Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
May 29, 2007 7 p.m.
PRESENT: *Chairman Friedlander; Members **Raiselis, Aukland, Tedesco, D’Avolio
***Alternate Member Demers; Counsel Shumejda; Building Inspector/
Engineer McGarvey; Planner Geneslaw; Landscape Architect Yarabek;
Secretary D’Eufemia
***Mr. Demers has been appointed an Alternate Member of the Planning Board and joined the Board for two applications this evening.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the minutes of April 23, 2007, be
approved as submitted. Chairman Friedlander abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION - ACADIA-NODDLE DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC – 101 CORTLANDT STREET (WALGREENS)
Mr. Tedesco stated on February 27, 2006, the Planning Board approved the 24-hour operation for the Walgreen’s pharmacy window based on an annual review by the Planning Board. The Board noted it was specifically for the pharmacy window only and not the entire store. It has come to the Board’s attention the entire store has been operating on a 24-hour basis; however, given that there have been no problems reported, he felt the Board could consider extending the 24-hour operation for the entire store.
Ms. Clarice Pollack, 19 South Broadway, stated the landscaping islands in the parking lot have landscaping fabric which catch on fire and something should be done about that fabric.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the 24-hour operation of Walgreen’s pharmacy window and the store itself subject to:
1. A review of this status by the Planning Board in the future if it determines any significant problems have arisen as reported by the Police Department.
2. Removal of the landscaping fabric in the landscaping islands in the parking lot.
3. Additional landscaping to be added in the rear of the buildings along Wildey Street to be approved by the Village Landscaping Consultant.
4. A maintenance agreement for the care and watering of all plants on the site; said agreement to be approved by the Village Landscaping Consultant.
RESOLUTION – ABIGAIL KIRSCH AT TAPPAN HILL – 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE
Mr. Tedesco reported that in a site plan approval for Tappan Hill made on August 28, 2006, one of the conditions was that the applicant submit to the Planning Board for approval a plan to replace some asphalt surface with permeable surface. This plan was to be submitted within six months of approval. The applicant submitted such a plan, which has been reviewed by the Village Engineer and Planning Board members and included a site visit.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the Planning Board approves the plan dated 4/24/07 submitted for Abigail Kirsch at Tappan Hill as satisfactorily fulfilling the site plan requirement in the site plan approval of August 28, 2006. Chairman Friedlander abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
MOSA – 20 LEGRANDE AVENUE
Chairman Friedlander reported the applicant has withdrawn this application.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – HSA-UWC – JARDIM ESTATES EAST
Chairman Friedlander reported the applicant has requested an adjournment until the Board’s June meeting. No one appeared to address the Board on this matter. All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s June meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – C.M. PATEMAN & ASSOCIATES – VACANT LOT FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND ALTAMONT AVENUE
*Chairman Friedlander recused himself on this application.
**Ms. Raiselis recused herself on this application.
***Alternate Member Demers joined the Board on the review of this application.
Mr. Tedesco chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Tedesco stated he has visited the property several times since the Board’s last meeting and it does seem the steep slopes are minimal. Three Board members (Mr. Demers was unable to attend) had a site visit which included the Village Engineer, Village Planner and Village Landscape Consultant. At that visit Mr. Tedesco indicated the need for a natural looking wooded green corner. He asked Mr. Yarabek approve a plan that would accomplish this. The applicant was agreeable to that on the site visit. He was asked to provide a memo, which would become a part of the landscaping. The applicant has submitted a plan showing an increase in the landscaping. The applicant had been told the Board with Mr. Yarabek would have a site visit after construction when the landscaping is in place. The applicant
has agreed to do any additional landscaping at that time. Mr. Aukland repeated his request that east-west elevations be included. The applicant agreed to provide those. The applicant agreed to a maximum height of 5 ft. from the front retaining wall. It will taper from 5 ft. to between 3 ft. and 4 ft. on the sides. The applicant was asked to make the entire driveway and patio permeable pavers and he agreed to that. The house sits low on the site and Mr. Aukland asked the applicant to investigate lowering if even more by about 1 ft. The applicant has agreed that during construction the house will be placed at the lowest level possible to allow for the drainage and the Board will have that verified by the Village Engineer. The site visit proved profitable for the Board.
