Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 11/28/2005
Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
November 28, 2005     7 p.m.

PRESENT:  Chairman Friedlander; Members Demers, Tedesco, Stone; Counsel
                 Shumejda; Planner Geneslaw, Landscape Architect Yarabek;
                 Building Inspector/Village Engineer McGarvey; Secretary D’Eufemia

RESIGNATION – MR. SHROFF

Chairman Friedlander reported that he received a letter from Zubeen Shroff who, for personal and professional reasons, regretfully has to offer his resignation to the Planning Board.  “He served a short period of time but that time was filled with concise and constructive comments to the Board and we appreciate his efforts and hard work on the Planning Board.  We look forward to someone of equal caliber serving on the Planning Board.  We thank Zubeen for his excellent work and serving in a very arduous job.”

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of October 24, 2005, be approved as submitted.

PUBLIC HEARING – HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY (HSA-UWC) – SOUTH BROADWAY – JARDIM ESTATES – LOT 8
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS – LOTS 7 AND 9

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:

Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (HSA-UWC)     
4 West  43rd Street
New York, New York   10036
               
To consider the application for site development plan approval for property they own on South Broadway, Tarrytown, New York, for construction of a new single family house on Lot 8 of Jardim Estates, pursuant to Section 305-52 of the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 29, Parcel P-68, and is located in an R-60 (Residential) Zone.

Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office.  All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.  Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped.  Signing is available for the hearing-impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.

The Certified Mailing Receipts were submitted.

Mr. Sheer stated at the request of the Board they appeared before the Architectural Review Board and the conclusion they reached was that they were quite pleased with the design for the houses on Lots 7, 8 and 9.  There was another site walk on November 17th.  The house on Lot 9 was moved slightly and there was discussion about the trees on Lot 7.  Tonight they are hoping for site plan approval for all three lots.

Mr. Justin Minieri, architect, stated the garage for Lot 8 is faced to the rear.  The house faces the street without the view of the garage.  Then, the same flavor continues as the houses for Lots 7 and 9.  There will be cedar shingles and the house will have a porch.  Mr. Minieri submitted a color rendering of the house on Lot 8.  He also submitted a plan showing the houses on the three lots relative to the street elevation.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Minieri stated the distances between the three houses ranges from 45 ft. to 90 ft.

Mr. Stone stated, “I am glad on Lot 8 the garage faces the back.  It would be preferable that the three-car garages not face the road.”  Mr. Sheer stated, “At the last meeting you asked us to look at whether we could redesign at least one lot for a two car garage.  Lot 9 will have a two-car garage.”  Mr. Stone stated, “We would appreciate the same wherever you can do that on the future lots.”

Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.

Ms. Roula Nedo stated a number of residents who have expressed concern about the development in this community have received very condescending responses.  The Board needs to listen to the residents of the community and not be condescending.  The residents have legitimate concerns.  The developers have a right to develop but there is a responsible way to develop.  The Unification Church will make billions of dollars on this property.  They have to be responsible and take care of legitimate concerns – animal control, access.  Ms. Nedo stated she had a dead deer on her property and it took three telephone calls to get it removed.  Her garbage has not been picked up because the construction makes it inconvenient for them to come.  “My taxes are not being reduced because they are developing.  I should get the same services.”  Construction workers left wood on the road, which she had to move in order to drive down the road.  The road that leads from Gracemere to Sheldon was supposed to be closed for two days but it has been closed two months.  No one has discussed what will happen in the winter.  “As a taxpayer, I want the Board and this Village to be held accountable for what they are doing.  I want everything to be constantly monitored.  The Village has to make them responsible developers.”

Mr. Stone noted in a 11/22/05 memo from Mr. Yarabek relative to Lot 7, he noted they needed to evaluate the feasibility of preserving a grouping of the existing mature pine trees north of the proposed house and/or planting replacement evergreens as a buffer to Sheldon.  Mr. Michael Inglis of Unification Church stated they reduced the patio size to help take care of that.  Mr. Minieri stated there is a group of six pines and they contemplate being able to save a couple of those.  Mr. Yarabek stated they had discussion at the field meeting and they have asked for a revised plan.  Mr. Stone questioned two trees to the west.  Mr. Minieri stated those are 10 ft. to 15 ft. from the house.  They need 20 ft. to save the tree.  Mr. Yarabek stated he did not believe those are significant trees but a revised plan would allow that to be re-evaluated.

