Turnpike Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Phone: (845) 486-2925 Email address: [email protected] Thank you for your cooperation. DATED: April 4, 2025 ATTACHMENTS TO THIS NOTICE: [X] Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) [X] Preliminary Site Plan [X] Location Map A copy of this Notice is being sent to: INVOLVED AGENCIES: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 DC Water and Wastewater Authority 1 LaGrange Avenue Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 DC Department of Health 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 106 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Marie Jenet Federal Aviation Administration New York Airports District Office 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 ([email protected]) Dutchess County Industrial Development Agency 3 Neptune Road, Suite A21, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tel. (845) 463-5400 INTERESTED AGENCIES: Town of Wappinger 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS Proposed Lead Agency: County of Dutchess Name of Action: SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT RESPONSE TO REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS SERVE AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING THE ABOVE ACTION On behalf of Agency Notice in this matter. -', acknowledge receipt of the Lead The above-named involved agency hereby: [PLEASE CHECK ONE] CONSENTS that the County of Dutchess serve as lead agency in this application and requests that the undersigned continue to be notified of SEQR determinations, proceedings and hearings in this matter. DOES NOT CONSENT to the County of Dutchess serving as lead agency in this application and wishes that. serve as lead agency. To contest lead agency designation, the undersigned intends to follow the procedures outlined in 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(5). | 1 TAKES NO POSITION on Lead Agency designation. Any agency raising a dispute must be ready to assume the lead agency if such agency is designated by the commissioner per 6 NYCRR 617 (5) (1). DATED: , New York Agency Name By: [signature] [print signer's name] Please return to: Robert H. Balkind, P.E., Commissioner Dutchess County Department of Public Works 626 Dutchess Turnpike Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Buttermil Falls Inn & Son Mier Furske Milton Cluett Schantz MemorialiPark Marlboro SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT Hocker Ast, Spratt Park Locust Grove Estate Homewood Suites Ds Hilton @gughipersis Spackenkill : Crown Heights Potenkeepsie Galleria Spiraz Vassarta listen St Bowdoin Park Wappingers Felts New Hamburg AccieturnRa Hughsonville Adams Ferracte Farms Titusville Sechmiife Red Oaks Mill Yatso: Ro Hudson Valley Regional Arnort 676) New Hackensack Myers Corner Hudson Rivei National Estuarine • Research PROJECT LOCATION Busteek Rd LarON PROJECT LOCATION (зда MEnster, aD frannad FastensA Peties yel Lore wagner Ben Ra- PROJECT SITE Googl PROJECT SITE Full Environmental Assessment Form 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 rescarch 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 Gi requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part lis accurate and complete A. Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: POU Airport Hangar Development Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map): Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU), Citation Dr. Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Tax ID: 6259-03-225301-0007,0008,0014,0018,0020 Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): The project involves the design and construction of two prefabricated hangars, each measuring 36,612 SF. The east hangar will have an attached 3,165 SF ground support equipment (GSE) building. Each hangar will also include approximately 6,058 SF of office space with bathrooms. Additionally, the project includes the construction of an aircraft apron, approximately 90,000 SF, providing access from Taxiway D to both hangars. The project will also involve the removal of 9 taxiway lights. The installation of the hangars will require a 4-6 ft gravity block retaining wall, located to the west of the hangars to stabilize grade for development. The expanded apron will encompass the existing apron space, and the current tie-downs will be removed. A proposed parking lot and access drive, approximately 30,000 SF, will be installed to provide tenant access to the facility. Approximately 60 ft of fence will be (removed at the access point and 400 LF of new fence will be installed from the west side of the access drive along the retaining wall and tie into the west side of the West Hangar. 50 LF of fence will also be installed from the existing fence adjacent to the hexagon hangar and tie into the East side of the East Hangar to provide a complete security to the airside of the new development. Water, gas, and electric services will be provided to both hangars. See Exhibit A for a Location Map and project sketch. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Steve Martinez, POU Development LLC Telephone: 646-235-6045 E-Mail: [email protected] Address: 136 Tower Road, Hangar M. Suite 205 Westchester County Airport City/PO: White Plains Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Nathan Herzog, Environmental Planner (Passero Associates) State: NY Telephone: 585-760-8559 E-Mail: [email protected] Zip Code: 10604 Address: 242 W Main St Apartment 100 City/PO: Rochester Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): County of Dutchess, Robert H. Balkind, P.E., DPW Commissioner Address: 625 Dutchess Turnpike City/PO: Poughkeepsie State: NY Telephone: 845-486-2085 E-Mail: [email protected] Zip Code: 14614 State: NY Zip Code: 12603 Page 1 of 13 B. Government Approvals B. Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. ("Funding" includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approvals) Required Application Date (Actual or projected) a. City Counsel, Town Board, or Village Board of Trustees b. City, Town or Village Planning Board or Commission c. City, Town or DYesZNo Village Zoning Board of Appeals d. Other local agencies VIYesNo Dutchess County IDA (funding approval) Spring 2025 c. County agencies f. Regional agencies Dutchess County Health Department (septic) Spring 2025 Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority g. State agencies NYSDEC (SWPPP, soil management plan) Spring 2025 h. Federal agencies MYes•No FAA (approvals) Spring 2025 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? • Yest 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 I C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land usc plan(s) include the site where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action would be located? b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway: Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes, identify the plan(s): Remediaton Sites:314101, Remediaton Sites: 314078, Remediaton Sites:C314129, Remediaton Sites:314129 DYesZINo c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, 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. If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district? lighting will be installed outside on all buildings and aprons for safe movement of aircraft b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? If Yes, i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? C.4. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located? Wappingers Central School District b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Village of Wappingers Falls Police Department c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? New Hackensack Fire Company d. What parks serve the project site? Stanley Still Sr Town Sport Park MYes•No D. Project Details D.I. 