Tarrytown NY - Planning Board Minutes 02/28/2011

Planning Board Minutes 02/28/2011

Planning Board

Village of Tarrytown

Regular Meeting

February 28, 2011 7 p.m.

PRESENT: Members Tedesco, Aukland, Birgy, Raiselis; Administrator Blau;

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 Ms. Raiselis, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of January 24, 2011, be approved as submitted.

PUBLIC HEARING – JCC-on-the-HUDSON – 471 SOUTH BROADWAY

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, February 28, 2011at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:

JCC-on-the-Hudson, Inc.

371 South Broadway

Tarrytown, NY 10591

To consider the application to expand and renovate the existing GM Training Center and JCC buildings to become the new JCC-on-the-Hudson Community Center, and site improvements. The property is located at 371 South Broadway in the Village of Tarrytown.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 24, Lots P3D, P3F, P3F2, & P3F3 and is located in a LB (Limited Business) 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.

Mr. Frank Hassad, Executive Director of the JCC, stated at this time they are requesting to postpone their presentation until next month. There were a number of questions raised last month at the preliminary presentation and they would like time to prepare the information and submit it in totality next month rather than having a piecemeal presentation. Board members agreed it would be better to hold the presentation until next month.

Mr. Tedesco questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY – (HSA-UWC) – JARDIM ESTATES EAST – BROWNING LANE – SUBDIVISION

Mr. Tedesco reported the applicant has requested an adjournment until the Board’s next meeting. No one appeared to address the Board on this matter. All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s March meeting.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – JARDIM ESTATES (EMERALD WOODS) – EMERALD WOODS AND GRACEMERE – SITE PLAN AMENDMENT

No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. No one appeared to address the Board on this matter. All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s March meeting.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – METROPCS NEW YORK, LLC – CELLULAR ANTENNAS – 300 SOUTH BROADWAY

Mr. Anthony Gioffre, attorney for the applicant, stated there was a supplemental submission made by MetroPCS addressing the concerns raised by the Village’s Consultant, Mr. Cooper. They have also received Mr. Cooper’s supplemental report (dated February 14, 2011) and they will be addressing those issues as well so tonight they are asking for a 30 day extension to present a complete record.

Mr. Greg Sharp, Radio Frequency Engineer for MetroPCS, stated some of the items in Mr. Cooper’s February 14^th report require clarification and they will be supplying that information. He stated the 300 South Broadway site is the best fit for filling their coverage gap.

Discussion followed on the Board’s request that MetroPCS pursue the 303 South Broadway site. Mr. Gioffre stated they received a letter from the Village Administrator noting they had originally contacted the real estate agent for the building, not the managing agent. They subsequently contacted the managing agent. He submitted E-Mails between Robert Weible from MetroPCS and Anne Holker of Am Trust Realty Corp. and a letter dated February 4, 2011, from Robert Weible to Ms. Holker confirming that based on her E-Mail the managing agent has no interest in pursuing the construction of the wireless installation on the roof at 303 South Broadway.

Mr. Birgy noted that the E-Mails state that Ms. Holker felt it would not work because it was much larger than the AT&T antenna currently on the roof at 303 South Broadway. The Board has not seen what was submitted to Ms. Holker and does not know whether MetroPCS could make adjustments to have the height of their equipment more in conformity to what AT&T has. He requested MetroPCS look into this and provide the Board further information.

Mr. McGarvey questioned the status of using the Thruway Authority’s pole. Mr. Gioffre stated it was his understanding the Thruway Authority was not willing to grant permission. Mr. McGarvey requested MetroPCS get something in writing from the Thruway Authority stating that. Mr. Gioffre stated he would try. Mr. Blau stated if Mr. Gioffre got him the name of his representative at the Thruway Authority, he would also contact that person. Ms. Raiselis questioned whether MetroPCS has ever done an installation on a State Highway tower. Mr. Gioffre stated they have; however, in this case it was his understanding the tower would fail with the MetroPCS installation. Ms. Raiselis stated MetroPCS could pay to reinforce the tower.

Mr. McGarvey stated there are different types of antennas that MetroPCS can use. “I don’t know how aggressively you looked into 303 South Broadway or the Thruway pole.”

