Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2007 7 p.m.
PRESENT: *Chairman Friedlander; Members **Raiselis, ***Aukland, Tedesco,
D’Avolio; ****Alternate Member Demers; Counsel Shumejda;
Planner Geneslaw; Landscape Architect Yarabek; Secretary D’Eufemia
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of June 25, 2007, be approved as submitted.
Mr. Tedesco stated, “The applicant for Crescent Associates has proposed several changes in wording within the site plan approval conditions for additional clarification. No conditions are added, deleted, or changed in essential content. These changes in wording are as follows:
Condition 4 – Add the following statement:
These requirements are incorporated in the approved site plan drawings dated April 9, 2007, which have been approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
Condition 5 – Add as the last sentence:
These measures are incorporated in the landscape plans approved by the Landscape Consultant on April 9, 2007.
Condition 6 – The last two sentences will read as follows:
These measures are incorporated in the Tree Protection Plan approved by the Village Landscape Consultant on April 9, 2007. The tree replacement bond is to be secured by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Village Attorney before the start of any site work.
Condition 15 – The last two sentences will read as follows:
A covenant drafted in recordable form and approved by the Village Attorney will be recorded in the miscellaneous documents section of the land records office of Westchester County. This covenant will prevent this emergency access road from ever being used for any other purpose whatsoever.
Condition 16 – This statement will read as follows:
Payment of any required escrow fees/recreation fees prior to the granting of a building permit.”
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that these changes in wording within the site plan conditions for Crescent Associates be approved and that a copy of the amended site plan conditions be appended to the minutes of the May 29, 2007, meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – C.M. PATEMAN & ASSOCIATES, CONTRACT VENDEE – CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND ALTAMONT AVES.
*Chairman Friedlander recused himself on this application.
**Ms. Raiselis recused herself on this application.
****Mr. Demers joined the meeting.
Mr. Tedesco chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Tedesco stated last month the applicant was asked to provide a couple of things – a diagram showing some of the changes the Planning Board suggested and a diagram showing the footprint of the house is not in the area of the steep slopes.
Mr. Pateman submitted a diagram showing the building completely outside the steep slopes areas. He noted the area they have submitted a variance application for is a 426 ft. area, which they would like to grade. It is not a necessary variance. They can leave the small bump in the rear yard. He noted they have submitted a revised landscaping plan to Mr. Yarabek for his review. (Mr. Pateman distributed copies of this plan to the Board.) He stated some additional screening is shown on the east corner as well as in the rear yard.
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether Mr. Pateman prepared a diagram showing the two walls. Mr. Pateman stated he did not. He submitted photographs to the Board depicting similar walls in the neighborhood. Mr. Tedesco questioned whether the walls shown are natural stone walls without any grout. Mr. Pateman stated they are.
Mr. Tedesco stated the most desirable thing for a corner like this is for it to remain as it is. The applicant doesn’t want a small house and the proposed house is within the zoning code. The applicant has dealt with all the significant issues the Planning Board raised and two meetings ago agreed with those if so conditioned by the Board. There has been input from two site visits, two work sessions and several Planning Board meetings. The Board indicated, in fairness to the applicant, that they would make a decision on this matter tonight.
Mr. Demers stated he felt it was clear to Mr. Pateman and the Planning Board that there has been agreement in a sense of compromise. The Planning Board has not insisted on a strict interpretation of the steep slopes ordinance. The Village, through the Zoning Board of Appeals, has granted variances. The Board knows the building is in a sensitive area and it is a dominating corner; it is near the historic district and near a lot of houses, which deserve to be included in the historic district. There has been strong resistance in the neighborhood, which the Board has listened to. The Board has gone along with the basic design. They have said during construction they would be reasonable and anything that occurs during construction that would require changing the height somewhat, they would
listen to that.
Mr. Aukland stated last time Mr. Pateman agreed to lower the building by 2 ft. but there is not a complete application because the drawings are all on the prior plan with the additional 2 ft. Mr. McGarvey will need to verify the reduced 2 ft. height. Mr. Tedesco noted he will also have to sign the final site plan so he would need that verification.
Mr. Aukland stated the Board did delay until tonight to give the public the chance to look at the additional materials, all of which the Board still does not have.
Ms. Angela Schneider, 16 Fairview Avenue, stated last month it was requested Mr. Patemen submit an elevation plan compared to other houses in the area. Mr. Tedesco stated he did submit elevations and the Board looked at those on their site visit.
Mr. Fred Ellman, 30 Fairview Avenue, questioned whether plans showing the 2 ft. height reduction have been submitted. He stated he was not sure exactly what has changed on the house itself. There is nothing to show the community what they are going to have. It was stated he would have that drawing today. There is a clear reason why he doesn’t have that drawing. He doesn’t want to be held to that drawing. “I don’t see what compromises he has made.”
Mr. Tedesco stated he will have to show the house 2 ft. lower in the ground.