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)? Commercial (Airport) 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? 8.89 acres 8.89 acres 448.21 acres c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? • Yes No i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (c.g., acres, miles, housing units, square feet)? % d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? If Yes. i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (c.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? iii. Number of lots proposed? iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum e. Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? i. If No, anticipated period of construction: ii. If Yes: •Yes•No Maximum •Yest No 15 months Total number of phases anticipated Anticipated commencement date of phase I (including demolition) Anticipated completion date of final phase month month _ year 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 uscs? If Yes, show numbers of units proposed One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more) Initial Phase At completion of all phases g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? If Yes, i. Total number of structures ii. Dimensions (in fect) of largest proposed structure: 48' height; 161' width; and 269 length ili. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: 69.680 square feet • Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of an iquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage MYes•No i. Purpose of the impoundment: ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: • Ground water Surface water streams Other specify: iti. 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: 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? (Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) i. What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? foundation and utility construction site grading ii. How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site? • Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): 13,500 cubic yards • Over what duration of time? 6 months iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them. excavated materials will be treated as regulated soils due to PFAS iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? If yes, describe. •YesNo y: What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? viii. Will the excavation require blasting? ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: restore site with topsoil and seed < 8.89 acres <8.89 acres 11 feet b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 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, c.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 the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? If Yes, describe: iv. Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? 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): •Yes•No •YesNo • proposed method of plant removal: if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify products): v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? If Yes: i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: 354.02 gallons/day ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? KIYes LNo Name of district or service area: Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? • Is the project site in the existing district? • Is expansion of the district needed? • Do existing lines serve the project site? If Yes: / wil emin in an eating diate be near to suply the prier? • 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? If Yes: • YesONo • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: Central Dutchess Water Line, Town of Poughkeepsie 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), what is the maximum pumping capacity: _ gallons/minute. d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? If Ycs: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 354.02 gallons/day ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (c.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): Sanitary wastewater ill. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? •Yes/No Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: Name of district: Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? Is the project site in the existing district? Is expansion of the district needed? LYes•No •Yes•No •Yes•No Page 5 of 13 • Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: •Yes•No •Yes•No iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? DYes&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): subsurface on-site sewage disposal system vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: subsurface on-site sewage disposal system c. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 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? If Yes: ZIYesNo i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or 3.34 acres (impervious surface) Square feet or 448.2 acres (parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources, one, proposed project ties into existing airport stormwater infrastructure ill. 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)? Stormwater runoff will be directed into on-site stormwater management facilities/structures and will be daylighted to the Wappinger Creek which is a 5th • If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? in: Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations? If Yes, identify: i. Mobile sources during project operations (c.g.. heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles) increase in 395 total aircraft operations per year ii. Stationary sources during construction (c.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers) ill. Stationary sources during operations (c.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? i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment arca? (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 (COz) Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (NO) Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF,) Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) •YesZ No DYes•No See Exhibit B for Air Quality Analysis Page 6 of 13 h. Will the proposed action gencrate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities)? •YesM No i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (c.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 DYesONo quarry or landfill operations? If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): The addition of new hangers may increase vehicular landside capacity and result in some additional traffic trips to the airport; which will result in diesel, carbon dioxide, and other emissions during operation. j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial new demand for transportation facilities or services? •Yes/No i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): • Randomly between hours of ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): ili. Parking spaces: Existing Proposed Net increase/decrease iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? i. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe: i. Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site i Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electri •Yes•No DYes[No DYes•No or other alternative fueled vehicles? vili. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing •Yes• No pedestrian or bicycle routes? K. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand for energy? i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: total demand of 1438 KW for the site ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of elcctricity for the project (c.