Mr. John Centifonti, 300 South Broadway, stated he printed out information from the MetroPCS web site. There is a green dot which shows 300 South Broadway and there are colors which show coverage in this area. The web site says the coverage they have now is very good. They also show future expansion.

Mr. Sharp stated they pursued the New York State Thruway Authority for three years about using their pole but there were structural issues. The State would not allow MetroPCS to upgrade the tower. That site would have been preferable for MetroPCS because it would not have required this Planning Board submission. Mr. Aukland stated the Board would like clarification on that.

Mr. Robert Bonvento, 42 Hamilton Place, questioned whether this is “a done deal” if the applicant meets the necessary requirements and there is no alternative location. Counsel Shumejda stated the issues raised by the public have been environmental issues. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that a municipality cannot deny the location of a cellular tower based on environmental concerns. The question tonight is whether with modifications going back to the other sites could make them available to MetroPCS.

Mr. Bonvento questioned whether the Board could vote not to entertain the tower at 300 South Broadway. Counsel Shumejda stated not if that decision was based upon the emissions generated by the tower.

Mr. Tom Caserta, 151 Carrollwood Drive, stated he has gathered 400 signatures from people in the Transfiguration Church/School area who are opposed to this cell tower. He reiterated information he submitted in November from a web site entitled “Cell Tower Emissions are Extremely Dangerous.” He stated he understood the legality but what about the morality and ethics.

Mr. Don Reese, 300 South Broadway, stated he is a retired aeronautical engineer. He questioned the level of emissions from these proposed antennas, especially for people on the sixth floor. Mr. Gioffre stated they have submitted a detailed emissions analysis. On the roof level it would be 13.5% as a worst case scenario which is well below the FCC threshold. Mr. McGarvey questioned if that is based on a 24-hour period. Mr. Sharp stated it is based on 24/7 with all 7 radios on at the same time, which will not occur. This is the worst case scenario.

Mr. Tedesco stated the Board needs to look at the alternative sites. Perhaps a site can be found that works if the applicant is receptive. Mr. Aukland stated he felt the Board should be looking for the optimum as far as location. Ms. Raiselis stated MetroPCS has found a good site and the building owner has accepted it. Perhaps the residents need to speak to the building owner.

Ms. Anna Pavacovich, 300 South Broadway, stated one owner possesses the majority of the shares so there is not much the other owners can do. A lot of people were taken by

surprise since it was made to look as a positive financial thing for the building and she did not know what it would take to get out of the contract.

Mr. Centifonti stated in November he raised a number of questions including who these antennas are servicing and whether there would be a generator since there is currently a problem with the electricity servicing the building. Mr. Sharp stated there is battery backup for the system. If there isn’t sufficient power, MetroPCS would upgrade the power. The site is intended to cover north and south and east and west as much as possible. It is supposed to get down to I-287 and the toll road. Mr. Aukland questioned the information on the web site which says the coverage is currently good. Mr. Sharp stated that is a selling tool. It is his job to get the system to work from the engineering side.

Ms. Joan Messner, 300 South Broadway, stated there are a lot of children in the building. There has been a huge outcry from the people in the building and the people at the school. “I think they really need to hunt for a good alternative because MetroPCS will be very unpopular if this is forced down our throats.”

Mr. Caserta stated the Transfiguration Parish Council is meeting tomorrow night and they will get the Archdiocesan Council involved.

Mr. Alex Swab, 300 South Broadway, questioned if this facility is approved could it just be upgraded in the future. Counsel Shumejda stated if there is a modification it would have to come back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Tedesco stated it should be clear to the applicant there is a tremendous dissatisfaction with the current proposal. The applicant should be aware they need to look at the alternate sites and the Board will be expecting information about those sites. Perhaps the signatories to the petition should contact the majority shareholder of the building and show him that the community does not approve this location.

Ms. Lila Karim, 300 South Broadway, questioned whether they looked at vacant property to construct a cellular tree pole. Mr. Gioffre stated most communities don’t want those, which is why they look for an existing pole or preferably a building.

Ms. Raiselis questioned if this were approved and they came back to upgrade and it is within the allowable limits, would the Planning Board have any say. Counsel Shumejda stated they could not review it on the emissions aspect.