Mr. Ellman stated residents have not seen that. He is bringing in pictures of walls, which is the type of thing brought to an initial meeting. This is the end of the line and residents should be shown what he is going to do. Residents want to see the 2 ft. drop. That should be shown as it relates to the other buildings. There are a lot of people still coming to these meetings and they are angry with the Planning Board.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board has examined all the possibilities within the zoning code. Mr. Ellman stated he has not compromised. He is doing what he has wanted to do from day one. Mr. Tedesco stated he may not have done any of these things unless the Board had required it since he was not required to do them. Mr. Ellman stated, “He has put lipstick on a pig. Please hold him to what you said you would.”
Mr. Pateman stated the Planning Board is constrained. They have worked closely to make things work. This is an administrative Board. This Board administers the law made by the legislative Board. Mr. Pateman stated he does not have to do the things he was asked to do. He has agreed to many of them.
Mr. Pateman read the following excerpt from “Land Use Training Program for Local Officials, Tutorial Component III – Subdivision Approval – New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal – Land Use Center – Pace University School of Law – New York Planning Federation: (From Subdivision Section under Decisions)
“Generalized complaints by local residents are insufficient to justify the denial of an application. Similarly, approval cannot be withheld based solely on conclusory allegations that the subdivision or site plan is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood if the plans meet all the applicable requirements. Where a subdivision application meets the standards contained in the regulations, it must be approved.”
Mr. Pateman stated this is the law.
Mr. Pateman stated he has elevation drawings and there is a misunderstanding that he agreed to lower the house. He said if the Board required him to lower it he would have no option. He stated he doesn’t want to lower the house because the driveway grade pitches toward the drive drain at a level of 7.5%. If the driveway drain pipe gets clogged, it will flood the garage. It makes the grade at the rear of the property steeper. Mr. Pateman stated there is virtually no effect on height and mass. (He submitted a photo rendering to show this.) He stated they don’t need the variance; they thought it made better sense to grade the back yard.
Mr. Pateman submitted resumes of the professionals who have worked on this project. He also submitted a complete list of the documentation that has been submitted for this project.
Mr. Demers stated in looking at the photos he felt you can see a difference with the house dropped 2 ft.
Ms. Laura Copeland, Fairview Avenue, stated Mr. Pateman insisted the Board make a decision tonight. The Board does not have to make a decision tonight.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board promised after everything that has transpired, that they would make a decision.
Ms. Copeland stated the Board last month asked Mr. Pateman for an elevation drawing. He submitted a picture. At the Board of Trustees meeting in July they announced there will be three public hearings in August dealing with zoning changes. One is for a clarification on height so the Planning Board obviously does not understand that definition.
Counsel Shumejda stated the Planning Board never said they did not understand the height limitation. The Board of Trustees in August will have a public hearing to clarify the definition of height. It will make the definition clearer so everyone can apply it. There is no change to the height limitation. It has been utilized for many years in its current format. “Your statement that this Board doesn’t understand it is pure speculation.”
Ms. Copeland stated what has been done in the past has been done. Residents are trying to move forward with the Village to clarify things and to have things people want in their neighborhoods and to maintain the integrity of the historic district and historic Tarrytown. If there is going to be clarification on three issues, why does the Board have to rush ahead with the application before those hearings occur? Last month the Board asked Mr. Pateman to do a terracing of the wall. The Board asked the public be shown drawings. Tonight Mr. Pateman said the wall fits in and is like one on Broadway. Ms. Copeland asked if that means Mr. Pateman is not going to do the terracing and the public won’t get to see what the wall will look like. Mr. Tedesco stated there will be two walls
with terracing.
Mr. Pateman stated this is not the historic district. No one rushed this application forward. This application for a single-family house began in April. This is the fourth public hearing and there have been several site visits and he submitted a list of the documentation he has submitted for a house that complies with the zoning code. He has asked for a decision.
Ms. Joan Raiselis, 30 Fairview Avenue, stated residents should recognize how much work this Planning Board has done with regard to this application and how much patience they have shown. She stated the drawings the community requested are important and normally in the course of a project a set of drawings is submitted which shows the final product. It is unfortunate for the community because everyone cannot understand what will be the final outcome because they can’t see it. The Board has done its best to come up with a solution, which is within the law but also appeases the neighborhood. The Board needs to press for the things they have requested in a form clear to lay people.
Mr. Aukland stated the Board does not have the full set of documents and had expected to have that by their last staff meeting. The Board has been given some of that material tonight but it is not complete. The public has a right to comment on the full set of final documents. He felt the Board should insist on getting the full set.
Mr. Pateman stated he would like a decision tonight and the elevation drawing he submitted shows the house 2 ft. lower. He stated he has submitted a great deal of information and what he initially proposed complies with the law. “I have given you an application and under the law you are required to make a decision.”