Mr. Yarabek stated he had received the revised landscaping plans and found some inconsistencies from what was discussed at the site meeting. There are several maple trees along the west. Those trees were unlikely candidates for preservation because they had grown out over the street and into the utility lines. The proposed retaining wall would certainly cut the roots. Mr. Lopez’s plan shows these trees being maintained. At the site visit there had been discussion about putting back significant street trees. Given the Board’s request that the wooded character of this site be restored, the revised plan does not fulfill that need. There is a 30” elm on the eastern boundary and that tree was also considered not a great candidate for saving. The Board has not yet received a plan
that would provide the character that was agreed to on the site.
Mr. Pateman stated since the last meeting they have submitted a great deal of information and the site visit was beneficial. They have provided:
1. Three-dimensional, layered image/panoramic of the proposed house and proposed landscaping at the intersection of Altamont and Fairview Avenues depicting any houses that can be viewed from this intersection.
2. A letter from Riley Land Surveyors, LLP, a licensed land surveyor, verifying that the submitted slope calculations provided the Board fall within all accepted error tolerances for topographic mapping and verifying that all calculations provided are accurate.
3. A topographic survey indicating the exact slope percent. The slopes are only slightly above the 25% defined as steep slopes. (Percent of steep slopes – 25.19%, 25.03%, 25.35% and 25.23%).
4. A tree evaluation and field map prepared by Scott Cullen, Registered Consulting Arborist, describing the condition of the trees on the site.
5. A landscape plan indicating that 30 trees as well as 24 shrubs are to be planted on the site.
6. Pictures of the subject property and neighboring homes clearly indicating that the proposed home is not out of scale or character with the neighborhood. Additionally, many of the homes have stone walls, similar and in many cases, much higher than the proposal.
The Board requested some additional information, which has also been provided. They provided a cut for an east-west section through the property. They provided a landscaping plan. Mr. Lopez put the existing trees on the plan but Mr. Pateman stated he would be acceptable to a condition of approval that Mr. Yarabek’s approval of the landscaping plan would be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The Board requested distances from the curb line to the building. The distance is 40 ft. and there is a much larger setback in the right-of-way. From the front of the house to Fairview Avenue it is 55 ft.
Upon inquiries from Ms. D’Avolio about the height, Mr. Pateman stated the house steps down. The garage elevation is 214 and the first floor elevation is 213. That was done intentionally. It reduces the height as much as possible but still maintains the drainage. Mr. Pateman stated if the house is lowered more, it would increase the size of the wall and there would also be concern about the drainage from the driveway.
Mr. Aukland stated the site visit was positive and he was pleased to see the setbacks being a lot more than the Board had perceived. He stated he was not sure about the drainage. The Board discussed permeable pavers and the drainage being on site.
Mr. Pateman stated whenever you can, you like the water to leave the site of the house. They have already lowered the house. The house is being stepped down from the garage. You don’t want the water coming toward the garage. When you look at the cut through the property, it is reasonable. The house meets the height limitations and it is also anticipated there is rock on this site. If they go lower, there will probably be rock. Their professionals took into consideration all the things – tree preservation, drainage, etc.
Mr. Aukland stated the ridgeline of the roof is about the level of the windows of the garage of the neighboring property up the hill. The ridgeline is significantly above the top of the garage. The Board’s concern was to preserve views in general and the more the building can be lowered, the better.
Mr. Demers questioned whether the Dr. Mankiewicz on-site drainage retention methods are being proposed for this lot. Mr. McGarvey stated they are not. Mr. Demers stated maybe they could be used to a limited extent. Mr. Aukland stated there are no code requirements for it; however, it is in the comprehensive plan and this site would lend itself well to that.
