Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
August 25, 2008 7 p.m.
PRESENT: Members Tedesco, Aukland, D’Avolio; Counsel Shumejda; Building
Inspector/Engineer McGarvey; Planner Geneslaw; Secretary D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Chairman Friedlander; Member Raiselis
Mr. Tedesco chaired the meeting in Dr. Friedlander’s absence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Ms. D’Avolio, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of July 28, 2008, be approved as submitted.
HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY – JARDIM ESTATES EAST – BROWNING LANE
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY – 100 MARYMOUNT AVENUE – SUBDIVISION
JARDIM ESTATES – 60 GRACEMERE
CREEGAN PROPERTIES, LLC – 109 CENTRAL AVENUE
Mr. Tedesco stated the above-noted applications were being adjourned tonight at the request of the applicants. No one appeared to address the Board on any of these applications. All will be continued on the Board’s September agenda.
REVIEW – RAND TARRYTOWN, LLC (PRUDENTIAL REALTY) – 54 NORTH BROADWAY
Mr. Tedesco reported that on August 27, 2007, the Planning Board approved the site plan for 54 North Broadway to allow the conversion of the second floor from residential use to office use with the creation of nine parking spaces. One of the conditions of that approval (Condition No. 6) read:
“The additional two parking spaces required for this site plan are to be land banked. One year after this approval the applicant is required to return to the Planning Board regarding a final determination as to the land banked spaces. At that time the Board may require
that these spaces be created or may recommend a variance be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals so these spaces do not have to be created. If it is determined the land banked spaces (spaces 6 and 11 on Option 1) must be created, they must be created using permeable pavers.”
The Village advised Rand Tarrytown, LLC on July 14, 2008, that this matter would be placed on the Board’s August agenda. Rand Tarrytown, LLC did a parking survey between July 31st and August 7th at different times of the day (20 occasions in total.) Eight spaces were in use on three occasions; seven spaces were in use on eight occasions;
six spaces were in use on one occasion; five spaces were in use on three occasions; four spaces were in use on two occasions; three spaces were in use on one occasion; and two spaces were in use on two occasions. Mr. Tucci, the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer, did a parking survey on six occasions at various times of the day. He found seven spaces in use on three occasions; six spaces in use on two occasions; and four spaces in use on one occasion.
Mr. Tedesco stated based on these results it appears the creation of the two additional spaces is not needed. Board members agreed.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Ms. D’Avolio, and unanimously carried, that given that the parking provided at 54 North Broadway has been shown to be adequate, the Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance for the two parking spaces which had been land banked in the site plan approval made on August 27, 2007.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – LENIKA REALTY, LLC – 132 NORTH BROADWAY
No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. No one appeared to address the Board on this matter. The Board agreed to continue the hearing at their September meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – SLEEPY HOLLOW GARDENS – 177 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 25, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:
Sleepy Hollow Gardens Associates, LLC
177 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, New York 10591
To consider the application for site development plan approval for property they own at the above address to construct 60 additional parking spaces within the existing complex.
The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 19, Parcels 61 and 61a2 and is located in an M4 (Multi-Family) 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.
Ms. Linda Whitehead from the law firm of McCullough, Goldberger & Staudt stated most of their development team, including her partner who has been handling this application, could not be present tonight. She requested the Board hear comments but adjourn the matter to the next meeting at which time they will be prepared to respond to any questions.
Mr. Tedesco stated at the last meeting the Board’s main concern was with Area 3 because of the 4,100 sq. ft. of steep slopes which would be disturbed. Mr. Tedesco noted he had asked that 15% to 25% slopes be hatched on the plans.
Mr. Tedesco reported receipt of the following memo dated August 20, 2008, from Stephen Yarabek, the Village’s Landscape Consultant:
“The site plan application should include the following information:
1. Tree Preservation and Removals Plan
a. Plan should identify all trees six inch (6”) dbh and greater within fifty (50) feet of the proposed areas of disturbance.
b. A list of all trees to be removed describing their size, species and condition should be provided.
c. A list of all trees to be preserved describing their size, species, condition and value according to the International Society of Arboriculture: Guide for Plant Appraisal.
2. Landscape Plan (by Licensed Landscape Architect)
a. A 2:1 tree replacement plan. Replacement trees to be a minimum of 3.5”
cal.
b. Groundcover plantings and privacy screening of neighbors.
