Tarrytown NY - Planning Board Minutes 10/27/2008

Planning Board Minutes 10/27/2008

Planning Board

Village of Tarrytown

Regular Meeting

October 27, 2008 7 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman Friedlander; Members Aukland, Raiselis, Tedesco, D’Avolio;

Counsel Shumejda; Engineer McGarvey; Landscape Architect Yarabek;

Secretary D’Eufemia

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; PRELIMINARY PRESENTATIONS

Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (HSA-UWC) Jardim Estates East – Browning Lane

Fordham University – 100 Marymount Avenue

Lenika Realty, LLC – 132 North Broadway

Creegan Properties – 109 Central Avenue

Chairman Friedlander stated each of the above applications is being adjourned tonight at the request of the applicants. No one appeared to address the Board on any of these applications. The Board unanimously agreed to continue these applications at their November meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Mr. Raiselis, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of September 22, 2008, be approved as submitted.

PUBLIC HEARING – LAKE STREET CONSTRUCTION – SUBDIVISION LAKE AVENUE

The Chairman read the following Notice of Public Hearing:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 27, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:

Lake Street Construction

19-03 Seventy Fifth Street

East Elmhurst, New York 11370

To consider an application for Re-Subdivision Approval, pursuant to Section 263.4 of the Subdivision Regulations, for property located on Lake Avenue, Tarrytown, New York, consisting of 0.6607 acres into two lots as follows:

Lot 1 – 12,791 sq. ft.

Lot 2 – 15,989 sq. ft. (with existing home which will be removed)

Planning Board -2- October 27, 2008

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 14, Block 53, Lots 33, 35, 37, 39, and 41 and is located in an R-7.5 (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.

Chairman Friedlander stated the applicant has requested this hearing be adjourned since the engineer had not had an opportunity to update the plans with information requested by the Board. The Secretary noted she had received inquiries from neighbors about this application and had advised them the matter would be adjourned this evening.

No one appeared to address the Board on this matter. The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their November meeting.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – JARDIM ESTATES (EMERALD WOODS) – 60 GRACEMERE (LOT 12)

Mr. Norman Sheer, attorney for the applicant, stated this matter has been before the Board in the past. They have revised the plans as requested by the Board by moving the house 15 ft.; they have noted a dead tree will be removed; and a catch basin has been installed and the roof leaders are hooked into it.

Mr. McGarvey noted that moving the house did push it into the steep slopes. Mr. Inglis from Unification Church stated it did by 200 ft. Mr. Aukland noted this is being done to preserve trees.

Mr. Yarabek stated the tree wells for 1384 and 1493 should be joined. He noted the rear slope should be a 3 on 1 slope. Mr. Inglis stated a retaining wall would be better so as to not disturb more steep slopes. Mr. Yarabek agreed that a minimal retaining wall to achieve 3 on 1 and not expand the area of disturbance was preferable.

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 there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of site plan approval for Jardim Estates Lot 12, 60 Gracemere.

Planning Board -3- October 27, 2008

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the site plan for Lot 12 at Jardim Estates, 60 Gracemere, subject to the following:

Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
Compliance with all items contained in the resolution of approval for the preliminary subdivision dated November 24, 2003, and revised January 26, 2004.
The above-noted resolution included but was not limited to the following:

approval of the 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.
approval by the Architectural Review Board.
payment of applicable recreation and escrow fees before the issuance of a building permit.

(d) a detailed tree protection, tree valuation, 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, payment of the assessed values of the

trees to the Village tree replacement fund will be required or the planting

of multiple trees approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.

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 approved 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.

The driveway will be permeable pavers (eco-pavers) or pavers approved by the

Building Inspector.

8. Landscape Consultant or Arborist chosen by the Planning Board is to be on site

when trees are removed. Trees that have been approved for removal will be

marked in the field. The cost of the consultant will be borne by the applicant.

The signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board chair.
The Planning Board approves the very small disturbance of steep slopes, given that the home was best sited to fit the natural topography, resulting in the

Planning Board -4- October 27, 2008

maximum protection of trees to preserve the wooded nature of the lot and also to set the house back from the road.

A small retaining wall should be added to the northeast of the proposed garage. This wall would eliminate disturbance to a steep slope area.
Relocate the proposed water and sewer service to run down the proposed driveway. This will save a very significant maple tree.
A small retaining wall at the rear of the house is needed to provide a 3:1 slope.

Board members noted that trees 1367 and 1368 on the plans are to be saved and there must be a tree replacement for the dead tree which will be removed.

MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT – JARDIM ESTATES LOT 10 (9 EMERALD WOODS)

Mr. Norman Sheer, attorney for the applicant, stated at the Board’s last work session they put in a request to put in a retaining wall for Lot 10. They have shown the elevations. The finished material is stone faced. In regard to height, Mr. Sheer stated they were proposing 6 ft. Board members noted at the work session they had stated the maximum height they would consider is 5 ft.

