Tarrytown NY - Planning Board Minutes 2/25/2013

Planning Board Minutes 2/25/2013

Planning Board

Village of Tarrytown

Regular Meeting

February 25, 2013; 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Members Tedesco, Aukland, Raiselis Birgy; Village Administrator Blau; Village Engineer McGarvey; Secretary Bellantoni

ABSENT: Chairman Friedlander; Counsel Shumejda

Mr. Tedesco chaired the meeting in Mr. Friedlander’s absence.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – January 28, 2013

Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Ms. Raiselis, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of January 28, 2013, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Jones – 23 John Street

Robert Dellesandro introduced himself as the architect for Christopher Jones, owner of 23 John Street. He explained that Mr. Jones wishes to have a driveway installed on his property. He presented a plan for a two-car driveway showing the expansion of the curb cut from the existing adjacent driveway. The plan addressed previous comments from the board regarding capturing the additional run-off by installing a drywell and trench drain as well as semi-pervious pavers for the surface of the driveway. Mr. Dellesandro stated that originally Mr. Jones only wanted one parking space; but at the Board of Trustees request, they are now seeking two spaces.

Mr. Tedesco said that the board members visited the site and asked for their comments.

Ms. Raiselis said she did go to the site and walked around. She understands the Board of Trustees reason for asking for two spaces but does not agree. She feels that one spot fits comfortably on the site as well as for the neighbors.

Mr. McGarvey said the reason the Board of Trustees is asking for two spaces is because removing one parking space from the street and providing one off-street space does not benefit the Village, only the homeowner. By providing two spaces, the Village and the homeowner will benefit. Mr. McGarvey also briefly discussed the parking requirements. According to the Village Code, there should be two parking spaces for a single family house. However, if they provide two, one will be parking in the front yard setback. He also commented that the neighbor is concerned that the space further in on the property is undesirable because they will be exposed to the fumes from the car when sitting on their deck.

Mr. Dellesandro said the neighbor’s driveway is right next to this proposed driveway and his back deck is much further back than where a car will be parked. He also stated that they are aware that they will have to go to Zoning for the front yard setback.

Mr. McGarvey asked Mr. Dellesandro if the Village Board was fully aware that they will be creating a new curb cut and taking a spot off the street. Mr. Dellesandro said yes that they submitted the same drawing. Mr. Dellesandro said they did not actually have a hearing with the Village Board but submitted through Mike Blau who said the Board did not have an issue with it since they were providing the two spaces and we should submit to the Planning Board.

Mr. McGarvey asked if there was any discussion that they could access the property through the existing curb cut. Mr. Dellesandro said no, they cannot get to the property through the existing curb cut. There is a portion of a curb cut there which will have to be expanded about 2/3 in order to access the property. He said technically you can park the same amount of cars even with the curb cut.

Mr. Aukland asked what the front yard setback is. Mr. McGarvey said its 20’. Mr. Dellesandro said they can meet the setback with the further back space, but not with the front space. He stated that no one conforms.

Mr. Birgy asked what if all the neighbors want two spaces. Ms. Raiselis said they can’t because they are now parking directly in front of their houses. Mr. Jones said everyone else has bump-outs which prevent them from parking further back.

Ms. Raiselis asked Mr. Jones if he wants two cars. Mr. Jones stated that he only has one car right now but you never know about the future. He said he will not be upset with only one space.

Mr. Tedesco said he visited the site. He asked Mr. Jones if two spaces are approved, would he be willing to put in eco-ridge permeable pavers. Mr. Dellesandro said yes, that is what is intended. Mr. Tedesco said he noticed that there is a fence separating the neighbor’s driveway and Mr. Jones’s proposed driveway. He also said that the neighbor’s deck is beyond the end of the proposed driveway. Mr. Tedesco asked if they will be able to get in and out of the car if it parks all the way back. Mr. Dellesandro said it’s tight but manageable; the space is about 10’ wide. His other concern is that there will be parking in the back yard.

Mr. Dellesandro said before they started this process, Mr. Jones went to the Building Department and was told that the previous owner made a similar application and was told that they needed to provide spaces for two cars. That is why they came before the board asking for two spaces, but they only wanted one.

