Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
April 25, 2011 7 p.m.
PRESENT: *Chairman Friedlander; Members Aukland, Birgy, Raiselis, Tedesco;
Administrator Blau; Counsel Shumejda; Building Inspector/Engineer
McGarvey; Secretary D’Eufemia
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Ms. Raiselis, that the minutes of March 28, 2011, be approved as submitted. Mr. Tedesco abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – HSA-UWC - JARDIM ESTATES EAST – BROWNING LANE - SUBDIVISION
Chairman Friedlander 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 that the hearing be continued at the Board’s May meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – JARDIM ESTATES (EMERALD WOODS) – SITE PLAN AMENDMENT RE GUIDERAIL
Mr. Peet Foster, Construction Manager, requested an adjournment of this matter since the attorneys are working to address the issues involving East Belvedere Lane and hopefully that matter will soon be resolved.
No one appeared to address the Board on this matter.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue this hearing at their May meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – JCC-ON-HUDSON – 371 SOUTH BROADWAY – EXPANSION AND RENOVATION
*Chairman Friedlander recused himself on this matter. Mr. Tedesco chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Tedesco stated items the JCC has been asked to provide have been received – traffic study, storm water drainage plan, inventory and assessment of trees, tree removal plan, landscaping and screening plan, elevation drawings, information on proposed parking including a shared parking agreement with DoubleTree Hotel, information on impervious surface.
Mr. John Canning of VHB, Traffic Consultant for the applicant, stated he provided a traffic evaluation dated March 17th. The existing JCC is located on Broadway between DoubleTree and the I-87 ramps. They have been in that location for some time. That section of roadway has been studied many times in recent years. They conducted traffic volumes in March of this year and compared those with a study that was done in 2005. The results are shown in his report. It showed traffic actually has fallen considerably since 2005 by 15% to 20% at the DoubleTree ramps and about 10% by Route 119. This may have been caused as a result of the Interchange 8 activity as well as the economy. The JCC plans to expand their activities into the General Motors Training Center building. The existing building was
formally used as a training center but could be used as an office building, hotel, retail. Those uses could generate 50 to 300 trips per hour. When the building is incorporated into the JCC, based on a review of existing activities at the JCC and traffic volumes, the additional amenities at the new facility will generate the same volume during morning hours as the current buildings and in the afternoon will generate about 37 more trips. That would increase traffic volumes by less than 1% which would not impact traffic operations. The JCC proposes to reconfigure access to the facility. The two properties now have three driveways. With the new plan it is proposed to have one entrance and one exit. It affords the opportunity of restriping the driveway to have separate right turn and left turn lanes. Site distance evaluations have been conducted. The site distance is limited coming out of Paulding and Van Wart Avenues but the
reconfiguration of the entrance/exit would be an improvement and the fence should be pulled back 3 to 4 feet.
Upon inquiry from Mr. Aukland, Mr. Canning stated the reconfiguration of the entrance/exit is an improvement since it allows for some queuing on the site.
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 Planning Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed action.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the expansion and renovation of the existing General Motors Training Center building to become the new JCC-on-the Hudson Community Center subject to the following:
1. Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer particularly in regard to the storm water drainage plan.
2. 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.
3. Adherence to the section of the Zoning Code dealing with the Tree Replacement Fund for the removal of trees with a 10 inch caliper or greater
4. Approval by the Architectural Review Board
5. New parking spaces, walkways and any patio areas will be constructed of permeable pavers or other equivalent permeable surface as approved by the Village Engineer
6. Compliance with the key recommendations made by traffic consultant, John Canning, in his memo of March 17, 2011, to the Planning Board. These items are as follows:
A. The fence separating the JCC property from the DoubleTree property is to be pulled back a distance of at least 3 ft.
B. The south General Motors driveway should be abandoned.
C. Reconstruction of the entrance and exit driveways to provide curb returns, thereby providing a smoother movement onto and off of the property. This will permit vehicles to turn onto and off of the property without slowing while in the traveled way on Broadway.
D. Restriping of the exit driveway to provide separate right and left turn lanes.
E. Construction of curb ramps on the sidewalk at the two reconstructed driveways.
F. Construction of an indentation at least 6 ft. deep on the north side of the driveway along the south side of the building. This will provide adequate area for motorists to drop off and pick up passengers.
7. Payment of any outstanding escrow fees prior to signing of the final site plan.
8. Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
*Chairman Friedlander returned to the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – TOLL BROTHERS – WILSON PARK DRIVE – SITE PLAN – NEW HOUSE – LOT 9
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 25, 2011at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:
Toll Brothers Inc.