3. Layout Plan
a. This project, given the tight site parameters, is an ideal candidate for a
modified parking stall dimension of 16’ deep with curb and minimum 3’
clear planter or drainage swale.
b. Area 1 – Entry drive could be reduced to 20’ from 22’ to increase the 5’
buffer to 7’ from the building and not reduce vehicle back our movements. The connecting drive between the parking areas should be reduced from 22’ to 18’, increasing the right (northern) side planter.
c. Area 2 – Reduce the width of the entry drives to 16’ wide and replace the proposed painted striping with a minimum 6’ wide interior tree island.
d. Area 3 – Reduce the width of entry drives to 16’ to lessen the grade
at down slope and increase the bugger to garage.
Mr. Tedesco reported receipt of the following letter dated August 14, 2008, from Barbara Friedlich, 87 Main Street:
“I will be attending the next Planning Board meeting as a translator for Mrs. Clara Moquette and her husband, Andres, who moved here several years ago from the Dominican Republic. I am Clara’s literacy volunteer and meet with her regularly at the Warner Library. Clara and Andres are having serious parking problems at their new home at Sleepy Hollow Garden apartments, and it is affecting their livelihood. They have just one car, but when one of them returns from work or school at night there are
often no parking spaces left. Obviously, they cannot park on Route 119. I understand that the corporate owners are petitioning the Planning Board for permission to build more parking by cutting into green grass areas where the children play. Although this is a separate issue, Clara’s children Andres, Isaak, Alexis, and their young friends wish to protest. But of immediate importance to this family is the need for one free, numbered parking space for their unit. This would allow Andres to work his overtime hours at night, as well as allow both parents to enroll in evening English classes at Westchester Community College. I looked over the detailed lease agreement. Sure enough, in this family’s case, the space for garage or parking space had not been checked. I
thought this odd, since corporate management had told Andres that there would be plenty of free space, even for more than one car. The corporation does, however, offer a few spaces and garage parking for $90 a month. This family cannot afford that and would not have moved to Sleepy Hollow Gardens if they had known of the extra expense. I am told that there are enough spaces to accommodate one or more cars per unit, but the problem is that some renters have three or four cars. In addition, some spaces seem to be occupied by abandoned cars. When I moved to Tarrytown a year ago, I was impressed by the friendliness of the community, and how welcoming it was to all, including new immigrants. Clara and Andres are educated (medical doctors in their own country), law-abiding residents with three young sons doing well in our school system. They enjoy many other aspects of living at Sleepy Hollow Gardens, and do not wish to move again. A
simple, equitable solution would be for the corporation to designate one parking space per apartment, with the remaining not ‘marked’ spots available equally, to everyone. The challenge for residents of Sleepy Hollow Gardens is that if they can’t find parking within the complex, they have no alternative to park anywhere else. This, to the best of my knowledge, is a situation unlike any other in the Village. I’m hoping the Planning Board can help these residents. Many thanks for your consideration.”
Mr. Tedesco noted if these 60 additional spaces are approved, there would be 87 spaces beyond the 215 units. He stated it would seem one space per unit could be assigned and a family with two cars would still have a 41% chance of getting one of the 87 extra spaces.
Ms. Whitehead stated there are 160 outdoor spaces and 82 garage spaces for which an additional fee is charged which is common in most apartment complexes. Thus right now there are not available sufficient outdoor spaces for each unit to have a space. “I hear the concern and will pass it along to my client.”
Mr. Aukland stated if 60 spaces are added there would be enough to give each unit one outdoor space. Ms. Whitehead stated, “They recognize there is a problem and that the residents have a problem.”
Mr. Tedesco questioned, aside from paying for the garage spaces, do residents pay for outdoor spaces. Ms. Whitehead stated there are about 20 near the garages. 140 spaces are not charged.
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether potential tenants are made aware of the parking situation. Ms. Whitehead stated, “I am not part of that process but I will ask that question. I would imagine they are told it is first come first served unless you want to pay for one of the spaces.”
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Mr. William Krajeski, 177 White Plains Road, stated he has lived at this complex for over 30 years. He stated some families have three or four cars which creates problems for tenants. He stated he and his wife have two cars and rent a garage and since he is retired, he usually doesn’t have problems getting a space; however, he has seen other people looking for a space for over an hour. He stated he was not sure the renting office is “up front” about the parking situation since they would be doing themselves a disservice to tell people parking is tough. Mr. Krajeski stated he wanted a solution but did not know enough about the proposed plan. He questioned whether the 60 new spaces would be for a fee or free. He stated he was also not sure exactly where the three new
parking areas are located and questioned where he could review plans. The Board stated they are available in the Building Department.