Mr. Aukland felt they could approve one space to meet the setback and there would still be enough room for another car should they have company.

Mr. Tedesco said since Mr. Jones is happy with one space and the neighbor’s would prefer it, he suggests that they approve one space even though the Board of Trustees prefers two. Mr. Raiselis said she also feels that one space is more fitting in this situation. Mr. Jones asked if that would be an automatic denial because the Board of Trustees wants two. Mr. Tedesco said the Board of Trustees will have to approve the curb cut. If they will not approve the curb cut unless there are two spaces, it will come back to us. Ms. Raiselis said then we will approve it.

Mr. McGarvey said if you approve one space in the front yard setback, he will have to go before Zoning for a variance. Mr. Dellesandro said they understand that. Mr. McGarvey asked if they understand that they will have to get a curb cut approval from the Village Board. Mr. Dellesandro said they have been told that they have that approval pending Planning Board and Zoning Board approval.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for the proposed action. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland to close the Public Hearing. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of the proposed action. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that the Board approves the proposed addition of a new driveway adjacent to the house on 23 John Street with a new curb cut in the street. This approval is subject to the following:

Given the small, narrow space for cars and concerns expressed by the neighbor, this approval is for the provision of one parking space on the driveway. A concrete wheel stop will be provided at the end of this single parking space.
The Board imposes a stipulation that no parking is to be allowed in the rear of the property. This stipulation is to be recorded with the Village and also added to the Miscellaneous Index in County records.
The driveway is to be constructed of eco-ridge permeable pavers.
Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
Approval by the Zoning Board for a variance for intrusion of parking into the required front yard setback. Such intrusion is common historically currently in the neighborhood.
The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Trustees approve the removal of one public parking space on the street to permit the curb cut needed for the driveway.
Payment of any outstanding escrow fees prior to the granting of a construction permit.
Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.

All in favor; motion carried.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Canfin Gallery – 39 Main Street

Mr. Tedesco read the following Notice of Public Hearing:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Village of Tarrytown Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:

Canfin Gallery

39 Main Street

Tarrytown, NY 10591

For site plan approval for property located at the above address to demo existing garage and build new garage attached to building with one story above for extended art gallery use. The property is shown on the tax maps as Sheet 1.40, Block 17, Lot 14 and in the RR (Restricted Retail) 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

The certified mailing receipts were submitted and the sign was posted

Leonard Brandes, Architect for the applicant, introduced himself and explained the proposed project. The property is located on the corner of Main Street and North Washington Street. It is a three story brick building with a one story rear addition. The property also has a one story detached garage. The first floor of the building and the rear addition is used for Mr. Canfin’s art gallery and there are two apartments; one on each floor above. The building is non-conforming as follows:

Permitted Existing Proposed

Minimum lot size: 5,000 s.f. 3,381 s.f. 3,381 s.f.

Accessory building coverage: 50% 55% 65%

Minimum front yard: 15’ 9.76’ 9.76’

Minimum rear yard: 26’ .48’ & 47’ 10’

Maximum height (stories): 2.5 3 3

Minimum height (ft.): 25’ 30 30

Minimum floor area per dwelling: 0 800 800

They are proposing to remove the existing detached two-car garage and construct a new three-car garage with one story retail above. They will be increasing the number of parking spaces from 7 to 11, which will allow for additional parking for the employees and the tenants in the apartments, as well as creating a 10’ buffer zone from the residential district which does not exist now. By creating a three-car garage, they are taking one space off the street. We are planning to put in plantings and pavers in the front on the Washington Street side of the building as well as in the rear of the building. This will clean up that area and make it more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. They presently have a 16’ driveway and they will be increasing it to 22’.

The existing utilities and street sign will be relocated. At the recommendation of an arborist, they will be removing the existing tree and replacing it with a healthier new tree. Mr. Brandes stated that they are still waiting to hear from Con Edison regarding the relocation of the pole. Mr. McGarvey asked if they just wanted the pole moved or will the wires be going underground. Mr. Brandes said just moving the pole.

Mr. Tedesco was concerned that the pole was too close to the first garage which would make it difficult for a person to drive in and out of it. Ms. Raiselis asked what they will do if Con Edison will not relocate the pole.