Mr. Tedesco stated the Board will have a work session on March 18^th and would appreciate as much information as possible being submitted to them prior to that meeting.

Mr. Birgy stated it would be a good idea to have a corporate representative from MetroPCS present at the March meeting.

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

PUBLIC HEARING – VILLAGE OF BRIARCLIFF MANOR – SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PUMP STATION AT TARRYTOWN LAKES

Mr. Tedesco read the following Notice of Public Hearing:

Village of Briarcliff Manor

1111 Pleasantville Road

Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510

To consider the site plan amendment for the pump station located at 399 Neperan Road, Tarrytown, New York.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 05, Block 0000, Lots P43 and is located in an R-80 (One Family 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

Planning Board -6- February 28, 2011

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.

Mr. Philip Zegarelli, Briarcliff Village Manager, stated last month at the preliminary presentation they outlined a series of problems to the north slope where the Briarcliff Manor pump station is located on Neperan Road. Everything was to be planted in the same regime but they found shot rock - 6” to 8” pieces of granite which was probably put there when Shaft 10 was first built. It is found to be impossible from a botanical point of view to plant the same regime. In discussion with RGR Landscaping, a meadow-like planting regime was suggested. Around the pond it will be the same. This is only for the back area. It would be an upland meadow mix.

Mr. Sid Burke of RGR stated this meadow mix attracts wildlife – birds, etc. They would add 8” of topsoil to the slope, seed with meadow mix, put down erosion control fabric and in the gaps there will be small plants 3 ft. on center (about 2,000). The contractor will be responsible for maintenance in the first year which will consist of watering, weeding and mowing and then Briarcliff Manor will be responsible for doing that.

Mr. Birgy questioned if there is something that can be used that does not require mowing. Mr. Burke stated this is the cover with the least amount of mowing – about once a year. Mr. Zegarelli noted the mowing prevents the invasive species from coming in. Mr. Burke stated ecologically this requires less maintenance than any other habitat.

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 hearing be closed.

Mr. Tedesco stated, “The Village of Briarcliff Manor has requested an amendment to the prior site plan approval for the Village of Briarcliff Manor pump station. The proposed amendment involves the part of the approved landscaping plan for the steep slope area to the rear of the pump station. I move that the Planning Board approves this amendment to the site plan subject to the following:

Approval by the Village Engineer.
The planting plan is to consist of a meadow mix of plugs and seeds, representing a variety of native plants, both grasses and wildflowers. The planting will be done within a layer of soil 8” deep.
All other parts of the approved landscaping plan, aside from the steep slope area at the rear of the pump station, remain in force. This is particularly important in terms of the screening to be provided along the front and sides of the facility.”

Mr. Aukland seconded the motion. All assented.

PUBLIC HEARING – HUZINEC – 12 PINTAIL ROAD

Mr. Tedesco read the following Notice of Public Hearing:

George and Carolyn Huzinec

12 Pintail Road

Irvington, NY 10533

To consider the application to construct a new single-family dwelling at 12 Pintail Road, Irvington, New York.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 29B, Block 126, Lots 35A & 361 and is located in an R-10 (One Family Residential) Zone.

The certified mailing receipts were submitted.

Mr. Chuck Pateman stated he is assisting the Huzinecs with this application for a wetlands watercourse permit, steep slopes waiver and site plan approval. This is a vacant lot located in the R-10 zoning district. They presented this application preliminarily last month and they have submitted a significant amount of information which the Board has reviewed. The applicant has balanced minimum steep slope disturbance with mitigation measures to protect Woodland Lake. They are proposing a wall in the rear of the property to reduce water runoff to Woodland Lake. They are also proposing two rain gardens to reduce the siltation in that area. The steep slope areas are primarily rock outcropping and they submitted pictures showing those areas. The Board requested they supply a street elevation drawing with the proposed building and other houses on the street. They have shown an overlay of a house if it were 1-1/2 stories which they feel would be out of character with the other houses on the street. They have shown a design for a 100-year storm although the code only requires a 25-year storm. They submitted a computer simulated image of the proposed house. They submitted a landscaping plan showing 10 trees to be removed and 22 trees and 30 shrubs to be replanted. The subject property is 17,147 sq. ft. in a 10,000 sq. ft. zoning district. They have kept the size of the house and the impervious surface far below what is permitted.

