Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
April 27, 2009 7 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Friedlander; Members Raiselis, Aukland, Tedesco; Administrator
Blau, Village Engineer/Building Inspector McGarvey; Counsel Shumejda;
Secretary D’Eufemia
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the minutes of March 30, 2009, be approved as submitted. Chairman Friedlander abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of the joint Planning Board/Architectural Review Board meeting of January 26, 2009, be approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING – HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY (HSA-UWC) – SOUTH BROADWAY
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 27, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:
The Holy Spirit Association for the
Unification of World Christianity
4 West 33rd Street
New York, NY 10036
For site plan approval of property located on 7.6 acres on South Broadway, Tarrytown, New York for construction for parking, drainage and site meditation.
The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 28, Parcels 17, 19, 21, 21A and is located in an R40 (Single-Family Residence) 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. Norman Sheer, attorney for the applicant, stated this is an application to amend the previously granted approval for the West Rock Church. Instead of building the church at
the south portion of the site, there will be a pagoda structure with the parking and the landscaping. The religious services will be moved to the building in the northwest corner of the Belvedere property.
Mr. Michael Inglis from the church submitted a sheet detailing the Belvedere Estate Building Usage and photographs of the ADA doors and plans by the architect.
Ms. Raiselis noted one of the original doors is remaining and it would be good if the new doors could replicate that door.
Upon inquiry from Chairman Friedlander, Mr. McGarvey stated there are minimum space requirements for schools. He stated he will need a plan showing the size of each room in all buildings to perform the calculations. He stated he would also like to walk through the main building.
Upon inquiry from Chairman Friedlander, Mr. Inglis stated they do not require police presence for their regular services; they do have police presence for the major events which are held once or twice a year.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Tedesco, Mr. Inglis stated the proposed gazebo will be similar to the gazebo by the pond at Emerald Woods. It will be about 8 ft. larger and about 15 or 16 ft. high. Ms. Raiselis stated she felt they would want to put in something that is more unique and meditative.
Chairman Friedlander stated Mr. Yarabek, the Village’s Landscape Consultant, has not received the site grading, tree preservation and landscape plan. Mr. Sheer stated they will be providing the information to Mr. Yarabek. He stated the Board could act tonight and condition approval on Mr. Yarabek’s and Mr. McGarvey’s approvals.
Chairman Friedlander stated he is mostly concerned about the parking lot. The issues are banking some of the spaces and having Mr. Yarabek look at the trees to be preserved and maybe putting islands around those trees to make the parking lot look more aesthetically pleasing. The Board would like to review that report.
Mr. John Cronin of Cronin Engineering stated they are land banking 19 spaces along the northwest edge of the parking area. They are exploring the use of porous concrete for the parking spaces. There are limitations in this climate with freeze and thaw. The plan now being shown is significantly scaled back from the previously approved plan.
Chairman Friedlander stated he would like to see what Mr. Yarabek recommends on the landscaping. Because the lot will be smaller, there may be greater opportunity to save some trees by shifting the lot. Mr. Inglis stated you can move west by about 2 ft. You can’t move east, south, or north.
Chairman Friedlander questioned how many parking spaces there will be for the whole property. Mr. Cronin stated there will be 145 of which 19 are gravel and 19 will be land banked. They will investigate using porous concrete for 54 of the spaces.
The Board stated they need a plan showing all the parking – what currently exists, what is proposed, and the landscaping should be shown also.
Mr. Tedesco stated the plan should show what was previously approved and what is now being proposed – that could be done with crosshatching.
Counsel Shumejda stated the orientation should be the same.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Monica Getz, Shadowbrook, stated she has a carriage house adjoining this property and she would like the church to retain the landscaping that was previously proposed in order that her tenants are protected. Mr. Inglis stated he will met with Ms. Getz at the site.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares itself Lead Agency on this application.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing at their next meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN – SUBDIVISION
Mr. Michael Blau, Village Administrator, stated at the last meeting the Board suggested the Village alter the subdivision line between the library property and the former village hall property. The line has now been straightened which will provide additional square footage for the library.