Mr. Pateman stated his concern was not retention of the water on the site. If there is a drain on the driveway and it backs up, the water goes into the garage. It is better to pitch it out. There is also the concern about the rock on the site.
Mr. Demers stated this should be looked at more carefully with the help of the Village Engineer.
Mr. Demers questioned whether the house has an attic. Mr. Pateman stated it does; however, they kept a lower roof pitch. That helps keep the look of the house down and they provided the gables to break up the façade. A 9-12 roof pitch is typical and they have provided a 6-12 roof pitch.
Mr. Demers stated he still felt the combination of the mass of the house with the 5 ft. wall puts the house out of proportion with the rest of the neighborhood. He stated he needed to review it further to see how that can be mitigated.
Mr. Aukland stated Mr. Pateman has said he could build a house with no intrusion in the steep slopes but it would not be aesthetically pleasing. The Board, however, has never been shown what that house would look like.
Mr. Pateman stated they all noted on the site visit that the steep slopes on this property are weeds and stumps. They retained professionals to come up with a house they could be happy with. They have agreed to do all the Board requests. It is a balancing between the zoning code and agreeing to the requests of the Board. Mr. Pateman stated he did not want to redesign the house because he felt the professionals have designed a house that fits the neighborhood. Mr. Aukland stated he has not seen why irregular is not aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Pateman stated the Planning Board has to work with an ordinance that is difficult to work with. A 25% slope is a walk-out basement. The Zoning Board of Appeals can hear hardships and they have scheduled a public hearing before them.
Mr. Tedesco stated progress has been made and one of the key things the Board discovered is that there is significant width around the corner and it is achievable to keep that wooded effect. Mr. Yarabek tonight said it has not yet been properly done. There should be a plan produced that has a good deal of success. He stated Mr. Pateman should have his landscape consultants meet with Mr. Yarabek and come up with a plan that will achieve the goal of that corner staying a wooded corner to the extent possible. Mr. Pateman should look at ways to perhaps reduce the bulk of the home without drastically changing the proposal.
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Annette Stiloski, 59 Fairview Avenue, stated she has a large home but it sits down and she owns a side lot separate from the lot with her house. She stated she opposes the size of the home being proposed and the stone wall is not in keeping with the neighborhood. The architectural design of the home does not fit the neighborhood. The house should be made smaller. Mr. Pateman wants river views and the way to achieve that is to make the house higher. The Board needs to be sure there will not be a drainage problem created on Altamont Avenue.
Mr. Chris Hunter, 60 Fairview Avenue, stated the house should be at the lowest level possible. Dropping the house 1 ft. is not a lot. Perhaps the house could be dropped more if there were no basement.
Mr. Pateman stated there is a concern for rock on the site and there is a concern about drainage. They contracted to buy property based on the zoning code and this plan conforms in all respects with the exception of a small intrusion on the steep slopes. He stated if residents have concerns about the other issues; e.g., height, setbacks, they needed to review those concerns with the Board of Trustees. He noted they have attempted to mitigate all the concerns.
Mr. Hunter stated he still would like the house to be dropped. He also questioned whether the wall needed to be so long and what it would be made out of. He stated there should be more native and full trees. He noted the houses in the area are different but there is some consistency. There are no modern houses. The house being proposed belongs on the beach. He questioned whether this house would have to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Tedesco stated it will require ARB approval.
Mr. Pateman stated he did not believe the 5 ft. wall is unreasonable. That entire area has stone walls. The walls are beautiful when worked into the site properly.
Ms. Linda Viertel, Gracemere, stated, “There are stone walls and there are stone walls.” The stone walls with the newer houses in Tarrytown seem to be prefab rock in appearance. She questioned whether the wall is necessary noting her older home is built on a steep slope but there are no walls. It might be possible to get to the elevation with natural grasses and hills.