Mr. Brandes said he has designed the garage a little longer to allow for the pole and he can put in one double garage door and one single one. Ideally they will be able to move the pole much further away from Main Street. They have calls in to Con Edison to set up a meeting to discuss how they can fix the existing wires in the rear of the building as well.

Mr. Brandes said their goal is to provide more gallery and storage space while improving the general area of the building.

They will be removing the existing siding and will be using stucco to make it consistent. The windows will be single light windows to conform to the existing windows. It is a commercial space, not a residence. There will be three separate garage doors. They are not creating anything that is bigger than the neighbor already has.

Mr. Tedesco asked if they looked into different garage doors. Mr. Brandes said they did; and if the Board would like something else, for example carriage house doors, they would be willing to do that.

Ms. Raiselis asked about the door in the middle section of the building. Mr. Brandes said there is a 4’ door there now and they are just replacing the existing door; however, they are having difficulty finding a single 4’ door and found that a 4’ double door will fit in the existing space. Ms. Raiselis asked if it was accessible to the public. Mr. Brandes said it is not an egress. The area beyond the door is storage only.

Mr. Tedesco asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak.

Karen Croke, she and her family own 37 Main Street, said she was interested in seeing the plans and asked what they intend to do in the back yard. She also wanted to know if they will be putting a window on the side that faces her building.

Mr. Brandes explained that there is an existing window and they will only be added another window all the way at the end so that it does not interfere with the privacy for her building. He said they will be cleaning up the area and taking down the existing garage which is an eyesore. They will be putting in plantings and trees. When asked by Ms. Croke, he said the distance between the back of Mr. Canfin’s building and the back property line is 10”.

Mr. Tedesco asked if there were any other comments. Mr. McGarvey said they will have to go before the ARB. Ms. Raiselis said she thinks it is an improvement to the corner which is a very visible corner. Mr. Birgy was not pleased with the architecture, particularly in the back.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for the proposed action. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland to close the Public Hearing. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of the proposed action. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that the Board approves the proposed action subject to:

Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
Approval by the Zoning Board for the increase in the non-conformity in maximum coverage and for a variance for the non-conformity in the rear yard setback. Given that the applicant will provide a 10 foot buffer to the adjacent residential area, will be removing an accessory structure that is not allowable by current code, will be adding parking, and also be adding landscaping along the front and in the buffer, the Planning Board recommends Zoning Board approval.
Approval by the Architectural Review Board. The Board recommends that the architecture of the rear of the building be looked at to insure it adds to the aesthetics and historical character of the neighboring community.
Payment of any outstanding escrow fee before the granting of a building permit.
Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
The applicant is to resolve the issue of the location of the lighting pole by the proposed garages. If the pole cannot be moved, the garage doors should be moved a safe distance from the pole in terms of safe auto egress of cars from the garage. Changes to the location/appearance of the garage doors would have to be approved by ARB; and if there is any change in coverage, this is to be approved by the Planning Board.

All in favor; motion carried.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Split Development (Joseph Denardo) – 8 Emerald Woods

Mr. Tedesco read the following public hearing notice:

Joseph DeNardo

83 Harriman Road

Irvington, NY 10533

For site plan approval for property located at 8 Emerald Woods to construct a single-family house with a 3-car garage and pool. The property is shown on the tax maps as Sheet 1.190, Block 112, Lot 17 and in the R-60 (Restricted Retail) Zone.

By Order of the Planning Board

Dale Bellantoni, Secretary

The certified mailing receipts were received and the sign was posted

Jim Annicchiarico introduced himself as representative for Joseph Denardo. He explained that they are proposing a single-family residence with a pool and a three-car garage on lot #3. He stated that it has an existing detention basin on lot under the ownership of the Homeowners Association. They have verified that it is large enough for all of the run-off from the subdivision. Mr. Annicchiarico showed the streetscape of lot 2 with a proposed house, lot 3 and lot 4, with the existing house and explained that the proposed structure complies with all requirements except for the height, which is about 6.5’ over the 35’ maximum; however, it does not look out of place because lot 3 is at the peak of the road and the street is about 5’ higher than the street in front of lot 4. Because it slopes away from the road, the house looks lower than the other houses on the street.