Mr. Stone noted they have increased the calipers of some of the trees but in general the replacement trees should be 4 inch to 4-1/2 inch caliper.

Mr. Tedesco stated, “I want to commend you for the significant decrease in the patios and the gravel driveways.”

Ms. Linda Viertel, Gracemere, commended the applicants for addressing many of the concerns.  She stated enormous trees at the Gracemere entrance were lost and she suggested there be large replacement trees at the entrance.  “We are thrilled with the wall that is going in but we need substantial trees at the entrance – not 4 inch or 4-1/2 inch caliper.”  Mr. Yarabek stated they have proposed flowering pears along the wall and then down the road a complete colonnade of cherry trees as an entrance to the site.  There were at least a dozen trees.  Chairman Friedlander stated there was a large tree that came down and now that is an open area.  He questioned whether a large replacement tree could go in that area.  Mr. Yarabek stated he would look at it.  

Chairman Friedlander questioned what is being done to maintain the road during the construction period.  Mr. Dennis Serna, Project Manager, stated now they are working on the Sheldon Avenue entrance.  That work is 90% complete and the road is scheduled to be paved this week.  Once that is done, they can open that road which will give egress from Gracemere to Sheldon.  When that is done, they will close the road to Route 9.  The road is dug up and there are trenches.  In regard to the silt fence and water maintenance, Cronin Engineering is inspecting on a weekly basis and they are under the watchful eye of the DEP.  Mr. Stone suggested the work schedule should be put into a plan so the neighbors will know what to expect.  Mr. Sarna stated Mr. McGarvey has requested that and it will be done by next Monday.  He noted there will always be a road open for the people in Gracemere to get out.

Ms. Nedo stated she has an easement allowing her access to Broadway and they should not be allowed to close that access.  “I can’t live my life around their construction schedule.”

Ms. Esther Samra, Gracemere, commended the Planning Board for their pro-active work for tree preservation in Gracemere and stated she hoped it serves as a model for other developments in the Village.  It has been nearly four years since Unification Church first brought plans to develop their property in Gracemere and now it is in the final stages.  She stated due to mutual efforts, the plan has preserved open space.  The church has listened to comments at the hearings and things have changed.  The historic stone wall has been restored and hopefully that will continue on the north section and hopefully the private road will be adequately repaired.  She thanked the Church for working closely with the neighbors.  Ms. Samra suggested the Planning Board and Zoning Board look for ways to reduce the number of over-sized homes, which could in the future become a blight to the Village.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares itself Lead Agency on Lots 7, 8, and 9 in Jardim Estates.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the public hearings on the site plans for Lots 7, 8, and 9 in Jardim Estates be closed.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares there will be no adverse environmental impact as a result of implementation of site plans for Lots 7, 8, and 9 in Jardim Estates.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the site plans for Lots 7, 8, and 9 in Jardim Estates subject to:

  • Approval by the Building Inspector including his oversight of the construction process to insure that neighboring residents will have the easements due to them maintained during the construction process.  Gracemere easement holders shall always be provided a means of ingress and egress.
  • Compliance with all the items contained in the resolution of approval for the preliminary subdivision dated November 24, 2003 and revised January 26, 2004.
  • The above-noted resolution included but was not limited to the following:
  • Approval of the landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape Consultant.  That plan is to include the implementation of the actions suggested by the Village Landscape Consultant in his memo to the Planning Board dealing with landscaping for infrastructure dated November 22, 2005, and his memos to the Planning Board dealing with landscaping for individual lots 7, 8, and 9 also dated November 22, 2005.
  • Approval by the Architectural Review Board.
  • Payment of applicable recreation and escrow fees.
  • A detailed tree protection and tree preservation plan to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant
  • If any trees which are designated to be preserved are damaged due to site work and subsequently need to be removed, the applicant will replace them in kind.  If this is not possible, payment of the assessed values of the trees will be made to the Village.
  • All trees to be removed should be clearly marked in the field and on site plans prior to any site work being done.
  • All trees should be identified and an inspection should be done by the Planning Board and the Village Landscape Consultant prior to any removal.
  • After construction and prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued there should be an inspection by the Planning Board with the Village Landscape Consultant to approve the screening along the road
  • The applicant must provide an escrow account for an arborist to visit the site during construction to check tree removal and preservation.  The amount to be determined by the Village Landscape Consultant.  The arborist is to be chosen in consultation with the Village Landscape Consultant and approved by him.
  • The applicant also agrees to perform any treatment and pruning of existing trees deemed necessary by the Village Landscape Consultant at a time the consultant deems most appropriate.
  • Adherence to Section 305-61 Part 14 of the Zoning Code dealing with the tree replacement fund for the removal of any trees with a 10-inch caliper or greater.
  • Use of equipment no larger than a 315 CAT excavator and a 416 CAT backhoe without approval by the Building Inspector to prevent damage to trees.
  • The signing of each final site plan by the Planning Board chair.

