Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
May 29, 2012; 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Members Tedesco, Aukland, Raiselis, Birgy; Counsel Shumejda; Village Administrator Blau; Village Engineer McGarvey; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Chairman Friedlander
Mr. Tedesco chaired the meeting during Mr. Friedlander’s absence.
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – March 21, 2012 Special Joint Planning Board/Architectural Review Board
Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Mr. Birgy, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of March 21, 2012 for the special joint Planning Board/Architectural Review Board meeting, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION – Greystone – 612 S. Broadway
Mr. Tedesco read the following public hearing notice:
“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:
Broadway on Hudson Estates, LLC Michelle Coppola 1994 Trust
227 Main Street 620 South Broadway
Huntington, NY 11743 Tarrytown, NY 10591
For Preliminary Subdivision Approval for an 8-lot residential subdivision for property located at 612 South Broadway in the Village of Tarrytown, New York.
The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 29, Lot P42B and is located in an R-60 (One Family Residence, 60,000 s.f.) 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.
By Order of the Planning Board
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary”
Andy Todd gave an overview of the subdivision approval. There are 20 lots total with 8 in the Village of Tarrytown and 12 in the Town of Greenburgh. There will be access from South Broadway for all 20 lots with an old tree-lined road through the Tarrytown site. They are proposing to donate a parcel of property that will connect the Old Croton Adequate in perpetuity and 21.7 acres at the eastern end of the Greenburgh site which will be added as open space in perpetuity to Taxter Ridge Park. They will be building trails through the park and adding a parking lot on Taxter Road for the park. The theme for the development will be old world charm with early 1900 style mansions.
Mr. Aukland read a portion of a letter from Linda Viertel regarding Greystone (copy attached).
Mr. Tedesco, Mr. Aukland, Ms. Raiselis and Mr. Birgy read the resolution for the preliminary approval (final copy attached).
The board discussed several changes, which will be made to the final resolution
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, to approve the preliminary subdivision. All in favor; motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING – EF School – 100 Marymount Avenue
Application adjourned at the applicant’s request.
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING – Tarrytown Honda – 480 South Broadway
John Hughes introduced himself and stated that they are here to amend the full presentation that was given at the last meeting. Regarding new car carriers and their limitations as it affects the traffic flow and the disturbance to the neighborhood, his client has a lease for property in Rockland County and will stipulate that no more than 10 car carriers will visit his Tarrytown site on a monthly basis to deliver new automobiles. It will be enforced by allowing the Village to audit his bills of laden, which is a legal term for delivery of large scale personal property; however, he cannot limit the number of other deliveries going into the site i.e., UPS, parts delivery, trucks, etc., which are part of his automotive commercial use, nor can he limit the random and unpredictable delivery of used cars which are delivered either one
by one or on trucks that are half the size of the new car carriers.
Mr. Birgy asked where the used cars come from and why they have to be trucked in. Mr. Dachnowicz said used cars come from trade-ins and lease returns. Ms. Raiselis asked the frequency of delivery of used cars in the course of a month. Mr. Dachnowicz said maybe 20 used car pick-ups and service cars that cannot be repaired. Mr. Tedesco clarified the number of car carriers that presently come into the dealership as 60-80 per month; and with the new building it will only be 10 a month, a significant reduction. Mr. Aukland said recently two car carriers arrived at the same time into the neighborhood. Mr. Dachnowicz said they were not new car carriers, they had used cars on them and they were picking up used cars. With the present building, there is no room for the carriers to come onto the site; but with
the new building if two should arrive at the same time, which is a rarity, there will be room on the site for both carriers. Mr. McGarvey asked Mr. Dachnowicz how the new site will remedy the congestion on the road with the car carriers, which is the main concern of the neighbors. Mr. Dachnowicz said the new car deliveries are the main cause of congestion and he has made arrangements for off-site deliveries. He is proposing only 10 car carriers to the site per month. Mr. McGarvey said the reason the police cannot ticket for loading or unloading is because that is a condition of the Planning Board, not a local law. He asked Counsel Shumejda if we can make that a local law. Counsel Shumejda said no because the street is governed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York. We can make it a condition of the site plan approval; and if they do not comply, it is a violation of the site plan approval and we can bring it into court that
way. The only way to monitor it is to do audits of the bills of laden.