Mr. Birgy questioned the proposed square footage of the foundation. Mr. Pateman stated it is 2,658 sq. ft. Mr. Birgy stated if they could build into the second story without doing a full second story, similar to a Cape Cod, they could drastically reduce the footprint.” “I am concerned about the impervious surface.” Mr. Pateman stated they have designed for a 100-year storm and they are only required to design for a 25-year storm. This is a balancing of everything. They are proposing the 4 ft. wall and designed the rain gardens. They believe they have submitted the best plan possible.

Mr. Birgy stated he was bringing this issue up because it is a sensitive area. Mr. Michael Stein, engineer, stated that is why they designed for the 100-year storm and not the 25-year storm. There are numerous rock outcroppings on the site. They will be able to lower the amount of runoff currently coming from the site. If the attic space were utilized, the roof would have to be raised. Mr. Birgy stated it is possible to design a house that incorporated the roof area into the living space that would lessen the square footage of the foundation.

Mr. McGarvey stated there is a lot of rock outcropping. They are creating a collection for a 100-year storm. Right now it all runs into the lake.

Mr. Tedesco questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.

Mr. Rick DeAngelis, 23 Pintail Road, questioned, “Where will they send this water?”

Mr. Pateman stated there will be rain gardens and once it is detained at the 100-year storm level, it will run over the weir and then go into the lake.

Upon inquiries from Mr. DeAngelis, Mr. Pateman stated the proposed house is 2,658 sq. ft. and they are permitted to build a house of 3,373 sq. ft. in this zone. The house will not have a basement and there will be no blasting but rock removal would be hammered. Mr. Tedesco noted there is a section of the code that deals with rock removal and that will have to be followed. Mr. McGarvey stated he would recommend photos be taken of neighboring foundations before construction begins.

In regard to trees, Mr. DeAngelis stated there are six or seven read oaks on this property which is one of the dynamics of the neighborhood. No matter what is put in, those cannot be replaced. Mr. Pateman noted they are not removing all the oak trees.

Mr. Peter Crisara, 17 Pintail Road, stated this is the first time he was hearing about this. This is a second house in addition to the current house on the property. Mr. Pateman stated the Huzinecs own two separate lots in the Woodland Lakes subdivision which was subdivided in 1948. Their house is on one lot and they own another legally subdivided lot. Mr. Crisara stated there were two lots across the street which he now owns. He had to come to the Board to have those lots merged. He stated it did not seem possible to fit the proposed house on this lot. Mr. Pateman stated the permitted principal building is

3,373 sq. ft. and 2,658 sq. ft. is proposed. The Board explained that the Huzinecs own two separate building lots which were part of the 1948 subdivision. Their house is built on one and they are now proposing to build a house on the second legally subdivided lot.

Mr. Birgy stated this lot is almost ½ acre in a 10,000 sq. ft. zoning district. Ms. Raiselis noted when Mr. Crisara chose to combine his two lots that was his prerogative but the Huzinecs own two legally subdivided lots and are electing to build a house on each. She stated she understood that when a neighborhood has been used to having a vacant lot, it is difficult to have a building go in.

Mr. Crisara questioned whether this house is only one floor. Mr. Birgy stated it is a raised ranch.

Mr. Crisara questioned whether the issue is wetlands, slopes or whether the house is reasonable on this piece of property. Mr. Tedesco stated the applicant has made a proposal that meets zoning requirements and has made arguments for a wetlands disturbance and mitigations for the disturbance of steep slopes. It seems like reasonable rationale for approving those waivers. Eight homes currently are in the wetlands buffer and it is a prior approved subdivision and they are proposing significant mitigations for disturbance to the buffer. There will be two large rain gardens which will provide for a 100-year storm where the Village requires only for a 25-year storm. In regard to the steep slopes disturbance, without that the driveway would have to be located on the uphill side of the property which would require disturbance into rock and removal of a significant number of trees. The steep slopes consist of rock outcroppings and by reducing the siltation and permitting the two large rain gardens, which creates a large storm water drainage plan, it creates a better overall plan.