Ms. Nedo stated, “That is not acceptable.  I need to have access to Route 9.”  Mr. Inglis stated it is a matter of safety during construction.  The whole roadbed is going to be lowered.  “We are trying to keep it closed for a minimum period of time.”  Mr. Sarna stated the Sheldon Avenue access will be repaved this week.  The goal is to do the work as soon as possible.  “We have to close it and when that is done the neighbors will be notified.”

PUBLIC HEARING – CRESCENT ASSOCIATES – 155 WHITE PLAINS ROAD – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown on Monday, November 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York, will hold a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pursuant to the application of:

Crescent Associates, L.L.C.
C/o Silverman Realty, Inc.
237 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, New York   10601

Relative to site development plan approval for property located at 155 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, New York, for the construction of a 60,000 gross square foot office building with associated parking, loading, drainage and landscaping.
The Document is available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall and the Warner Library.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 2-20, Block 2, Lot 2 and is located in an OB (Office Building) zone.

All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.  Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped.  Signing is available for the hearing-impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.

The Certified Mailing Receipts were submitted.

This portion of the minutes was recorded by a court stenographer and that transcript represents the official minutes.

The hearing will be continued at the Board’s December meeting.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – FERRY LANDINGS LLC AND FERRY INVESTMENTS – WATERFRONT PROPERTY (LOWER MAIN STREET) – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

Chairman Friedlander reported this hearing is being adjourned and joint meetings with the Planning Board and Board of Trustees on the FEIS (co-lead agencies on this project) will be taking place.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN – WEST MAIN STREET – RECREATION/AQUATICS CENTER

Chairman Friedlander reported this hearing is being adjourned.


CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – 455 HOSPITATLITY, LLC – 455 SOUTH BROADWAY – DOUBLE TREE HOTEL
 
Mr. Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicants, stated, “Since the last meeting we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they granted the variances.  We went preliminarily to the Architectural Review Board and they also felt everything looked fine.  We received a letter from the Village’s Planner and he indicated two areas in the landscaping review and we agreed to the changes Mr. Yarabek recommended.  We submitted the final drawing to the Village but Mr. Yarabek has not yet had a chance to review it.  With respect to storm water management review, I understand the engineer reviewed everything with Mr. McGarvey and it is okay.”

Mr. McGarvey stated, “I met with the design engineers for the storm water management.  Changes were made and we have a plan that is acceptable to the Village.”

Mr. Blancato stated, “Our traffic consultant did the additional study you requested and it was submitted.”  Mr. John Canning, traffic consultant for the Village, stated the additional analysis was for the a.m. period.  The analysis indicated that the traffic operating conditions were better than p.m. and slightly worse than Saturday and there would be a minimal change with the improvements to the hotel.

Mr. Stone stated, “We talked about the nature of the events and incremental traffic and parking.  We asked for a list of the activities and I don’t know that was provided.”  Mr. Marc Shapiro of Double Tree stated it would be provided.  Mr. Stone stated it should include the number of people who are expected to attend the activities and how that relates to the traffic study.

Mr. Blancato stated the Village’s Planner did a draft of a negative declaration and a recommendation that it be adopted subject to certain minor things being added to the plans.  Because of the conditions at the site, there is an urgent need for these approvals so the construction can begin on the ballroom.

Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.  No one appeared.

Mr. Geneslaw stated, “We felt all the substantive items were taken care of.  We felt subject to additional comments from the public or Board, the application was ready for a negative declaration.”

Mr. Yarabek stated, “The project consultant agreed to all the administrative matters in my memo.  They have not provided the condition of all the trees and the valuation of the trees is yet to be provided.  They have gone a great distance though in providing what I need.  The caliper of the trees, however, should be 4 inch to 4-1/2 inch.”