Mr. Birgy asked if they are allowed to load/unload on the street. Counsel Shumejda said yes, just like any other business can load/unload on the street. Mr. Tedesco asked how we will monitor the bills of laden. Counsel Shumejda said they should be submitted to the Building Department on a monthly/annual basis and we need something in writing certifying that they are the only cars delivered. Mr. Dachnowicz said he could provide a Honda report showing how many cars were sold to Tarrytown Honda in that period. Ms. Raiselis proposed that it should be done quarterly for a year to be sure that it is going according to plan. Counsel Shumejda said this proposal will be part of the approval; and if it's not followed, it is a violation of the site plan approval which will result in possible court appearance or even
to vacate the Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Birgy asked if any cars will be on the property. Mr. Dachnowicz said absolutely.
Mr. Aukland read a portion of a letter from Linda Viertel regarding Honda (copy attached).
Ms. Raiselis read a letter from Marissa Feind, 12 Walter Street, Tarrytown New York, dated May 12, 2012.
Chairman Friedlander stated that the second floor is going to be used for storage; Ms. Feind's letter states otherwise. The purpose is to get the cars off the parking lot into the building to be housed. Mr. Dachnowicz explained that the gym is a small area, approximately 10' x 12', with a treadmill and TV. It's a place for employees to go during their lunch, if they choose. He explained that the boutique is just a better way to say an area with car accessories for sale on display.
Ms. Raiselis asked Counsel Shumejda his thoughts about changing the zone of the property to be purchased. He said there are no plans for it to be built on and that will be the decision of the Board of Trustees. Mr. McGarvey said he thought there was going to be parking there, which is not allowed in a residential zone. If so, it will need a use variance or the zone remains. Counsel Shumejda said the neighbors are concerned about future development on the piece of property. He said the issue will be a covenant agreement which will be part of the site plan approval and nothing can be done on that property for ever more. Mr. Birgy said the no left turn should be a legal issue enforced by the police.
The application was adjourned to the June 2012 meeting.
Chairman Friedlander arrived at the meeting.
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING – Tolls Brothers – (Lot 1) 110 Wilson Park Drive, (Lot 3) 7 Warner Lane, (Lot 4) 5 Warner Lane
Mr. Tedesco said that there are some other issues to be discussed before discussing the individual lots. The first is the question of the easements on the property. Counsel Shumejda looked into the easement issues and reported that Scott Chamberlain, a land surveyor, investigated the monument in question which is in a tree. Mr. Chamberlain said it is unlike any monument he has ever seen and concluded that there is no historic evidence of this monument and it was probably some kind of post or gate, but not a survey monument.
Mr. Tedesco said the second item to be discussed is the soccer field. Mr. Blau was asked to look into the uses for the soccer field which he addressed in a letter to Mr. Badger (copy attached). Mr. Tedesco commented that it appears that it will have a very heavy use, one that may involve a full under-drain system, and it would be wise that this field be built correctly. Mr. Blau commented that the Recreation Director said there is a demand for Lacrosse which has become very popular now and that too could be played on the field.
Chairman Friedlander stated that he thought Toll Brother's engineer was going to look at the field and report back to the Board. Jennifer Gray, attorney for Toll Brothers, reported that they forwarded Mr. Blau's letter to Dvirka and Bartolucci and they expect to have a revised final report within the next week or two. They would like to schedule another worksession with the board to discuss the required drainage and maintenance necessary for the desired level of play.
Mr. Birgy asked if this is an expense for Toll Brothers or were they expecting the Village to incur that cost. Ms. Gray said the approval resolution requires a certain amount of drainage improvements for the soccer field and Toll Brothers understands that they will be paying for drainage improvements at the field but we need to have a better understanding of the scope of these improvements that the Village is going to require and hopes to come to a mutual understanding.
Mr. Birgy said that when they met with Robert DiGiorgio, Dvirka and Bartolucci's engineer, he made it clear that the first 8-10" of the soil composition be carefully determined and applied. Mr. Birgy said he would like some parameters of understanding as to what materials are required on the field for the level of use. James Fitzpatrick said the soil characteristics and the needed improvements to the existing soil were included in the initial report which was submitted before the last worksession. We are going to rely on the recommendation of Dvirka and Bartolucci. Chairman Friedlander said the initial report was not based on the intended use, which makes it a bit outdated. We would like to have him at a meeting so that we can discuss the differences. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he believes Mr. DiGiorgio will be
at the next meeting.