Mr. Aukland questioned whether the basement wall will be stone faced. Mr. Sheer stated it will not; it is a stucco type finish. Chairman Friedlander stated the basement wall is high. That will need nice plantings in front of it. He requested Mr. Yarabek review that carefully.

Mr. Yarabek stated the trees should be identified by number on the plans. He stated there should be no change of grade within 20 ft. of the 40” maple and 40” sycamore trees directly northwest of the northwest retaining wall.

Upon inquiry, no one appeared to address the Board on this matter.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the site plan amendment for Jardim Estates Lot 10 (9 Emerald Woods) which will involve the construction of a retaining wall, 5 ft. maximum in height, in an area which was previously graded. This minor site plan amendment is shown on the revised plan dated October 13, 2008, for Lot 10. The purpose of this revision is to aid in the preservation of trees on the site. The condition of this approval is that the concrete wall will have a stone facing or façade the same as in the front. It is also conditioned that included in the landscaping plan will be the screening of the exposed basement wall as approved by the Village’s Landscape Consultant. Also, there is to be no change of grade within 20 ft. of the 40” maple and 40” sycamore trees directly northwest of the northwest retaining wall. In addition, the warranty for the trees in the trench area should be extended beyond the two-year warranty period to eight years.

Planning Board -5- October 27, 2008

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – SLEEPY HOLLOW GARDENS – 177 WHITE PLAINS ROAD

Mr. Steve Grogg of McLaren Engineering stated last month they reviewed Mr. Yarabek’s comments. They said they had no objection in complying with his comments but they need direction on whether the Board will approve a modified parking stall. Where they have an 18 ft. parking stall, Mr. Yarabek suggested a 16 ft. stall with a 2 ft. overhang. That would provide more green space adjacent to the buildings and get them out of some steep slopes. At the drive entrance Mr. Yarabek suggested reducing the driveway width to 20 ft. They feel that is also a good suggestion. In Parking Area 2 those spaces are adjacent to a sidewalk and the Board may want to leave those at 18 ft. The ones along the green area can definitely be reduced to 16 ft. Mr. Yarabek also suggested reducing the widths of the entry drives to 16 ft. for Areas 2 and 3. Mr. Grogg stated he would not recommend reducing the spaces in the upper area in the back since they have the wall and need a guiderail. Mr. Grogg stated they need guidance from the Board.

Mr. William Krajeski stated he resides in Building 15 and is most concerned about the parking by Buildings 14 and 15. He stated he would like to know what privacy screening would look like and whether there was consideration for a different ingress and egress to that parking area. Mr. Grogg stated there really is no other means of accessing that parking area. There is not sufficient room along the property line and even if there was, it would mean a new curb cut off White Plains Road which would not be allowed. In regard to privacy screening, they would be looking at some type of fence maybe backed up by some landscaping. It would probably be about 36” to 42” to screen headlights. Upon inquiry, Mr. Grogg stated they have not considered the material for the fencing.

Ms. Raiselis questioned what the distance would be between the fence and the building. Mr. Grogg stated it would be about 10 ft. Chairman Friedlander stated the Board would like to see what the residents would be looking at in regard to plantings in front of the fence as well as the fence itself. He noted they should also take into account the varying height of vehicles in determining the height of the fence. Mr. James Staudt, attorney for the applicant, stated they intend to produce a landscaping plan but they wanted to reach a point where the areas proposed for parking had been agreed upon.

Mr. Tedesco noted at the last meetings there have been comments by residents that it would be good to have one parking space assigned per unit. He stated he had done calculations and produced a scenario whereby this could be accomplished and still have parking spaces left over for sale to those who wanted an additional space. Mr. Staudt stated the owner has consulted with his attorney regarding the rent regulations. They cannot have a diminution of services. Once a baseline of services is established, a landlord cannot take them back. In this case while it would seem to be nice for everyone to have an assigned space, right now they have 143 free spaces which can be used on a first come, first served basis. Mr. Staudt stated they looked at this and don’t feel it would

Planning Board -6- October 27, 2008

be as popular as the Board might think. “We think this would cause more resentment and confusion. If you create 60 more spaces they will get used.” Mr. Staudt stated this is a

$500,000 project so they have to charge a fee for the new spaces or the project won’t happen. The 60 new spaces will greatly reduce the stress on the parking. “The owner really can’t take the chance the housing authority reduces the rents across the board because he tried to resolve this problem. There are enough people who will pay for them which will leave more for the others.” Mr. Staudt stated they also tried to determine, as well as they could, how many of the garages are being used for storage rather than parking and it appears that only three to five are being used that way.

Ms. Raiselis questioned when the Board would see landscaping plans. Mr. Grogg stated the owner did not want to spend money for specific landscaping plans until the Board confirmed the areas for the parking. “Once you give the green light, we will have the landscaping plans done.”