60 Merritt Blvd., Suite 100
Fishkill, NY 12524
To consider the application to construct a new single-family dwelling at the intersection of Wilson Park Drive and Tower Hill Road (Southern side), lot #9 of Westchester Estates at Wilson Park.
The property is located in an R-80 (One Family Residence, 80,000 s.f.) Zone; tax ID # 1.10-1-30.9.
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. James Fitzpatrick of Toll Brothers stated this is the first site plan for a house in the Wilson Park subdivision. The Board visited the site last week. The house is situated in a way that works well with the present grade. The elevation of the front door compared with the road is pretty much on grade. The site is fairly flat. At the site there was discussion about preserving the existing tree line along Tower Hill Road that is there rather than removing the trees as shown on the site plan. The house is 6,200 sq. ft. which is about 35% smaller than allowed by the zoning. The lot has an impervious area of about 35% of what is permitted in the zoning. The lot is 78,810 sq. ft.
Upon inquiry, Mr. Fitzpatrick stated this house will be the model house and the garage space will be used as the sales office.
Mr. Aukland questioned the status for mailboxes – whether each house will have an individual mailbox or whether it will be required to have a location for all mailboxes.
Mr. John Hughes, attorney for the applicant, stated there is a new Post Master, and they will be meeting with that person and hopefully each house will have its own mailbox.
Mr. Aukland stated if that is not the outcome, the Board will need to review with the applicant where a group mailboxes location would be and how the ingress and egress to that location would work.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Kathy Ruhland, 17 Walden Road, stated there had been discussion about connecting the trail up to the railroad trestle. She noted the north trailway could go through there and connect to the Old Croton Aqueduct. Mr. Blau stated the Village received a grant for $100,000 which the Village will match and with that the Village will restore the pathway behind the lakes. People will have to walk up Tower Hill Road. The ultimate goal is to connect everything but there aren’t sufficient funds for everything at this point.
Ms. Mimi Godwin, 20 River Terrace, questioned whether the Board could require construction vehicles to access this lot via Tower Hill Road and not come through Wilson Park. Mr. Tedesco stated the Board will do that. Ms. Godwin questioned whether there will be blasting. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated they will be reviewing that on a lot by lot basis. Mr. McGarvey noted if it is required, the code is stringent. The Board could also require a third party to monitor the seismograph. Ms. Godwin stated she has concern because Toll Brothers has not been very vigilant about safety.
Mr. Birgy questioned the status of the ownership of Wilson Park Drive. Mr. McGarvey stated the area where these homes will be built is presently privately owned; however, the intent is to turn the road over to the Village as a public street. On the section by the park area, the Village owns half of the street and the homeowners across the street own the other half. The applicant will be paving the whole road.
Mr. Birgy stated he was concerned about ways to calm traffic in this area because currently cars speed through. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated there are three ways to calm traffic – narrow the road, plant trees close to the edge of the road and build houses along the road and all three have been or will be done. It was noted when the road is dedicated to the Village, the police will have enforcement ability.
Mr. Robert DiRocca, 35 Warner Lane, questioned the timetable for construction. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated they have a preconstruction meeting set up for Thursday for their site work. They will begin site work next week. It is their intention to have the site work completed before school starts in September. Home construction can be done in 51 days. They are hoping to have the model home complete by the end of October.
Mr. McGarvey questioned, “The road would be repaved by early September?” Mr. Fitzpatrick replied, “Yes.”
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether this house is the average size. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated this is a large home. Most homes are in the range of 3,800 to 4,800 sq. ft.
Chairman Friedlander questioned what the anticipated build out is. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated as quickly as they can sell the homes. They do not build on speculation. Chairman Friedlander questioned when the soccer field would be done. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated it would be done with the upfront improvements.
Mr. Aukland questioned when the wall that separates the parkland from the homes would be built. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated they can do it upfront or as they build the individual lots.
Upon inquiry from Mr. Birgy about “green” construction practices, Mr. Fitzpatrick stated Mr. Ron Samuelson of Home Energy Consultants will be doing the certification for Energy Star ratings. He noted this company computed projected energy uses and while their numbers came in higher than those submitted last month, they were not significantly higher. A calculation sheet was provided to the Board.
Mr. Samuelson stated Energy Star houses are “tight” houses. This is accomplished not only with windows and insulation, but also with caulking to be sure that all outlets, etc. have been addressed. He noted a “tight” house can save up to 40% in heating and cooling costs.
No one further appeared to address the Board on this matter.
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 public 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 site plan for Lot 9 at Legends at Wilson Park subject to the following:
1. Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer, particularly in regard to the adequacy of the Storm water/Drainage Plan. This plan is to include specific and detailed pre-construction, construction, and post-construction storm water/drainage measures.