Mr. Tedesco asked if there is an update regarding access to the soccer field through the Marymount property. Ms. Gray said that Mr. Blau had conversations with Marymount and asked him if he has heard back from them. Mr. Blau said he has not as yet, but will follow up on it. Mr. Birgy asked Counsel Shumejda about the possible easement over the existing driveway. Counsel Shumejda said Scott Chamberlain did review that for the Village and reported that there is no record of an easement over that driveway. Toll Brothers also had the easement reviewed and came to the same conclusion. Mr. Birgy asked about Village access. Counsel Shumejda said he thought that Toll Brothers was agreeable for Village access, but did not want public access. Ms. Gray said she believes that is how it was left but they
also discussed alternative emergency access, one being Marymount property for access and parking at the lower lot for the soccer field, and the second option of constructing a drive through Village property on Wilson Park. We would still agree to emergency access over lots 1 and 2, but would prefer those other two options we explored before we agree to that access. Mr. Blau said he only discussed pedestrian access from the parking lot to the field with Marymount, not vehicular access. Ms. Gray said once you leave the parking area, there is Village property which could be constructed for emergency vehicular access to the soccer field. Mr. Blau said he never discussed that with Marymount and Toll Brothers and the Village would have to meet with Marymount to discuss that option. Chairman Friedlander commented that it might be better if the Homeowner Association owned that private roadway/driveway going to lot 2 rather than getting an easement from two
individual homeowners. Mr. Fitzpatrick said for them the answer is "no," because the scope of this HOA is solely for the maintenance of retention basis. When you add maintenance obligations to the homeowners, it becomes an additional obstacle for a potential purchaser and it also requires a lot more insurance and the involvement with a management company. It also requires additional disclosure with the State Attorney General's office. The shared driveway is understood by those two purchasers when purchased; none of the other 12 lots are encumbered by that easement or for the maintenance of that easement. Homeowners of those two lots will be responsible for the maintenance of that shared driveway. Chairman Friedlander and Mr. Fitzpatrick agreed that the best solution would be through Marymount; but if that is not possible, they will discuss further options to reach an agreeable solution. Mr. Fitzpatrick reminded the board that Toll
Brothers was not privy to the approval process prior to their involvement but nowhere was it stated in the findings that the applicant was respoonsible to provide emergency access to the soccer field, construct a driveway or grant an easement. We want to cooperate with the Village and will continue to have constructive conversations to come to a mutually agreeable conclusion.
Mr. Birgy asked Mr. McGarvey if we have as-builts for the infrastructure work and how does the surface water on the newly constructed Wilson Park Drive drain into the catch basins without curbing. Mr. McGarvey said they have as-builts for the sewer and water mains. He stated that curbing was something he mentioned early on but the residents did not want it. He let the contractor know about the ponding areas and he will be back to fix those areas so that the water drains into the drain inlets. All of the water from the roadway cannot go into the drain inlets. It always ran off onto the adjacent property and it does now as well, and all of that water will eventually get down into the retention ponds on either side of Wilson Park Drive, whether it is piped or runs through the grass area and through the swales into
the ponds.
Lot 4, 5 Warner Lane
Mr. Tedesco said that the main concern with the house on lot 4 is the frontage. He asked the applicat to discuss their final proposed frontage. Jennifer Gray, attorney with Keane and Beane, introduced herself as well as Chris Badger and James Fitzpatrick from Toll Brothers. Ms. Gray said they reduced the width of the home from 119' down to 95' (20% decrease) with a 56' front yard. They took a look at the homes in the neighborhood and they have widths up to 100' on much smaller lots.
Mr. Badger described the proposed home which had an original width of 119', with a revision to 109' by partially putting the addition in the rear, and the latest proposal is for a width of 95', with that same addition being put completely in the rear of the house. Mr. Badger showed various views of the home on Warner Lane by the Ice House; and from the corner of Wilson Park Drive and Warner Lane, where the house will not be seen.