Mr. Aukland asked if he could show the equivalent of the streetscape from the aqueduct. Mr. Annicchiarico showed what he prepared and stated that the house on lot 4 has a peak elevation of 208.5’ and their proposed house has a peak elevation of 212.5’.

Mr. Aukland asked him how far the house is from the aqueduct. Mr. Annicchiarico said from the aqueduct to the pool is approximately 200’ and to the deck of the house is approximately 230’.

Mr. Aukland asked if there will be screening between the house and the aqueduct. Mr. Annicchiarico said yes and pointed out where the plantings will be and explained that there are two tiered retaining walls behind the pool which will have plantings between them in order to reduce the massive look and to screen the pool from the aqueduct. Mr. Annicchiarico said there will be stone on all of the foundation walls, as requested by the Board.

Mr. Birgy asked the square footage of the home. Mr. Annicchiarico said it is a little over 7,500 s.f.; 3,200 s.f. on the first floor, 2,500 s.f. on the second floor, 2,300 s.f. on the basement level and the subtraction of 500 s.f. for the garage.

Mr. Birgy asked what they will be doing regarding energy saving measures. Mr. DeNardo said they will be using foam insulation, the garage doors will be energy efficient.

Mr. Tedesco asked if there was a stormwater drainage plan. Mr. Annicchiarico said there are stormwater measures on the plans. Mr. McGarvey said when this subdivision was original done, the basin on this property was sized for all impervious run-off coming to this basin.

Mr. Tedesco asked if anyone else would like to comment.

Rick Stassa, 2 Emerald Woods, asked about the driveway. Mr. McGarvey said originally the Planning Board wanted all gravel driveways but that did not work. Now they are requiring pervious pavers. Mr. Stassa asked if the street will be closed or blocked during construction. Mr. McGarvey said the road should never be closed or blocked; and if it is, you should call the police. He also said that all of the utilities are in as well as the curb cut so there should be no work in the street. Mr. Stassa asked if the site would be maintained because the lot across the street has not been. Mr. DeNardo, who also owns the lot across the street, said everyone who redid their driveway parked their construction vehicles in that lot and left their debris. It will be cleaned up.

Mr. Tedesco asked if they were agreeable to foam insulation in the walls and ceilings and Mr. McGarvey asked if the walls will be 2 x 6. Mr. Denardo said yes to both.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland to close the Public Hearing. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for the proposed action. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of the proposed action. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland that the Board approve the proposed site plan for 8 Emerald Woods subject to the following:

Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer particularly in regard to the Stormwater/Drainage Plan. This plan is to include specific and detailed preconstruction, construction and post-construction stormwater/drainage measures.
Approval of the 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/screening plan, any amendments or changes are desired, such changes must be approved by the Planning Board.
A detailed Tree Protection and Tree Preservation Plan to be approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.
If any trees designated to be preserved are damaged due to site work, and subsequently need to be removed, the Applicant will 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.
Prior to any CO being issued, there will be an inspection of the landscaping and screening provided on the lot by the Planning Board and Village Landscape Consultant to verify that the approved plan was properly implemented.
The Applicant also agrees to perform any treatment and pruning of existing trees deemed necessary by the Village Landscape Consultant at a time the consultant deems most appropriate.
Adherence to the section of the Zoning Code dealing with the Tree Replacement Fund for the removal of any trees with a 10 inch caliper or greater.

Alternative remediation elsewhere on the project site, as approved by the Village Landscape Consultant.

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.
A covenant will be placed in the homeowner’s deed, in the miscellaneous document of the property that prohibits the use of phosphate fertilizers. Organic, non-phosphate, fertilizers may be used.
Approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Approval by the Zoning Board for any variances required. The Planning Board recommends the variance needed to allow for the 36’6” height given the specific grade on this property. Also, making the roof flat to lower the height would not be aesthetically pleasing.
Payment of any outstanding recreation and escrow fees prior to the granting of a building Permit.
Signing of the Final Site Plan by the Planning Board Chair.