Mr. Demers stated, “I was in favor of the variances by the ZBA but only because the applicant assured us that without those variances they would not be able to make this work financially.  I would not like that to be taken as a precedent.  I think it is important that this Board take a stand that no variances be granted that will increase volume on Route 9.”

Chairman Friedlander stated this building exists and it is important that it be a viable on-going enterprise.  He stated he would support Mr. Demers’ position regarding a new structure that would increase the traffic.

Mr. Tedesco noted the number of rooms at the hotel are not being increased which was important.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares itself Lead Agency on this application and the following Negative Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Law be adopted:


State Environmental Quality Review

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Notice of Determination of Non-Significance

Project:        455 HOSPITALITY, LLC – DOUBLETREE HOTEL

Village of Tarrytown, New York

Date:  November 28, 2005

This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.

The Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.

Name of Action:  Site Plan Approval for project as named above.

SEQR Status:  Unlisted

Conditioned Negative Declaration:  No

Description of Action:

Seeks site plan approval as part of an intent to expand and renovate the existing Double Tree Hotel Tarrytown including upgrading interior spaces, mechanical and electrical equipment, an outdoor pool area, and improving the site including reconstruction and expansion of the existing parking lot and drop off area to support the new renovations.  The existing hotel facility is approximately 90,000 square feet.  The expansion will accommodate a new 8,000 square foot ballroom and banquet facility.  The current (441 spaces) will be increased by 80 spaces, to a total of 521 spaces.  The hotel is not expected to hire additional hotel staff for the operation of the new services.

The site pavement and layout plan found in the Part II, prepared by Eberlin & Eberlin and last revised September 26,2005, illustrates the site plan layout for the proposed project.

The project site is zoned LB, Limited Business District.  Permitted principal uses include motor hotel.  The proposed site pan has been designed to meet applicable area, yard, and height restrictions for the LB district.  The minimum lot area for this project is 435,800 square feet.  Other yard and bulk requirements would apply and are listed on the site plan.

The proposed project will be served by existing municipal water and sewer service.  Other utilities to be supplied to the site include cable and electric.

Location:       455 South Broadway, Tarrytown, NY

Reason for Determination:

The proposed action is not anticipated to result in any adverse environmental impacts based on the following:

1.  There will be an increase of approximately 10% in the area of the property that is  
      landscaped.

2.  A traffic study has been submitted and reviewed by the Village’s consulting traffic
     engineer and has been found, after revisions, to be acceptable.  The traffic study found
    that after the ballroom is placed in operation an additional 96 vehicular trips will be
   generated during the morning and evening peak hours, and up to 145 trips during the
   Saturday peak hour when a banquet is in progress.  At present, and after completion of
   the project, traffic at the intersection of the Double Tree driveway, Route 9, and the
   I-287 interchange, will function at level of service A to D, except for the southbound
   left turn onto I-287, which will function at level of service F during the peak hour.

3.  The applicant has agreed to contribute up to $5,000 for a study of cumulative traffic
   impacts in the nearby area of Route 9.

4.  The applicant has indicated a willingness to consider a monetary contribution toward
     implementation of selected traffic improvements, once they have been identified,
     benefits established, and costs estimated.

5.  A stormwater management plan and soil erosion control plan have been prepared and
    reviewed by the Village Engineer, who has found the general concepts acceptable.
   Some minor adjustments to details may be made during the site plan approval process.

6.  The Village’s landscape architect consultant has reviewed the plans and made several
     recommendations, all of which have been accepted and are to be shown on the final
     plans.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the conversion of the Tarrytown Hilton to the Double Tree Hotel with the proposed renovation, expansion, creation of new parking and reconfiguration of existing parking subject to:

Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer particularly in regard to the storm water drainage proposal.
Approval by the Architectural Review Board.
Approval of the landscaping and screening plan by the Village’s Landscape Consultant.
A detailed tree protection and tree preservation plan to be approved by the Village’s Landscape Consultant.
If any trees which are indicated to be preserved are damaged due to site work and subsequently need to be removed, the applicant agrees to replace them in kind.  If this is not possible, payment of the assessed values of the trees will be made to the Village.
Adherence to Section 305-61 Part 14 of the Zoning Code dealing with the tree replacement fund which is established for removal of trees having a 10 inch caliper or greater.
Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any needed variances.
Grass pavers will be used for the parking spaces provided in the area of the tennis courts.
Participation by the applicant in sharing in the cost of the traffic corridor study for South Broadway as requested by the Planning Board.
Payment of any outstanding escrow and consultant fees and any required recreation fees.
Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.  Accompanying that site plan should be submission of a full set of plans as recommended by Robert Geneslaw.  Those plans to be reviewed and accepted by the Planning Board and the Village’s Landscape Consultant.
There will be an inspection of the landscaping and screening on site by the
Planning Board and the Village’s Landscape Consultant before the C.O. is issued.  
All trees designated to be removed will be identified and there will be inspection
    by the Board and the Village’s Landscape Consultant before removal of those  
     trees.
A list of the events and activities be developed and what actual peak load
requirements are for traffic and parking and showing they fall in with the numbers analyzed by Mr. Canning.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY (HSA-UWC) – SOUTH BROADWAY – NEW CHURCH

Mr. Norman Sheer, attorney for the applicant, stated they will be coming in next month with more details on the architecture for the church.

Mr. Keith Staudoher, engineer, stated they have revised the parking lot and eliminated a number of parking spaces in the southern end.  The knoll and vegetation will remain.  The closest parked car will be 100 ft. from the property line.  They added parking spaces on the Belvedere site.  There is an area that is lawn and they will provide grass pavers for 48 cars, which will be used for the holy days parking.  Mr. Inglis from the church stated the overflow parking will not be necessary for the regular Sundays.

Mr. Demers questioned how far the overflow parking is from the aqueduct.  Mr. Staudoher stated it is 65 ft. to 70 ft. but it will remain lawn.

Ms. Gina Martini from Saccardi & Schiff, planners for the applicant, stated they are preparing a schedule of uses for all the buildings on the site.

Ms. Monica Getz, Shadowbrook, property owner to the south, requested that the Board take no action until there is thorough consideration – particularly in regard to the traffic.  She stated she had taken a site walk with Mr. Inglis and he had promised renderings and adjustments but she had not received those.  She noted they had discussed possibly moving the entrance.

Mr. Stone stated the Board had asked for more information about the entrance.  Mr. Staudoher stated he would be working with Mr. Canning, the Village’s traffic consultant, and they will be taking measurements.  

Chairman Friedlander stated one of the concerns is the speed limits on Route 9.  If the speed were less in that corridor, it might affect the sight line issue.

Mr. Inglis stated they moved the driveway 40 ft. to the north and they felt that is as far as it could be moved based on the State’s sight distances.

Mr. Canning stated, “It would be my recommendation that the minimum distance of 375 ft. be provided.  In addition to stopping distances, the State recommends you consider intersection sight distances.  The purpose is to not unduly interfere with vehicles.  I would ask the applicant to see if they could provide up to 450 ft. of sight distance and also to compare the existing driveway with the proposed driveway.  They have indicated they will do that study.”

Mr. Tedesco noted the Board asked for a chart showing building uses including times and numbers of attendees for all the buildings.  Mr. Inglis stated they are still working on that.

Mr. Tedesco read the following Summary from Mr. Canning’s November 28, 2005, letter:  “Based on the data provided, it would appear that the traffic impact associated with the construction of a 10,000 s.f. church, a smaller recreation hall and a 12-classroom educational facility will be limited to the Site’s access, where there may be an increase in delays to vehicles exiting the Site and where there may be a reduction in sight lines as well as the elimination of a separate lane for northbound vehicles entering the Site.  However, this conclusion is predicated upon the assumptions that the remaining Belvedere Parcels will not be used for church or some similar civic activities at any point in the future and that the 12 new classrooms will not provide the Unification Church with significant additional capacity to accommodate daycare or regular school activities.”

Upon inquiry from Mr. Tedesco, Mr. McGarvey stated the revised plan has been submitted to Dvirka & Bartulicci, the Village’s storm water consultant.  Mr. McGarvey stated the previous concerns he had raised are addressed on the new plans.

Mr. Geneslaw stated they have responded to his comments.

Upon inquiry from Mr. Tedesco, Ms. Martini stated they are trying to arrange a meeting to review the plans with the Police Chief.

Ms. Getz stated she would like to see elevation plans.  Ms. Martini stated those are being prepared.