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board has worked with the applicant and he did say at the last meeting that the Board would make a decision tonight but the Board asked for documentation that has not be received. There are simple things that could be provided before the next meeting.
Mr. Pateman stated the Board has enough information to make a decision. He has provided everything the Board needs. The Board is not following the law. They are asking for things that are not required under the law.
Mr. Pateman stated he has had all the meetings on this application transcribed by a court stenographer and he provided the Board copies of the transcripts.
Mr. Pateman stated he wanted a decision on the application.
Mr. Aukland stated the public hearing is for a purpose and should run its full course. The public should be allowed to hear the full proposal. Mr. Pateman stated the full proposal has been before the Board for four months. If the Board chooses to deny it, then they should do so.
Counsel Shumejda stated two items are being discussed. One is the elevation drawings. The applicant has shown elevation drawings on an easel, which he says shows the 2 ft. reduction but the Board has not reviewed that. He stated he felt it was unreasonable to ask the Board to make a decision on that tonight. The second outstanding issue is the two walls. Tonight photographs were submitted showing the type of walls but there was no architectural drawing of those walls. What needs to be submitted is one architectural drawing showing the two walls.
Mr. Pateman stated he made it clear from the beginning he did not agree with the two walls and he can’t get his professional consultants to do those architectural drawings. He stated he was asking the Board to make a decision on the application before them since April. The application has been complete for months and he requested a decision on that application.
Counsel Shumejda stated the Building Inspector/Village Engineer is on vacation and has not seen any of the new submissions. Mr. Pateman stated there is nothing new. The Building Inspector/Village Engineer has never made a comment that there is anything in the application that does not comply. If the Board feels the application is not proper for the Village, then they should deny it. He stated he was standing by his original application and was withdrawing everything submitted tonight. The walls and driveway grade are the same as in his initial submission. He has stated that lowering the house is a problem and he sees no reason to lower the wall. The same comments have been heard over and over again. Mr. Pateman stated he has an application before the Board and was requesting
a decision on that application.
Mr. Demers read excerpts from the Board’s June 25, 2007, minutes where it stated Mr. Pateman had agreed to lower the house 2 ft. and to lower the wall. Mr. Pateman stated the excerpts Mr. Demers was referring to were statements made by Mr. Tedesco – not him.
Mr. Pateman stated his application is complete. Nothing is being changed. He has never said he would lower the house and terrace the walls.
Ms. D’Avolio stated if Mr. Pateman could submit to the Board documentation about not lowering the house or terracing the wall, then the Board could consider that.
Mr. Pateman stated he has never agreed to reducing the size of the house. It complies with the zoning law. Under the law the Board must approve this application. The Board can put in conditions. The application is complete. He stated he was asking the Board to follow the law. “I can’t keep coming back every month. I have a business to run.”
Mr. Pateman stated the Board should have made the SEQR determination in April or May.
Mr. Demers stated within the standards set by the zoning code the house abides by the law. Mr. Pateman is undercutting the process by refusing to submit the designs he was asked to submit. He stated the Board was working with Mr. Pateman and he thought he was working with the Board to come to a compromise but Mr. Pateman is not following the process. He is refusing to submit what he was asked to submit.
Mr. Tedesco stated during the site visits Mr. Pateman stated although he was not happy with some of the conditions the Board was considering, he said he could abide by them.
The Board has a list of conditions and there would be contingencies in those that would allow Mr. Pateman to come back to the Board. Getting the wall drawing and the elevation drawing to the Board would allow the Board to give Mr. Pateman the house he wants within reason. “My sense from you is you are not cooperating with the process to make this happen.” Mr. Pateman stated he submitted an application and he wants a decision on that application.
Mr. Aukland stated no one left the last meeting thinking Mr. Pateman would not lower the house 2 ft.
Counsel Shumejda stated based upon the minutes of the last meeting the impression was the house would be lowered and Mr. Pateman has shown tonight a house that has been lowered 2 ft. Why did he submit tonight, and then take back, an elevation drawing showing the house lowered 2 ft.? The second thing is the walls. The impression was Mr. Pateman was going to redesign the walls. He came tonight with photographs of the walls he intends to do. Mr. Pateman came half way on the two items the Board asked of him and then withdrew those.
Mr. Pateman requested he receive a copy of the tape of tonight’s proceedings as soon as possible since he had to wait several weeks to receive the tapes of the previous meetings.
Mr. Pateman stated he submitted the drawings showing the house lowered in order to show that it doesn’t work lowered. As to the wall, it looks fine like it is and he doesn’t want to lower the wall. “I want a decision based on the application before you tonight.”
Mr. Tedesco stated the drawings don’t show why it doesn’t work to lower the house 2 ft. The Board was ready to give an approval tonight if Mr. Pateman had provided the two simple requests the Board made. The Board will have the elevation drawings reviewed but if Mr. Pateman comes back next month without the drawings for the wall, he will be showing he will not go along with the process. “I think reason should prevail.”