Mr. Aukland asked if the western wall of the home has stayed in the same position. Mr. Badger said yes because of the grading. If they were to shift it, it would require a retaining wall. The house has been shift out of the drip line of the DeRocker's trees from 31' to 41' off the property line.
Ms. Raiselis asked if the piece in the lower left-hand corner is the garage which enters from the side. Mr. Badger said yes. Ms. Raiselis asked why they could not eliminate the driveway, move and house over, and enter the garage from the front like most houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Badger said it dramatically impacts the appearance of the house. It is a three-car garage, which means the garage would have to be wider, thus you would only gain a few feet. Ms. Raiselis said the most sensitive issue is the tree which has the potential to be damaged; so if we can buy a few feet, is that not good. Mr. Badger explained that he walked the site with the Village Landscape Architect Lucille Munz after reviewing the plans and she did not have a concern with this plan because the house is outside of the drip line. Mr. Birgy said you will need room for the equipment to enter the property outside of the drip line. Chairman Friedlander said we need to see what Ms. Munz has to say. Ms.
Gray said they would like to have a copy of any report by our Landscape Architect. Mr. Birgy said if you drop the floor of the garage and shift it over, you will not need a retaining wall. Mr. Badger said he spent a lot of time with their engineer and this house is shifted as far as possible. Ms. Gray said one thing you don't want to do is disturb slopes. Mr. Tedesco said we do not want to disturb slopes either, but sometimes it better to do so if the end result is better environmentally. Ms. Raiselis said she does not think that Mr. Birgy is suggesting that they disturb steep slopes but is accommodating a slight change in elevation to let the house sit more comfortably on the site and respect the issues around the tree.
The board agreed to meet with Ms. Munz and Mr. DiGiorgio at the next worksession.
Ms. Gray asked if that was the main concern the wished them to address. Mr. Tedesco said he is opening the meeting to the public who may have other concerns as well.
Rob DeRocker, 3 Warner Lane, stated that he appreciates the Planning Board’s efforts with the application. He has three main concerns and it is not that he does not want a house next door nor that they have antipathy with Toll Brothers. They welcome new neighbors. His concerns are: the house is too big, the house is too close. It may not be too big for zoning, but it is for the site. After seeing the model house, the neighbors asked if the rest would be as large. Mr. Badger said they would be about 2/3 the size of the model house. However, the house proposed to be built next to his house is almost 8,000' not counting the basement and garage. It is nearly the same bulk as the model house and much wider. When talking about this lot, given the relative scale of the neighborhood, the
proximity to the park, and the historic home, it is arguably the one lot of the 14 that is most sensitive and deserving of a far smaller footprint. Zoning is obviously a consideration here but the Planning Board has discretion that goes beyond simply floor area ratio to request a significant redesign of this monstrosity. We appeal to you to exercise it here.
Concern number 2 is about the proximity of the house to the two sugar maple tree in our back yard. We recently hired an arborist (report handed out and attached to these minutes) who told us if heavy equipment is driven over the roots of these trees, it could damage them and possibly kill the trees. He suggested that the board not only look at the trees in his backyard but also all the trees on each of the 14 sites to be developed.
Lastly, the soccer field. According to the Findings Statement, the developer is required to complete all infrastructure, including the infrastructure for the soccer field, before another building permit is issued. The developers were given a building permit to build the model home. The work on the soccer field has to be done before another building permit is issued.
Mr. DeRocker thanked the board for taking all of these points into consideration and urged them to take the time to do it right.
Melinda DeRocker, 3 Warner Lane, talked about two areas of great concern to her and her husband: proximity and two old maple trees; and second, symmetry verses incongruity. They are most directly impacted by the building of this new house. They have two beautiful old maples trees which are in jeopardy of being destroyed if the developer is allowed to build where the house markers are now located, which is at the edge of the drip line of the tree. The roots of Sugar maples extend well beyond the drip line; and if equipment is run over them, the tree could be greatly damaged or even die. Mrs. DeRocker confirmed her statements by reading a report from a certified arborist who noted the following observations:
"The Sugar maples at issue at 3 Warner Lane are considerably large for the species, in excess of 150 years old, and are relatively rare specimens. Of note, in my estimation they are among some of the oldest of this species of tree in the Tarrytown area."
