1 25 13 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/220dfa0fcd83f42dd0ba1cda8d59a444.pdf 1652c1493735b010dcb73d65d78854cb PDF Text Text ^-r^/-REGULAR MEETING 6 • *.•*— ^ J _ f T ^ NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK DECEMBER 16th . 1993 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on December 16th, 1993 at 8:O0 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Ellen Tsangaris Roman Vindas James Donovan Steve Salman ABSENT: Edward McCarthy ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Susan Portman-Clarlc Assoc. Joe Gulino-CAMCE James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Hritz called the meeting 1. to order at 8:10 P.M. Valley Street Plaza-Retail & Multiple Dwelling-Preliminary Hearing . Ron Turnquist, Architect, outlined the proposed project for a multiple dwelling and retail stores on the site previously occupied by Ross Hardware. Mr. Turnquist presented drawings and stated that the building would be accessible from Valley Street and Chestnut Street. The building would match the building across the street, also owned by Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Hritz asked where parking for the project would be provided. Mr. Turnquist stated the owner was negotiating with the owner of property directly across the street from the project for at least 8 parking spaces. He also stated they would be appearing before the Zoning Board for several variances. Discussion followed regarding the type of retail stores, Mr. Turnquist stated they expected to rent to florists, ice cream store, shoe repair shop and possibly a drug store. Ms. Portman presented a memo regarding the proposed project and stated she has reviewed the Site Plan. (Copy in official minutes) . Mr. Jose Jimenez, local businessman stated stated he wished them luck and felt they were help rehabilitate the village and the village should accomodate them. Mr. Gulino questioned the proposed utilities and the use of the existing foundation and structure. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that the atter be referred to the Zoning Board for their review. Carried. �\ -22. Rock of Salvation, 131 Cortlandt Street-Site Plan ReviewProposed Church. Ron Turnquist, Architect, presented plan for the proposed rehabilitation of the former Con Edison building on Cortlandt Street into a Church. Mr. Turnquist stated that the building is now vacant and has been vacant for about five years. The plan is to gut the entire inside of the building, build new partitions creating a day care center and a sanctuary. The church presently rents space from another local church. Mr. Turnquist outlined the plans for the second floor, which in the future will house classrooms and meeting rooms. He stated once approval of the project is received from the Village he will prepare the plans for the various phases of construction. The initial plan is to complete a modest church for approximately 100 parishoners, s£ n c e there is no parking on the site. Mr. Turnquist noted that most of the members of the church live in North Tarrytown and Tarrytown and would probably walk to church. Rev. Santiago, Pastor of the Rock of Salvation stated it was their intention to attempt to purchase the two parcels immediately north of the church and to eventually use them for parking. Mr. Turnquist stated he will prepare a Long Form Environmental Statement and present it to the Board. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan to refer the matter to the Zoning Board for their approval. Carried. Mr. Jose Jimenez, stated he was a member of the Church and stated they needed a lot of help but the Church would be an asset to the village. Rev. Santiago stated he felt that the building after it is renovated will be an asset to the village and will be there for the entire community. Ms. Portman presented memo to the Board of their Preliminary Review of Rock of Salvation Church Site Plan stating the Church has submitted several plans for their review. (Copy in official minutes). 3. Phelps Memorial Hospital, North Broadway-Continuation. Chairman Hritz stated he had met with the Hospital representatives and several plans were discij-SsejL rje-gar-d-in-g—fc-h-a-fencing and trees to screen headlights from fhe new parking spaces; Mr. Hritz stated that the Mayor had ' confirmed the Village's earlier offer to pay part of the cost of fencing, in order that the problem be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Hritz stated the Bick' and their neighbors wanted some planting, but their main concern was that the lighting would be shielded. Discussion followed regarding the number of trees to be planted and the cost of same. �.- Mr. Hritz stated he would meet with the hospital .representatives and resolve the matter. NEW BUSINESS " "'- Mr. Hritz asked if there was anyone present who would, like to address the Board. __T. „ .„. ..._. Mr. Albert Peck stated he had appeared sometime ago requesting several variances. His great-grandfather owned property on Barnhart Avenue and six houses were built on the lots. In order for him to sell the houses the property must be sub-divided as no one wants to buy six houses. He stated he suffered a heart attack and was unable to proceed with the project and the time has expired. Mr. Peck stated he has paid all the necessary fees and would like an extension so that he would not lose all the fees. After a discussion, Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that due to extenuating circumstances and the fact that the property is part of an estate, which has not been settled, and the fact that Final Approvals were received from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board the Planning Board hereby grants a one year extension effective one year from today. Carried. MINUTES Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that the Minutes of the meeting held on November 18th, 1993 be approved as amended. Carried. OLD BUSINESS After a discussion, Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Salman the Resolution approving the Site Plan and Sudivision by Mr. and Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo be approved as requested. (Copy of Resolution in Official Minutes). Carried. After a discussion the Attorney was directed to send a letter to the Treasurer of the Village authorizing him to send a letter to Mr. & Mrs. Ruivo informing them of the fees now due and payable, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Attorney was also instructed to request the Treasurer to send a report to the Planning Board of an update of all fees due and payable by applicants, said report to be received by the Board at least one week prior to their next meeting in January. Mr. Margotta stated that Mrs. Serina has paid all fees due except for the Recreation Fee which is ^$3,600. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris that the Resolution for Site Plan Approval for Construction of Mixed Use Building proposed by Emma Serina be approved as modified. Carried. (Copy of Resolution in Official Minutes). Mr. Salman stated he would like the Recreation Fees paid the Issuance of a Building Permit. prior to �-4Discussion followed regarding the Draft Resolution amendedlng Site Plan Approval for Development of a Medical Office Building at Phelps Memorial Hospital. Mr. Gulino stated he has not received an answer to his comments with regard to the sewage agreement between the Hospital and I.B.M. Attorney Gandolfo was instructed to send a letter to the Hospital stating we have not received their reply to our comments and the matter was referred to the January 20th, 1994 meet ing. There being no further business to come before the meeting Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, Z-*~ Irene Amato Acting Clerk tS^jF~& �Approved irith respect to substance and form: VillageVAttorney Approved by the Planning Board Chairman Dated: / Chairman Filed with Village Clerk 0, <To..juoct^ Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: A^/e^^fce-i-" It 111? Date of Meeting �• Approved «with raspect t o substance and form; Ti v O I a g e Attorney Daced: Approvedjay t h e Planning Board » ) F i l e d with V i l l a g e Clerk tterJr-oicDated: Deputy- 'C24*)C: Ik Datea of r\-F Meeting M a o f i net « � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-12-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/e629566b81915c770c7dca5b0a95f0e6.pdf fc019c6cd2010046f27f54931957c76c PDF Text Text SEPTEMBER 23rd, 1993 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT (9/28/93) PLANNING Board NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK • SEPTEMBER 23rd, 1993 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on September 23rd, 1993 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Ellen Tsangaris Donald Caetano Steve Salman James Donovan Edward McCarthy Roman Windas ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Arshad Jalil-CAMCE Susan Portman, Clark Assoc. Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:15 1. P.M. Mr. & Mrs. A. Ruivo, Preliminary Hearing-39 Depeyster Street, Construction 3 family residence. John Hughes represent!ng Mr. & Mrs. Ruivo stated that the property was purchaed in 199 2 from the Levy Family. Mr. Reivo completely restored the ex isting three family residence and would like to sub-divide the lot and construct a new three family residence. Mr. Hughes st ated that Mr. Ruivo had appeared before the Zoning Board and had been granted a variance to construct the new building. The Zoning Codes allow more than three families residence to be construct and the variance granted was for a rear yard vari ance of 20 feet instead of 25 feet, and was the only variance necessary. Parking for six cars will be provided for the ne w building and six spaces for the present building. There is no existing parking available. Mr. Hughes stated that Mr. Ruivo had complied with all requests of Clark Associates and would like to have a public hearing on the request for a sub-division. Mr. Margotta stated that since the project had been down sized there should be no objections from the neighbors. Mr. Windas stated he felt the area was zoned for multi-family and did not require Planning Board approval. Discussion followed regarding sub-division and site plan approval. Mr. Caetano stated there was a parking shortage in the Village and felt that if the blacktop area was landscaped it would be more appealing to the public. (Memo from Clark Associates in Official Minutes) �(Draft-10/8/93) -2Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that a Public Hearing be held on October 21st, 1993 on the sub-division. Carried. 