Mr. Aukland stated that information should be provided by the Board’s next staff meeting on August 16th. The drawing submitted tonight does not show why lowering the house does not work. Mr. Pateman stated lowering the house does not work because of the drainage.
Mr. Pateman stated he was requesting the Board make a decision. There will be no more submissions. “I have never agreed to lower the house or to change the walls.”
Counsel Shumejda stated the Board desires to review the changes.
Mr. Pateman stated there is no change to the application. He has withdrawn anything submitted this evening. He made that submission to show the Board it does not work.
Ms. Schneider questioned the date on the elevation drawings shown tonight. Mr. Pateman stated it is not part of the record. That has been withdrawn and was brought to the meeting to simply show why the house can’t be lowered.
Counsel Shumejda stated Mr. Pateman said he had the elevations. He did not say it was to show why the house could not be lowered.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board continue this hearing at their next meeting.
Mr. Demers stated Mr. Pateman brought two large photographs, which show the difference attained by lowering the height, which seems to indicate he seriously considered lowering the height. Mr. Demers stated he commented that he felt it did make a difference and Mr. Pateman did not contradict him. Mr. Pateman replied that he said they looked identical and the transcript will indicate what was said.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board’s hopes Mr. Pateman will reconsider his position.
Mr. Pateman stated there will be no further submission and he would request the Board make a decision at their next meeting.
Dr. Carole Griffiths, Chair of the Tarrytown Environmental Advisory Council, requested to address the Board on this application at their next staff meeting. The Board agreed.
*Chairman Friedlander returned to the meeting.
**Ms. Raiselis returned to the meeting.
****Mr. Demers left the meeting.
C-TOWN SUPERMARKET – 114 NORTH BROADWAY
The Board noted C-Town had been requested to do a parking survey over the past month and submit that to the Board tonight. The Secretary stated she had advised them to do so but the information was not submitted. The Secretary was directed to keep this on the Board’s agenda and remind C-Town again that this survey must be done.
PUBLIC HEARING – EMERALD WOODS (JARDIM ESTATES) – LOT 4
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 23, 2007 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
4 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
To consider the application for site development plan approval for a new single-family house at 6 Emerald Woods, Tarrytown, New York (Jardim Estates Lot 4)
The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 29, Parcel 64 and is located in the 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. Michael Inglis, representing the applicant, stated Lot 4 is the third house on the right as you come in from Sheldon Avenue. It is a smaller house than previous submissions. It is opposite Lot 9 which is the second house being built now.
Mr. Tim Cronin, engineer, stated Lot 4 slopes off from front to back. There is a walk-out basement in the rear. Zoning requirements are all met. Front yard setback is required to be 40 ft. and they have 43.7 ft.; side yard is required to be a minimum of 20 ft. and they have 33 ft. and 50 ft.; rear yard setback is required to be 36 ft. and they have 195 ft.; permitted building coverage is 14% and they have 6.6%. Allowable Floor Area Ratio is 6,600 sq. ft. and they have 4,200 sq. ft. The footprint of the house is 2,200 sq. ft. The house has a two-car garage.
Dr. Carole Griffiths, 251 Martling Avenue, questioned how environmentally sensitive the construction will be. Mr. Cronin stated they will exceed requirements – with the appliances, exterior walls, insulation, windows. They will use natural materials for the exterior siding; the house will have wood floors. The paint and stains all meet “green” requirements.
Upon inquiry from the chair, Mr. Inglis stated an architectural rendering will be submitted at the next meeting.
Mr. Inglis submitted the streetscape showing Lots 4, 5, and 6.
Mr. Stephen Coleman, Landscape Architect, stated there are 94 trees on this lot. The majority of the trees are from 6-inch to 10-inch in diameter. Most are where the house and driveway are located. They are proposing to remove 79 trees and they propose to have 49 replacement trees. They have added large maples in the back and there is a lot of ground cover. They will submit a landscaping plan.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether it would be better to put all the tree replacement on this one lot or have it spread out over the development. Mr. Yarabek stated in this specific application a majority of the trees are young trees. There are no real specimen trees. He will review where trees can be planted elsewhere on the property and there may be something at the end of the project toward the Village tree fund. A running log will be kept for all the lots. Chairman Friedlander stated the Board must be sensitive how this development looks – especially from the aqueduct.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this application. No one appeared.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares itself Lead Agency on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be continued at the Board’s next meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – BIRGY – WILSON PARK DRIVE AND BEECH LANE
Mr. Paul Birgy stated the goal of this project is to incorporate passive energy saving systems with active energy producing systems with a house design that will fit in with the area and the historic feeling of Tarrytown. The house will have many historic details. There are a lot of natural materials being used – natural cotton insulation, R40 wall value, a radiant heating system that will be mostly solar oriented, fluorescent lighting. The goal is to have the house consume as little energy as possible.