"Since Sugar maples have been identified as having poor to moderate relative tolerance to development activities, the design and implementation of a tree protection zone is warranted and highly recommended. The recommended protection measures which follow have been designed to minimize impact to these two Sugar maples throughout the construction process."
"The most common form of tree protection on construction sites is to construct the tree protection zone at the drip line of the protected trees. However, it is well documented that tree roots extend beyond the drip line of trees, especially trees found in open areas such as the two Sugar maples which are the subject of this report. Furthermore, given the age and size of these particular trees and the relative rarity in this area of specimens this size, such measures are in my professional opinion not only prudent, but it would be misguided to overlook the potential risks of any disturbance within a more extensive protection zone than merely the drip line, or the currently proposed "protected area" as delineated on the Proposed Site Plan."
"For Tree #1, this would involve the placement of a tree protection barrier on the project site as minimum of 57 feet away from the trunk."
"For Tree #2, this would involve the placement of a tree protection barrier on the project site a minimum of 54 feet away from the trunk"
"In addition, in this instance, due to the size and stature of these trees, a 6-foot chain link fence is recommended to be installed at the outer limit of the tree protection zone and function as the tree protection barrier, rather than the use of orange construction fencing, silt fencing, or even any type of wood post fencing, all of which can easily be breached by large construction equipment. This fencing should include signage indicating that the area is a Tree Protection Zone, should be installed prior to site work commencing, and remain in place until all construction activities are complete."
In summary of my first point, construction of this house where it is now proposed would destroy the root system of the trees and eventually kill them.
The word symmetry means aesthetically pleasing, proportionality and balance which is what her neighborhood needs and deserves. Congruity means not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings, out of place. The present proposed house for lot 4 fits this description to a tee. She continued to explain why Toll Brothers development does not fit into her neighborhood. She asked that they go back to the drawing board and scale down the house.
Mr. Birgy asked the DeRockers if they preferred that the house be moved closer to the street. Mr. DeRocker said yes, but definitely east and he would like it smaller.
Mr. Birgy asked if the actual square footage of the house is 7878 square feet. Mr. Badger said the actual square footage of the house is 5550 square feet, which is smaller than the model home. Mr. Fitzpatrick explained that the FAR is 7878, where 8700 is allowed.
Elaine Marinzano, 127 Devris Avenue, Sleepy Hollow walks every day at Wilson Park and believes the house is too big. Fearful the DeRocker's house is going to look like one of those brick houses in New York City squeezed between two large buildings.
Anne McKissick Sadar, 373 Martling Avenue commented that she is struck that such a large international company as Toll Brothers does not know how to drain a soccer field. Also struck by the contrast of multi-millionaires of the past, such as the Rockefellers, and those of the present.
Mr. Aukland read a portion of a letter from Linda Viertel regarding Wilson Park Subdivision (copy attached).
Karen Brown, 5 River Terrace (directly across the street from lot 4) is happy to see that the house has been reduced; but with such a wide house, it cuts off the view of the park from the entire neighborhood. Believes if it is set down and further into the lot it will be a lot less obtrusive into the neighborhood. She feels that the access into the soccer field should be a public road so that Tarrytown has some say over it. She asked if the new portion of Wilson Park Drive is a private or public road. Even though it may be designated as a private road, it is very public and she hopes that it is maintained as such. She asked who owns it; to which Mr. McGarvey said, one side is owned by the Village and the other side is owned by the residents who abut Wilson Park. Ms. Brown asked if it's realistic that the
HOA will take care of the retention ponds. She feels it may be an issue.
Chairman Friedlander asked Mr. McGarvey if he inspects the retention ponds to be sure that they are being taken care of properly. Mr. McGarvey said every so often he has to check them. Mr. Birgy asked Village's recourse if they are not property maintained. Counsel Shumejda said it is a violation of the subdivision and site plan and letters would be sent to the HOA. This has worked in other areas of the Village.
Roger London, 185 Wilson Park Drive, recommended that there be no site plan approvals until the infrastructure is in because we will not be able to go back and sue Toll Brothers.