All in favor; motion carried.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Crescent Associates – 155 White Plains Road

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 Monday, February 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, to hear and consider an application by:

Crescent Associates, LLC

c/o Silverman Realty Corp.

237 Mamaroneck Avenue, Ste. LL

White Plains, NY 10605

For a five-year extension of the 2007 approval, which is now expired, to construct a new office building with associated parking, loading, drainage and landscaping on property located at 155 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, New York.

The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 1.201 Block 121, Lots 5.11 and is located in an OB (Office Building) zone.

By Order of the Planning Board

Dale Bellantoni, Secretary

The certified mailing receipts were submitted and the sign was posted

Don Walsh, representative for the applicant, Leon Silverman and Crescent Associates, stated that the Planning Board approved this site plan in 2007. It was a dual approval; private, the firehouse which was built by the Village; and public, the office building which has not been built yet. All conditions of that approval are still in place except that Mr. Albert Lee of Marshall Cavendish, the property next to this one, is no longer there. Since Mr. Lee was specifically stated in the 2007 approval, we want it on record that we will continue to work with Marshall Cavendish regarding any decisions/changes that will affect their property, even though Mr. Lee is no longer with them. Presently there is no tenant and they would just like a renewal of the 2007 approval.

Mr. Aukland asked if this application is identical to the approved application. Mr. Walsh said yes it is exactly the same. The only conditions that may change are those mandated by the Village’s consultants such as tree removal and plantings once the ground is broken.

Mr. Aukland noted for the record that there have not been significant zoning code changes in the interim that will affect this property. Mr. Walsh agreed and said they did the storm water plan according to the new regulations which went in to affect after 2003 and they participated in the large 119 traffic study that was done.

Ms. Raiselis asked if the approval conditions were contingent upon the landscape plan and has the landscape plan change with all of the storms we have had. Mr. Walsh said it has not changed. The landscape plan is incorporated into the signed planned drawings and it covers anything they might do. Two large specimen trees are now leaning as a result of the recent storms.

Mr. Tedesco read the following conditions of the 2007 approval:

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.
Before the removal of designated trees, a site visit will be held by the Planning Board and the Village Landscape Consultant for a final inspection and verification with trees marked in the field.
Inspection of the final landscaping and screening on a site visit by the Planning Board and the Village Landscape Consultant before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Mr. Tedesco read from a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated February 25, 2013 regarding Protection of Waters and stated that they should read it and follow up on it (copy of letter attached).

Mr. Tedesco asked if there were any comments from the audience.

Robin Costello representative of Marshall Cavendish Corporation which is located at 99 White Plains Road, adjacent to the 155 site plan stated that they are very happy that they will be involved in the stages of the development of the site. They were concerned with the tree and landscape plan. They look forward to working with them cooperatively.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland to close the Public Hearing. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved that the Planning Board renew its initial site plan approval for the construction of an office building on 155 White Plains Road.
This approval is subject to all the approval conditions for the proposed site plan which are recorded in the minutes of the July 23, 2007 Planning Board meeting.
Based on Section 305-62 B(2) of the Tarrytown Zoning Code, the Planning Board extends this approval for a period of 5 years from the date of this meeting.
If the applicant received parking request from any entity other than tenant, the applicant must come before the Planning Board for approval.
Comments made in the memo of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation of February 25, 2013 to the Planning Board should be addressed.
Applicant agrees that Marshall Cavendish will be invited to all site walks, inspections, etc. as part of the approval process and permitting.

All in favor; motion carried

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Huzinec – 12 Pintail Road

Mr. Tedesco read the following public hearing notice:

George and Carolyn Huzinec

1830 N. Winchester #215

Chicago, Illinois 60622

For a two-year extension of the February 28, 2011 approval 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 & 36 and is located in an R-10 (One Family Residential) Zone.

By Order of the Planning Board

Dale Bellantoni, Secretary

The return receipts were received and the sign was posted.

The applicant was not present because they moved to Chicago.

Michael Stein of Hudson Engineering said they were the engineers on this original project and offered his assistance. He explained that the Huzinec’s owned two lots. The lot with the house on it was sold and the second empty lot is the one they are requesting an extension of the site plan approval. Mr. Aukland asked him if anything has changed since the approval. Mr. Stein said not to his knowledge.