Mr. Birgy submitted a revised landscaping plan and site plan and an elevation drawing showing the relationship to the house next door. He stated he moved the north driveway farther to the north based on Mr. Yarabek’s suggestion. A number of hemlock trees will be removed and they will do a replanting.
Mr. Tedesco noted that Steve Lopez, Mr. Birgy’s landscape architect, had said that grading for a sidewalk would damage the roots of many trees along the street. He questioned whether some material could be used that would not damage the roots. Mr. Birgy stated it is a small area and in order to do the leveling that would be required, the roots of the trees would be damaged – and there are three telephone poles in this area. Mr. Yarabek agreed but thanked Mr. Birgy for looking at it.
Mr. Aukland noted the driveway has been extended significantly. Mr. Birgy stated the idea was to have a driveway with an old-fashioned look. It also helps to save a tree. He is hoping to use pervious pavers but must review that further. It is an incline so it may be a combination with stone. There will be drains as well.
Mr. Yarabek stated the construction limit line should be shown below the steep slopes. The tree work is allowed in the steep slopes but the grading is not.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines the proposal will pose no significant adverse environmental impacts.
Mr. Tedesco stated the proposed home will be an environmentally green building making use of state-of-the-art integrated passive and active energy conservation elements including active solar PV panels resulting in energy savings as much as 70% to 90% and given that the architecture will be that of a traditional carriage house including natural stone used on the lower level which makes this home very fitting for this neighborhood, the Planning Board commends the applicant for proposing a home, which will serve as a model for future green buildings.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, to approve a single-family home at the corner of Wilson Park Drive and Beech Lane subject to the following:
1. Approval of the Building Inspector/Village Engineer particularly in regard to adequacy of the storm water drainage plan.
2. Approval of a landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape Consultant including the elements required in his memo of July 23, 2007, to the Planning Board. Plantings must be native species or non-invasive ornamentals. Any deviation from this must be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
3. Submission of a detailed tree preservation and protection plan to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
4. If any trees, which are 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, then planting of multiple trees approved by the Village Landscape Consultant or payment of the appraised value of the trees to the Village tree replacement fund will be required.
5. The applicant agrees to perform any treatment and any pruning of existing trees deemed necessary by the Village Landscape Consultant at a time the Consultant deems most appropriate.
6. Adherence to the section of the zoning code dealing with the tree replacement fund for the removal of trees with a 10 inch caliper or greater.
7. The driveway is to be constructed of permeable pavers or other permeable material approved by the Village Engineer.
8. Approval of the plans by the Architectural Review Board.
9. Payment of any outstanding escrow fees and recreation fees prior to the granting of a building permit.
10. Signing of the site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – EMERALD WOODS (JARDIM ESTATES LOT 6
Mr. Michael Inglis, representing the applicant, stated they have shown the street trees on the plan as well as the utilities. They have presented the streetscape. They have shown the renderings. The house proposed on Lot 6 is 25% smaller than the house proposed on Lot 5. The top of the roof on Lot 6 is 202 ft. and the top of the roof on Lot 5 is 209 ft. because the lot slopes up. If you compare to the houses on Sheldon Avenue, the first one you come to is 201 ft. The next one up is 207 ft. 109 Sheldon Avenue is 204 ft. and the house opposite the entrance to their private driveway is 211 ft. Mr. Inglis stated they would like a variance on Lot 6 to raise the house a couple of feet on the lot.
Mr. Sheer, attorney for the applicant, stated the streetscape made them aware the house on Lot 6 puts it down in a hole. The cluster law gives the Planning Board the ability to vary the requirement.
Mr. Inglis noted they have actually lowered the height of the house on Lot 7 by one foot.
Mr. Aukland stated he would be concerned about setting a precedent. Counsel Shumejda stated the cluster law was approved after this subdivision was approved. The Board would need justification in the record.
Mr. Sheer stated the new legislation just says in a cluster development the Planning Board has the right to do it. The Board can’t vary bulk at the subdivision stage because they don’t have those things before them. This lot slopes substantially from the road and the houses across Sheldon Avenue are higher than they are requesting so that is the justification.
Mr. Tim Cronin, engineer, stated they meet all the zoning requirements. The front yard is required to be 40 ft. and 42.3 ft. is proposed. The combined side yards must be 40 ft. and 103 ft. are proposed. The rear yard must be 36 ft. and 112 ft. is proposed. Accessory structures (in this case the pool) coverage can be 3.5% and 2% is proposed.
Ms. Raiselis stated if the house is raised, the pool would need to be raised as well. Mr. Inglis stated they could leave the pool at the grade it is at and have a couple of steps down.
Ms. Raiselis stated she was more worried about the back of the house than the front of the house. Raising the house would mean more steps to the deck and from the Aqueduct you would see this pretty big staircase. Mr. Inglis stated that could be addressed with landscaping.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether it is possible to put plantings along the house so you don’t see the steps and then have plantings along the aqueduct. Mr. Yarabek stated that could be done or the pool could be raised a couple of feet.