Mr. Pateman stated he is proposing a stone wall - and he has built many in Tarrytown – which he thinks everyone would find acceptable. The wall is attractive and it is permitted under the code. “We do this for a living and we know what we are doing.” There would be more drainage problems with terracing. “I am relying on my professionals who have designed this site and it conforms with the zoning code. We have designed it this way because my professional designer feels this is the way it should be designed.”
Ms. Angela Schneider, 16 Fairview Avenue, stated she lives two houses away. When it rains the water comes across the street and down into the properties below on Grove Street. Mr. Pateman suggests this drainage should go onto Village property. The drainage should be resolved on the property. She stated she was concerned about the size and scale of the house. She noted her house is not a small house but all the houses have a character and most were built at the turn of the twentieth century and it is difficult to make a new house look like an older house. The proposed house will stand out like a sore thumb. She stated this whole neighborhood should be included in the Historic District.
Mr. Pateman stated there will be many brand new buildings in older areas unless the Board of Trustees legislates them out. The drainage for this property will be approved by the Village Engineer. They are complying with the code. You cannot design for a major event and when one occurs the water will go to the street, which is reasonable.
Mr. Hunter stated if the wall is terraced it might break up the bulk.
Mr. Tedesco stated for the next meeting there should be a landscaping plan worked out with Mr. Yarabek and ways to reduce the height of the house should be reviewed with Mr. McGarvey.
Mr. Demers noted that Mr. Pateman stated he was going to the Zoning Board of Appeals; however, that is usually done following site plan review. Counsel Shumejda stated that is the usual approach; however, the applicant has the right to go before the ZBA.
Mr. Tedesco stated the steep slopes are an issue; however, they are small. That is not the main issue if all the other issues are addressed.
Mr. Aukland stated he is concerned about the roof ridge height as seen from neighboring properties. He stated in the cut through he would like to see what the neighbors view will be. He stated he would also like to see a design for a house that fully complies with the zoning.
Mr. Pateman stated this house complies with the zoning ordinance. They have done everything they can to mitigate the impacts. The house has been designed by professionals to the best of their ability. Everyone wants to redesign the house but they are not designers. They have done everything they were asked to do.
Mr. Tedesco stated progress has been made. Between now and the next meeting Mr. Pateman should explore all the alternatives and the landscaping plan should be reviewed with Mr. Yarabek – including possibly placing ivy on the wall to soften its effect.
Ms. Karen Garibaldi, 93 Altamont Avenue, stated this is an historic neighborhood. Mr. Pateman has referred to designers, engineers and architects but they are not going to live in this house or this neighborhood. Frank Lloyd Wright was a famed architect but his homes would not belong on this site. There are a number of homes in Tarrytown that don’t belong where they are. The Board has to stop giving variances and they must look at the individual homes.
Mr. Demers stated there has been a lot of concern expressed. He strongly suggested to those people that they contact the Board of Trustees and ask them to make the comprehensive plan as rigorous as it can be.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board of Trustees adopted a new comprehensive plan and concerns expressed were new homes fitting into existing neighborhoods and McMansions. On June 5th the Board of Trustees and Planning Board will begin working on the priority items in the plan and until that is addressed the Planning Board must consider applications within the current zoning code. The Board has asked the applicant to make changes and they can do that or not. The main way to deal with it in the long run is through the comprehensive plan. The public should indicate to the Board of Trustees that they would like to see the comprehensive plan become a reviewing document.
This matter will be continued at the Board’s next meeting.
**Ms. Raiselis returned to the meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – PUTNAM AVENUE HOMES – HILLSIDE STREET – RESUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
*Chairman Friedlander recused himself from this application.
***Alternate Member Demers joined the Board on this application.
Mr. Tedesco chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Tedesco stated there have been many months of meetings on this application. At the last meeting the Board stated they would review all the submissions at their work session and make a decision tonight.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the public hearings on the resubdivision and site plan applications be closed.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that there will be no adverse environmental impacts as a result of the re-subdivision of the property on Hillside Street.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the re-subdivision of the property on Hillside Street, Tarrytown, New York, to relocate the property line between Lots 3 and 4 on the previously filed Logan Subdivision Map to minimize disturbance on steep slopes. New Lot 3A will consist of .389 acres and new Lot 4A will consist of .261 acres.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed action.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the Planning Board approves the construction of two single family homes as proposed, subject to:
1. Approval by the Building Inspector/ Village Engineer with particular emphasis on storm water and drainage.
2. Approval by the Architectural Review Board.
3. Approval of a landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape Consultant. All plantings must be native plants or non-invasive ornamentals. Any exceptions to this must be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
4. This plan should include the suitable placement of evergreen screening to address the concerns of the neighboring residents on Eunice Court. The location and nature of this screening is to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
5. A berm should be placed along the Thruway in addition to appropriate screening.
6. A detailed tree protection and tree preservation plan to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Approval by the Zoning Board for any variances required.
Given some of the special conditions and circumstances involved with this application, which include:
a. There had been subdivision approval and site plan approval, although the subdivision approval had lapsed.
b. The steep slopes on the site are man-made steep slopes with the strong probability of there having been a quarry on the site for rock or dirt. The removal of some of these steep slopes will not affect a previously existing natural topography.
c. There would be no disturbance of major trees or active water systems.
d. There is a need for providing safe egress of cars from the house driveway on Lot 3A
and, given that subsequent reduction in steep slope disturbance was achieved by several measures, including:
a. Significant reduction in house sizes and building footprints
b. Re-subdivision of the property to allow for the re-positioning of the homes to avoid steep slopes to a significant extent and to provide for additional open green space,
The Planning Board recommends that a variance for the remaining steep slope disturbance be granted.
10. Payment of any outstanding escrow fees and recreation fees prior to the granting of a building permit.
11. Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
The Board was polled. Ms. Raiselis voted no. All others assented.
Ms. Raiselis stated, “This Hillside Street project is a complex one and this Board has struggled with the evolution of this application for months. In my opinion, after studying all the issues involved in the debate, having listened to all the information and alternatives presented to this Board, I have not yet been convinced that the benefits to the neighborhood and the Village as a whole would outweigh the violations that are apparent with regard to the Village’s steep slopes ordinance. In its current form, it is a proposal I cannot support and my vote is no.”
*Chairman Friedlander rejoined the meeting
***Mr. Demers left the meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – CRESCENT ASSOCIATES – 155 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
Mr. Don Walsh, representing the applicant, stated this application is now at the end of this first phase of the review. They have asked the Board keep this open for a five-year period.
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 there will be no significant adverse environment impacts as a result of the proposal.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board approves the proposal subject to:
1. Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer particularly in regard to adequacy of the storm water drainage proposal.
2. Approval by the Architectural Review Board, which is to include the following:
(a) the architectural design of the proposed building is to have the Martling Avenue façade as a second principal façade rather than a secondary rear façade, and
(b) given that there are no specific architectural plans at the time of this site plan approval, the architecture eventually approved by ARB must also be reviewed by the Planning Board and receive its final approval.
3. Approval by the Zoning Board for any variances required. These involve
variances for site coverage, parking spaces, loading spaces, and setback to
Martling Avenue. (Said variances were received on April 1, 2004.)
4. Approval of a landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape
Consultant. Plantings must be native plants or non-invasive ornamentals. Any
deviation from this must be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
In particular, the storm water basin and surrounding berm will be designed and
maintained in a meadow condition and planted with native seed mixes.
5. To mitigate the decrease in setback from Martling Avenue, the following are
required:
(a) a special tree protection plan to preserve existing trees along Martling Avenue, and
(b) the landscaping plan is to include extensive additional trees and vegetative screening along this boundary in addition to the large portion of the natural buffer which will remain. These measures are to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
6. A detailed tree protection and tree preservation plan to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant including a tree replacement bond for trees to be preserved in an amount recommended by the Village Landscape Consultant and approved by the Village Attorney. (This plan was approved on April 9, 2007.)
7. 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 and Tree Replacement Fund will be required.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. Before the removal of designated trees, a site visit will be held by the Planning Board and the Village Landscape Consultant for a final inspection and verification with trees marked in the field.
13. Inspection of the final landscaping and screening on a site visit by the Planning Board and the Village Landscape Consultant before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
14. Payment of a proportionate share of the cumulative traffic impact study of Route 9 in the South End of Tarrytown as requested by the Planning Board. (Said payment was made 8/1/06.)
15. The fire, police, and other emergency vehicle access road across from the rear entrance of Hitachi is to be used only for emergency services. An underlying covenant will also be placed in the miscellaneous document of the subject property that will prevent this emergency access road from ever being used for any other purpose.
16. Payment of any outstanding escrow fees/recreation fees prior to the granting of a building permit.
17. Based on Section 305-62B(2) of the Tarrytown Zoning Code, the Planning Board
approves this site plan for a period of 5 years from the date of this site plan
approval.
18. Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
Mr. Mark Fry, representing the applicant, stated Mr. Albert Lee from Marshall Cavendish, next door property owner, should be invited to attend any future site walks relative to landscaping.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – WILSON PARK HOME & LAND COMPANY, LLC – SUBDIVISION WILSON PARK DRIVE
Mr. Norman Sheer stated after the Board’s last work session on May 17th it was agreed that the representative from Kellard Engineering and Mr. McGarvey would meet on site, which they did last Friday. Mr. McGarvey requested some digging by machine and that machine will on the property tomorrow. After the digging is done, a report will be forthcoming hopefully before the Board’s work session on June 14th. Upon inquiry from Ms. Raiselis, Mr. McGarvey stated water from the drains will be tested.
Chairman Friedlander noted Hudsonia has been hired by the Board of Trustees for the wildlife study.
Mr. Aukland questioned whether the railroad walkway should be considered a brownfield. Mr. McGarvey stated he has spoken with the Village Attorney and they both do not feel it is justified just because it is under the railroad bed. He stated perhaps the applicant should be directed to determine this definitively in the area, which is the applicant’s property.
Ms. Angela Schneider, 16 Fairview Avenue, stated a few yards after the stone house she could hear water running which she followed across the orchard lawn to a drain. She stated she hoped that drain was being investigated. Mr. McGarvey stated on Friday they pulled this drain lid and heard water. They asked the homeowner of the stone house to flush the toilet and it was the toilet. The cistern will be pumped out and filled in.
Ms. Schneider read the following letter dated May 3, 2007, from Barbara Malone, 30 Wilson Park Drive, to Mr. McGarvey:
“Please find enclosed some photographs of the area where Greenrock Corporation had problems with the underground pipes. I saw Greenrock (on many occasions) dig up the land between the ‘orange fenced off area’ and the orchard in order to access the problematic piping. The direction was in a southeastern mode. As you can see from these photographs, the ‘orange fenced off area’ adjoins the line of pine trees just below the ridgeline.”
Mr. McGarvey stated that area will be dug up.
Ms. Schneider questioned how they were going to know where all the pipes and drains are. Chairman Friedlander stated a lot of material has been submitted to the Village Engineer and he will go out with the applicant’s engineers and hopefully find as much as possible and if there are problem areas in the areas the Village is planning to purchase, they may not want to purchase it. The Village has worked hard to get a large area of parkland and everyone hopes it is useable and acceptable land. No one wants to lose the park. It is a balancing act and no one wants to make a mistake.
Mr. Dan Richmond, attorney for area residents, stated the Board might want to consider having that property protected with some type of conservation easement. The Village should know what it is getting and what needs to be done.
Mr. Sheer stated his client is fully prepared not to sell this land to the Village if that is what the Village wants. The applicant would keep the land and accept all responsibility for the drainage that is there.
Ms. Karen Brown, River Terrace, read a letter dated May 20, 2007, from David K. Gordon, attorney, who has reviewed the draft Findings. This letter is attached to the official copy of these minutes.
Ms. Brown stated she would like to see more details of the Storm Water Management Plan before the Findings are adopted.
Mr. Sheer stated he did not think Mr. Gordon read the FEIS. It is clear that any portion of the Storm Water Management Plan that is on the trail is an option. The Village would have to decide if they wanted it. There is no incursion into the trail being proposed except as an option if the Village wants it.
Ms. Viertel noted statements have been sent to the Board and she questioned how those were being incorporated. Chairman Friedlander stated whatever is received is sent to BFJ Planning who has been preparing the Draft Findings.
Counsel Shumejda stated the Board would hopefully have a revised Draft Findings before their Work Session on June 14th.
Mr. William Cerbone, 27 Miller Avenue, stated the public asked about the railroad bed and they used the term brownfield. He questioned when Mr. Aukland used the term brownfield whether that was being used in the technical term or a layman’s term. Mr. Aukland stated he was looking at it from whether there are new considerations the Board should take into account and he was told there were not. Mr. Cerbone stated there should be determination on an engineering standard what the reality is.
Mr. Sheer stated the reality is they are not doing anything on the trail unless the Village exercises the option for off-site drainage.
Ms. Schneider stated the Tarrytown Conservation Committee’s objective is to take care of the lakes. If there is too much drainage going into the lakes, then those drains should be capped.
Mr. Sheer stated the FEIS is clear on how new impervious surfaces will be infiltrated. Everyone is talking about drainage problems. No one has said there is a drainage problem.
Ms. Brown stated residents did read the FEIS and there are maps with basins on them. That is why the Village needs to talk about a Storm Water Management Plan before decisions are made. No one is saying there are drainage problems that can’t be overcome.
Mr. Sheer stated they should take away the Village’s option in regard to off-site drainage.
Mr. Richmond stated there is no storm water plan. “I think all these issues can be dealt with. We think you are 85% there – just go the little extra. It may be the entire south parcel should be left open and that should be an option.”
Chairman Friedlander stated the comments made by the residents over time have been useful. He stated he was concerned however about trying to go the extra distance without causing consequences that are dangerous for the Village and the residents. Often times compromises have to be made. This is the only project that four engineers have looked at during his long history on the Planning Board.
Ms. Francesca Spinner, Wilson Park Drive, stated the developers have never said this is a great neighborhood and they want to fit in with the neighborhood. The houses on County House Road don’t fit in with this neighborhood. Mr. Tedesco stated the applicant has shown a willingness to site the houses in appropriate areas and their architectural drawings have changed significantly from those on County House Road.
Ms. Clarice Pollack, 19 South Broadway, stated residents have put in a great deal of time and effort but development will occur.
All agreed to continue this matter at the Board’s next meeting.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – BIRGY – VACANT LOT – WILSON PARK DRIVE/BEECH LANE
Mr. Paul Birgy submitted a model of a proposed new home he and his wife would like to build on a vacant lot at the intersection of Wilson Park Drive and Beech Lane. He noted he had submitted a package detailing what they hope to achieve. He stated they have been residents of the area all their lives. They want to do something that will be a contribution to the community. Mr. Birgy stated he has been a home builder and involved in historic preservation work for 25 years.
Mr. Birgy stated they wanted a traditional home that would fit in with the character of the Wilson Park neighborhood and integrate active energy-saving technology. The main architectural feature that achieves that is a false roof on three sides, which has a full array of active solar systems. As one looks at the house from the street, the flat roof area is invisible. The house has a carriage house look. In the area there is a Tudor house and an English Manor house so the proposed design fits well. The details will make the house look like it has been there a long time.
Mr. Tedesco questioned where the garage is located. Mr. Birgy stated the whole lower level will have garage space, a storage room, and a boiler room.
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether any significant trees will have to be removed for the energy-saving technology. Mr. Birgy stated there are not. There are trees on the property but they are deciduous trees, which is why this site works well for this technology.
Ms. Raiselis stated the proposed plans represent what the Board has been urging of developers. It is a thoughtful design and all the details help the building fit into the context and it is being combined with green building technology. Ms. Raiselis commended Mr. Birgy and stated that having the model was great for the Board.
Mr. McGarvey stated Mr. Birgy needed to show the steep slopes band on the plan – 25% or greater and 50% of that area must be taken out the building area. This lot is also a corner lot so there need to be two front yard setbacks.
Mr. Tedesco stated any trees that have to be removed should be identified with the nature and size of the trees.
Chairman Friedlander questioned the size of the proposed house. Mr. Birgy stated the footprint is 2,700 sq. ft. but it is not a true two-story house. Most of the living is on the
main level. The upstairs will have two small bedrooms. Mr. McGarvey stated the plans show the house as 3,490 sq. ft. He stated Mr. Birgy should submit a scale of this house with surrounding houses.
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, to establish an escrow account in the amount of $2,500 on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, to set a public hearing for the Board’s June 25th meeting on this application.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – JARDIM ESTATES (EMERALD WOODS) – LOTS 5 AND 6
Mr. Norman Sheer, attorney for the applicant, stated this is an application for two new single-family homes at Jardim Estates (Emerald Woods) on Lots 5 and 6.
Mr. Michael Inglis from the Unification Church stated Lot 6 is located on the corner of Sheldon Avenue and the new private road. This house will have a two-car garage, four bedrooms, and is 4,670 sq. ft.
The landscaping representative for the developer stated there are approximately 22 trees that are in fair to poor condition on this lot that will be removed. Along Sheldon Avenue there are maples and oaks, which will be preserved and they will be supplemented. There is a pool proposed and a few Norway Spruces will be removed for that.
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether the area around the pool will be permeable material. Mr. Inglis stated it will be bluestone pavers. It was noted the pool is 40 ft. x 20 ft. and Mr. McGarvey stated it should have its own dry wells.
The house proposed on Lot 5 is a slightly larger house. It has a three-car garage and is 6,300 sq. ft. The house was sited to save trees – an 18” red maple and a 20” black cherry will both be saved. Only five trees will be removed. New screening will be added between Lots 5 and 6.
It was noted this house has a lot of patio space and Mr. Inglis stated the patio area as well as the driveway will be permeable material.
Chairman Friedlander stated the Board should visit the property and he requested the houses be staked and the trees should be marked. The parkland improvements should also be looked at during that visit.
It was suggested that John Canning from Adler Consulting be invited to attend the Board’s next work session to review the infrastructure work at Jardim Estates.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on the site plans for Lots 5 and 6 at Jardim Estates (Emerald Woods.)
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets a public hearing on the site plans for Lots 5 and 6 at Jardim Estates (Emerald Woods) for June 25, 2007.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets escrow accounts in the amount of $2,500 each for Lots 5 and 6 at Jardim Estates (Emerald Woods.)
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – CORIO – 39 STEPHEN DRIVE
Mr. Lawrence Belluscio, P.E., reviewed with the Board plans for construction of a one-story master bedroom and bath with garage under the balcony at the rear of the house at 39 Stephen Drive. He noted no trees will be removed. The addition will match the house. No variances are required. The addition is 17 ft. x 27.8 ft. and increases the footprint of the house by 26.13%. There are no steep slopes. There is an 8 ft. x 4 ft. balcony in the rear off the master bedroom.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on the site plan for 39 Stephen Drive.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, to set a public hearing on the site plan for 39 Stephen Drive for June 25, 2007.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500 for 39 Stephen Drive.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 11:10 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