2. Approval of a landscaping and screening plan by the Village Landscape Consultant. Given that approximately 20% of the total number of trees on the site were lost due to tornado damage, this plan should include significant tree replacement. Plantings should be native species or non-invasive ornamentals. Any deviation from this must be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
The recommendations of the Village Landscape Consultant must come back to the Planning Board for final approval.
3. The landscaping plan is to include compliance with the specific recommendations made by Stephen Lopez, Landscape Architect, regarding the screening of new homes from the trail bordering the south side of the property. These recommendations are contained in his memo of 19 November 2010 to the Applicant (Toll Brothers.) A copy of this memo is attached to these site plan conditions.
4. If any trees that 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, then planting of multiple trees approved by the Village Landscape Consultant or payment of the appraised value of the trees to the Village Tree Replacement Fund will be required.
5. The Applicant agrees to perform any treatment and pruning of existing trees deemed necessary by the Village Landscape Consultant prior to the conveyance of property to the Village. This is to include the parkland and the easements provided.
6. The Applicant must provide an escrow account for an arborist to visit the site during construction to check tree removal and preservation, the amount to be determined by the Village Landscape Consultant. The arborist is to be chosen in consultation with the Village Landscape Consultant, and approved by him.
7. Adherence to the Section of the Zoning Code dealing with the Tree Replacement Fund for the removal of trees with a 10 inch caliper or greater,
OR
Alternative remediation elsewhere on the project site as approved by the Village Landscape Consultant with a proportionality schedule approved by him.
8. Inspection of the Final Landscaping and Screening Plan on each site by the Planning Board and Village Landscape Consultant before the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.)
9. Repair of any damage to roadway pavements due to construction activities. Needed repairs will be determined by the Village Engineer.
10. Specific Steps to Minimize Construction Disturbance (traffic, condition of roads, noise, air pollution, etc.) must be provided to the Building Inspector/Village Engineer, and approved by him. All construction vehicles are to use County House Road/Tower Hill Road.
11. Any blasting activity determined to be required will be conducted in strict conformance with the Village’s Blasting Code and approved by the Village Engineer. Blasting is to be monitored by a company chosen by the applicant and approved by the Village Engineer. The cost of this monitoring is to be borne by the applicant.
12. Low stone walls (approximately three ft. high) will be provided between the public and the private space (between the Parkland and private property abutting the Parkland.) Homeowners will be required to obtain Architectural Review Board approval for any fences or walls on their property abutting the Parkland. For the existing home abutting the parkland, alternatives to the stone wall
proposed will be discussed and a determination made at a later time.
13. Permeable Pavers, e.g., Eco Pavers, or other equivalent permeable surface approved by the Village Engineer, are to be used for all driveways.
14. Fences shall be placed on both sides of the trestle bridge for safety.
15. The Applicant will have a discussion with the Planning Board to determine possible traffic calming measures.
16. Removal of all underground drainage structures in test pit locations 1 and 2 in the park area provided. These structures, which have been determined not to be active, are shown on the existing drainage facilities map from Kellard Sessions Consulting, dated May 31, 2007.
17. The Tarrytown Lakes and their watershed (drainage basin) has been designated a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by both Tarrytown and Westchester County. To protect this CEA, a covenant will be placed in each homeowner’s deed, in the miscellaneous document of each property, and in the homeowner’s association declaration, that prohibits the use of phosphate fertilizers. Organic, non-phosphate, fertilizers may be used.
18. A Homeowners Association must be established for the Project Site. The responsibility and duties of the Homeowners Association and legal documents must be approved by the Village Attorney. The satisfactory implementation of these responsibilities and duties will be subject to periodic review by the Village.
19. The Site Plan for each individual home will be presented to the Planning Board for their review and final approval. The Planning Board will visit each site proposed. For these visits, building and driveway footprints shall be marked in the field. Trees to be removed shall also be marked in the field.