2. Errma Serina, 9 Lawrence Avenue-Construction 2-Story Building. Continued. Robert Barstow, Architect for the project stated Mrs. Serina had appeared before the Zoning Board and has obtained various variances for the project as indicated on the Site Plan presented to the Board. Mr. Barstow stated they have relocated the building, eliminating two variances that were necessary, and have created four full size parking spaces which eliminated a side yard variance. With these changes Mr. Barstow stated he would like approval of the revised plans as approved by the Zoning Board. Ms. Portman stated that a memo dated September 21st, 1993 was sent to the Board regarding their review of the project. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Hritz stated that Clark Associates recommend the planting of a hedge along the side yards. MR. Barstow stated that Mrs. Serina was agreeable to the planting. Discussion followed regarding the installation of "stops" . Mr. Barstow stated there will be stops or curbing and a green area in front of the building. Regarding the planting on the south side of the building, Mr. Barstow stated that the building to be constructed by Mr. Rodriguez will be built to the property line and there will not be enough sublight for plantings. Mr. Donovan, moved, seconded by Mr. Windas to approve the revised plans as submitted. Mr. Hritz polled the Board as follows: Mr. Caetano Ms. Tsangaris Mr. Salman Mr. Donovan Mr. McCarthy Mr. Windas Mr. Hritz declared the No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes motion carried. 3. C M . Pateman, North Broadway-Car Wash-Continued. Mr. Hritz asked the attorney for the status of the moratorium imposed by the Board of Trustees. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the moratorium was in effect for a period of ninety days, from September 7th, 1993, and prohibits final spprovals by the Planning Board of all projects in C-l District on Route 9. Ms. Gandolfo stated the applicant may proceed with the process, and the Board may review the application, subject to the understanding that final approval �(Draft-10/8/93) -3cannot be given until the moratorium is over. Mr. Pateman stated he would like to proceed with the process. M s . Gandolfo stated there is a written opinion on file with the Board of Trusees regarding the moratorium. Discussion followed regarding a Zoning change in the area and what effect it would have on Mr. Pateman's application. M r . Salman stated that the traffic flow will be changed and greatly increased due to the Rockefeller Archives and the new office building to be constructed by Mr. Rodrigues. Mr. Margotta stated that the plans for the office building are being revised by the Architect and will be resubmitted to the Planning Board for their approval. M s . Portman presented Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Board to review. (Copy in official minutes). Ms. Portman suggested that Mr. Pateman submit his plans to the Department of Health for their review. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris that the Board make a negative or positive declaration and directed Ms. Portman to prepare a draft for the Board. Carried. M r . Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan to defer the matter to the next meeting. Carried. M s . Gandolfo stated that the Board has been adjcairning the Public Hearing and the Notice was still in effect. Ms. Gandolfo stated the Board could readvertise in order to inform the public the matter will be heard at the next meeting. M r . Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Salman to readvertise that the Public Hearing is to be continued. Carried. 4. Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, North Broadway-New Parking Spaces. Representatives for the Hospital stated they would like to amend the site plan for the Medical Office Building. The site plan presented and approved was for a four-story building of approximately 60,000 square feet. It is now proposed that a three-story building of approximately 45,000 square feet will be built. The hospital would like to reduce the number of parking spaces needed. The building would have the same foot prints but due to the fact that a lot more rock was encountered than expected some changes are needed. They seek approval of 62 additional spots elsewhere on the property. �-4- DRAFT (9/28/93) Mr. Hritz stated that the request was reasonable butt felt the public should be allowed to speak at the Public Hearing, due to the fact they are changing the plans. Discussion followed regarding the cost in delaying the construction. Representative for the hospital stated the hospital would like to amend the site plan which has previously been approved by the Board. He also stated that the delay would cost the hospital a lot of money and they were trying to keep the cost down. Ms. Portman stated that a memo wa s sent to the Board regard!ng the amended site p Ian. She state d that the drawings submitt ed by the applicant are not clear as to what is being propose d. The drawing;s are inconsistent wi th the approved site pi an. She stated the d rawin gs due not show the MRI building and its related parkin g area . It is not cle ar whether the MRI facilit y is to remain or if that area will be redeveloped to its former state as part of this proposed a pplication. She also stated that a full Env ironmental Assessment Form will have .to be subm itted, and the application must be r eferred to the (Copy of Memo Westchester County Planning Board for revie w. in offi cial minutes). Ms. Gandolfo advised the Board that a Public Hearing should be held, due to the change in the Site Plan and that a long form EAF be submitted. She also stated the Board could make a negative or positive declaration at the next meeting. Mr. Hritz requested that the Hospital present more comprehensive plans for the changes to be made prior to the next meeting. Mr. Salman stated that if all the information was presented to the Board it would be possible to hold a Special Meet ing. Representatives stated that the hospital was anxious for approval as all the contractors were on site and to delay would be costly. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that a Public Hearing be held at the next meeting to review the changes to be made. Carried. MINUTES Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. Salman to approve the minutes of August 19th, 1993 as amended. Carried. There being no further business to come before the meeting Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted^ ene Amato Acting Clerk �DRAFT 9/23/93 VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN NEW YORK DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) SCOPE OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED Classification of Action: Lead Agency: Type I Action Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board North Tarrytown, New York GENERAL GUIDELINES: The DEIS should conform to the format outlined in the scope if possible. Each impact issue (e.g., surface water, traffic, etc.) should be presented in a separate subsection which includes a discussion of existing conditions, significant impacts associated with the proposed action, and mitigation measures designed to minimize the identified impacts. Narrative discussions should be accompanied by appropriate tables, charts, graphs, and figures whenever possible. If a particular subject matter can be most effectively described in graphic format, the narrative discussion should merely summarize and highlight the information presented graphically. All figures showing the site should include adjacent homes, structures, railroads and roads. Information should be presented in a manner which can be readily understood by the public. Efforts should be made to avoid the use of technical jargon. When practical, impacts should be described in terms which the layperson can readily understand (e.g., truck-loads of fill and cubic yards rather than just cubic yards). The document should be written in the third person (i.e., the terms "we" and "our" should not be used). The applicant's conclusions and opinions should be., identified as those of "the applicant" or "the developer." • Any assumptions incorporated into assessments of impact should be clearly identified. In such cases, the "worst case" scenario analysis should also be identified and discussed. I. FRONT MATSfiJAL A. Cover Sheet: The DEIS must begin with a cover sheet that identifies the following: 1. That it is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; 2. Date of the DEIS as submitted; �3. The name and location of the project; 4. The Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board as the Lead Agency for the project and the name and telephone number of a person at the Village to be contacted for further information; 5. The name and address of the project sponsor, and the name and telephone number of a contact person; 6. The name and address of the primary preparer(s) of the DEIS and the name and telephone number of a contact person; 7. Date of acceptance of the DEIS later); and 8. Deadline by which comments on the DEIS are due (to be inserted later). (to be inserted B. List of Consultants Involved With the Project: The names, addresses and project responsibilities of all consultants involved with the project should be listed. C. Table of Contents: All headings which appear in the text should be presented in the Table of Contents along with the appropriate page numbers. The Table of Contents should include a list of figures, a list of tables, a list of appendix items, and a list of additional DEIS volumes, if any. SUMMARY The DEIS must include a summary if the DEIS is longer than 10 pages. The summary should only include information found elsewhere in the main body of the DEIS and should be organized to follow the format of the DEIS. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Introduction: The iri€rdductf6n should . explain the purpose of the DEIS, des'cribe" th^ nStur'e of the project, and identify the primary approvalsype¥iit# r^guirerl. A brief statement of the proj ect- purpbs^ aVid neeti should be presented. If relevant, a brie£ history* cff .the project review process should be iricluided. The introduction should identify the future role of the\applicant in the eventual construction of afny s^rfce^ or building improvements. 2 �B. Involved Agencies and Required Approvals: A complete listing should be provided of all Involved Agencies (along with their addresses) and required approvals/permits. C. Interested Parties: A complete listing should be provided of all Interested Agencies, and persons and groups who have expressed an interest in reviewing the DEIS in order to provide comments. D. Site Description: the following: E. F. The site description should include 1. Precise site location, size, and tax map number(s) . 2. Description of the existing site character. 3. Site location relative to surrounding land uses and transportation corridors (describe existing zoning and access). Design and Layout: 1. Structures: site plans and profile views. 