The Board stated they would need to see a plan with grading and landscaping showing how it would work if the house was raised two feet and the pool was also raised.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue this hearing at their next meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – EMERALD WOODS (JARDIM ESTATES LOT 5)
Mr. Michael Inglis, representing the applicant, stated they have shown the street trees on the plan as well as the utilities. They have presented the streetscape. A rendering has been submitted. No changes are being proposed.
Mr. Yarabek stated he had requested an arborist provide the value for the trees they hope to save on this lot. He has not received that. Mr. Stephen Coleman, Landscape Architect for the applicant, stated one of the trees is now proposed to be removed; however, they would like to save the red maple. Mr. Yarabek stated he needs the documents.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, to approve the site plan for a single-family house on Lot 5 of Emerald Woods (Jardim Estates) subject to:
1. Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
2. Compliance with all items contained in the resolution of approval for the preliminary subdivision dated November 24, 2003, and revised January 26, 2004.
3. The above-noted resolution included but was not limited to the following:
(a) approval of the final landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape Consultant; all plantings must be native species or non-invasive ornamentals and any deviation from this must be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant
(b) approval by the Architectural Review Board
(c) payment of applicable recreation and escrow fees.
(d) a detailed tree protection and tree preservation plan to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant
(e) if any trees which are 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, then the planting of multiple trees approved by the Village Landscape Consultant or payment of the appraised value of the trees to the Village tree replacement fund will be required
4. Adherence to the section of the zoning code dealing with the tree replacement fund for the removal of any trees with a 10 inch caliper or greater or alternative
remediation elsewhere on the project as approved by the Village Landscape Consultant with a proportionality schedule by the Village Landscape Consultant.
5. The applicant 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.
6. Use of construction equipment no larger than a 315 CAT excavator and a 416 CAT backhoe without approval by the Building Inspector to prevent damage to
trees.
7. The patio area on Lot 5 will be of permeable pavers or other equivalent permeable material approved by the Village Engineer.
8. The driveway on Lot 5 will be of permeable pavers or other equivalent permeable material approved by the Village Engineer.
9. Approval by the Planning Board of a punch list prepared by Stephen Yarabek, the Village Landscape Consultant, for mandatory actions and also voluntary actions
agreed upon including landscaping to be done in the park and public improvements on the site with a timeline for the completion of individual items. If any item is not satisfactorily completed according to the approved timeline, a cease and desist order will be issued for any ongoing site work at Jardim Estates. The Building Inspector may grant a temporary waiver under emergency conditions, e.g., if in his judgment he decides it would not be safe or reasonable to stop a given process in midstream; however, no C.O.s will be issued until the required work is satisfactorily completed.
10. A traffic calming plan developed by Traffic Consultant John Canning and approved by the Village Engineer and the Planning Board. The cost of the implementation of this plan will be borne by the applicant.
11. Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
Chairman Friedlander stated the Board wanted some diversity with regard to the architectural look. The six houses the Board has seen, while attractive, look similar and he was hoping future houses would be different. Mr. Inglis stated they will be proposing different architecture; however, they wanted this style for Lots 4 through 10.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – CORIO – 39 STEPHEN DRIVE
***Mr. Aukland recused himself on this application.
Mr. Belluscio, engineer, stated they have made changes with the driveway and they have added landscaping. The driveway is now 22 ft. in the front and 30 ft. in the back.
Ms. D’Avolio questioned how wide the existing driveway is. Mr. Belluscio stated it is about 22 ft.
Chairman Friedlander stated there is an issue with drainage and impervious surface with a driveway this size. He stated he did not feel it is good for the neighborhood to have a driveway this size. It looks like a parking lot. Mr. Belluscio stated the family has 4 vehicles.
Ms. D’Avolio noted if the garage doors are brought closer together, the driveway could be narrower.
Upon inquiry, Mr. Belluscio stated the driveway is about 39 ft. in length.
Chairman Friedlander stated the driveway should be no more than 24 ft. wide and should be done with permeable pavers. That would allow four cars to park outside given the length of the driveway. Board members agreed.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Ms. Raiselis, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Ms. Raiselis, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of the proposal.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Ms. Raiselis, and unanimously carried, to approve the construction of a one-story master bedroom with bath addition with garage under the balcony at the rear at 39 Stephen Drive subject to:
1. Approval of the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
2. Approval of a landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape Consultant particularly for the right side yard, which has been significantly reduced. Plantings must be native plants or non-invasive ornamentals. Any deviation from this must be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
3. Approval by the Architectural Review Board.
4. The driveway is to be 24 ft. in width and shall be made of permeable pavers or other equivalent permeable material approved by the Building Inspector.