Mr. Mark Newman, the present owner of 12 Pintail Road, introduced himself and explained that he was only present because he received the public hearing notice but did not know what it was about. He asked if the Board would adjourn the meeting for one month in order to give him time to review the previous approval.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the Planning Board extends the site plan approval for a single-family house at 12 Pintail Road. This extension will be for one month from the date of the expiration of the current approval, February 28, 2013 and is subject to all the site plan conditions in the site plan approval made on February 28, 2011. All in favor; motion carried.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – Toll Brothers – 210 Wilson Park Drive (Lot 5)

The application was adjourned at the applicant’s request.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – Toll Brothers – 213 Wilson Park Drive (Lot 14)

The application was adjourned at the applicant’s request.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – Toll Brothers – 218 Wilson Park Drive (Lot 7)

The application was adjourned at the applicant’s request.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – Wildey Group, LLC – 124 Wildey Street

The application was adjourned at the applicant’s request.

PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – Salvation Army – 115 Wildey Street

William Null of Cuddy and Feder introduced himself, Michael Stein of Hudson Engineering and Greg McCurio of Dan Sherman Architects. Mr. Null explained that they will be taking down the old Frank Chevrolet building on Valley Street in Sleepy Hollow and the present Salvation Army building located at the corner of Wildey and Valley Streets in order to build a new Salvation Army building. The site is located in both Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown. The new building will be built in the Sleepy Hollow portion of the site and the Tarrytown portion will have parking and landscaping only.

Mr. Null stated that they have already had public hearings before the Sleepy Hollow Zoning and Planning Boards. The Zoning Board granted a variance for a reduction of parking spaces from 82 to 41. Michael Stein said 10 of those spaces will be land-banked which they will use as a landscape area to allow for additional landscape mitigation or screening. Mr. Null said this will decrease the impervious surface.

Mr. McCurio discussed the landscape plan which will provide screening to adjacent buildings. The plan provides for a mix of deciduous and evergreens around the perimeter of the property. In the Tarrytown section there will be an aluminum wrought iron look 4’ high fence along the property line and a 2 ½’ high hedge between the fence and the sidewalk to soften the look of the fence and eventually to grow high enough to hide it. The outside bins will also have plantings around them. Ms. Raiselis asked if our Landscape Architect saw the landscape plan. Mr. Stein said not yet.

Mr. McGarvey asked the condition of the sidewalk in the Tarrytown section of the project. Mr. Stein said he did not know its present condition, but it will all have to be rebuilt because of the large curb cut that is proposed.

Mr. Stein said they would provide a full size landscape plan for the next meeting and they will also be providing a lighting plan. There will be 21 LED lights which will illuminate the side of the building and both parking areas. There won’t be any light trespass going onto adjourning properties except for the sidewalk on both Wildey and Valley Streets. Mr. Stein commented about the rear elevation regarding the light. He said the bottom elevation is 22-23, there is a 4’ wall and they are on the low side with a high point elevation of 44. Mr. Stein feels that there is little chance of light tresspass going up or off the property.

Mr. McGarvey asked that they put a note on the plans stating that the existing water and sewer service will be cut back at the main.

Mr. Tedesco asked if there was a stormwater plan for Mr. McGarvey’s review. Mr. Stein said the stormwater is incorporated in the plans. He stated that the site is almost 100% impervious and they are adding a significant amount of planting areas. We will be reducing the volume of run-off by adding water quality components. They will be adding stormwater planters along the side and front of the building to capture a portion of the roof water, they are adding an attenuation system in the back to reduce the rate of stormwater that is coming off the site and installing a mechanical device that eliminates pollutants.

Mr. McGarvey clarified that the Fortex will be maintained by Sleepy Hollow. Mr. Stein confirmed that it will be.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded Mr. Aukland to declare the Planning Board intent to be lead agency for the portion of the project in the Village of Tarrytown. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, to set escrow at $2,500.00. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, to set a public hearing for the March 2013 meeting. All in favor; motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 9:00p.m.

Dale Bellantoni

Secretary