Mr. Krajeski stated he lives close to Route 119. It is his understanding that one of the parking areas will be behind his building – Building 15. That is a green area currently and is bounded by people’s bedrooms. He questioned how close parking can be to someone’s bedroom windows. A bigger concern is the ingress and egress behind Buildings 14 and 15. The sidewalk where cars would enter is the busiest sidewalk in the complex. It is a big safety concern. Right now there are no less than four abandoned cars taking up residents’ parking spaces. There are also commercial vehicles, and he stated he was not sure whether they are allowed to park there overnight. A truck used for business should not be parking in those spaces. It takes a
parking spot away from a resident. Mr. McGarvey stated there are no rules regarding vehicles in apartment complexes. It is not the same as a residential home.
Ms. Linda Stein Nussbaum, 177 White Plains Road, stated she has lived at the complex for ten years. The parking is poor especially at night. In the winter there are hazards. Samson Management has been aware of the problem for years. There have been discussions over the years about having each apartment having one space but that never happened. Her family has been forced to get a garage but it is a concern for people who cannot afford a garage – and they even charge sales tax for the garage. Ms. Nussbaum stated she is also concerned about the landscaping. Sleepy Hollow Gardens has a rural type feeling and if it becomes parking that appeal would be lost. The parking would be close to the apartments and people living next to these parking spaces will not have the desire
to live there. Now children can play but with this they would not be able to. There is also a concern about the location of the bus stop. “Sleepy Hollow Gardens Management has not been very attentive.”
Mr. McGarvey questioned whether the residents want the additional parking or not. Ms. Nussbaum stated they need the parking but if there were one spot assigned to each apartment, it would be helpful. The abandoned cars are also a problem.
Mr. McGarvey stated the police cannot tow an abandoned car if it has a license plate. That is strictly a matter the management needs to handle. Mr. Krajeski stated they have a contract with a towing agent. They have posted signs. The superintendent checks the registration stickers and if they have expired, he contacts the towing company but that takes time. There are garages that are not used for parking; they are used for storage.
Mr. John Dexter, 177 White Plains Road, stated he has lived at the complex since 1975. Around 1979 he became a member of the Sleepy Hollow Tenants Association and was Chairman of the Parking Committee. The number of cars owned by the tenants has increased, and the parking problem continues. He identified an outside area where 21 parking spaces could be built and they did construct those but those are the ones they charge for. The proposal of one space per unit is not equitable because apartments are one, two and three bedrooms and rentals are based on the size of the apartment. There is a dentist in the complex and he needs four spaces. The management needs to provide sixty free parking spaces. The parking can only be solved by careful evaluation of the parking. Sleepy Hollow
Gardens is a large parcel. They came to the Planning Board in the past to build additional units. They were turned down. It would please everyone if the parking were brought up to code – 2-1/2 spaces per unit.
Mr. Tedesco stated residents were suggesting the creation of as many free spaces as possible without destroying the environment and people’s privacy. Mr. Dexter stated that was correct and an examination of the parcel would reveal there are areas where parking can be created but maybe at a little higher cost.
Ms. Friedlich stated a comment was made about what is equitable. The Moquettes thought they had a space when they signed the lease. They would never have signed up if they thought they were going to have to pay $90 for a space. They need a space now.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board needs to visit the property. All agreed to do so on Thursday, September 11th, at 12 noon.
Ms. Whitehead stated they will be prepared to address the questions and concerns at the next meeting.
Ms. Jacqueline Texadore stated she resides in Building 3 in front of the “square.” This area is a magical place of community. Samson Management has never communicated anything in terms of their plans. “I hope this piece of property won’t be dismantled and our voices will be heard.”
Mr. Tedesco stated, “I lived in Sleepy Hollow Gardens for about five years in the 1970s and we moved out because we couldn’t find parking. I know what you mean about the magic. There is a balancing act we have to do. We have to realize there is magic and survival so we probably won’t come up with the perfect solution.”
All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – CRESCENT ASSOCIATES – 153-155 WHITE PLAINS ROAD – SUBDIVISION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 25, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:
Crescent Associates, LLC
153/155 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, New York 10591
To consider the application for a 2-lot subdivision plan approval for property at the above address; one lot to consist of 280,738 sq. ft. and the other to consist of 271,238 sq. ft.
The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 20, Block 2, Lot 2 and is located in an OB (Office Building) 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. Don Walsh, representing the applicant, stated this application is based on an earlier approved site plan, to which there will be no changes. This is an administrative matter. The application is for subdivision of the property into two lots. Everything now is one lot. They have been approached by a not-for-profit who is interested in the new building. They have been advised by the lenders they want separate lot descriptions for a building loan.
Mr. Rich Williams from Insite Engineering stated the two lots will share the current access points on White Plains Road. There will be a utility easement over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2. Several area variances will be needed since the subdivision line will be drawn.
Mr. Aukland questioned whether anything has changed since the approved site plan.