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or other): Grid/local utility iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade, to an existing substation? •YesNo I. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i. During Construction: • Monday - Friday: 7 am - 5 pm Saturday: Sunday: Holidays: ii. During Operations: Monday - Friday: Saturday: Sunday: • Holidays: 24/7 24/7 24/7 24/7 Page 7 of 13 i. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, operation, or both? See Exhibit C for Noise If yes: Analysis i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration: The hangars will house additional aircraft (~4-5/hangar) Operation of these aircrafts will not significantly exceed the current noise levels produced by the (airport. ii. Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? •Yes/No Describe: n. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? If yes: i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: lighting will be installed outside on all buildings and aprons for safe movement of aircraft ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? •YesØNo Describe: o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: •YesØNo p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? i. Products) to be stored ii. Volume(s) per unit time ili. Generally, describe the proposed storage facilities: (e.g., month, year) q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, insecticides) during construction or operation? If Yes: i. Describe proposed treatments): • Yes ENo ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: 1 tons per_ week (unit of time) • Operation : 0.1 tons per week (unit of time) ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction: On-site Cutting and Reuse,Designated Dumping Areas: Waste Sorting Stations • Yes No D Yes •No • Operation: Designated Dumping Areas:Waste Sorting Stations ili. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: • Construction: Dispereone materia cade sena cousing far designated municipal or private landils, Organic waste and • Operation: Dispose of non-recyclable and non-hazardous waste at designated municipal or private landfills Page 8 of 13 s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? •Yes 2 No i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (c.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 the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous •Yes No il. 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? 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: [YesONo E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.I. 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. • Urban • Industrial 7 Commercial • Residential (suburban) • Agriculture • Aquatic D Other (specify): Airport ii. If mix of uses, generally describe: • Rural (non-farm) b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Covertype • Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious surfaces • Forested • Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non- agricultural, 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, carth or fill) • Other Describe: Current Acreage 8.89 Acreage After Project Completion 8.89 Change (Acres +/-) - Page 9 of 13 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? i. If Yes: explain: d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site? i. Identify Facilities: •Yes No e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: Dam height: . • Dam length: Surface area: Volume impounded: ii. Dam's existing hazard classification: ili. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: •Yes No feet feet acres _ gallons OR acre-feet f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, •YesNo or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility? i. Has the facility been formally closed? • If yes, cite sources/documentation: ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: •Yes• No ill. 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 MYes•No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred: FOS has been found at the project site. Coordination with the NYSEC has commenced on this project. Since this project involves soil disturbance, a soil sampling plan will be submitted to the NYSDEC during the final design of the project h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Remediation database? Check all that apply: • Yes- Spills Incidents database 7 Yes- Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): Provide DEC ID numbers): 314101, 314078, C314129 • Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures: See Exhibit D MYesONo ili. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): 314101, 314078, C314129 iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s): Active, Coordination with the NYSEC has commenced 2YesDNo Page 10 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? 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? • Explain: •Yes•No E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? 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: Udorthents, smoothed (Ud) > 6.5 feet See Exhibit E 100 % % d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: c. Drainage status of project site soils: Well Drained: • Moderately Well Drained: • Poorly Drained f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: V 0-10%: 10-15%: 15% or greater: 4.5 feet 100% of site % of site % of site 100% of site % of site % of site g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? If Yes, describe: •YesNo h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers. MYesNo ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? See Exhibit F MYcsONo If Yes to either i or it, 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. state or local agency? iv. For cach identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project sitc, provide the following information: • Name 857-19, 857-2, 857-14, 857-15, 857-18 Classification C(T), B, B(T) Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification Wetlands: Name Federal Waters, NYS Wetland, Federal Waters, Fe... Approximate Size NYS Wetland (in a... Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) PV-51 ". Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of'NYS water quality-impaired •Yes/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? As shown in Exhibit G, areas of the airport parcel are j. Is the project site in the 100-ycar Floodplain? within the 100 and 500 year floodplain. However, the proposed project site does not fall within either k. Is the project site in the 500-ycar Floodplain? floodplain I. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? If Yes: i. Namo of aquiter: Principal Aquifer MYes•No MYes•No VYes•No Page 11 of 13 m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: Deer, squirrels, various bird species fox, snakes, frogs, etc. n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? 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: Currently: • Following completion of project as proposed: • Gain or loss (indicate + or -): acres acres acres o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i. Species and listing (endangered or threatened): Pied-billed Grebe, Indiana Bat •Yes/No See Exhibit H 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? If Yes: i. Species and listing: DYes/No q. Is the project site or adjoining arca currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? 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 Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? 