5. Payment of any outstanding escrow fees.
6. Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board chair.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - WILSON PARK HOME & LAND COMPANY, LLC – WILSON PARK DRIVE
Chairman Friedlander stated this application has been adjourned until the Board’s August meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY – JARDIM ESTATES EAST – BROWING LANE – (SCOPING DOCUMENT)
Mr. Robert Geneslaw, Planner for the Village, stated amendments were made to the Scoping Document based on Board review and comments from the public and Dr. Carole Griffiths on the Wildlife and Plant Biodiversity Assessment. The amendments were E-Mailed to Board members.
The Board reviewed the amendments and suggested several other amendments.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Mr. Peter M. Weiler, attorney representing Mrs. Cornelia Bagarotti, stated she is the owner 300 Sheldon Avenue, which is an 8.6 acre parcel of land east of the subject property. “I am here to let you know our client is greatly concerned about what happens with this subdivision. We are concerned how that subdivision will affect this property. It is an ecologically sensitive property. It is home to a tremendous amount of wildlife. It is a property that is adjacent to the Taxter Ridge State Park. I think what is very important is to make sure that people who use that park, especially our client, Mrs. Bagarotti, looks at the ridgeline to the west so there is no real disturbance to the ambiance and nature of that property. I made suggestions for your Scoping Document and I think
those have been taken care of. We are very concerned about how the Board treats this subdivision. It has been my understanding this will probably end up as a cluster development, which I think is excellent. I am also concerned about a lot that shows on the Cluster Plan as Lot 18. Our client is very much opposed to that lot being created as such. That lot should be part of the open space land. I think it is important that the developer as part of the DEIS provide some very intricate information about the title. A lot of access to this subdivision comes in from different directions. Everyone’s property rights should be defined as part of the DEIS. We hope what the Board decides is ecologically sound for our client’s property.”
Mr. Aukland questioned whether Mr. Weiler felt there was a way the Planning Board should review this proposal that is distinct. Mr. Weiler stated the lot count in the cluster plan is the same as in the traditional plan. It pushes the development to the west and creates greater protection to the east. “It would seem one could use a little more imagination in laying out the cluster development.”
Mr. Inglis stated that at one time the church had 500 acres of land and 285 of those acres have been designated as parkland by the church. The church has made its best effort to preserve the ecologically sensitive areas.
Mr. Geneslaw was directed to finalize the Scoping Document with the reviewed revisions and attach the Biodiversity Assessment to the document.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing on the Scoping Document for Jardim Estates East be closed.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, to adopt the final revised Scoping Document for Jardim Estates East, 4th revision dated July 19, 2007, including clarifications made by the Planning Board at tonight’s meeting and appended to this scoping document will be the Wildlife and Plant Biodiversity Guidelines prepared by Village Consultant Robert Geneslaw as well as the guidelines prepared by Carole Griffiths of the Village’s Environmental Advisory Council. (This document is attached to the official copy of these minutes.)
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – RAPONI – 31 MAIN STREET
The Board reviewed submissions to change space at 31 Main Street from retail to a physical therapy office. It was noted the parking requirements for the physical therapy office are less than was required for the retail space.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets a public hearing on this application for August 27, 2007.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – THE ESTATE OF FOO CHU – 116 ALTAMONT AVENUE
Mr. Robert Schroeger, attorney for the applicant, stated the property is owned by the Chu family. Presently the entire parcel is roughly 60,000 sq. ft. They are proposing to subdivide it into two parcels. The existing house will remain on a 45,000 sq. ft. parcel and a new building lot would be created of approximately 15,000 sq. ft. This is an R-10 (10,000 sq. ft. per lot) zone. There is going to be a lot of land in reality and even more land in virtual visual attitude. The existing house, which will remain on the 45,000 sq. ft. parcel is far in excess of the 10,000 sq. ft. needed. The newly-created lot while only 15,000 sq. ft. will appear to be about 20,000 sq. ft. This is the result of the road in front of it being a 150 ft. roadbed. That makes it appear to be part
of the road. From the street you may not be able to see the new lot. Several years ago there was discussion about their acquiring that approximately 10,000 sq. ft. but that did not come to pass but that is still in front of this parcel and will appear to be part of this parcel. They did not use that land for any of their calculations or any setbacks.
Mr. Peter Sauter, land surveyor, stated the property slopes downward except for a level area where the house is proposed. Everything meets the requirements. Only nine trees will have to be removed.
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether a steep slopes analysis had been done. Mr. Schroeger stated it was and is part of the plans submitted.
Mr. Tedesco stated the proposed driveway is significantly in a steep slope area. It is also in a dangerous area for a driveway. While only a small portion of the footprint is in a steep slope area, quite a bit of steep slopes outside the footprint would have to be disturbed.
Mr. Schroeger stated they have moved the driveway as far as possible from the intersection. They moved it so it crosses the narrowest part of the property owned by the Village. It serves everyone’s interest to move the driveway as far from the intersection as possible.
Ms. Raiselis stated the ordinance doesn’t allow grading or building retaining walls in the steep slope area.