Mr. Crisara stated he had to come to the Board to merge two pieces of property. Now we are here taking what was always one piece of property and making it two pieces of property. Mr. Birgy stated this is two separate lots and the Huzinecs own both lots.

Mr. DeAngelis questioned whether it is normal procedure for neighbors to be notified at the tenth hour. The Board noted this matter was the subject of a preliminary presentation last month and has been discussed at a couple of work sessions. Those agendas were posted on the web site. Tonight is the official public hearing and the certified mailings were done and the sign was erected on the property.

Ms. Tricia Han, 30 Pintail Road, stated she was concerned about the rock because she felt there was a potential impact to her property. Mr. Pateman stated they would accept a condition that there be no blasting. He expected the rock removal to take about a week and there are limitations in the Village Code as to when work can occur – 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday; 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and no work on Sundays and holidays. Ms. Han questioned where construction equipment would be parked. Mr. Pateman stated they would be put on the site; he noted the street cannot be blocked. Ms. Han questioned whether there would be any other environmental impacts expected. Mr. Pateman stated they will be mitigating the environmental impacts.

Upon inquiry from Mr. Martin Halpin, 35 Pintail Road, Mr. McGarvey stated most single family home construction takes 9 to 11 months.

Mr. Birgy stated one of the biggest concerns is disturbing the rock ledge. If the foundation were made smaller with a slightly increased roof height, it gives a home with living space on the first and second level. The question is how high you would have to go with the roof level. “I think lowering the square footage of the foundation would answer many of the concerns of the neighbors.” Mr. Aukland stated while he understood this position, he felt it was preferable to have the lower height for the house.

Mr. Birgy questioned whether there has been an assessment of the type of rock that will be hammered. Mr. Pateman stated the rock will come out relatively easy. There is a seam in the rock. Mr. McGarvey questioned the volume of rock that would have to be removed. Mr. Pateman stated approximately 150 yards – 8 truckloads – and that rock will be used to build the stone walls.

Mr. DeAngelis questioned why the house cannot go farther back on the property since there is a large rear yard setback. Mr. Pateman stated the front yard setback is proposed at 28.89 ft. where 25 ft. is required. The rear yard requirement is 28 ft. and 103.4 ft. is proposed. The combined side yards are required to be 26 ft. and 31 ft. are proposed. If

they go farther back they are encroaching on the wetlands which the Planning Board did not want.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the Board declares itself lead agency on this application. Mr. Birgy voted no. Mr. Aukland, Ms. Raiselis and Mr. Tedesco voted yes. Motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the hearing be closed. Mr. Birgy voted no. Mr. Aukland, Ms. Raiselis and Mr. Tedesco voted yes. Motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed action. Mr. Birgy voted no. Mr. Aukland, Ms. Raiselis and Mr. Tedesco voted yes. Motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved to approve the proposed home at 12 Pintail Road subject to the following:

Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer, particularly in regard to the storm water/drainage plan.
Approval of a landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape Consultant. Plantings should be native species or non-invasive ornamentals. If during the implementation of the approved landscaping plan, any amendments or changes are desired, such changes must be approved by the Planning Board.
Adherence to the section of the Zoning Code dealing with the tree replacement fund, for the removal of trees with a 10” caliper or greater. In addition, for every tree over 10” caliper which is removed, an equivalent replacement tree must be provided.

The proposed home is located in a prior approved subdivision. For this home the Board approves the following waivers:

A waiver for the proposed incursion into the wetlands buffer. There are currently 8 homes located in the wetlands buffer and there will be significant mitigation to the proposed disturbance to the buffer in the form of two large rain gardens. The applicant is also proposing a storm water/drainage plan for a 100-year storm.
A waiver for the proposed incursion into steep slopes. Avoiding the steep slopes would create significant site disturbance in that the driveway would have to be located on the uphill side of the property, necessitating significant excavation through rock to construct the driveway. This would also involve removal of significant size trees. Much of the disturbed steep slopes consists of rock outcropping. Removal of these outcroppings provides the benefit of reducing the velocity of storm water runoff to Woodland Lake, which, in turn, reduces siltation. The removal of these rock outcroppings also permits the introduction of the two large rain gardens to the site which is a significant mitigation to the loss of wetlands buffer. Also, by allowing incursion into steep slopes, the height of the proposed house can be reduced.