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 Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: • Biological Community • Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: DYes/No DYes/No d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Arca? If Yes: i. CEA name: ii. Basis for designation: Inactive landfill toxic polluntants present, Inactive landfill, toxic pollutants present ili. Designating agency and date: Agency:Dutchess County, Date:6-19-85, Date:7-18-85 MYes•No Page 12 of 13 c. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district •Yes No hich is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NY office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be cligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places i. Nature of historic/archacological resource: LArchacological Site ii. Name: •Historic Building or District iti. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: Is the proieet site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive fi chacological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archacological site inventor g. Have additional archacological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? 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 scenic or aesthetic resource? MYes•No i. Identify resource: Hudson River ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (c.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): historic river ill. Distance between project and resource: 3 miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers •YesENo Program 6 NYCRR 666? i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? •Yes•No As shown in Exhibit I, areas of the airport parcel are adjacent to a listed SHPO F. Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarity your project. property. The historic site is located ~ 4000 ft from the project site If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus an 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. Applicant/Sponsor Name Steven T.Martinez Date 04/04/25 Signature.... Title VP Development PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 EAF Mapper Summary Report Far Hillis Ter Poughkeepsie Jackson Ra. Vassar Duches County Aupart Wappinger Arport Or Fark Hackensack Haight R° Sources: Est, H8l China tHong KS B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] C.2.b. [Special Planning District] C.2.b. [Special Planning District - Name] E. 1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Potential Contamination Historyl E. 1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Listed] E. 1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Environmental Site Remediation Database] E. 1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - DEC ID Number] E. 1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Site] E. 1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Site - DEC ID E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] E. 2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Stream Namel E. 2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Stream Classification] Crop 0565 neernap INCREMENT P. NRCan. Est Japan: MET, Es: arkorea Est Thailand; NGC. IC OpenStreetlap contricutors and tire Gl5 Use: Communty Sunday, March 23, 2025 2:06 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. Brickvile Barrie instan Maniper Toronto Hamiton Rochester Bustan Now toil Albany Sources Er HERE Garmin USSS Intermas ince ENtEr Thailand, NGCC 12 OpenStreetivap contaditos and the Gif User ComMunit: Es HERE Germin, New YUeSS, NPS No Yes Yes - Digital mapping data are not available for all Special Planning Districts. Refer to EAF Workbook. Remediaton Sites:314101, Remediaton Sites:314078, Remediaton Sites:C314129, Remediaton Sites:314129 Yes - Digital mapping data for Spills Incidents are not available for this location. Refer to EAF Workbook. Yes Yes 314101, 314078, C314129 Yes 314101, 314078, C314129 No Yes Yes Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. 857-19, 857-2, 857-14, 857-15, 857-18 C(T), B, B(T) Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Wetlands Federal Waters, NYS Wetland Name] E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - Wetlands NYS Wetland (in acres):47.0 Size] E. 2.h.iv [Surface Water Features - DEC PV-51 Wetlands Number] E. 2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] No E.2.i. [Floodway] Yes E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] Yes E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] Yes E.2.I. [Aquifers] Yes E.2.I. [Aquifer Names] Principal Aquifer E.2.n. [Natural Communities] No E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] Yes E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species - Pied-billed Grebe, Indiana Bat Name] E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] E.3.a. [Agricultural District] E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No No No Yes E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area - Name] E.3.d.ii [Critical Environmental Area - Inactive landfill toxic polluntants present, Inactive landfill, toxic pollutants Reason] present E. 3.d.iii [Critical Environmental Area - Date Agency:Dutchess County, Date:6-19-85, Date:7-18-85 and Agency] E.3.e. [National or State Register of Historic Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Places or State Eligible Sites] Workbook. E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] Yes E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 2 Exhibit A Millba Raker Rd Pleasant Ln CRUCKS Vassar RO New Hackensack Rd Daley Rd Astumn Dr Hillis Ter Route 376 Rd Spring Ro Lori St Maloney Rd Airport-Dr lackens New Hackensack Smith Crossing Rd Vassar Rd 77 Daisy Ln, 0:25 0.5 Widmer Rd Legend Hudson Valley Regional Airport Project Area citation-Dr New Hackensack Rd- Dutchess County Airport Satae Michoke T0 widmer Rd 376 All Angels Hill Rd Degarmo Hills Rd Miles Hudson Valley Regional Airport Location Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: Dutchess County GIS Routo 376 Top O Hill Rd Myero Corners Rd PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Sources ari tomiom, Qurmin, FAO, NOAA USGS. OpenSheetMab gontibutor, and Date: 1/15/2025 PROPOSED (2) NEW HANGARS. APRON AND AUTOMOBILE ACCESS. LEACH FIELD PARKING LOT SKY HARBOUR 37 HANGAR 2 (268' × 130) NOSE NOTCHES (30' X 40") SKY HARBOUR 37 HANGAR 11288 y 120'1 NOSE NOTCHES (30' X 40) ¡ PROPOSED LEASE AREA 4.64 ACRES PROPOSED APRON PASSERO architecture engineering HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT SKY HARBOUR SH-37 (268 7 130)3 NOSE NOTCHES NOTCHES X 40) CONCEPT (REV. 3) AUGUST 2024 DUTCHESS COUNTY NY 01 Exhibit B PASSERO engineering architecture 242 West Main Street, Suite 100 Rochester, NY 14614 585.325.1000 | passero.com March 26, 2025 Attn: Robert H. Balkind, P.E. Commissioner Dutchess County Department of Public Works 626 Dutchess Turnpike Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Re: Air Quality Analysis - POU Airport Hangar Development Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU), NY4 Citation Dr. Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Passero Associates has completed an air quality analysis for the construction of two ~ 34,840 square foot pre-fabricated hangars at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport to evaluate air quality impacts associated with this project in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), last amended in 1990, was enacted by the U.S. Congress to protect the health and welfare of the public from the adverse effects of air pollution. As required by the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to compare and evaluate ambient air quality. Based on measured ambient criteria pollutant data, the EPA designates areas as having air quality better than the NAAQS (attainment), worse than the NAAQS (nonattainment), or unclassifiable. Air quality impacts are evaluated based on General Conformity with a State Implementation Plan (SIP), assessment of the NAAQS, and construction emissions. The FAA's Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook' provides the following 4-step process to determine when an air quality assessment is necessary, identify the appropriate type and level of analysis needed, and provide guidance, procedures, and methodologies for carrying out air quality assessments in accordance with NEPA and applicable requirements of the CAA: - Step 1: Determine if the Federal Action falls within an exemption to General Conformity • Step 2: Determine if the Federal Action qualifies as Presumed to Conform • Step 3: Determine if the Federal Action is an EPA-designated nonattainment area or maintenance area • Step 4: Evaluate if Attainment Screening Criteria is exceeded The General Conformity Rule, published under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93, only applies to a federal action located in a designated nonattainment or maintenance area. The net increase in emissions of the applicable pollutants is compared against the threshold levels established in the rule, known as the de minimis thresholds, published at 40 CFR Part 93.153(b)(1)-(b), Applicability Analysis. If the net increase in emissions due to a federal action exceeds the USEPA-established de minimis thresholds, a General Conformity Determination would be required. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook, Version 4, July 2024, https://www.faa.gov/regulations policies/policy guidance/envir policy/airquality handbook (accessed December 16, 2024). Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU) Air Quality Analysis NY4 Citation Dr. The proposed project does not qualify under the List of Presumed to Conform Actions. The Project is in Dutchess County, which is in attainment for all criteria pollutants regulated by the NAAQS? Therefore, demonstration of General Conformity is not required since the Project would not cause or contribute to any new violation of the NAAQS or interfere with provisions contained in a SIP. Step 4 utilizes Screening Criteria to determine whether an inventory of projected emissions is required. During this step, it is also necessary to determine if the Federal Action will occur in a state that is designated as an Ozone Transport Region (OTR), as attainment areas located in an OTR have more restrictive air quality requirements under the Clean Air Act. As described in Chapter 4 of the FAA's Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook, the State of New York is in the OTR. Step 4 identifies the following questions to evaluate Screening Criteria: A. If the project is not in the OTR, will the FAA Federal Action cause an increase in all aircraft operations of more than 14,000 operations per year? If the project is in the OTR, will the FAA Federal Action cause an increase in GA aircraft operations of more than 5,000 operations per year, or an increase in all aircraft operations of more than 14,000 operations per year? B. Will the FAA Federal Action cause a projected annual increase of aircraft delay exceeding 340,000 minutes? C. Will the FAA Federal Action cause an additional 25 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from on-road vehicles per year? D. If the project is not in an OTR, will the FAA Federal Action result in the use of an average of more than 125 pieces of construction equipment and GSE during a year? If the project is in an OTR, will the FAA Federal Action result in the use of an average of more than 50 pieces of construction equipment and GSE during a year? When aggregating emissions, each of the four Screening Parameters is normalized by dividing the anticipated activity level by the Screening Criteria for that Screening Parameter. The formula for this aggregation within the OTR is shown below: In a given year, if A' + B' + C' + D' ≥ 1.0, prepare an emissions inventory: * A' = Increase in Aircraft LTO's / 5,000 • B'= Increase in Aircraft Taxi/Idle/Delay (minutes) / 340,000 • C'= GAV Trips (VMT) / 25,000,000 • D'= Number of pieces of GSE and Construction Equipment / 50 The proposed project is anticipated to have an additional 395 total operations per year by various business jet aircraft. The following table assesses the results of all 4 screening parameters: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green Book National Area and County-Level Multi-Pollutant Information, data as of October 31, 2023, PASSER token took national area arut cun levat in tipluent information. Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU) Air Quality Analysis NY4 Citation Dr. Airport Aggregation Results Variable A D Variable Description Aircraft Operations Aircraft Taxi/Idle/Delay Ground Access Vehicles Construction Equipment Project-Specific Change + 197.5 LTOs No change 395 VMT 4 pieces Normalization Calculation 197.5 / 5,000 395 / 25,000,000 4 / 50 Total Normalization 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.12 Since the aggregated results are below 1.0, the proposed action does not exceed the Screening Criteria, and no further action is required. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at [email protected] or (585) 760-8559. Sincerely, Nathan Herzog Nathan Herzog Environmental Scientist 585-760-8559 [email protected] PASSERO Exhibit C PASSERO engineering architecture 242 West Main Street, Suite 100 Rochester, NY 14614 585.325.1000 | passero.com March 26, 2025 Attn: Robert H. Balkind, P.E. Commissioner Dutchess County Department of Public Works 626 Dutchess Turnpike Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Re: Noise Analysis - POU Airport Hangar Development Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU), NY4 Citation Dr. Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 Passero Associates has completed a noise analysis for the construction of two ~ 34,840 square foot prefabricated hangars at the Hudson Valley Regional Airport to evaluate noise impacts associated with this project in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). To estimate the potential increase in noise levels, an Area Equivalent Method (AEM) analysis was conducted for Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU). The AEM is a screening tool designed to streamline the assessment process and determine whether further, more detailed noise analysis is warranted. The analysis began by establishing a baseline for aircraft operations using data from the 2024 Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC') and The Operations Network for Tower Operations (OPSNET). This baseline represents the existing operational levels at the airport. Next, the anticipated increase in aircraft operations was incorporated based on projections provided by the developer of the proposed hangars. The developer estimated an additional 395 annual operations, distributed as follows: • 40% Aircraft Design Group (ADG*) III (e.g., Global 7500) • 35% ADG II (e.g., Challenger 350) • 25% ADG I (e.g., Cessna Citation CJ4) These projected operations were added to the existing baseline to model the future operational scenario. The AEM model then calculated the expected change in noise levels, revealing a 13.2% increase in noise exposure within the 65 DNL' contour. According to the AEM User Manual, a 17% increase in the 65 DNL contour area serves as the threshold for requiring further noise analysis. Since the projected increase falls below this threshold, the results indicate that the anticipated operational changes will not require further noise analysis and are not expected to result in a significant noise impact. ' This is a database that tracks aircraft movements based on flight plan and radar data. It provides information on flights, including their routes, and aircraft types. helping to analyze traffic patterns at airports. This is a system used by the FAA to track air traffic operations at airports with air traffic control towers. It records the number of takcoffs and landings. delays, and other operational data to help monitor airport activity ' A classification system used by the FAA to group aircraft based on their wingspan and landing gear width. It helps determine airport design standards. such as runway and taxiway spacing, Smaller planes like private jets fall into ADG LorI. while larger aircrafi, like airliners, are in higher ADG *A measurement of average noise exposure over a 24-hour period, with extra weight given to nighttime noise (10 PM H7 AM) since it is more disruptive. In the U.S.. 65 DNL. is commonly used as the threshold for assessing significant noise impacts near airports. Hudson Valley Regional Airport (POU) Noise Analysis NY4 Citation Dr. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at [email protected] or (585) 760-8559. Sincerely, Nathan Herzog Nathan Herzog Environmental Scientist 585-760-8559 [email protected] PASSERO Exhibit D 314022 314023 314129 C314129 314078 314101. 500 1,000 2,000 JUS Feet Legend Remediation Sites Remediation Parcels Hudson Valley Regional Airport Project Area Remediation Sites Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: NYS DECinfo Locator PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Now York State. Moxar Date: 1/15/2025 6/23/22,3:13 PM NEW YORK STATE OF OPPORTUNITY Environmental Site Remediation Database Search Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Site Remediation Database Search Details Site Record Document Repository Site-related documents are available for review through the DECInfo Locator on line at DECInfoLocator Administrative Information Site Name: Dutchess County Airport Site Code: 314129 Program: State Superfund Program Classification: P* EPA ID Number: Location DEC Region: 3 Address: 18 Griffith Way City:Wappinger Falls Zip: 12590 County:Dutchess Latitude: 41.627605556 Longitude: -73.884186111 Site Type: Estimated Size: 510.8 Acres Site Owner(s) and Operator(s) Site Description Location: The site is located in a rural area approximately 5 miles south of the City of Poughkeepsie. The site is the entire airport property which covers 510.8 acres. In 2017, the Dutchess County Airport was renamed the Hudson Valley Regional Airport. Site Features: The site property is a public use airport with a parking lot, airport terminal and various support buildings. Current Zoning: The site property is zoned airport development according to the Town zoning map. Surrounding properties are used for residential and commercial purposes with areas of open, unoccupied land. Past use of the Site: Originally built in the late 1930s, the airport was, and is currently capable of handling small general aviation aircraft as well as larger business jets from former tenants like IBM and Command https://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/derexternal/haz/details.cfm?pageid=3 1/3 6/23/22, 3:13 PM Environmental Site Remediation Database Search Airways (American Airlines). See Site No. 314078 Dutchess County Airport Hangar Facility and 314101 Flagship Airlines Hangar for additional past information. The Site also includes two closed former landfills, 314022 Dutchess County Airport Landfill and 314023 Dutchess County Balefill. At the start of World War I! the field was taken over by the Army Air Corps. It functioned as a satellite base to Stewart Airfield. A control tower was added and its main use was to function as a training field for West Point cadets. On April 4, 1947 the field was deeded to Dutchess County by the War Assets Administration under provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944. Dutchess County agreed to keep the field open to aviation. Site Geology and Hydrogeology: This information will be provided once it is available. Contaminants of Concern (Including Materials Disposed) Contaminant Name/Type Perfluorooctane Sulfonate perfluorooctanoic acid Site Environmental Assessment Based on the initial site characterization, soil, sediment groundwater and surface water on-site, and public and private wells off-site have been impacted by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which require additional investigation. Soil - PFOA was found up to 129 ppb. PFOS was found up to 369 ppb. Sediment - Sediment was collected from an on-site fire pond near one of the hangers with impacted groundwater. PFOA was detected up to 0.637 ppb. PFOS was detected up to 11.6 ppb. Groundwater - PFOA was detected up to 500 ppt. PFOS was detected up to 3,240 ppt. 1,4 dioxane was detected up to 15,400 ppt. Surface water - Surface water was collected from an on-site fire pond with PFOA up to 26.1 ppt and PFOS up to 214 ppt. PFOA at 4.33 ppt and PFOS at 17.2 ppt were found in surface water collected from a stream which discharges to Wappinger Creek, with low levels (PFOA: ND to just over 1 ppt and PFOS up to 2.53 ppt) in Wappinger Creek. PFOS and PFOA were detected in off-site private wells. Sampling off-site is ongoing. Site Health Assessment As information for this site becomes available, it will be reviewed by the NYSDOH to determine if site contamination presents public health exposure concerns. * Class P Sites: "DEC offers this information with the caution that it should not be used to form conclusions about site contamination beyond what is implied by the classification of this site, namely, that there is a potential for concern about site contamination. Information regarding a Class P site (potential Registry site) is by definition preliminary in nature and unverified because the DEC's investigation of the site is not yet complete. Due to the preliminary nature of this information, significant conclusions or decisions should not be based solely upon this summary." https://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/derexternal/haz/details.cfm?pageid=3 213 Exhibit E Pg B/D Pg B/D 375 750 1,500 El Hudson Voley Regional Airport| CJ Piciect Area CA CJ B C] B/O C C/D We 2,250 BED C/D We BeC C/D PwB Fr B/D Fi B/D HeA Ud A HsB 3,000 JUS Feet Soil Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS, TR CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York Ecıst Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey BEB C/D NYÀ B/D Ha B/D PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: New York State. Maxcr Date: 1/17/2025 Exhibit F N PFOIE PEMIF PSSIE PUBHh PFOM/EMTE PEMITE -PUBH PUBHh PFOTE PFOIE PFOIE PEMIE PFOTC PSSTE PEMIE PUBHh PUBH PUBH PFOTE PFOIC PUBHX PSS1/EMIE PEMIC PSSTE 375PU750 1,500 Legend 8 Bucison Valley Regions Airyxit 2 Project Arec wetlands G Freshwer Emergent Wesond Freshevater Forester/Shrub El Froshwater Ponds PEMIF PUBth PUBEX PUBH 2,250 3,000 US Feet PEMIE USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Date: 1/15/2025 N Hampton. Rd Hillis Ter Vassar Rd Toddy Li Route 376- Creet (376 Citation Dr. Dutchess County Airport Jackson Ro Jackson RO 375 750 1,500 Legend NYSDEC Wetlands 100ft Buffer Hudson Valley Regional Airport Project Area New Hackensack Rd Greens. Pond Padasana Ct Stonewall Or 2,250 гр 3,000 US Feet NYSDEC Wetlands Map Maps created by: Passero Associales GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: NYSDEC Maloney Airport Dr 376 [376 *New Hackensack Lane Gate Ra PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: USGS. D OpenStreetMap contibutors, and Date: 1/15/2025 Exhibit G N 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 US Feet Legend • Hudson Valley Regional Airport 3 Project Area 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard E Regulatory Floodway FEMA Flood Areas Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: FEMA PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: And Your in Morn Date: 1/15/2025 Exhibit H N No Significant Natural Communities present in project vicinity 750 1,500 3,000 - Feet Legend • Hudson Valley Regional Airport e Project Area # Significant Notural Communities Rare Plants & Animals (i Indiang Bat • Pied-billed Grebe Environmental Resource Map Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: Environmental Resource Mapper PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Now Your State Maxen Date: 1/15/2025 MC: 9. 