Mark Fry, former Lakes Committee Chairman, Sleepy Hollow, believes that no site plans should be approved until the entire infrastructure has been complete. He stated that the applicant is required to build a new drainage system for the soccer field, a new parking lot for the trail, to build off-site stormwater manager system to protect the lakes, and complete the clearing of all trail roots across all trail easements. Individual site plans should not be approved until they meet all items in the Dvirka and Bartolucci report and their own stormwater management plan. He believes that the home on lot 4 should be reduced in size and moved west away from the historic Ice House.
Mr. Tedesco suggested to Mr. Fry that he make a list of all the infrastructure items not complete for the Planning Board and the applicant. He also told Mr. Fry that earlier in the meeting Counsel Shumejda reported, according to a land surveyor, that what Mr. Fry believes is a survey monument in a tree, is not one and that there is no easement along the driveway to the stone college and beyond. If Mr. Fry has any additional information, he should submit it to the Village.
Katherine Hahn, with Abillama Architects in Mt. Vernon, commented that the lot lines of lot 1 and 2 should be moved in an effort to save the historic stone house. She presented an alternative site plan arrangement. Mr. Tedesco replied that we have a report about the stone house from Earl E. Ferguson that the stone house has some significant architectural and historical qualities but it is not on any local or national register that would require its preservation. Mr. Birgy stated that moving lot lines in the park will require approval by the state legislature. Mr. Fry said that is not so because this piece of property has not been dedicated as parkland. Both Mr. Tedesco and Mr. Birgy said the property belongs to Toll Brothers and it would have to be their decision to sell it to the historic society, which both
believe will not happen.
Kathy Ruhland, Chairman of the Lakes Committee, 17 Walden Road, said the mission of the Lakes Committee is to preserve, protect or make better the two lakes, which she feels are presently suffering significantly. The Dvirka and Bartolucci study explains that we need a better system to collect stormwater. The smaller lake is full of muck. Their main concern is the stormwater management plan but they are also concerned about the trails.
Mr. Birgy read the following statement from Dr. Carole Griffiths, Chair of the Tarrytown Environment Advisory Counsel, "As Chair of the Village of Tarrytown Environmental Advisory Counsel, I would like to make the following comments about the Toll Brothers' proposed site plans. We have been working for years to protect the Tarrytown Lakes, starting with declaring the Lakes as a critical environmental area. One of the considerations for development of the Toll Brothers is compliance with the stormwater management plan. I am suggesting to the Planning Board that no site plan be approved until the development demonstrates complete compliance with that plan. Thank you, Dr. Carole Griffiths." Mr. McGarvey suggested that he contact Dvirka and Bartolucci to see if Toll Brothers has met the conditions of their
report.
Laura Haupt, Dobbs Ferry, owner of Bark and Meow in Tarrytown, spoke in support of the DeRocker’s feeling that the proposed house next to them is too large.
Steve Mignona, 121 Wilson Park Drive, asked that someone explain the different between the actual square footage of the house and the FAR. Mr. McGarvey explained that the FAR is calculated by the size of the home compared to the size of the lot; the bigger the lot, the bigger the house can be. It's based on livable area: definitely the first and second floors and it could also be part of the attic depending on the slant of the roof, and part of the basement depending on how much area is 3' of exposed foundation wall. In this house, the basement does count in the FAR.
Mr. Fry stated that the Village should review the FAR after this application is complete. Chairman Friedlander stated that the community desired more open space. When we went to the South end and the Wilson Park area to substantially up-zoning for conservation and open space, we had to make a choice and we had to convince the landowners to accept our choice. We chose to up-zone to an R-80 zone which meant that the landowners could not build as many houses on their property as they could have in the previous zone, thus reducing the value of their land. In order to convince them, we had to compromise and the compromise was to allow larger houses to get back some of the value of the land. We now have to live with our choice, which also resulted in a large park. You can't say now you don't want a big house
when you made a big lot. You can't say now you don't want a big lot when you got a big park. If we didn't up-zone, you would have lost your river view because houses would have been built on the ridge; you still would have had a big house in front of you. We don't have the flexibility to do what you want. This is a site plan that you approved.
Mr. Birgy said he agrees with Chairman Friedlander but we can still make the house narrower.
Mr. Tedesco agrees with Chairman Friedlander and also with Mr. Birgy that we have the power to make each site as best we can.