Ms. Margaret Black, 222 Martling Avenue (Castle Heights Condominium), requested to review the plans so she could determine how close to their project any of these spaces would be. Mr. Grogg reviewed the plans with Ms. Black noting none of the proposed spaces are near Castle Heights.

Mr. Krajeski stated that in regard to garages being used for storage, some are being used that way but there are also garages that are rented but not used because people will use a space closer to their apartment if it is available rather than drive up to their garage. That could happen also with the sixty new fee spaces.

Mr. Brian McCarthy, Project Manager, stated they have done studies that show they need these sixty new spaces. If they felt they only need 25, that is what they would be proposing. He noted there was discussion at the last meeting about land banking some of the spaces but they feel they need the sixty. He stated the entire project is $500,000 but it would probably be an additional 15% to 25% if they had to create the land banked spaces at a later date. Mr. McGarvey stated the Board is saying get everything ready but don’t make everything impervious right away. If it is determined the sixty are needed right away, that would be a different issue. The Board did not want to see sixty spaces created and then not used.

Chairman Friedlander suggested Management do a survey to determine how many people would want these spaces in the price range they intend to charge. Mr. McCarthy stated they could do that.

Mr. Aukland stated the southern section of the center parking area had no significant landscaping. That could be left as grass and is the area that could be land banked if interest is not shown for the full sixty spaces.

Planning Board -7- October 27, 2008

Ms. Raiselis stated when they come back with landscaping plans they should address how much of the parking can be done with pervious surface. “We would not be happy to see

all blacktop.” Mr. Tedesco agreed that having permeable surface would be very desirable.

All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s November meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING – CLARFELD – 53 ROSEHILL AVENUE

The Chairman read the following Notice of Public Hearing:

Robert Clarfeld

53 Rosehill Avenue

Tarrytown, New York 10591

To consider the application for site development plan approval for property he owns at the above address for construction of a new four-car garage.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 12, Block 47, Lot 32 and is located in an R-10 (Residential) Zone.

The certified mailing receipts were submitted.

Mr. Todd Springer, architect, submitted sketches and a schedule showing impervious surface for both a three-car garage and a four-car garage. He noted the difference between the three-car garage and a four-car garage is minimal.

Upon inquiry from the Board, Mr. McGarvey stated no variances are required for this project. It is a large piece of property. The applicant is before the Board because the garage is being attached to the house via a breezeway which increases the footprint of the house by more than 25% which requires site plan approval.

Ms. Raiselis questioned whether they had considered using some permeable pavers rather than have all blacktop. Mr. Springer stated the proposal is to extend the existing

Planning Board -8- October 27, 2008

driveway in the same fashion. Mrs. Clarfeld stated they could consider doing the apron in front of the front door that way.

Mrs. Clarfeld noted the garage will not be very visible from the street since there is a 4 ft. retaining wall and a lot of screening.

Mr. McGarvey stated he wanted the plans to reflect there could not be livable space above the rafters.

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

Mr. Yarabek reported he sent the following memo to the Board on September 8, 2008:

“Re: Clarfeld Residence, 53 Rosehill Avenue – I am unable to visit the site prior to the Planning Board workshop. However the following issues are worthy of consideration:

A Tree Assessment should be conducted prior to site design in order to determine whether the design should or can be adjusted to preserve significant trees. For instance, is an alternate layout where the proposed structure is situated within the existing driveway possible?
A detailed Tree Report describing the size, species and condition of all trees to be removed and preserved within 50 feet of proposed disturbance is required.
A Tree Valuation for all trees to be removed shall be required prior to site plan approval.
A bond for the full value of all trees to be preserved shall be provided by the developer and/or owner prior to issuance of a building permit. Any disturbance to trees to be preserved during the construction process up until final Certificate of Occupancy should result in a forfeiture of the bond to the Village Tree Fund.
A Landscape Plan must be provided balancing out the loss of trees and meeting general landscape conditions of the Village.”

Mrs. Clarfeld stated she would have her landscaper provide Mr. Yarabek with the required information, and Mr. Yarabek stated he will visit the site.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the Board declares itself Lead Agency on this application.

All agreed to continue the hearing at their next meeting.

Planning Board -9- October 27, 2008

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – DENARDO – 118 SHELDON AVENUE

No one appeared on behalf of the applicant.

Chairman Friedlander stated this application has been on the Board’s agenda since July and no one has appeared to address the Board. The Secretary has attempted to contact the applicant via phone but has been unsuccessful. Per the Board’s direction she sent a letter to the applicant on October 16^th advising that unless the escrow was paid and he

came to tonight’s meeting to explain the status of the application, the Board would remove the application from its agenda. The escrow has not been paid and no one is present this evening on the application.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the application for 118 Sheldon Avenue be removed from the Board’s agenda.

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Raiselis moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:40 p.m.

Kathleen D’Eufemia

Secretary