Mr. Stone questioned whether the culvert is a sufficient size.  Mr. Staudoher stated it is but they will provide that documentation.

Mr. Charles Patterson, 145 Sheldon Avenue, a church member, stated they have a lot of activities, which is the reason they do not want fixed seating.  The local church has only developed in the last ten or fifteen years.  They now have families from Ossining and Rockland County but a lot of those people are beginning their own congregations.  “I don’t foresee a large amount of growth.”

No one further appeared to address the Board.

The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their next meeting.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – MARYMOUNT CONVENT – 32 WARREN AVENUE

Mr. Craig Hunt, architect, stated, “We were asked to put the triangle portion of the site on the plans which we have done.  Also we received correspondence from Mr. McGarvey and we have addressed his October 27th concerns.  We have also addressed Mr. Yarabek’s concerns.  We identified the trees to be removed by number and we have correspondence from our arborist stating the trees to be removed are in fair to poor condition.”

Ms. Susan Fasnacht of Charles H. Sells stated they ran percolation tests and the results were given in their report.  They did an investigation on deep holes and they are digging test holes this week.  The methodology will not change.

Mr. Stone noted there was concern at the last meeting about runoff onto Warren Avenue.  Mr. McGarvey stated it sheet flows down Warren.  Their construction will not increase the amount of water that comes down there.  A lot of the sheet flow is coming from the street itself.  What they are proposing for the parking lot will decrease the amount of water from that site.

Counsel Shumejda stated 4.03 acres of this property drains into the Tarrytown Lakes and a little over an acre of the Marymount campus contributes to the source of storm water pollution going into the Tarrytown Lakes.  The Village of Tarrytown has retained engineers and part of their recommendations in draft form is to have a portion of this property drain into the proposed Wilson Park drainage system and possibly building a facility for that purpose.  The Planning Board stated the applicant should be given a copy of this study when it has been accepted.

Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.  No one appeared.

Mr. Stone stated the boxwoods, or other deer-resistant evergreens, should be at a height of 4 ft. to 4-1/2 ft.

Mr. Demers noted there has been parking added on the Neperan Road side of the property and that area should also have additional landscaping.

Mr. Hunt stated that could be done.  He stated the intent of the plan is to organize the parking in a more harmonious manner.  They are proposing a broad promenade.  He stated they will work with Mr. Yarabek on the screening.

Mr. Stone stated the landscaping plan should have a legend and proposed removal should be shown. The plan should be cross-referenced to the arborist’s list. They should indicate the limit of disturbance on the plans so as to identify any trees that lie within 50 ft. of the limit of disturbance.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares itself Lead Agency on this application and determines that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposal.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the site plan application by Marymount Convent subject to:

  • Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
  • Approval by the Architectural Review Board, if deemed necessary.
  • Approval of the landscaping and screening plan by the Village’s Landscape Consultant with all items addressed and outstanding items being worked out with the applicant and the Village’s Landscape Consultant.
  • Tree preservation to be approved by the Village’s Landscape Consultant.  If any trees designated to be preserved are damaged due to site work and subsequently need to be removed, the applicant agrees to replace them in kind.  If this is not possible, payment of the assessed values of the trees will be made to the Village.
  • The applicant also agrees to perform any treatment and pruning of existing trees deemed necessary by the Village’s Landscape Consultant at a time the consultant determines appropriate.
  • The suggestions made in the Dvirka and Bartilluci report to remediate drainage from Marymount’s properties into the Tarrytown Lakes be accepted and implemented by the applicant.
  • Payment of any outstanding escrow fees and any appropriate recreation fees.
  • Site visit by the Planning Board and the Village’s Landscape Consultant for the final screening and planting of this property before final sign-off by the Planning Board Chair.
  • Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
  • Compliance with all items indicated in the minutes of these proceedings.
CONTINUTION OF PUBLIC HEARING – POWERS – 34 LINCOLN AVENUE – SUBDIVISION

Mr. Robert Barstow, architect, stated the steep slopes were prepared by the surveyor which shows that the existing lot with the existing dwelling has steep slopes at the present.  The new lot is absent any steep slopes over 25% or more.  They have shown utilities to the existing house to be relocated.  The existing utilities at present are too close to the proposed new house.  There are two maple trees which will have to be
removed – a 6-inch and an 8-inch.  An elevation drawing has been prepared which shows the size, height and bulk of the new house in proportion to neighboring properties.  The new lot is fairly level.  A zoning schedule for the new lot and existing lot has been submitted.  The new construction will conform to the zoning regulations.  A turnaround has been shown for the driveway.  There is several hundred feet in sight distance in either direction.