Mr. Williams stated nothing has changed. The subdivision line in the middle creates the need for the area variances because the subdivision was not anticipated during site plan review.
Mr. Tedesco stated he would have no problem with the subdivision subject to a condition that Building 2 is actually built. Mr. Walsh stated he would have no problem with that condition.
Mr. Walsh requested the matter be adjourned until the September meeting and they will file an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals, which the Planning Board can review at their next staff meeting. After the Planning Board’s decision, it could proceed with the Zoning Board.
All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – WRIGHT/MARVIN – 3 HALF MOON LANE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 25, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:
Eric and Susan Marvin
3 Half Moon Lane
Tarrytown, New York 10591
To consider the application for site development plan approval for property they own at the above address for a new second story addition above existing first floor and new 6 ft. x 34 ft. front porch.
The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 17A, Block 119, Lot 18 and is located in an R-7.5 (Single Family) 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. Sam Vieira, architect, stated the proposed second story addition to this one-story house exceeds the 50% volume increase which is why they need site plan approval. The existing home has two bedrooms and one bathroom. The proposed addition would create three bedrooms and three baths. The current bedrooms would create additional living space. The current property has existing non conformities. The proposed construction will only require two new variances. The proposed 6 ft. front porch encroaches on the front yard. It will be 13.8 ft. where 20 ft. is required. On the light plan study the roof pitch slightly clips that ridge. The existing garage is 9 ft. x 19 ft. The garage has never been used for a car since it is too small. The Marvins have always parked
their two cars in the driveway, as they will continue to do. However, since the garage is being converted to habitable space, they need to apply for a variance to allow for parking in the front yard even though it has been done for many years.
Mr. Tedesco reported receipt of the following memo dated August 6, 2008, from Stephen Yarabek, the Village’s Landscape Consultant:
Subject: Marvin Residence; 3 Half Moon Lane – I conducted a site visit on 5 August to evaluate the proposed renovation to a single story residence at 3 Half Moon Lane. Following are my recommendations:
1. All existing trees shall be located on the plan indicating size and species. Numerous horticultural specimens exist such as an 18” + dbh Honey Locust, Sorrell, Birch, Japanese Maples and Beech.
2. The north (side) and west (rear) yard should be protected (fenced off) to restrict (prohibit) storage of materials or construction traffic due to the dense grouping of sensitive trees, particularly the large Beech in the rear yard. Limited pedestrian access over a protected root zone path might be permitted.
3. The proposed front porch does not appear to impact the mature 18” + dbh Honey Locust at the right corner of the property. The soil should be probed where pier footings are proposed prior to excavation in order to move their placement if roots are discovered.
4. The aforementioned side and rear yards are densely planted. At the front yard the proposed porch may benefit from some low growing foundation planting and/or a planting bed parallel to the curb.”
Mr. Vieira stated he has no problem with any of the comments.
Mr. Tedesco 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 Board declares itself Lead Agency on this application.
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 environmental impact as a result of this proposal.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the additions to the home at 3 Half Moon Lane subject to:
1. Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
2. Approval by the Architectural Review Board.
3. Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals for any variances including the variance needed for the increase in the non-conformity of the front yard setback. The Planning Board recommends this variance be granted as the addition of the front porch significantly improves the overall aesthetics of the house. The Planning Board approves the slight protrusion of the 2nd floor into the 45~degree light plane. This small amount should not have any significant effect on the neighbors and flattening the roof would be unfavorable to the appearance of the house. The Planning Board recommends the variance for the parking in the front yard
since this is a situation that has existed at this home for many years as the garage was too small for a car, and expansion of the garage is not feasible.
4. Compliance with the four recommendations made by the Village’s Landscape Consultant based on his site visit of August 5, 2008.
5. Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF TRUSTEES RE OB DISTRICT
Mr. Tedesco reported the Planning Board has received a referral from the Board of Trustees relative to a request from the Tarrytown Conference Center that the Board of Trustees amend the zoning code to allow a conference center in an OB District subject to the issuance of a Compatible Use Permit by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees has asked the Planning Board to review the request and also to consider restrictions.
Counsel Shumejda stated the Conference Center should be asked to supply a list of all current uses occurring at the site and that should be provided to the Board prior to their next work session.
HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY – SUNNYSIDE
Mr. Tedesco reported that Historic Hudson Valley has applied for tree permits to permit the removal of 37 to 40 trees at Sunnyside to create a special events parking lot. Mr. Tedesco requested that the Village review this request to determine whether Sunnyside needs to apply to the Planning Board for a site plan amendment and if so, they should be asked to show a road on the plan.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:25 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