Approval by the Architectural Review Board.
The driveway will be constructed of permeable pavers (eco pavers) or other equivalent permeable material as approved by the Village Engineer.
There is to be no blasting and a mechanism put in place approved by the Village Engineer to detect any possible disturbance to foundations of neighboring residences during construction using seismographs and other appropriate equipment. An outside consulting firm is to be hired by the applicant to monitor this.
Payment of any outstanding escrow fees prior to the signing of the final site plan.
Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.

Mr. Aukland seconded the motion. Mr. Birgy voted no. Mr. Aukland, Ms. Raiselis, and Mr. Tedesco voted yes. Motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING – GEJ TARRYTOWN, LLC – 100 - 120 WHITE PLAINS ROAD – (DENNIS NOSKIN, CONTRACT VENDEE) - SUBDIVISION

Mr. Tedesco read the following Notice of Public Hearing:

Dennis Noskin (Contract Vendee)

55 South Broadway

Tarrytown, NY 10591

To consider the application for the subdivision of a parcel located at 100-120 White Plains Road in the Village of Tarrytown into two parcels.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 20, Block 6, Lot 1 and is located in an OB (Office Building) Zone.

The certified mailing receipts were submitted.

Mr. John Hughes, attorney for the applicant, stated at the preliminary presentation last month he submitted a memo which showed pictures of the property, the reason for Mr. Noskin’s purchase of the property and the extent of the variances necessary as well as a brief historical report about the property. Mr. Hughes submitted pictures of neighboring buildings showing the variety of eclectic properties. He noted this is one of the more attractive properties on Route 119.

Mr. Hughes noted there had been discussion about historical designation for this property; however, that would make it more difficult to obtain financing. He noted Mr. Noskin intends to keep this property for a significant period of time.

Mr. Tedesco stated there had been a question about whether a variance would be needed for building coverage. Mr. Hughes stated that might be necessary but it would not be a major variance. The building coverage is the large variance.

Ms. Raiselis questioned whether there were any plans for the façade of the building. Mr. Noskin stated there were none. His plan is to restore the interior. He noted he did not want to change the character of the building.

Mr. Aukland stated, “There is no intent to develop anything additional on this property.” Mr. Noskin replied, “That is correct.”

Mr. Birgy stated there is nothing that precludes someone in the future from knocking this building down. Counsel Shumejda stated without an historical designation there is not; however, they would need approval to do that. They would need a permit for the tear down and another permit for what would be built.

Mr. Noskin stated this building has some details but the scale is not 100% and it does not really have great historical significance. Ms. Raiselis noted the more the building is maintained, the more valuable it will be.

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 Planning Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this subdivision.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, to approve the proposed subdivision of the property at 100 - 120 White Plains Road into two parcels: Lot 2 (7.853 acres) which contains the Christiania Office Building, a 6-story office building with four parking levels and Lot 1 (1.203 acres) which contains a 2-1/2 story frame building with 24 parking spaces provided. This approval is subject to the following:

Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
Approval of a Landscaping and Screening Plan by the Village Landscape Consultant. Plantings should be native species or non-invasive ornamentals. If during the implementation of the approved landscaping plan, any amendments or changes are desired, such changes must be approved by the Planning Board.
As these lots are in an OB zone, many variances would be required. Some for setbacks (front, side) and some for other items including minimum lot size, frontage, building coverage. The Planning Board recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that these variances be granted based on several reasons:

The 2-1/2 story frame building already exists and the proposed use of the building as offices for a team of architects is a very positive one in the eyes of the Village.
This action would also preserve a very old, architecturally pleasing building which is not now used and would eventually fall into disrepair or be taken down. The building was erected in 1868, which predates the incorporation of the Village of Tarrytown in 1870. Buildings similar in architectural and some historical value, exist nearby – the former John Charles building next door to the building and the former Hummel building across the street.
The proposed use of this building has the full support of the current owner of the Christiania building.

Any future use of the 2-1/2 story frame building must be as an office building.
Payment of any outstanding escrow fees prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat.
Signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 9:30 p.m.

Kathleen D’Eufemia

Secretary