Mr. Tedesco stated one of his concerns is that there is an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property.  The subdivision will magnify the effect of the non-conformity.  He questioned whether Ms. Powers could consider removing the existing garage – or making it smaller.  Mr. Barstow stated they could consider that.

Mr. McGarvey noted that the steep slopes calculations show a variance will now be needed for the size of Lot 1 since when the steep slopes are deleted, that lot would not have 7,500 sq. ft.  Ms. Powers stated the steep slopes are actually on the side yard.

Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.

Ms. Karen Brown, 5 River Terrace, stated she is a member of the Village’s zoning and planning committee and they are trying to stop in-fills and tear downs.  This property is 15,000 sq. ft. but when 1,000 sq. ft. are deleted for the steep slopes, the property is only 14,000 sq. ft.   “In this case, I feel bad but why are you considering subdividing it?  There are rules and we should stick to the rules where we can.”

Ms. Powers noted four years ago property on Browning Lane was subdivided into two lots.  The total for that property was only 12,338 sq. ft. and two lots – 6,193 sq. ft. and 6,145 sq. ft. – were approved.

Chairman Friedlander stated the steep slopes ordinance was put in to protect the environment.  It was not meant to take away rights of people who have owned land for a long period of time.  They are not proposing any changes where the steep slopes exist.

Ms. Carole Griffiths, 251 Martling Avenue, stated she was involved when the original steep slopes ordinance was developed and it was designed for new construction.  Here the steep slope is on the lot already built on.  “That doesn’t protect the environment.  I would rather see the steep slopes apply to undeveloped land.

Mr. Stone stated there should be an analysis of houses in the area to determine how many lots do not meet the 7,500 sq. ft. requirement.

Board members agreed to schedule a site visit and at that time the applicant should have a plan showing either removal of the existing garage or a reduced size garage.

The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their next meeting.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – MCMAHON – 32 STEPHEN DRIVE

Mr. Michael Tierney, architect, stated they are proposing a one-story addition.  It will add a family room, mud room, laundry room and powder room.  A master bedroom is being put on top of the existing garage.  The new addition will be about 682 sq. ft.  The house currently is 2,084 sq. ft.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Tierney stated no variances are required and no trees will be removed.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500 on this application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets a public hearing on this application for the Board’s December meeting.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – PUTNAM AVENUE HOMES, CONTRACT VENDEE – HILLSIDE AVENUE – LOTS 3 AND 4

Mr. Chris Pateman, architect, stated they are proposing the construction of two single family homes on two subdivided lots.  The houses are all conforming with the zoning ordinance.  The property is currently not attractive.  There are exposed rock outcroppings and underdeveloped trees.  They are proposing two homes.  The one on Lot 3 will have a front entry garage.  There will be a 4 ft. retaining wall in the front.  Height restrictions are met.  They are proposing a retaining wall across the back.  It is a fairly elevated rear yard.  Some trees will be removed.  Most are fairly small and not in good condition.

Mr. Tedesco stated a plan should be submitted showing the height of these houses in relation to other homes in the area.

Mr. McGarvey stated the steep slopes should be shown.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500 on each lot.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets a public hearing on this application for the Board’s regular January  meeting.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – WELDAY – 107 PAULDING AVENUE

Mr. Earl Ferguson, architect, stated this is a 5,000 sq. ft. lot in an R-10 zone which requires 10,000 sq. ft.  The existing structure is a one-family house.  It is the smallest house in the area.  The existing square footage is 1,189 sq. ft.  The Weldays are proposing to put a second story that would bring the total livable area to 2,573 sq. ft.  There are several non-conforming conditions.  There is an existing non-conforming front yard setback and side yard setback.  It is on the corner of Hudson Street and Paulding Avenue.  There is an existing accessory building, which is an old barn about 150 years old, which is being used as a two-car garage.  That would remain.  There is a shed of 217 sq. ft. which exists as an accessory building which would be taken down.  The amount of square footage includes about 25% of the existing basement space.  The first floor expansion is 265 sq. ft. and the addition on the second floor is 1,094 sq. ft.  The Weldays have a child and a growing family.  It is important for them to be able to expand.