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 Planning 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 subdivision.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board approves the proposed subdivision of the 72,399 sq. ft. parcel of property currently containing the former municipal building and the library into two separate lots. Lot 1, the municipal building lot will be 24,706 sq. ft. and Lot 2, the library lot, will be 47,693 sq. ft. This approval is subject to approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer and the signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – HSA-UWC – JARDIM ESTATES EAST – BROWNING LANE
Chairman Friedlander reported that this application is being adjourned until next month. No one appeared to address the Board on this matter.
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY – 100 MARYMOUNT AVENUE
Chairman Friedlander reported that this application is being adjourned until next month. No one appeared to address the Board on this matter.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – LAKE STREET CONSTRUCTION – SUBDIVISION LAKE AVENUE
Mr. Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, stated this matter has been going on since about 2005. From 2005 to now the Village’s rules have changed numerous times which has had a serious effect on building on this property. The property contains 28,780 sq. ft. and is in an R-7.5 zone. They proposed two homes of about 2,925 sq. ft. each and they did not have a problem with that. The problem is when you consider the basement areas, there will be a certain area of the house which would be exposed and that has to be considered as part of the floor area. Mr. Paul Petretti, project engineer, did a complete market evaluation of what these houses would have to sell for to break even. Two houses (2,474 sq. ft. and 2,410 sq. ft.) would have to sell for $1,230,461.52. They
would need a waiver because they would be building on a portion of steep slope for the houses and the driveway. They could not even build one house without affecting the steep slope. If they were to build two 3,176 sq. ft houses they would have to market those at $1,400,466.76 to break even and they don’t believe they could sell those. This is a mixed neighborhood and they feel the houses they proposed fit in nicely. They need a little leeway in order to make nice houses. They intend to put in a storm water drain system with catch basins. Now everything washes down. It will be an improvement for the neighborhood.
Mr. McGarvey questioned how they came up with $211/sq. ft. for construction cost. Mr. Petretti stated there is a lot of site work on this property (rock, drainage, retaining walls.) which is very costly.
Chairman Friedlander questioned if the site work costs were deducted, how much the construction cost would be. Mr. Petretti stated $150-$165/square foot.
Mr. Petretti stated the applicant in 2005 paid $659,500 for this property and with carry charges that cost is now up to $962,000. The houses proposed in 2005 were 3,300 sq. ft. and 3,400 sq. ft.
Counsel Shumejda stated he has gone through the file and realized a number of items requested in June 2005 and July 2005 have not been submitted to the Village, and the Village is requesting those be submitted before further review of this application:
- Three-dimensional model pursuant to former Section 305-54(E) now Section 305-134 (E)(2). This is needed because the Board must review the site layout ‘which would have no adverse effect upon any properties in adjoining residence districts by impairing the established character of the potential use or properties in such districts.’ (Section 305-135[B]);
- Soil and erosion plan. The applicant submitted what is called “Site, Utility, Grading & E & SCP plan” which does not contain the necessary information;
- Screening plan;
- Landscaping plan;
- An analysis showing the high ground and hilltop pursuant to former Section 305-22(D) now 305-67(C) and (D). High ground and hilltop are defined as 300 feet or more above sea level. (Sections 305-67[A][2] and [3]). The average elevations of the existing grades on the proposed lots are 367 feet and 375 feet above sea level. Section 305-67 (C) requires 25% of the high ground shall be excluded from all density calculations. The plans submitted do not have this calculation. Section 305-67 (D) states that ‘No new structures or buildings may be erected on the hilltop.’ The current plans do not reflect this requirement;
- Tree preservation plan. The plan submitted does not comply with request of Stephen Yarabek dated September 8, 2008, for the following reports:
- Tree assessment;
- A tree valuation of all trees to be removed; and
- A landscape plan which balances out the loss of trees and meets the general landscape conditions of the Village;
- Natural features preservation plan pursuant to the subdivision regulations. (Section 263-17F) and related zoning code Section 305-67 (B) as it concerns steep slopes. This plan is needed because Section 305-67 (BA) requires that steep slopes ‘shall be excluded from use in the construction of principal or accessory uses permitted within the district in which said sites are located.’ Section 263-17 (F) entitled, ‘Preservation of Natural Features’, requires the Board to ‘wherever possible, require the preservation of all natural features which add value to residential developments and to the community such as large trees or groves, watercourses and falls, beaches, historic spots, vistas and similar irreplaceable assets.’
In addition, the applicant must confirm that all of the requirements of Section 305-134 ‘Application; contents’ have been provided, including a street elevation drawing (305-134[E][1] and that the steep slopes be clearly shown on the plans.
Mr. Petretti stated many of those items are shown on the plan. “I am still trying to determine what house I am building and what size it will be. I can’t address those issues without drawing this. I don’t know what I am drawing. If I can’t build on the steep slopes, why would I be doing these plans?” Counsel Shumejda stated Mr. Petretti and his client must determine what they are proposing and present it to the Planning Board.
Mr. Blancato stated if they knew they would get waivers so they could build two homes, 2,500 sq. ft. and 2,900 sq. ft., then Mr. Petretti can design the houses and show the landscaping, tree removal and everything else. It costs a lot of money to do everything
Counsel Shumejda suggested, and they don’t know the Planning Board will allow them to build two houses of that size.
Ms. Raiselis stated Mr. Petretti should draw something completely compliant. Mr. Petretti stated he did that but the houses would be 1,200 sq. ft. bungalows and they would not be salable – but even those are on the steep slopes.
Mr. Tedesco stated when the Board looked at this four years ago, they saw the two houses proposed involved a huge disturbance of steep slopes. The Board recommended demolishing the existing house and building one house and the Board might consider some small disturbance of steep slopes. Mr. Blancato stated they did explore the one house, but that would have to sell for over $2,000,000 and that would not be possible in this neighborhood.
Chairman Friedlander questioned if only one house were built, what size would it be without impinging on the steep slopes. Mr. Petretti stated it would be 3,700 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. Mr. McGarvey stated two houses could be built without going into the steep slopes but the houses would be smaller.
Mr. Aukland noted they must also consider that there is no building on a hilltop.
Mr. Petretti stated he could build in the areas on the property without the steep slopes but there would still be some disturbance; e.g., driveways, etc. He noted when the two houses were built on Putnam Avenue several years ago there was steep slopes disturbance.
Mr. Tedesco stated the steep slopes on Putnam Avenue were of a different nature. If the Board grants a waiver, it must be the minimal waiver and that is not the case here. With one house there may be a minimal waiver.
Mr. Blancato stated if that is the Board’s decision, they should render it, and they will go to court. One large house also does not conform to the neighborhood. Two 2,500 sq. ft. houses conform to the neighborhood. They could minimize the effect on the steep slopes, but they need two houses of 2,500 sq. ft.
Counsel Shumejda stated, “I thought you could build two homes and not impact the steep slopes. You would come up to the steep slopes but you would not build on it.” Mr. Blancato stated there will be some minimal effect on the steep slopes.
Chairman Friedlander stated the Board is trying to minimize impact on the steep slopes. He noted Mr. McGarvey stated with reconfiguration you could build on the non-steep slopes but it may need some variances. “If you can draw that, then it may be a reasonable request that a variance be granted.”
Mr. McGarvey suggested the two lots be shown on one plan.
Counsel Shumejda suggested the plans be color coded to show the steep slopes and the percentage of steep slopes. There is a definition for high ground and hilltop which also needs to be addressed.
Chairman Friedlander stated if they avoid the steep slopes completely their site costs will decrease significantly. Mr. Blancato stated even the area that does not have steep slopes has rock under it and it is expensive to get rid of the rock.
Mr. McGarvey stated if the houses were built without basements, they would not have to cut into the rock for a basement.
All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s May meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:40 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