020 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045-9385 Phone: (607) 753-9334 Fax: (607) 753-9699 Email Address: fwSes [email protected] In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2022-0057122 Project Name: Dutchess County Airport Hangar Development June 23, 2022 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 06/23/2022 2 (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.E.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php. The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. 06/23/2022 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed This species list is provided by: New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045-9385 (607) 753-9334 06/23/2022 2 Project Summary Project Code: 2022-0057122 Event Code: None Project Name: Dutchess County Airport Hangar Development Project Type: New Constr - Above Ground Project Description: Develop two 12,000 SF hangars, inclusive of adjoining office space and automobile parking for each hangar, along with additional impervious surface for adjoining apron space. A connection auto drive, approximately 350 LF will tie into an existing parking lot. Remove 32 LF of existing fence and install a 32 LF sliding gate. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@41.628407100000004,-73.88680332716073,14z Pokhang Come: Counties: Dutchess County, New York 06/23/2022 3 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949 Insects VAME Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S IURISDICTION. STATUS Endangered STATUS Candidate 06/23/2022 IPaC User Contact Information Agency: County of Dutchess Name: Lisa Cheung Address: 242 West Main St Address Line 2: Suite 100 City: Rochester State: NY Zip: 14614 Email [email protected] Phone: 5857608506 Exhibit I 375 750 1,500 2,250 National Register Buikling 'istings dison Valley Regional virport my Proach Aren Legend Historic Building Points O Eigible O isted Historic Building Districts Eligible Lister! 3,000 US Feet Archeological Sensitive Areas Maps created by: Passero Associates GIS CRS: NAD83 State Plane New York East Municipality: Town of Wappinger Source: Cultural Resource Information System PASSERO architecture engineering Service Credits: Now you Sain Maya Date: 1/15/2025 NEW YORK | Parks, Recreation, STATE OF OPPORTUNITY and Historic Preservation CATHY HOCHUL Governor ERIK KULLESEID Commissioner June 23, 2022 Austin Goodwin Civil Engineer I/ Passero Associates 242 W. Main St #100 Rochester, NY 14614 Re: FAA Dutchess County Airport Hangar Development 263 New Hackensack Rd, Wappingers Falls, NY 12590 22PR04063 Dear Austin Goodwin: Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article Based upon this review, it is the opinion of the New York SHPO that no historic properties, including archaeological and/or historic resources, will be affected by this undertaking. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. Sincerely, Roger Daint the R. Daniel Mackay Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Division for Historic Preservation New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, PO Box 189. Waterford. New York 12188-0189 (518) 237-8643 • https://parks.ny.gov/shpo 1 22ia 1022- GENERAL WORK SCOPE: " LASA COUR MACEMEN: OF CRUSNEO AGGREGATE 1 URUTY INSTALLARON I CONCRETE IOUNDATION ANGAR INSTALLATION ASTAL ASPHALI ARZON NÃO PARCINGIO: N. 1.012.154.3147 LEV• 152 20 9 • in 10 e fanaming e tu das es e saake KAN: NUMBER! 462371 CONTROL POINTS (NAD 83) ELEVATION (FT) NORTHING 152.70 1.017.154.3167 $59.497.7610 X1523 4€2380 9:51 DESCRIPTION COS MAG. STATION DISC (RUNWAY END OF 1/W G; BENEN BEN 1552 / e RED CAPPED IKON ROD RED CAPPED IRON 2O0 15399 151.04 150 35 1.018.162 5400: 860907,7100 560 059 5100 1.018.385.4300: 459.906.6300 EAPL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPOILS COORDINATEO WITH OWNER SPOILS ACCESS ROUTE - CONTRACTOR ACCESS ROUTE MANGAR 1 Rosocin (ANGAR 2 PROPOSED SKY HARBOUR E 660 059.51 vener ANA A ME PASSERO engineering architecture (1) AE2380 1 1010 77 812 10: 1005 SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regional Airport Wappungers Falls, NY :2590 Sky Harbour LLC 226 To Fan in to 205 Marcal 23000149.0019 General Plan & Survey Control C-002 March 2025 WORK AREA 2 RUNWAY CLOSURE MARKER (TYP.) EDITAL & ON SHER! C.S! POILS & CONTRACIOR STAGING AREA FINAL IOCARON TO RE ACCESS ROUTE SONIARD ACCI SORE A RUNWAY 7-25 (TURF) CLOSURE DETAIL CALE NIS ONTRACT AMAR HEMPORARY CATE A HAHAHAT THE DUPATION GR ONSIRUCTION GATE GUARD REQUIRSO AT ALL ALER AURING CONTRUCTION CARATONS ANTRACIOR TO SACRE SA SERT O CIFARANCE MOM WORY AREA REWEEN MANDAR AND RAMPARE ACCEP TO AIRCRAR HANGAR PROPOSED TAXINAY SAFETY AREA WORX AREA 2 NORE AREA PHASE NOTES NORE AREA 1 NILALL MORE AXIA I BARKCADES ONG A LERONE GA TAXLANE AS SNORA. STALL EROSION AND HONDA CONROE. NORK AREA 2 PETAL TOE CAN WITH ANGLED LOGE MOVAL PLACEMENT, AND WORK AREA 2 (CONT.) PARAN COSIVE: CA FORMAY 741 LAXMAY O AND HEXAGON HANGAR ASTAL MORE AREA I A WORK ARLA I RARECADES AS SHOWN FOR CLOSURES NIAIGHNCEASOREN CONTR ANAERO AS GRAEMA GATING CONAGURATION AND ALL OTHERE MAGINAL COVE TAXMAY UGA, AND SGN ON EASING ANNATO MEEN ALL VICAR IN VICAR ARLA 2 SHAL: BE COMPLETEO IN IQ CONSECUTIVE WORKING (1) GENERAL PHASING & WORK AREA NOTES: NO FOR ME A TE ONE ALL BELONG AND THEE TERMIES • SANICIDE THE INCINER ABOR MANAGE DIACTIVATE OR COVIRIO A * MAN ORENE ON A BET BASES DALE BE APPROVEO BY DRE ARRORE › IMPEN OR AMAND A AL PAVENT ROGES PRORIO I SAVEN SHALL BE FRE OF COSTA STONES BIT AND, OF DEG TO MACKARE OCATION SHOWN ON THIS SNEE? I VIAO ON TRASON DE THE AROR OPATE DESIGNATED MORE AREAS " IS ON ARE ONE TO MANIAN THE HOT SEE AKO ANTES O. MOURNINT NOT IN USE SHALL SE SHOT CA * MONOPEAN HAL AT AL TIMES CONTED OVE, AED AND ENOR SUING KEY NOTES: INSTALL LOW PEOPLE BARR CADES WHEN WORING IN MORE ARLA:. 3 ASTALLION PRONGE BARACADES WHEN WORKNG IN MORE ARCA = PASSERO engineering architecture aye. SKY HARBOUR MANGAR SEVE NOMENTI Hudson Valley Regional Airport 263 New Mockensock Ro Wappogers Fails, NY 12590 Sky Harbour LLC 136 Tower Ro., Suite 205 Construction Safety & Phasing Plan C-031 March 2025 - 1! -0 11018571 1129 :6159341.5248 11- 18.5 - 95.17 - N: 10:8554.8272 *E:659481.4348 (SEE NOTES ON SHEET C-541) _.N:1018295.0849 1:659572 3044 FULL DEPTM SAWCUT FOR NEW CURE CUT. I' OFF PAVEMENT ROGE IND OF ROSE DE EARN WAT (SEE NOTES ON SHEET C-541) MOVIDE NEW CORNER POSE AT END OR SMOVED SINCE IROTH SIDES OF DRIVEWAYI -41.67 — Li: 41A7 - 95.17 (7) 27 •95.17 11- - 3067 - 551.7 - 18.5 N: 1018915,4760 :455749 0000 N:1018790.9958 N: 1018688. 1583 E159795 4437 LE 6001323075 KEYNOTES: • PROSING COGER POST AT CONNECTON PONITO S INSTALL SON RAN S ENCE WITH BARBEO WIRE. SEE 6: PROPOSED RETAINING WALL CONTRACIOR TO SUBMIT HOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVALRY CIVI INCINER DE RECORDIE ORIL ARCHITECT • SRACTO AS SHOWN SEE SERES SHEETS FOR PAO DETAILS: A-SERIES SHEETS FOR BOLLARD DETAILS. &: PROPOSEO ELECTRIC MANHOLE. SEE UTILITY SHEET C-121 • PIANOSO CANOPY STRUCTURE SEL ARCHTECTURAL 1O PRONALD RUBBER WHEEL STOP WITH REBAR PIRS INTO 1I PROPOSIO STORM STRUCTURE SEE UTILITY SHEET C-121. 