Mr. Aukland stated before a public hearing is scheduled the Board needs correct material, including steep slopes calculations for the Village owned property.
Ms. D’Avolio questioned the length of the access. Mr. Sauter stated it is about 25 – 30 ft.
Counsel Shumejda stated for the first 20 ft. the driveway grade cannot exceed 4%.
All agreed to review this application further with the applicants at their work session on August 16th and to continue the preliminary review at their August 27th meeting.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – RAND TARRYTOWN, LLC. CONTRACT VENDEE – 54 NORTH BROADWAY
Mr. Sam Vieira, project architect, stated the applicant is a contract vendee interested in moving their real estate offices which are presently located 181 South Broadway. At 54 North Broadway they would occupy the first and second floors and the existing apartment on the third floor would remain. They would like to increase the existing parking area to accommodate the required eleven parking spaces. The property is unique in that it is deep. It stops short of the Croton Aqueduct. Between this existing building and the Croton Aqueduct is a parking lot, which sits 4 to 5 ft. below the grade of the parking area being discussed tonight. That is a long-term lease with the post office. To accommodate the proposed parking area, they would remove two or three trees and remove the
existing detached garage.
Mr. Tedesco noted the 11th parking space shown on the plan – the one farthest north – is where there are trees. He stated the Board needed to carefully review the parking since it may be desirable to have fewer spaces and save the trees. He stated the Board will also have to carefully review maneuverability of the cars.
Mr. Vieira stated the maneuverability is tight but it is doable. When he receives an updated survey, he will be able to provide the Board more information.
Mr. Tedesco questioned how many spaces exist. Mr. Vieira stated there is no delineation. The garage has two and then maybe there are another three.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether this parking is for employees or potential customers. Mr. Vieira stated it is for both. Not every desk is filled with agents. They have different hours. On occasion people will drive in to inquire about properties. A lot of the meeting takes place at the homes. Two of the spaces are for the apartment on the third floor.
Upon inquiry from the chair, Counsel Shumejda stated there is a provision in the zoning code that parking can be provided offsite if it is within 300 ft. and recommended by the Planning Board and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (It was noted the McKeel Avenue parking lot is probably within the 300 ft.)
Ms. Raiselis questioned whether pavers could be considered for the parking. Mr. Vieira stated they could and with the new survey he could show the existing and proposed impervious surface.
Mr. Paul Adler, Managing Director of Prudential Rand, stated they enjoy being corporate neighbors in Tarrytown. Tarrytown was one of the first offices they opened in Westchester, where they now have seven offices. They want to be a part of the downtown and would have no objection to doing pavers or anything keeping in character with the building. There will be two or three fulltime employees. The rest are agents who come and go – and not every day. Once a week there is a meeting and all the agents are encourage to attend, but some do not. With a downtown location, they feel they will have greater walk-in traffic. Where they are currently, customers have to drive. He stated they understood the long-term lease for the post office comes with the property. He noted
they would be agreeable to eliminating the space where the trees are located. At their current location they are leasing and the lease is ending at the end of the year and they would like to do all the moving by then.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets a public hearing on this application for August 27, 2007.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – EMERALD WOODS (JARDIM ESTATES
LOT 10)
Mr. Norman Sheer, attorney for the applicant, stated there has been a site walk with the Board and there was a lot of discussion about where the house was located. The site plan they have presented is the one they are in contract to provide. The Board liked putting the house between the existing trees. They believe they could move the house back and run the driveway along the south side. The buyers would only agree to that if they don’t have to share the driveway, which would mean discussing a driveway off Gracemere Drive. If the Board is willing to consider that alternative, they could submit that next month. If not, they will proceed with the present site plan.
Ms. Raiselis questioned what the process is if they want to change the approved subdivision. Counsel Shumejda stated they would have to come in with an amended plan. Mr. Sheer stated he did not know if the driveways are shown on the plat. He would have to review that.
Ms. Raiselis questioned in terms of the easement whether the setback goes from the easement or the property line. Counsel Shumejda sated it is the property line.
Mr. Inglis, representing the applicant, stated they could put a single driveway for Lots 11 and 16. (He noted they have a potential buyer who is interested in purchasing both those lots.) Board members stated they would have no objection to that.
Mr. Tedesco stated while the backyard is smaller, it would save the wonderful trees and he would be in favor of moving the house back.
Chairman Friedlander stated the house would not be centered on the lot but setting it back would give the owner more privacy.
Mr. Sheer stated the Board could set the public hearing and they would talk to the home buyer and then they could submit another plan, or not.
Mr. Aukland stated he would agree to setting a public hearing as long as the shared driveway concept is being retained. He agreed it would be preferable to set the house back.
The Board stated it will need to be determined whether the trees in the front will be in jeopardy if the house is not moved back.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets a public hearing on this application for August 27, 2007.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 11:20 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