20. The architecture for each home is to be reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB.)
21. Adherence to all conditions imposed in the Findings for this application.
22. Adherence to all conditions imposed in the Final Subdivision Plat Approval for this application.
23. Payment of any Outstanding Escrow Fees prior to the granting of a building permit.
24. Signing of the Final Site Plan by the Planning Board Chair.
25. A punch list of non-infrastructure and non-lot related improvements, including but not limited to, tree pruning, soccer field work and trail easements will be provided at the time of the installation of site utilities, roadways, and other overall site infrastructure.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – JERIS – 15 and 17 BAYLIS COURT
Mr. Sam Vieira, architect, stated they are proposing two different applications. The smaller project involves the existing house Mr. Jeris lives in at 17 Baylis Court. He would like to build a detached garage into the hillside. It would be a covered garage which would provide two off street parking spaces for his home. That proposal would require a couple of variances. It would be in the required front yard which requires 20 ft. and there would be 0 ft. It would also have a 5 ft. side yard to the south and 10 ft. to the north where 15 ft. is required. The second part of this proposal is that to the south of this property there is an undeveloped lot. They are proposing a three-story, three-family residential dwelling. Bedrooms would be on the upper levels and kitchen and living areas on
the lower level. There would be parking underneath. There would be a six-car garage under the building. The width of the lot is just over 46 ft. The building is approximately 32 ft. by 72 ft. long. A streetscape diagram has been provided which shows the proposed building is within the context of the existing neighborhood, as is the massing. With the longer driveway, there are actually three additional off street parking spaces in front of the garages. The parking is all tandem parking. Through work sessions with the Board, they shrunk the building down by making the units smaller. The entire project is code compliant from a zoning aspect except for the single side yards and combined side yards. Fifteen feet is required on either side and if you did that, you would only have 16 ft. to build a building which is completely unfeasible.
Mr. Birgy stated it could be something between 16 ft. and 32 ft. It would require a variance but it would be a lesser variance. He noted the three-car garage is dictating the width of the building.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether there could be two apartments. Mr. Vieira stated it would be smaller but that is not an alternative for Mr. Jeris. The M-1 zone is a multi-family zone and all zoning requirements are met except the side yards and no building on Baylis Court meets side line requirements.
Mr. Vieira noted in 1984 the Planning Board approved a three-family dwelling on this lot. That approval has expired. In 2003 Mr. Jeris received approval for a major addition to the existing house with 3 additional apartments but that was a much larger massing on the property. That approval has also expired. They are now asking for a slight modification to the 1984 approval.
Mr. Birgy stated it seems three-family is something someone would like to have but he did not feel it would be a tipping point for the project.
Mr. Vieira stated Mr. Jeris is proposing a building that fits all the zoning requirements except the side yards and no other building on Baylis Court meets the side yard requirements. The streetscape solidifies that this building would fit in with the predevelopment layout of Baylis Court.
Mr. Vieira noted they will also be looking for a lot line adjustment. They would like to rotate the lot line so it is more parallel. He showed this to the Board on the site plan.
Ms. Raiselis stated on the first application, there are stone garages in Tarrytown set into the hillside, and she did not have a problem with it. On the second application, she stated she would like to see more detail on the building but she felt it works. The way you enter has the gesture of a courtyard. Parking on that street is horrendous so having off street parking for this is beneficial. There would also be a slightly larger backyard. Mr. Vieira noted there is a slope in the rear and the line of trees will remain. Mr. Tedesco noted the neighbors would appreciate the back of the property being preserved.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board needed more positives in terms of making this a better neighborhood – landscaping and screening plan for both 15 and 17 Baylis Court, architectural details will show it as a desirable property, “green” building elements.
Mr. Birgy noted utility costs are skyrocketing and although the tenants would be paying the heating and electrical bills, the house should still be as energy efficient as possible.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets public hearings for both of the applications presented this evening.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on both applications presented this evening.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets as escrow account for $2,500 on each of the two applications presented this evening.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – C-TOWN SUPERMARKET – 114 NORTH BROADWAY – SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
Mr. J. B. Hernandez, architect, submitted a plan showing what was approved, what was built, and what they are now proposing. He noted murals laminated on plastic would go where the windows were to be. They would also be having seasonal planters.
Mr. Birgy stated what was presented and approved was a beautiful building. What was actually built is very disappointing.
Mr. Sal Saleh, a C-Town owner, stated they had thought the project would run smoothly; however, that had not been the case. They had problems with the general contractors and in 2008 the economic problems occurred. This isn’t the building they wanted but they had no choice as the project moved forward.
Mr. Hernandez noted some of the elements of the original building were because of the second floor but now other than some office space, there isn’t a second floor.
Ms. Raiselis stated they need to address the exposed mechanicals.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board is very pleased with the store and see it as an asset to the community. What they are looking for is a way of adjusting what was built.
Discussion followed and the Board made some suggestions for façade amendments.
Mr. Aukland noted C-Town was supposed to have a traffic study done after the renovations and that should be done. Mr. Saleh stated they could do the study; however, they still have contractors on the site and when they leave those spaces will be made available.
It was suggested the architect make adjustments to the plans and present them to the Board for review at their work session on May 12th.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the Board sets a public hearing on this application for their May23rd meeting.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets an escrow account of $2,500 on this application.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 9:20 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