12 O/W/S CONCRETE PAD. SEE DETAIL SI ON SHEET C-S01. 19 SHEESEO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SEE C-SO SENES PASSERO engineering architecture SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regiona! Airport Sky Harbour LLC 136 Tower Rd.. Suite 205 ance Kans NY :0004 + 23001490079 Site Plan C-101 March 2025 PROF. 371 68 30 SICPP • 0.30% S INV = 135.70 NE INV = 135.70 - 30 INV • 148 20 19 C8. 24 - DRAINAGE STRUCTURES COMPATBILTY WYE ROOF LATERAL INTO STORM NETWORK (TYP.) SEE STORM REMOVE -- 18 PROP. 160 LF 30 SICPP 8 0.31% AT DAH 1: CONTRACIORTO PROP. & DMH 1- CRUCTIRE CANNERTO SYRING NEIN EP WITH CONCRETE COULAR X2 CR+2 SW INV • 145.80 NE INV = 145,00 NINV • 14540 SOUF 15 SICHT 51M. SWaé 11.52% 22 UF 1Z SIC SIM. SWR & 021% 8. 59 L$ 15° SICPP..- 2X2 Cse5- WINV = 146.00 PROPOSED HANGAR 1 (SH37 269 x 161) 44 LF 12° SICP? PAOS MTO.) SW INV = 142.35 S INV - 146.75 -PROP. 110 LF 12' SICPP i 0.59% N:143 - 1 (ГУР.) ( (177) PROP. 120 16 24 3ICP = 0.33% 05047- SEN 1260 PROP. 58 LF 24" SICP? # 0.43% PROP. 5 OMH S- IM = 129 30 NE INV = 142.35 WINN • 142 S WINNe 18233 PROP. 158 Uf 28° SIC** 6 2.88% - PROPOSED LIGHT ! $ MOROSIO CARE VALVS PROR. 150LF 1E SIPP 99.405 PROPOSEO 10 X 10 RECEIVING PIT BIN GAL MANHOLE 25 TYPI 19 MY 120 70 20 I GRADE PROVIDI 2x2 см7- - 2X2 C8a6 NE INV < 143 20 SW INV = 144.00 SW INV • 143.20 PROP. 149 LF 15 SICP? & 0.54% • 3 (тYР.) ROR. 297 LP 12 SICPP a 0.69% (TYP.) 34 - 4 EQUAL SPACES AT 75.55 EACH or DISTRIBUTION BOX 1S INV IN: 145.05 NV OUT: 14480 $1.0% MIN. SLOPE 15 KV IN 14503 • SEPEC TANK 14 • (TYP.) INV OUT: 145.40 1OP = 143.25 SE INV = 145.00 € 0.74% * 0765 -SICPP KEYNOTES: SINCH UNDERDRAIN SEDITAR 2 ON DRAWING C. 01 * ONDRAINE COSINAGE PIPE TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SEE DETAIL? 3 PROPOSED 24 INCH SQUARE CATCH BASIN, SEE DETAIL & ON DRAWING C.501 DIRECTIONAL DRILL FOR PROPOSED WATER LINE 8 INCH CROO PVC WATER LINE, SEE DETAIL 2 ON DRAWING C.511 OPEN CUT AND REPAIR ASPHAL MASLINE SEE DETAIL A ON DRAWING C.S14 SHOVED LOCATON OF GAS METER COORDINATE WITH UTILITY 11: OPEN FENCE 1O2 PROPOSED UTILITY TRENCHING. RÉPLACE IN KIND. 12: 12 INCH SICPY STORM PIPE, SEE DETAIL 8 ON DRAWING C-50: BINCH A PVC SOR 35 SANTARY SEWER *O COX SEE DEAR 3 O DRAWING C-512 14: 1.000- GALLON SEPTIC TANK SEE DETAIL 1 ON DRAWING C-513. 15: DISTRIBUTION BOX. SEE DETAIL 3 ON DRAWING C-513. 16: SANITARY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. SEE SHEET C.313. SANITARY SUBSPLACEMEN A NOTIN CONTRACT 18" MATCH INVERTS TO EXISTING SWALE. 20 RUING SLE PLUMON ELENON DEVICE WITHIN 21: INSTALLATON OF THRUST BLOCKS, SEE DETAIL & AND 7 ON SMEET C-511 22: 3000 GALLON OIL/WATER/SEPARATOR WITH VENTED COVERS 25 25ISA METER ELECTRICAL MANHOLE LOAD RATE. SEE DETAIL 3 ON DING 27: BANK OF ELECTRIC FEEDS. 3 TOTAL COORINATE WITH UMUTY PROVIDER. 28 POR IANSTORMEE PAD A SEAS O SOLAR DEAL SERIES SHEETS 2 POWER AND CABE TRENCHING RECURE EMECHANICAL PLANS FOR 30 00AL ON SEE TH UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE LATERAL. SEE 31: INFATRATION BASIN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, SEE C-SSO SERIES SHEETS. 32 CONNECT EXISTING UNDERDRAIN PIPE TO PROPOSEO UNDERDRAIN. 33 GOALL ON SEE UNDERRAIN TO PROPOSED 12" STORM PIPE. SEE ** FRANSHORMEA SE DETAIL ON ONG SLUGHT. CONCRETE BASE AND 34: PROPOSEO CABLE TO BE FED THROUGH EXISTING &GS CONOUR. 37 PROPOSEO 46 AWG COUNTERPOISE. SEE DETAIL 4 ON OWG C-514. 38: 28 ×50×41- IT DISTRIBUTION HANDHOLE SEE IT SERIES SHEETS. 39 TO DESTINATICN ("3-CEL MAXCEL FABRIC INNERDUCT. SEE I-SERIES * UNETY POL SEE TETE SALE MAXCEL TABRIC INNEROUCIS TO PASSERO engineering architecture SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regional Airport 263 New Mockensack Ro. Wappingers falls, NY 1259) Sky Harbour LLC a. Kal Sy 2004 2N0.00199.0015 Utility Plan C-121 March 2025 _ HA 16410 w: 151.00 ew (EX): :45.11 SW (NEW): 149.81 To 1o co WEY 14L 27 AW INSAT 140 CA w: 15000 SW (NEW): 148.50 8W (EX): 147.29 BW (NEW): 148.00 3W 1EX): 147 38 aW (NEW): 147.38 HIM = 147.00 A 12): 1 . 120 AN Awly. 112 0. BW (NEW): 149.99 535 C 148,40-- AOS HYO. SEPARATOR 3M = 145.00 Ru = 15980 100- PROPOSED MANGAR 1 OFFICES FEE. = 150.10 PROPOSED HANGAR 1 PROP. & OMH 1 - 2U4 = 147.00 TW: 149.00 W IN WE: 147 80 PROP. 8' 0MM7 RUM. = :49.75 W: 1S1.C0 SW (NEW): 149.99 PROM SAT PROPOSED GSE 14920- - A0S MT0.2 12/0 10220733- A8 00-1 1482037 SINY - 166.75 -120 - 148.82. - 149.034-149 03 ex2 CAS ¿ OVER SSOS ISOS AREA • DO NOT OPERATE BOLIPMENT OR TORE FOU PMENT IN THIS AREA 1 40 30 -120 07 (s) EXISTING GRADE CONIOURS PROPOSED GRADE CONTOURS YAP AR OSTAINING WAR CRANE MAINE THE SAVEMENT RIDE SOR DRAINAGE INTO STRUCTUREE PROPOSED SWALE • HP RAP LINED SEO MEN! BASIN OROM OF BASIN a 143.7 O/W/5 42 RUMS - 148.77 2. SEPTIC TANK RINS a 148.00 перси "as PESET PIPE OUTIE TO SACK AS NEEDED -149- TV CROWN -149.03 MORRIS HANGARS ANCES BE 15010 ROPOSED HANGAR T F.F.E. = 149.5 W HANGAR DOOR ZIM - 148.50 148 40- J 148.40 REV. CROWN 3590 - 1203 14940~ IM • 148.25 R1V4P:148.50 RIM 14875 148.70-3 REV. CROWN RIM = 150A0 5050 -153.00 LEVATION AT INTERFACE OF + C→ L 17-ON 0 me PASSERO engineering architecture SKY HARBOUR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT Hudson Valley Regiona! Airport Weppagers Fais, NY 12590 Sky Harbour LLC 36 Tower Rd., Suite 205 23000149.0019 Grading Plan C-201 March 2025 Public Works and Capital Projects Roll Call District Name District 7 - Hyde Park and Pleasant Valley Truitt* District 25 - Amenia, Washington, Pleasant Valley & Millbrook Houston* District 3 - LaGrange Polasek* District 16 - Fishkill and Beacon Valdés Smith* District 9 - City of Poughkeepsie Atkins* District 1 - Town of Poughkeepsie Gorman District 10 - City of Poughkeepsie Johnson (VC) District 12 - East Fishkill Metzger (C) District 13 - East Fishkill and Wappinger Paoloni District 15 - Wappinger Faust District 20 - Red Hook, Tivoli, and Rhinebeck Munn District 23 - Pawling, Beekman and East Fishkill Rolison Present: Absent: Resolution: Motion: Total: Abstentions: Vacant: Yes No Abreat Yes No 2025067 DECLARING DUTCHESS COUNTY SEQR LEAD AGENCY FOR THE POU DEVELOPMENT LLC COMMERCIAL AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT MAY 8, 2025 Roll Call Sheets District Present: Absent: Vacant: Last Name YES District 7 - Hyde Park and Pleasant Valley Truitt District 25 - Amenia, Washington, Pleasant Valley & Millbrook Houston District 3 - LaGrange Polasek District 16 - Fishkill and Beacon District 9 - City of Poughkeepsie District 1 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 2 - LaGrange, Pleasant Valley & Town of Poughkeepsie District 4 - Hyde Park and Town of Poughkeepsie District 5 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 6 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 8 - City and Town of Poughkeepsie District 10 - City of Poughkeepsie District 11 - Clinton, Pleasant Valley, and Rhinebeck District 12 - East Fishkill District 13 - East Fishkill and Wappinger District 14 - Wappinger and Town of Poughkeepsie District 15 - Wappinger District 17 - Town and Village of Fishkill District 18 - City of Beacon and Fishkill District 19 - North East, Stanford, Pine Plains, Milan & Red Hook District 20 - Red Hook, Tivoli, and Rhinebeck District 21 - East Fishkill District 22 - Beekman and Union Vale District 23 - Pawling, Beekman and East Fishkill District 24 - Dover and Pawling Valdés Smith Atkins Gorman Travelpiece Lawler D'Aquanni Kaul Brendli Johnson Kearney Metzger Paoloni Versaci Faust McHoul Page Drago Munn Caswell Garito Rolison 25 House Total : Resolution: Motion: 25 Yes Abstentions: NO No 2025067 DECLARING DUTCHESS COUNTY SEQR LEAD AGENCY FOR THE POU DEVELOPMENT LLC COMMERCIAL AVIATION HANGAR PROJECT AT HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT MAY 12, 2025