Upon inquiry about the size of the rooms on the first floor, Mr. Ferguson stated the living room would be 17 ft. x 16 ft., the kitchen would be 14 ft. x 12 ft., the dining room would be 14 ft. x 12 ft., the powder room would be 5 ft. x 5 ft. and the library/office would be 12 ft. x 14 ft.  There will also be a vestibule and hallway.

Chairman Friedlander stated a more creative layout might eliminate the need for the first floor addition.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500 on this application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets a public hearing on this application for the Board’s regular January meeting.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – GENERAL MOTORS TRAINING CENTER – 425 SOUTH BROADWAY – INSTALLATION OF HYDROGEN FUEL FACILITY

Mr. Bill Shepard of General Motors stated they are asking the Board’s consideration of a site plan application.  They are proposing to renovate the building to accommodate a new kind of vehicle.  At the General Motors training facility building, they train dealership technicians.  In order to accommodate this type vehicle in this facility they need to have a small hydrogen fuel facility 30 x 36 sq. ft. in the exterior.  It will have a wall and chain
link fence.  The fueling facility will not be for the routine gassing up of vehicles.  It is only for the training purposes.  Mr. Shepard noted they will start with about 3 kilograms of hydrogen but hope to have 10 kilograms by 2007.  10 kilograms equates to 10 gallons of gasoline.  

Mr. Tedesco stated safety is obviously a concern.  He questioned what precautions are being taken for any terrorist activity.  Mr. Shepard stated they are limiting the quantity of fuel they would have on site.  It would be about the same amount as a full tank of gas.  The worst damage would be similar to a gas tank exploding.

Upon inquiry from Mr. Demers, Mr. Shepard stated there is no damage from breathing the hydrogen.  The only safety concern is not allowing it to ignite.

Chairman Friedlander questioned whether these cars are in production.  Mr. Shepard stated they have demonstration programs but no production programs.  

Mr. Frank Hassid of the Jewish Community Center, next door property owner, stated they are greatly concerned about the location of the hydrogen storage tank.  It is close to a residential area and the day care center they operate.  Mr. Hassid stated this hydrogen storage tank should not be at this facility in Tarrytown.  He noted a “perceived” fear could make parents decide to send their children to another day care facility and force them out of business.

Neighbors noted there is a bus stop at this location and the Double Tree Hotel is also in this area.

A neighbor stated the original approval allowing this training facility to operate should be reviewed since the intent at that time was that General Motors would respect the residential character of the area.

Ms. Ruth Roth, attorney for General Motors, stated they will have their technical people at the public hearing.

Mr. Demers stated they should also be prepared to discuss the number of people at the facility and traffic issues.

Mr. George Gasperini, Paulding Avenue, stated hydrogen is a compressed gas and it is flammable.  The trucks that carry it have to be inspected every six months.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500 on this application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Demers, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets a public hearing on this application for the Board’s regular January meeting.

DISCUSSION – AMERADA HESS CORPORATION – ROUTE 9

Mr. Norman Sheer, attorney for Amerada Hess, stated when this project was approved there was a question about traffic and that question was the northbound exit onto North Broadway.  In the year or so since the station opened, there have been some traffic concerns but those are not what everyone thought the concerns would be.  There are other accidents taking place because people don’t obey the law.  They make southbound left hand turns into the station and they don’t obey westbound regulations for the intersection of Route 119 and Route 9.

Mr. John Canning of Adler Consulting, traffic consultants for the Village, reviewed his report dated November 17, 2005, to the Board.  This report is attached to the official copy of these minutes.

The Board stated several recommendations in Mr. Canning’s memo (e.g., signage) can be done easily by Amerada Hess.  Mr. Sheer agreed they would implement these recommendations.

The Board stated other recommendations will require approval of the New York State Department of Transportation since Route 9 is a State Highway.  

Counsel Shumejda stated the State changed the configuration on the road when work was done and that has also caused some problems, which need to be brought to their attention.

Counsel Shumejda stated he would work with Mr. Sheer to prepare a letter that could be sent to the State from the Village identifying the concerns and suggested recommendations.

CHANGE OF MEETING DATE

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the regular December meeting of the Planning Board be changed from December 26, 2005, to Tuesday, December 20, 2005, at 7 p.m.


ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 11:50 p.m.



Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary