Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
January 25, 2010 7 p.m.
PRESENT: Members Tedesco, Aukland, Birgy, Raiselis; Counsel Shumejda;
Building Inspector/Engineer McGarvey; Secretary D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Chairman Friedlander
Mr. Tedesco chaired the meeting in Dr. Friedlander’s absence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Mr. Birgy, that the minutes of December 8, 2009, be approved as submitted. Ms. Raiselis abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Mr. Birgy, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of December 17, 2009, be approved as submitted.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – HSA-UWC – JARDIM ESTATES EAST – SUBDIVISION – BROWNING LANE
Mr. Tedesco stated this application is being adjourned until next month. No one appeared to address the Board on this matter.
Mr. Aukland made the following statement:
“I want to state for the record that I am suspending my recusal from the Jardim East application currently before the Planning Board. I recused myself voluntarily last year for reasons related to the circumstance that my property adjoins the property that is the subject of this application. The fact that I am a neighbor does give me particular knowledge of the locality. Before my recusal, I identified a number of errors and omissions in the preliminary DEIS document then with the Planning Board for review. I now learn that a revision to that document has dealt with some of these items, but that others remain. I am therefore taking this unusual step of suspending my recusal in order to assure accuracy both in the document and in matters arising from it. In the spirit of the recusal, I shall refrain
from comment other than on errors and omissions. I fully expect to reinstate the recusal in due course, and to abstain from voting on any Planning Board actions that are taken in the meantime.”
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – LAKE STREET CONSTRUCTION – SUBDIVISION LAKE AVENUE – NEW NOTICE
Mr. Tedesco 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, January 25, 2010, 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 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 – 14,710 sq. ft.
Lot 2 – 14,070 sq. ft. (with existing home which will be removed)
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.
Mr. Tedesco stated the applicant provided the Board with an initial application which has gone through several alternatives. There was Alternative 5 which was a site plan proposed by the applicant that needed no variances except for one minor steep slope disturbance on the site. He presented this alternative because of a 30-inch oak tree that might be saved by having a small amount of steep slope disturbance. The most recent proposal, which should probably be called Alternative 6, is a fully compliant site plan, but it does move the house closer to the oak tree and the root system.
Mr. Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, stated they are before the Board for preliminary subdivision approval basically to determine the lot lines for the subdivision. There have been various submissions to the Board which have been reviewed and the Board has walked the property in order to find two lots compliant with the code. They are presenting one that is compliant but even if they get preliminary subdivision approval, they still have to come back to the Planning Board for site plan approval. The Board wanted them to submit something that is code compliant which has been done. Whether or not the oak tree will be affected will be discussed in the site plan process. It does not affect the lot lines.
Mr. Paul Petretti, engineer and land surveyor, stated the houses conform to the Floor Area Ratio for the R-7.5 zone and they have stayed off the steep slopes. The elevations have been set to limit the excavation to the absolute minimum. There will be two houses – one on each lot and both will have a driveway and a garage which come out to the top of the street. He noted they submitted the plan which shows a slight steep slope disturbance because they feel with that plan there is a good chance the white oak could survive.
Ms. Pat Riedel, 56 Lake Avenue, questioned whether there is anything on the steep slopes. Mr. McGarvey stated they have submitted a plan showing a small steep slope disturbance to the west because they feel with that plan they might be able to save the oak tree. They have also submitted a plan showing the line can be moved 5 ft. so there is no encroachment in the steep slope.
Mr. Petretti stated it will be up to the Planning Board whether that driveway should be moved or not. He wanted to get farther away from the tree but that is a determination for the Board.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board tonight is working on a subdivision approval. There are two possibilities – one with a slight steep slope disturbance and the other with none. The Board will need to evaluate the pros and cons during site plan review.
Ms. Riedel stated she did not feel this subdivision should be approved. This proposal goes back to 2005. The Board in the past, after walking the property, said there should only be one house. This application seems to be going back and forth. They were asked to provide additional information on the full Environmental Assessment Form which was never done. She further expressed concern about the extensive drilling that would have to occur with two houses. Mr. Tedesco stated initially the Board told the applicant they felt the ideal situation would be one house since the applicant had submitted plans that were in the steep slopes and the houses were much larger than the houses proposed now. Mr. Tedesco stated he personally did not think the applicant would be able to prepare a plan that showed two
code-compliant houses, which was way he said there should be one house. By reducing the size of the houses, the applicant has shown he can meet all the zoning code requirements with two houses. Even though that is true, there are other aspects to be reviewed. Up to this point the Board has not asked the applicant to produce a lot of materials since he wanted direction from the Board. The applicant has said when we gave him direction, he would produce other things – elevations, streetscape drawings, sediment and erosion control, storm water drainage plan, etc. Mr. Tedesco stated now that there is a compliant plan, the Board might want to consider asking that some of these items be provided now.
Mr. Aukland agreed stating in the past the Board could not proceed because there were not compliant lots. The applicant has now shown that can be done. If the Board does approve the subdivision, that in no way implies anything more than that. The site plan review would still be required.
Ms. Riedel stated this site is a granite hill where there once was a quarry. These houses are close together and look like townhouses.
Mr. Blancato stated they have been before the Board for a number of months and gone over a number of plans. Mr. Petretti submitted the economics of the situation which showed they could not get a reasonable return with one house – even with a much larger house. Everyone will have a full opportunity to review the site plans. They will submit all the data the Board requests as part of the site plan review. Everyone will have a full opportunity to be heard on what the houses will look like. “We are prepared to build the two code compliant houses with no variances.”
Ms. Raiselis questioned whether they would build two smaller houses if that is what the Board determined was appropriate. Mr. Blancato stated if the houses are made smaller, the interior layout does not work well but that is something that can be reviewed during the site plan process.
Mr. Bruce MacDonald, 92 Sunnyside Avenue, questioned why there can’t be more pressure for them to come back with one house. He stated he works in construction and it is not impossible to build a small house and still make money. “I urge the Board to consider the impact of this on the neighborhood, especially the long-term impact of cars on the neighborhood.”
Mr. Rennert, 71 Lake Avenue, stated these houses will not be consistent with what is in this neighborhood.
Mr. Tom Coughlin, 60 Sunnyside Avenue, stated the Board must consider that Lake Avenue is a narrow dead end street. It ends on the top of the ridge. Snow removal has always been a problem. If two lots are approved, there will be four to six additional cars at the top of the hill. They will provide off-street parking but some cars will be on the street and the dead end of the street cannot bear those additional cars. As far as their contention that they need two houses to have an economic benefit, developers know when they buy a site that there are risks involved in getting approvals. There is also concern about runoff which could go in three directions. There are no storm drains on Lake Avenue. That is another aspect of this location that would argue one house, not two.
In regard to drilling or blasting, Mr. Tedesco questioned whether there is a way of determining how extensive that would be. Mr. McGarvey stated the rock at this site is extremely hard. The applicant should be asked how long it would take to remove the rock.
Mr. Barney Parra, 82 Sunnyside Avenue, stated he is concerned about runoff, noise and traffic. Sunnyside Avenue is used as a through street.
Mr. John Gianni, 37 Lake Avenue, stated his house is west of the house currently being constructed on Lake Avenue and his house shook for three straight days. There is really dense rock in this area. The existing house on this property sits on rock. He felt the houses proposed are very close to each other and do not fit the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Kenny Roe, 40 Lake Avenue, stated there is 225 ft. of frontage on this property. Looking north on the west side of the property, there is approximately 60 ft. of steep slope and looking east toward Hackley School, there is approximately 40 ft. of steep slope. There is 12 ft. of level land where they want to put two homes. “I would be against putting two homes on 125 ft. frontage. It is shoehorning the houses in.”
Ms. Rose Rennert, 71 Lake Avenue, stated the owners have been negligent with this property. She stated she has a driveway for only one car and must park one car on the street. They are on a paper road which must be taken into consideration. “I don’t believe there will only be minimal blasting. We just don’t know. I am opposed to this subdivision.”
Mr. Tedesco stated he felt there are three essential things the Board should see:
1. A report by a certified geologist on the following:
A. The extent and type of rock removal that would be necessary on the site.
B. The methods to do that rock removal.
C. The timeframes involved for doing the rock removal.
D. Possible effects on neighboring properties as a result of the rock removal. (He noted this was a concern years ago and why the Board felt one house would be the prime objective.)
2. A sediment and erosion control plan.
3. A stormwater drainage plan, given the nature of the street.
Ms. Raiselis agreed stating she felt it was the Board’s duty to ask for these items to make sure they know what will happen with this site if this goes through.
Mr. Birgy questioned whether Lake Avenue meets the current standards for road construction. Mr. McGarvey stated it is not to any standard. It is about 20 ft. wide, where the code requires 26 ft. There is no drainage. There is water and sewer. The road is narrow. At the end of the road where this subdivision is, there is no hammerhead, turn around or cul-de-sac.
Ms. Raiselis questioned how a fire truck would turn around. Mr. McGarvey stated the truck can get up the street but would have to then back up approximately 600 ft. It is not easy to do.
Mr. Aukland stated he agreed with Mr. Tedesco’s request and he also wanted the applicant to respond item by item to the concerns voiced tonight. Mr. Blancato stated they would supply what the Board has requested.
Mr. McGarvey stated the applicant should show some type of turn around on the plans.
Ms. Riedel requested the Village hire the geologist. Mr. McGarvey explained that the applicant should hire the geologist and when the report is prepared, the Village will hire a geologist, at the applicant’s expense, to review that report.
In regard to the turn around, Ms. Rennert stated that would be very important to her; however, she is concerned the applicant may use some of the paper road. Mr. McGarvey stated the property would have to be the applicant’s or the Village’s.
Ms. Rennert stated a lot of trucks come up Lake Avenue – UPS, FedEx, and they use her neighbor’s driveway to turn around and sometimes knock the wires down.
Mr. Miles Birrittella, 111 Midland Avenue, questioned if they only constructed one house how large it could be. Mr. McGarvey stated 2,925 sq. ft. is the maximum for the R-7.5 zone.
Mr. Birrittella questioned whether the property owner has any responsibility to keep up the house. The property has been allowed to decay. The house is dangerous for everyone in the neighborhood. Something should be done now to make sure the property is safe.
Mr. Blancato stated they agree. They made an application about a year ago for a demolition permit, which was denied. There is a provision in the ordinance that you can’t demolish unless you have approval for what you are going to do with the property.
Mr. Birgy questioned whether the house can be minimally maintained. Mr. Blancato stated the windows were boarded up with plywood. The house needs to be demolished.
Ms. Riedel stated she met with the General Foreman about trees on this property which are dangerous and he agreed they are in very dangerous condition. Mr. Petretti stated he has been contacted about those trees and they will be removed.
All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s next meeting.
AMENDMENT TO APPROVED NOVEMBER 23, 2009, MINUTES RE 100 MARYMOUNT AVENUE
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board amends the approval for subdivision of property located at 100 Marymount Avenue which was made at the meeting of November 23, 2009, as follows:
Condition 2(b) to read:
“The square footage of the existing homes cannot be increased except for Mr. Samoyedny’s lot (Lot 5).
Condition 4 to read:
“Fordham may transfer the Sisters and Mr. Lugari’s parcels; however, EF Schools will have the right of first refusal on the subsequent sale of any of these lots, except Mr. Samoyedny’s lot (Lot 5).
MEETING ADJOURNED 8:10 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