Ms. Gray said they have answers for comments made this evening and would like to remind the board that they still have two more site plans before the board for approval. We would like to hear any comments on those two lots so that we can address them so that they can move forward. She stated that the stormwater facilities have been constructed according to the Dvirka and Bartolucci report, but would like to remind the board that the report was done in 2006 and approval was given in 2010. There are some differences in the site plans which make that report a little bit outdated. The revisions are equal to or greater than the original proposed facilities. If Dvirka and Bartolucci are going to review the as-builts, they should keep this in mind. She also stated that there was a letter from Kellard Sessions in
November 2010 detailing and explaining the changes that were made. She asked the board if they could continue with the other two site plan presentations.
Lot 1, 110 Wilson Park Drive
Mr. Badger gave an overview of lot 1 as stated previously. Ms. Gray clarified that the stone wall is on Village property. Mr. Badger showed the elevations of the house and a streetscape. Ms. Raiselis asked how wide the house is and Mr. Birgy asked how many square feet it is. Mr. Badger said it is 75' wide and 4200 square feet. Mr. Birgy asked about the trees. Mr. Badger said the plan has been updated to reflect the current trees, drip line, etc. He stated that two trees will be removed for grading purposes and they will be replacing them, as per the tree replacement plan.
Lot 3, 7 Warner Lane
Mr. Badger gave an overview of lot 3 as stated previously. Mr. Badger showed the elevations of the house and a streetscape. Chairman Friedlander asked Mr. Badger to explain the difference between this house and the proposed house on lot 1. Mr. Badger said this house is deeper and considerably narrower. He stated the width is 64' and the depth is 63'; whereas the house on lot 1 is 45' deep. It was asked if the siding is going all the way down to the ground. After some discussion it was stated that it will not be going all the way down to the ground. Mr. McGarvey said the look of the house is the prevue of the Architectural Review Board, which Mr. Badger said they will review in detail with the ARB. Mr. Fitzpatrick said they spent a lot of time with the ARB (3 meetings) for the model home and we
incorporated a lot of their comments into the house. We will be doing the same with each of these houses.
Chairman Friedlander said the Planning Board should attend the ARB meetings because these particular houses impact the park. We should also meet with Lucille Munz regarding the landscaping on the other side of the wall to be sure it is more park-like.
Ms. Raiselis stated that this is a very wooded area and we would like to see the landscape plan. This lot is one that we have to spend a lot of time with Ms. Munz for her recommendations.
Ms. Gray addressed the paper street. Mr. Badger checked the Engineering and Building Departments and there is no indication that it has been transferred to a private property owners so it still remains as a paper street which is owned by the Village, as are all paper streets. They also checked the Town of Greenburgh tax maps and this piece of property is not taxed to an individual. The road is being conveyed to the Rachlin and that house will have adequate frontage.
Paul Rachlin, 25 Lake Terrace, commented that they would like a better idea of what this house is going to look like. He is concerned about the drainage. He urged the board to see that all of the Findings are implemented before approval.
Karen Brown, 5 River Terrace, asked what the whole street is going to look like. She said just because you can build a certain size house, doesn't mean you have to.
Ms. Gray said the Zoning Table mirrors what is allowed in the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code does not provide for a width of a house. Mr. McGarvey said we want to see dimensions on the plan. Mr. Badger and Ms. Gray said they will make sure everything is indicated on the plan.
Mark Fry, Sleepy Hollow, stated that the dimensions should be put on the plan. He felt that Toll Brothers could make their Zoning Chart clearer.
Pamela Louis, 391 Benedict Avenue, would like Toll Brothers to site the house on lot 4 the additional 17' to the east so that the board could see how it looks.
Ms. Gray asked that the board close the public hearing. Chairman Friedlander said he would like to give the public the opportunity to comment on the landscape plan and he would like to see the plans for the soccer field. It was agreed that the public hearing will be continued to the next meeting.
Annual Stormwater Management Meeting
Following the May 29, 2012 Planning Board Meeting, the annual stormwater management meeting was held. Staff was available to answer any questions regarding the Village's Stormwater Management plan.
Mr. Tedesco move, seconded by Mr. Aukland to adjourn, all in favor; motion carried.
Adjournment 11:20 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