2. Parking: 3. Utilities. 4. Storm Water Management. 5. Lighting. 6. Signage. number of spaces and layout. Construction and Operation: 1. Schedule of Construction. 2. Operation. a. Type of operation. b. Schedule of operation. IMPACT ISSUES The sub-headings presented in each impact issue below represent items of specific interest which should be addressed in addition to providing appropriate general discussion of the impact issues. 3 �Land Use. Planning and Zoning 1. Land Use. a. Existing land use and vicinity. b. Impacts. c. Mitigation. zoning of site ajid Surface Water 1. 2. 3. Existing Conditions. a. Existing drainage patterns. b. Discharge points of existing drainage. Impacts. a. Construction related impacts. b. Runoff quantity and quality impacts following project completion. Mitigation Measures. a. Runoff quality control measures, waste wat^r recycling, pre-treatment of storm wat^r discharge to wetlands, etc. b. Conformance of proposed project and mitigation measures with the New York State Department c f Environmental Conservation "Storm Wat^r Management Guidelines for New Development." Air Quality 1. Existing Conditions. 2. Impacts - vehicular residences. 3. Mitigation Measures. exhaust from queues near Aesthetic Resources 1. Existing Conditions - historic character of area. 2. Impacts - reduction of aesthetic qualities of tjie area. �3. Mitigation Measures. Historic and Archaeological Resources 1. Existing Conditions. a. Location and description of historic areas or structures listed on state or National Register within the Village or those designated by the community. b. Communication with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. 2. Impacts. 3. Mitigation Measures. Traffic 1. Existing Conditions. a. Description of area roadways that will serve the development. b. Manual traffic volume surveys at the following intersections at a minimum for a weekday afternoon and Saturday midday peak hour: North Broadway at Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue North Broadway at Pocantico Street North Broadway at Beekman Avenue/Hudson Terrace/Bedford Road/New Broadway New Broadway at Rice Avenue 2. c. Capacity analysis. d. Accident above. history for intersections Impacts a. Site-generated traffic. b. Percent distribution patterns. c. On and off-site vehicular storage. 5 listed �d. 3. G. H. Mitigation Public Health 1. Existing Conditions. 2. Impacts - oil and water on roadway. 3. Mitigation Measures. Community Character 1. Existing Conditions. 2. Impacts. 3. I. Overflow traffic queuing along Gordon Avenue site frontage. a. Lighting. b. Noise. c. Traffic. d. Visual Impacts. Mitigation Measures. Water Utilities 1. Existing Conditions: availability and quality. 2. Impacts, including anticipated water usage. 3. Mitigation Measures. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Those adverse environmental impacts that can be expected to occur if the proposed action is implemented regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section IV must be identified. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to the proposed action are to be evaluated in terms of the impact issues listed in Section IV. A. No action. 6 �VII. B. Alternative land use. C. Alternative design(s). QTHEK ISSUES A. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources B. Growth Inducing Impacts C. Effects on the use and conservation of energy resources VIII. SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY IX. APPENDICES The following materials should be included: A. All SEQR documentation, including a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Positive Declaration and the DEIS scoping outline. B. Copies of all official correspondence related to issues discussed in the DEIS. C. Copies of at least the following technical studies, in their entirety: 500\not3-058.sjp 1. Hydrology study. 2. Cultural resources study (if needed). 3. Traffic study. �FREDERICK P. CLARK A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: September 22, 1993 Subject: Site Plan/Subdivision Application for Ruivo Property As we have not received any new materials regarding this application, we do not have any further comments to offer at this time. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E., Village Engineer Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: September 15, 1993 Subject: Phelps Professional Building, Amended Site Plan Application As requested, we have reviewed the submission of Vincent Del Bagno, Director of Engineering for Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, for the proposed Phelps Professional Building. The Phelps Memorial Hospital Center property is located at 701 North Broadway within the H Hospital District. It appears that, in order to add 56 additional parking spaces, the Applicant proposes to amend the site plan, which was approved by resolution at the April 14, 1992 meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board and which approval was extended through June 1994. The original approval was for the development of a 62,000 square foot medical office building and nearly 300 additional parking spaces. The Applicant has submitted a cover letter and the following four sheets of drawings: 1. "S-l, Sheet 2, Site Plan, Phelps Professional Building, Town of North Tarrytown, Westchester, New York," dated 4/27/93 and last revised 5/18/93, scale 1" = 3 0 ' , prepared by Charles H. Sells, Inc., Consulting Engineers; 2. "S-2, Sheet 3, Site Plan, Phelps Professional Building, Town of North Tarrytown, Westchester, New York," dated 4/26/93 and last revised 8/17/93, scale 1" = 3 0 ' , prepared by Charles H. Sells, Inc., Consulting Engineers; 3. "Revised Grading Plan, West Parking Expansion, Mediplex Medical Building Corp.," dated 8/23/93, scale 1" = 30'; "e.) North-East Parking Lot," dated 8/2 3/93, scale 1" = 3 0'. 4. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Submissions. It is not clear from the drawings submitted by the Applicant what is being proposed in this application for amended site plan approval. These drawings are inconsistent Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation both with each other and with the approved site plan. Consequently, it is not clear what is being proposed in this application. Also, the MRI building and its related parking area are not shown on any of these drawings. It is not clear whether the MRI facility is to remain or if that area will be redeveloped to its former state as part of this proposed application. 2. Status of Construction. The proposed professional office building is currently under construction. We assume that the construction is in accordance with the approved site plan. If the professional office building and related facilities, landscaping and parking are not being constructed as per the approved site plan, in both size and location, amended site plan approval will be required. The Applicant should provide information confirming the size of the building under construction. As well, any changes to landscaping and parking from the approved site plan should be clearly noted. If the parking areas are proposed for change, the total number of parking spaces should be provided and explained. We suggest the Planning Board require the Applicant to submit three plans. The first plan should illustrate the existing condition of the site, including the MRI building, but not including the office building now under construction. Second, a copy of the previously approved site plan for the office and MRI building and associated parking and landscaping should be submitted. Third, a site plan which clearly delineates what is proposed for the entire site should be submitted. The Planning Board will need to see how the site plan has been developed and what the Applicant is requesting for approval. Regarding the "new parking" shown on the "Revised Grading Plan, West Parking Expansion," the Applicant should provide information as to the number of trees that would need to be removed from that area for construction of the proposed parking lot. Any tree removal should be in accordance with Chapter 52A of the Village Code: Tree Conservation. All parking should be laid out to provide adequate circulation. Also, handicapped parking should be labeled as such on the plan. 3. Environmental Review. Due to the property's location within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area, this action will be a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Applicant will need to submit a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 2 �RESOLUTION Adopted at the September 23, 1993 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MIXED USE BUILDING. PROPOSED: ONE APARTMENT AND ONE OFFICE IN TWOSTORY BUILDING. OWNER: EMMA B. SERINA LOCATION: 9 LAWRENCE AVENUE TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 15, BLOCK 13, LOT 16A ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan approval pursuant to Article VIII of the Zoning Code of the Village of North Tarrytown for the demolition of an existing garage and development of a twostory, 1,200 square foot commercial office and residential apartment building, including related off-street parking and landscaping on a property that is approximately 2,207 square feet in size and is located on the western side of Lawrence Avenue approximately 70 feet north of the intersection with Beekman Avenue, as shown on the drawing prepared in the office of Barstow Architects, and further identified as follows: "Proposed Mixed-Use / 2 Story, Emma B. Serina, 9 Lawrence Ave., N. Tarrytown, N.Y.," scale 1" = 10', dated April 25, 1993 and last revised August 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the site plan proposes the construction of a twostory building with a commercial use (office) on the first floor which will be 600 square feet in size and, on the second floor, a residential apartment, also 600 square feet in size, with four outdoor paved parking spaces, a paved walkway between the street and the front entrance, and landscaping; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has received a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown for the proposed commercial use within the R-5 District, and the Applicant also received all necessary area variances to remedy the deficiency in the size of the lot; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's planning consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on June 17, 1993, which hearing was continued and closed on September 23, 1993, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and �WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted, or conducted the following activities: ^ 1. Received an application fee of $250; 2. Hcuu4wedwfcecreation fees in the amount of $3,600/7 3. Received engineering fees in the amount of $778.94, as of the date of approval; 4. Received reimbursement for payment of planning review costs the amount of $1,129.86, as of the date of approval; 5. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and o surrounding areas; 6. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village planning consultant, the Village engineering consultant and the Building Inspector; 7. Acting as Lead Agency, requested, received and reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 8. After circulation of the EAF and the Planning Board's notice of intent to be Lead Agency, and review of the property, the EAF and public comments, as well as other items noted above, the Planning Board declared itself the Lead Agency and circulated a "Negative Declaration," dated July 22, 1993, in which the Planning Board stated its determination of nonsignificance of environmental impact for this Type I action; and AJAJU/J*A-**+P ^^^_^ WHEREAS, the Applicant has revised the proposed plans consistent with the comments that have been made about the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said site plan application and plan noted above be and hereby are granted site plan approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy of this site plan resolution and upon the final mylar copy of the site plan drawing revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permit filing in the offices of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, provided, however, that this approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the 2 �satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the Applicant has not obtained a building permit: 1. 2. Fees - The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown: 1.1 An inspection fee for construction inspection of the property for compliance with the approved site plan in accordance with the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code. 1.2 The payment of all remaining application review costs as noted and required in Section 62-30(f) of the Village Zoning Code, as approved by the Village Attorney. Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the planning and engineering consultants, to demonstrate the following: 2.1 A note shall be added regarding utilities and compliance with erosion control standards. 2.2 Additional information shall be provided on the plan regarding landscaping, including the location of the plantings, their sizes and species, and a hedge to be located along the side yards to screen the parking area. In addition, up to, but not exceeding, two (2) feet of the length of the parking spaces shown may be used as an area for "over-hang" of parked vehicles and may be landscaped with grass or other ground cover, instead of pavement. 2.3 A signature block should be added to the site plan for the signature of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or a professional engineer attesting to the construction of the site plan and its improvements as shown thereon. 4. All elements of this approved site plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Board may issue an extension of this time limit, or may modify any of the above conditions with respect thereto for a good cause. 3 �5. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facilities, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications to parking, drainage, access, paving and other site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan in the interest of safety, convenience, aesthetics and the enjoyment and peace and quiet of adjacent neighbors. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN ^ h * ^ - ^ kKNT GeorgfiT F. HriTtzX Chairman >Z~/ Village of Nqr£Jr Tarrytown PlannrRg^Board 500\not3-003.sjp:ev 4 Date: ^/t</tfO �Approved with respect to substance and form: /iy. Village Attorney Dated: ffafri Approved by the Planning Board Filed with Village Clerk G l e i k Ui Deputy Clerk Dated: ** I i<\| <\$ Date o^^Meeting 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-09-23 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8dd90265a1f67e39fbe2bdb9361e5a5b.pdf d0641d5d7984067512f333370187122a PDF Text Text A regular meeting was held by the Planning Board on August 19, 1993 at 8:00 PM, in Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, Mew York. Members Present: Also Present: Absent: George Hritz, Chairman Edward McCarthy James Donovan Roman Windas Steve Salman Donald Caetano Janet Gandolfo, Esq. James Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph Gulino, CAMCE Susan Portman, Frederick P. Clark Assoc. Ellen Tsangaris Mr. Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:10 PM. A motion was made by Mr. Salman to defer the July minutes until the next meeting as the recording secretary of the last meeting was not present, seconded by Mr. Donovan. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK. PATEMAN, NORTH BROADWAY, NORTH Chairman Hritz stated that the Village Board of Trustees deferred the vote concerning the moratorium until their September 7, 1993 meeting. Also, the Board of Trustees declared itself to be the lead agency for the moratorium. Chairman Hritz advised the applicant that he can continue with his application although the proposed moratorium may restrict certain actions of the Planning Board if and when it is formally adopted. The applicant, Charles Pateman, stated that he wished to proceed forward with his application. Mr. Hritz also stated that new correspondence was submitted by Adler Consulting firm dated July 22, 1993, in response to comments that were prepared by Michael A. Galante of Frederick P. Clark Associates. (Copy in Official Minutes) Mr. Pateman stated that the traffic study of Beekman Avenue, Route 9 and Route 448 will be submitted within two weeks. Mr. Pateman stated that at this time he would like to respond to the Board concerning the environmental impacts. Mr. Hritz stated that he would not be voting or commenting at this time. �Mr. Salman stated that in response to tonight's presentation by Mr. Pateman that there would be vacuum's operating at the proposed car wash at the June meeting there was discussion about vacuuming and we were told there would not be any vacuums. Mr. Pateman stated that there are vacuums on site for employees, inside the building, there are none on the outside. At this point during the meeting discussion took place regarding the procedure to be followed concerning the Environmental Assessment form. The members of the Board and the applicant agreed to review the form together and determine what portions, if any, of the Assessment form need to be amended and what areas of concern the applicant should address in more detail. A discussion of the EAF ensued. The first question concerns impact on land which consists of slopes, land, parking, etc. Mr. McCarthy asked if there were any unique forms on the site. Mr. Pateman stated that other than the retaining wall, there are no changes to the site. The second question concerns impact on water. Mr. Windas asked how sewage collection and spillage run-off would be handled. Mr. Pateman stated that it would go through sanitary sewers. Mr. Gulino stated that roof drainage is more than adequate. Also 80% of the car wash water is recycled and 20% is used. The third question concerns impact on air quality. Mr. Caetano asked if the car had to be running while being washed. Mr. Pateman stated that the car can be turned off while going through the car wash. Mr. Pateman stated he would have his engineers submit a report concerning the matter if the Board decided to request it. Question 11 concerns the impact on aesthetic resources. Mr. Salman stated the proximity of a historic site in regards to the project in question, is to determine the impact on Philipsburg Manor. It was decided that since the car wash was not abutting the Philipsburg Manor Restoration that there would be no impact. Mr. Pateman submitted pictures to the Board as part of the record, concerning the commercial and residential area. (Copy in Official Minutes) Mr. Salman asked if the Planning Board contacted the Department of Transportation concerning the bus schedule. Mr. Margotta stated that no buses stop in that area except by the BP station. Discussion ensued concerning the Master Plan Census Tract 116 and whether or not another traffic study should have been done before now. Mr. Windas stated that the zoning in the area is for automotive use. I �Mr. Pateman stated for the record that the Village Water Department garage was sold to Lenny Rutiglan to use for auto repair. The impact of noise levels was discussed and Mr. Salman stated that there was a standard to quantify noise. Mr. Pateman stated that it would not exceed the noise level. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the ordinance states for unreasonable noise levels. The decibel count is in the Village ordinance. Mr. Pateman stated that he has looked at other ordinances and his engineer is confident that the noise is below noise levels. Concerning public health it was mentioned that water dripping on the street will cause freezing. With the water and oil dripping, this would be a potential impact on public safety. This should be put into consideration. Mr. Windas stated that between the new tourist traffic from the Rockefeller Archives and the car wash, traffic there may be a tremendous increase in traffic at and around the Route 448 intersections. This concern should be studied in further detail in the traffic studies. Mr. Salman made a motion to to defer the vote on whether to make a negative or positive declaration until the EAF was amended and reviewed further. The motion was seconded by James Donovan. During the discussion on the motion the applicant agreed to waive any statutory time requirements the Board may have in voting a positive or negative declaration and wait until the EAF was amended and re-submitted to the Board. The Board directed Clark, Assoc, to amend the EAF to reflect the discussion during the Planning Board meeting and re-submit the form at the next meeting. The motion to defer the vote was carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz abstained. Discussion ensued concerning the Master Plan of Census Tract 116 which was completed by the firm of Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner in the early 1980's and the Zoning Study which was completed by Clark, Assoc, in 1988. The Board queried whether these two studies suggested appropriate new uses for the area of the application. The Board directed Ms. Gandolfo to review the studies and report back to the members. Mr. Salman stated that in regard to the request by Mr. Pateman for Mr. Hritz not to vote on this issue as a member and President of the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers Association, that a member of the Board should not be asked to abstain from a vote unless he or she had a personal or financial interest in the application. �Chairman Hritz stated that prior to his being appointed Board he had written a letter as President of the Sleepy Taxpayers' Association stating that that they were opposed car wash. He did not want there to be any appearance application being prejudged by a Board member. to the Hollow to the of an Ms. Gandolfo stated that the ethics code refers to financial conflicts of interest and the provisions of the ethics code do not necessarily require the Chairman to disqualify himself from voting. However, because the Chairman had publicly taken a position in this matter it might be better for him to abstain from the vote. A motion was made and carried to continue the public hearing on this application to the next meeting. Mr. Donovan made a motion to have the Planning Board meeting on September 23, 1993, seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Being no further business Mr. Caetano made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Donovan. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Christine Yurkovic (/ Recording Secretary �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Portman, MCP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, MCP Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 TO: Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, MCP Jim Donovan, RLA ASLA V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown Planning Board DATE: July 27, PROJECT: 1993 520.030/Serina FAX NO.: WE TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: ( ) ( ) ( ) fe) As requested As per conversation Per request of ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) First Class Mail Express Delivery Telefax-# of Pages (including cover sheet) Our Messenger Your Messenger Hand Delivery FOR YOUR: ( ) ( ) ( ) Approval Review Distribution ( ) ( ) File Information Use Comment ( ) ( ) THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies Description Date 1 7/22/93 Negative Declaration REMARKS: cc: Regan, G a n d o l f o , Margotta By Susan J . Portman, AICP Associate/Planning Connecticut -(203)255-3100 FAX • (914, 967-6615 Long island • (516) 364-4544 �SEOR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number Date July 22. 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Village of North Tarrvtown Planning Board . as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement wfll not be prepared. Name of Action: SEQR Status: Serina Site Plan and Variance Applications Type I X Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: Proposed two-story building to contain one office and one residential apartment. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 9 Lawrence Avenue, Village of North Tarrytown, Westchester County �SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2 easons Supporting This Determination: '(See 617.6(g) -for requirements of this determination; see 617.6(h) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) m The proposed action will not cause a significant adverse impact on land, water, air, plants and animals, agricultural land resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation, transportation, energy, public health, growth and character of the community or cause significant adverse noise and odor. If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed. For Further Information: ^Kontact Person: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Telephone Number: (914) 631-1440 For Type I Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Cihief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. Applicant (if any) Emma B. Serina c/o Robert Barstow Other involved agencies (if any) Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals M0\not3-056.Sjp:ev �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development /Environment /Transportation Rye. New York and Southport. Connecticut David J Portman. *c~ Frederick E. Wiedle. ^ic? Howard I Reynolds. °£ David H. Stolman. 4/CP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye. New York 10580 (914)967-6540 FAX (914) 967-6615 Michael A. Gaianre Joanne P. Meder, AICP TO: Jim Donovan, RLA ASLA V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown Planning BoardQ^jg. July 27, 1993 PROJECT: 520.504/Sohn FAX NO.: WE TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) As requested As per conversation Per request of ( ) ( ) ( ) First Class Mail Express Delivery Telefax-# of Pages (including cover sheet) Our Messenger Your Messenger Hand Delivery FOR YOUR: ( ) ( ) ( ) Approval Review Distribution Gc) ( ) ( ) File Information Use Comm ent ( ) ( ) THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies 1 Description Date 7/22/93 Negative Declaration REMARKS: cc: Regan, Gandolfo, Mair g o t t a office\00i.jpm:rr gy Susan J . Portman, AICP Associate/Planning �SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number Date July 22. 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Village of North Tarrvtown Planning Board . as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: SEQR Status: Wetland Permit Application for Sohn Property Type I X Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: Placement of rip-rap on stream bank to stabilize an erosion problem. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 103 Farrington Avenue, Village of North Tarrytown, Westchester County. �SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2 easons Supporting This Determination: (See 617.6(g) for requirements of this determination; see 617.6(h) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) The proposed action will not cause a significant adverse Impact on land, water, air, plants and animals, agricultural land resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation, transportation, energy, public health, growth and character of the community or cause significant adverse noise and odor. The proposed action will not result in any changes in downstream conditions. The proposed action will stabilize an existing eroding stream bank; will prevent the potential loss of an existing tree which is holding much of the stream bank in place and is presently threatened by the erosion; and will prevent other hazards which may result from the existing erosion problem. If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed. For Further Information: . » Contact Person: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Telephone Number: (914) 631-1440 For Type I Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. Applicant (if any) Village of North Tarrytown Board of Trustees Other involved agencies (if any) None 500\not3-055.sjp:ev * �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 3 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. D D GYes DNO • The municipal.budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. D D DYes DNO D . D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO DNo • Development will create a demand for additional community services (eg. schools, police and fire, etc.) D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo 16 IMPACT O N GROWTH A N D CHARACTER O F COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed action affect the character ol the existing community? J&O DYES Eiamples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed-action will cause a change in the density of land use. •'Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. • Other impart*- 19 Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ^5NO DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impacts) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impacts) may be mitigated. Kfc? ft>TBNTlA>L i-Afeas- IMPACT Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 2 Briefly describe the impact. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project changes) 3 Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact (Continue on attachments) 11 rtf §n � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-08-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8b4a0c451ffad1aad59ae54f38f23f65.pdf 335290711c2df98e0d4b03cbfcdc3b68 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK JULY 22nd, 1993 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown PLanning Board was held on July 22nd, 1993 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York, 10591. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donteld Giet&no Steve Salman Roman Windas Edward McCarthy ABSENT: Ellen Tsangaris James Donovan ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building INspector Joe Gulino, CAMCE Susan Portman, Clark Assoc. Howard Reynolds, Clark Assoc. Mr. Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. MINUTES Mr. Salman stated there were several corrections to the minutes of the June 17th meeting. "Page 3-Paragraph 2- Should read as follows: "Mr. Salman stated that in the final agreement it should read that vehicles larger than passenger size vans will not be allowed in the visitors lot." "Page 4-Last Paragraph-Should read as follows: "Mr. Blancato stated to the Board that the Zoning Board had given the interpretation that a car wash is not a gasoline station and therefore, a permitted use." Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to accept the minutes with the corrections. Carried. IN THE MATTER Of THE VILLAGE Of NORTH TARRYTOWN, 103 fARRINGTON AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK. Continuation- Wetland Permit. Mr. James Hahn, Village Engineer stated he had reevaluated the design submitted by Clark Associates. He stated that the stream will be pushed back into its original condition, as it has eroded. Mr. Hritz asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board on the matter. There being no comments, Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that the hearing be closed. Carried. Mr. Saltan scid he was a member of the Board of Trustees when the house across the street was being built G^ �-2and there were many problems regarding drainage in the area. He was concerned that the drainage problem would create more problems if the flow of the stream is altered. Mr. Hahn stated that what is being proposed is the property immediately adjacent to the Sohn property which is presently bein eroded . Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy the following resolution: (COPY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) Motion to adopt carried. Mr. Windas stated that Items 3, 4 and 5 should be removed as they are redundent. He stated that the Building Department should do the inspections as if necessary call in outside Engineers . Mr, Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Windas to amend resolution as directed. Carried. the IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES M. PATEMAN, FRANK RACANELLI & THOMAS J. LUPETIN, NORTH BROADWAY AND GORDON AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK. Continuation of Public Hearing re Car Wash. Mr. Hritz stated this meeting was a continuation of a Public Hearing held at the last meeting. Mr. Hritz stated that the Board of Trustees have called for a Public Hearing for the adoption of interim zoning law (which would be the start of the moratorium)to the area of Route 9 known as gasoline alley. The hearing will be held on August 17th. Mr. Blancato, Attorney for the applicants stated they have been before the Board several times in the last several months and would like to present experts on car washes and traffic and Timothy Cronin, Engineer who will discuss the Site Plan. Mr. Timothy Cronin, Engineer stated he was qualified to speak on sewers, disposal of water on sites and was licensed to practice in New York since 1986. He reported on the size of the proposed car wash, the type of structure and the entrance and exit to the car wash, He stated he has conferred with Clark Associates regarding their memos dated 4/15 and 3/23 regarding curb cuts. Mr. Frank ' Hrotko, Gordon Avenue stated he lives in the next block and was concerned with the amount of traffic the car wash WoUlid gene/nate . He stated that the Animal Hospital on the south side of the street had a loading zone on Gordon Avenue and there were three parking spaces on the south side of the Street. He stated this would make it very difficult to cars entering and exiting the car wash. It would cause the cars to back up on Gordon Avenue, creating a dangerous situation. �Mr. Elmer Kenyon, New Broadway stated there was only 31 feet from exit of the car waslf and Route 9 and traffic will be blocked up onto Gordon Avenue. It will be difficult for the Fire Department to get their apparatus up Gordon if cars are parked on the south side and cars are exiting from the car wash. It will create a dangerous condition. Mrs. Mary Vizvary, 85 New Broadway stated she has lived on New Broadway for 35 years and in the village over 60 years and stated Gordon Avenue is a residential street and there is a lot of congestion now and many times it is difficult to get out of Gordon Avenue onto Route 9. She also stated that the plans as shown do not show Katrina Avenue which is nearby and will be effected by the traffic. Mr. James Timmings, Sr. 119 Rice Avenue stated that the width of Gordon Avenue is 26 feet wide, and with 8 foot cars parked on the south side of Gordon Avenue legally there isn't enough room for another vehicle to pass. Mr. Robert Riscolo, Car Wash Expert from Edison, N.J. representing Mr. Pateman stated the car wash will be a full service car wash and will be fully automated. He stated the vacuuming will be completed inside rhe building,- at thfe entrance, before it is washed. Mr. Hrotko stated the car wash will be in use seven days a week and there will be a lot of noise which will create a nuisance. Discussion followed regarding the amount of water to be used, the number of cars to be coming and going and the number of employees, the traffic on Route 9 at the intersection of Beekman Avenue, New Broadway and Route 448. Mr. James Timmings, Jr., 42 Gordon Avenue stated he lives a block away from the site and was concerned about the N.Y.D.O.T. report which states that 14,000 cars per day come down Route 9. It will be very difficult for cars coming out of the car wash to make a left turn onto Route 9. Mr. Hritz read the letter from the D.O.T. dated July 7, 1993 regarding the State Environmental Quality Review-Traffic Impact Study completed for the project. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Bernard Adler, Traffic Engineer Expert representing Mr. Pateman, stated he was an engineer for thirty years, reported on the traffic flow going north on Route 9 to Pocantico Street and going south on Route 9 to Lawrence Avenue. He stated he responded to Clark Associates comment in their recent memo and Mr.Adl said the car wash would not impede traffic, would not be a safety factor and would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Gene Buonanno, Gordon Avenue stated he lives adjacent to the property owned by Mr. Pateman and common sense tells us that any additional traffic to the street will have a difficult time making a left turn onto Broadway. �-4Mr. Gene Fiorella, Gordon Avenue resident stated he has lived on Gordon Avenue for over forty years and he is against the car wash aa there is congestion on Gordon Avenue and the Stree is too narrow. He also stated that parking is allowed on only one side of the street. Mr. Salman stated he would like a demonstration with six or seven cars backing up Gordon Avenue, with cars parked on the south side of Gordon Avenue and have a fire truck try to enter into Gordon Avenue from Route 9. Mr. James Timmings, Sr. stated he was also a Safety Engineer, having worked as Chairman of Transportation for G.E. for many years and stated the car wash would create a dangerous situation on Gordon Avenue , Mr. Salman stated that cars being diverted up Gordon Avenue onto New Broadway would also create a devastating situation as New Broadway is also too narrow and too congested. Mr. Howard Reynolds, Traffic Engineer with Clark Associates stated that the Village should make sure what is proposed is what is actually what will be buildt on the site, i.e.Not propose full service and build convenient car wash. He stated he has studied the area dn feels there is a lack of width, especially if the three parking spaces are allowed on the south side of Gordon Avenue. This could cause difficult in/out movements at the car wash driveway, possibly affecting traffic entering Gordon Avenue from Broadway. Discussion followed in the County. regarding the various types of car washes Mr. Blancato stated he felt the Board should declare itself lead agent for the project and would like the photos, site plan and drawings presented to the Board be made a part of the record. There being no further comments Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that that the public hearing be adjourned, in order to obtain further information. Carried. Mr. Windas stated he was disappointed -*. in the tra ffic study as it does not give information regarding < idents reported, near misses, the intersection of Gordon Avenuv. Ul. J " J c e Avenue and the intersection at the tope of St. Paul's Hill. Mr. Salman requested intersection at the tope that a Traffic Study be made of the of St. Paul's Hill. After a discussion M r . Blancato stated that the applicant would make a Traffic Study of the intersection as requested. �-5Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Windas to declare the Planning Board Lead Agency for t^ie Project. Carried. Ms. Susan Portman, Clark Assoc, stated that a memo, dated July 8th, 1993 had been sent to the Planning Board outlining their comments regarding the car wash. (Copy in official minutes). IN THE MATTER OP THE PHILIPSBURG MANOR, UPPER MILL PARKING, NORTH BROADWAY, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK-CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING. Mr. Hritz stated that the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed at the last meeting, Discussion followed regarding recreation fees, drainage problems, type of durable and dustless material to be used to pave the parking lot. Mr. Robert Toole representative for the applicant stated that he had conferred with Clark Associates and reported on the various items that had been added to the site plan as requested by the Board and they would like to wrap up the project. He stated that up to date copies with all changes will be presented to the Board members. Mr. Gulino stated that all items referred to should be on the drawings, type of material that will be used and that all surfaces will be dustless and constantly maintained. Mr. Hritz stated that this is a historic site and we are trying to restore it to the original state, therefore blacktop will not be used. Mr. Toole stated that the parking lot would not be used in the winter months and would be used to park buses after they drop off guests at the front lot. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that the following resolution be adopted: (COPY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) Mr. Hritz declared the motion carried. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the ordinance "requires a recreational fee of $1,000 per parking space and there will be one hundred parking spaces. She stated that the code was not intended for historic sites, but the Board could not waive the fee. She stated she spoke to the Mayor and they would make a determination at the next Board of Trustees meeting. The restoration will be willing to be a part of the "Greenway Project" in lieu of the recreational fee. Discussion regarding the issuance of a building permit and the Building Inspector was directed to inspect the type of material to be used and prior to the issuance of a building permit a "signed, sealed site plan" was to be delivered to the Board. �-6IN THE MATTER Of EMMA SERINA, LAWRENCE AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK-2-STORY BUILDING-CONTINUED DISCUSSION. Mr. Robert Barstow, Architect for the applicants stated he had appeared before the Board several times regarding the proposed two story building. He stated that the Zoning Board had postponed their decision as they needed more information and felt that the Planning Board would make some recommendations to the applicant. The Zoning Board was concerned about the placement of the building on the lot line and the planting, of shubbery. H« will revise the site plan and present it to the Board at their next meeting. He stated that the Serina's own five licenses and have 5 cars, which will be parked on the property at any given time. Mrs. Serina stated that some of the cars will be parked at the railroad station and not always parked on the property. Mr. Barstow stated he did not have revised drawings for the Board but would like the Board's comments, in order to expedite the project. Mr. Caetano, member of the Board stated he lived on Lawrence Avenue and owned several properties there therefore, he would not participate in the discussion as a member of the Board. He stated the street was a residential street and did not feel that a commercial use should be in the area as it would tend to devaluate the homes on Lawrence Avenue. He also felt it would set a precedent. He stated that Mr. Ruivo had a permit for an office and then he turned it into an apartment. Mr. Windas stated he felt the matter was a Zoning Board issue and the Planning Board should not make a decision until the issue is settled by the Zoning Board. BasM on the information provided to the Board on the full Environmental Assesiment Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that the Planning Board be declared the lead agency for the project, and made a Negative Declaration. Carried. Mr. Caetano abstained. Mr. Hritz stated that the next meeting of the Board would be held on August 19th, 1993. There being no further business to come before the meeting Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, Irene Amato Acting Clerk . �WETLANDS PERMIT APPROVAL RESOLUTION Adopted at the July 22, 1993 meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board. RESOLUTION: Wetland Permit Approval for Village of North Tarrytown, Property located at 103 Farrington Avenue, known as the Sohn property. Proposed: Installation of riprap along the edges of an unnamed creekflowingacross the property. Tax Map Designation: Section 14, Lot 4/1 Zoning: Residential WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for a wetlands permit pursuant to Chapter 61, Wetlands/Watercourse Protection, of the North Tarrytown Village Code, for the installation of riprap along the edges of an unnamed creekflowingacross the property located at 103 Farrington Avenue; and, WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Planning Board has reviewed numerous documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. Village of North Tarrytown Wetlands Permit Application prepared by the office of Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. and reviewed by James Hahn Engineering. 2. Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 3. Memorandum dated May 14, 1993, submitted by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc; and, WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on June 17, 1993 and July 22, 1993, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard and the public hearing was closed on the later date; and, WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning Consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and, �WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant, the Building Inspector, and interested members of the public about the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, the proposed work is necessary in order to prevent the erosion of property located at 103 Farrington Avenue, North Tarrytown; and, WHEREAS, in the course of its review and pursuant to provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the followingfindingsand caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Waived the application fee of $250.00. 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding area. 3. Requested, received and reviewed a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). 4. After review of said field conditions, public comments, EAF, recommendations of the consultants as well as other matters noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and, as Lead Agency, issued a "Negative Declaration" determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action on June 17, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said wetlands permit application noted above is granted; provided however that this approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution. Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown Chairman Date: �CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION Adopted at the July 22, 1993 meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approval for Philipsburg Manor Upper Mill Proposed: Development of a 100-space parking area and path to serve overflow needs from the existing 65-space parking lot Owner: Historic Hudson Valley Location: Philipsburg Manor Upper Mill, Continental Street Tax Map Designation: Section IS\ Block ^ , Lot jfj. Zoning: PPark WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan approval pursuant to Article VIII of the Zoning Code and an application for a wetland permit pursuant to Chapter 61, Wetlands/Watercourse Protection, of the Village Code, for the development of a 100-space parking area and path to serve overflow needs from the existing Philipsburg Manor 65-space parking lot; and WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Planning Board has reviewed numerous documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. "Proposed Overflow Parking Area, Philipsburg Manor Upper Mill, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," site plan dated March 25, 1993 and revised April 7, 1993 and June 24, 1993, prepared by the office of R.M. Toole, Registered Landscape Architect. 2. "Wetlands Permit Application," prepared by R.M. Toole. 3. Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 4. Receipt from SEQRA Repository, NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs (File Number N3-553401-00006) regarding Negative Declaration (a copy of which is attached hereto and entered into the official minutes of the North Tarrytown Planning Board). 5 Written comments from the Westchester County Planning Board by Joseph R. Potenza, Deputy Commissioner (a copy of which is attached hereto and entered into the official minutes) dated June 25, 1993. �6. Written comments from the Westchester County Historic Preservation Planner, by Karen Kennedy (a copy of which is attached hereto and entered into the official minutes) dated June 22, 19931; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on June 17, 1993, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard and the public hearing was closed on that date; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning Consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant, the Building Inspector, and interested members of the public about the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the proposed site plan does not require filling existing wetland and the wetland permit is only required because of minimal disturbance to be made to the buffer area to provide and extend a path along the Pocantico River to serve pedestrians from the proposed parking area; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and pursuant to provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an application fee of $250.00. 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding area. 3. Requested, received and reviewed a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). 4. After review of said field conditions, public comments, EAF, recommendations of the consultants as well as other matters noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and, as Lead Agency, issued a "Negative �Declaration" determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action on June 17, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said site plan application and wetlands permit application noted above are granted conditional approval and the applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman, or as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy of the site plan resolution and upon final mylar copy of the site plan drawing revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permit filing in the offices of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and provided, however, that this site plan approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the applicant has not obtained a building permit, the wetland permit shall expire on completion of the acts specified and, otherwise shall be valid for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution: 1. Recreation Fees: The applicants shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown fees in an amount to be determined by the North Tarrytown Board of Trustees. 2. Revision of the above noted site plan to include the amendments requested in the Village Planning Consultant's memorandum dated April 15, 1993 and July 13, 1993. Said memoranda are adopted in full as a condition of said approval herein. 3. The applicant will designate and construct six (6) handicapped parking spaces for handicapped use within the existing parking lot per New York State Building Code Section 1102.4. , 4. The Planning Board reserves the right to require that the Planning Consultant have an opportunity to review the final site plan for compliance with the above conditions. �5. All construction materials are subject To the approval of the Village Building Inspector. 6. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect, engineer and/or landscape architect attesting that the property as developed conforms to the site plan as approved. 7. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facility, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications to parking, drainage, access, paving, landscaping and any other site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan. Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown Chairman W-73 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: July 8, 1993 Subject: Sleepy Hollow Car Wash - Traffic Review As requested, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Adler Consulting, dated June 15, 1993. The purpose of the traffic study was to evaluate traffic impacts on area roads of the proposed car wash. If approved, it will be located on Gordon Avenue at the intersection of North Broadway. Based on our review, we offer the following comments. 1. Scope of Traffic Study - In a March 23, 1993 memorandum to the Planning Board, it was suggested that at a minimum the following intersections be included in the Traffic Impact Study to be prepared by the applicant: a. North Broadway at Pocantico Street; b. North Broadway at Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue; and, c. New Broadway at Rice Avenue. After a preliminary analysis was completed by the Village, the Village recommended that the North Broadway/Beekman Avenue/Bedford Road/New Broadway/Hudson Terrace intersection be included in the traffic analysis. At first, the Village recommended that its traffic consultant evaluate this intersection separately and the applicant's traffic consultant complete a traffic study to include the intersections listed in the memorandum. However, based on further discussions with the Village, it was agreed that it would be more appropriate for the applicant's traffic consultant to complete a traffic study which included the additional intersection to avoid any duplication and to include all information in one traffic study. 2. Existing Traffic Volumes - The traffic study prepared by the applicant's consultant is based on volume surveys conducted on Thursday, April 8, 1993 and Saturday, April 10, 1993. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 9676615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/ Development/Environment /Transportation However, it should be noted that schools were closed during the entire week and on the following Monday for the Passover/Easter holidays, therefore, traffic volumes used in the analysis may not represent "typical" conditions on area roadways. For comparison, traffic volume information was requested from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The most recent volumes available from the NYSDOT are from 1988 from hourly machine counts on North Broadway, immediately south of Gordon Avenue. This information shows a two-way volume on North Broadway of 1,243 vehicles during the weekday afternoon peak hour. Traffic volumes provided in the traffic report show that during the weekday afternoon the two-way traffic volume on North Broadway at the same location was 969 vehicles — or 274 vehicles less. This represents a decrease of 22 percent. Traffic volumes generally increase one or two percent per year due to normal growth, however, slight decreases due to the recent economic downturn are not unusual. Gordon Avenue, which will provide site access, carries at most 50 vehicles (two-way) near the site during the weekday afternoon peak hour. 3. Capacity Analysis Results - Existing Conditions - Capacity analyses were completed for one signalized and two unsignalized intersections to evaluate base conditions. The analysis procedure is different for signalized and unsignalized intersections. For a signalized intersection, capacity is defined for each approach and is based on volume, roadway conditions, signal timing, lane widths and type of traffic signal control. Unsignalized intersection capacity is calculated for critical turning movements rather than the entire intersection. It was found that the North Broadway/Pocantico Street intersection operates at an overall Level of Service "B" during each peak hour. At the North Broadway/Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue intersection, the Lawrence Avenue approach operates at Level of Service "E" (capacity) during the weekday afternoon peak hour and a Level of Service "C H on Saturday during the midday peak hour. The New Broadway/Rice Avenue intersection operates at Level of Service "A" during both peak hours analyzed. 4. Estimation of Site-Generated Traffic - The traffic analysis is based on two levels of site traffic activity. For typical conditions, it is estimated by the applicant that there will be 40 vehicle trips (20 vehicle trips entering and 20 vehicle 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation trips exiting) and for peak conditions 120 vehicle trips (60 vehicle trips entering and 60 vehicle trips exiting). However, research conducted by the New England Car Wash Association found that as many as 1,500 vehicles could be processed — or during a 10-hour day an average of 150 vehicles could be processed per hour. For planning purposes, the applicant's analysis could represent an "average" condition, however, depending on conditions, demand may be much higher. 5. Estimation of Distribution Patterns for Site-Generated Traffic - It is estimated by the applicant that 40 percent of the site traffic will arrive and depart via North Broadway to the north and 46 percent along North Broadway to the south. Further, it is estimated that 6 percent will use Lawrence Avenue, 5 percent will use Pocantico Street, 2 percent will use Gordon Avenue/Rice Street from New Broadway and the remaining 1 percent will arrive and depart via Old Broadway. We agree with the estimated distribution of site-generated traffic and note that the majority of the site traffic will arrive and depart via North Broadway to the south and pass through the intersection of North Broadway/Beekman Avenue/Bedford Road/New Broadway/Hudson Terrace. This intersection was identified by the Village as a high-volume intersection which needs to be studied by the applicant to determine impact of the proposed development. However, the applicant has not analyzed this intersection and, therefore, no assessment of impact is available. 6. Capacity Analyses - Future Conditions - Capacity analyses were completed for future background and combined traffic conditions to determine impact of the proposed development on area roadways and intersections. It was found for both typical and peak conditions that this project will have only a minor impact on overall traffic operations, except at the North Broadway/Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue intersection. The Level of Service at this intersection on Saturday changed from "C" to "D" implying longer traffic delays for traffic movements out of the side streets onto North Broadway. For the weekday afternoon peak hour, the side street approach already operates at Level of Service "E" and reserve capacity will decrease, creating longer traffic delays. In the traffic report (page 17), it is noted that the change in Level of Service from "C" to "D" at the North Broadway/ Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue intersection is only a function of the definition of Levels of Service and the fact that the value has just transitioned to a new classification. In our 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation opinion, this is not only a new classification, but a way of identifying impact from the proposed development on traffic conditions at any intersection. This change in Level of Service represents added traffic delay due to traffic from this development. Results of the analysis show that a very low level of reserve capacity will remain on the side street approaches. 7. Queuing Analysis - It is noted in the document that the car wash conveyer belt can service between 40 and 50 vehicles per hour. It is also noted that the belt speed can be increased to accommodate between 80 and 100 vehicles per hour and that this would accommodate even peak traffic conditions for site traffic, it was determined by the applicant that because the belt speed can be increased to accommodate any level of sitegenerated traffic, that little or no traffic will queue off the site on Gordon Avenue. The processing rate is, however, only part of a queuing analysis. The second major variable is the demand rate and the Board should understand that if the demand rate exceeds the processing rate, queuing will result. The extent of the queue will depend on the difference between the two rates and, unfortunately, we have no market studies or other information with which to complete the equation. If site traffic can be processed at a rate commensurate with the demand rate, any delays on Gordon Avenue would be kept to a minimum or possibly not exist at all. However, the traffic report does not identify the narrow pavement of Gordon Avenue, impact of on-street parking available across the street from the proposed access drives, and the limited distance between the North Broadway intersection and the entrance/exit access drives to the car wash. The traffic analysis does show that there will be long traffic delays on the side street approach to North Broadway on Gordon Avenue, which will impact the operation of the car wash since site traffic may not be able to exit onto Gordon Avenue. If delays occur at the exit, the rate of vehicle processing will be limited. If this is the case, site traffic could actually spill over to the on-site storage area and possibly onto Gordon Avenue, creating traffic delays in both directions on Gordon Avenue. Gordon Avenue has a curb-to-curb width of approximately 24 feet. Parking is permitted along the southerly side of the street — 40 feet from the North Broadway intersection. 4 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/ Development/ Environment/Transportation Currently, there is insufficient width for two-way traffic and parking. 8. Accident History - The applicant obtained accident reports from the Village Police Department and noted that there were, on average, four accidents per year between 1988 and 1992 at. the intersection of North Broadway/Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue. No accident pattern was identified and no mitigation, has been suggested to improve traffic conditions. However, it would be helpful if accident types were identified. Also, accident history for the other intersections was not provided, as had been requested. 9. Summary - The traffic study presented by the applicant, includes three intersections plus site driveways to evaluates impact. However, the traffic study shows that 46 percent of" its site traffic will pass through the North Broadway/Beekmarx Avenue/Bedford Road/New Broadway/Hudson Terrace intersectiont which was not studied. A zoning study prepared for the same* intersection by Frederick P. Clark Associates, September 6, 1988, noted that this intersection had a poor configuration! for efficient traffic flow and probably could not be* significantly improved. It was recommended that the Zoning* Board not permit types or intensities of land use which woulo\ further degrade traffic conditions at this intersection. Also, the NYSDOT completed "A Traffic Operations and SafetyStudy" for Route 9 which included this intersection ir\ September 1989. This intersection was identified as having* future operational problems and, therefore, improvements w e r ^ recommended. In conclusion, we recommend that the applicant provide the Village with additional information with regard to impacts to Gordon Avenue adjacent to the site and consider possible mitigation at t h ^ intersection of North Broadway/Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue, ir^ appropriate, to mitigate capacity deficiencies on the side street approaches. Further, it is recommended that the applicant provide additional information with regard to the North Broadway/Beekman*. Avenue/Bedford Road/New Broadway/Hudson Terrace intersection. T h ^ analysis should include any recommendations proposed by the NYSDOX? and should identify any schedule the NYSDOT may have for providing these improvements. 5 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Based on traffic information provided to date, at a minimum, parking should be removed on Gordon Avenue between North Broadway and Katina Place (three spaces), a double yellow centerline should be installed and curb radii should be increased on the Gordon Avenue approach to North Broadway. In addition, the Village should consider prohibiting left turns out of the site, if the project is approved. It is our opinion that the proposed access drives will be too close to the North Broadway intersection to allow the left turn and traffic delays could result which may spill over onto North Broadway. Michael A. Galante Vice President cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, PE, Village Engineer Charles Pateman Westchester County Planning Board NYS Department of Transportation Bernard Adler 500\not3-002.mag.crc 6 �WETLANDS PERMIT APPROVAL RESOLUTION Adopted at the July 22, 1993 meeting of the North Tanytown Planning Board. RESOLUTION: Wetland Permit Approval for Village of North Tarrytown, Property located at 103 Farrington Avenue, known as the Sohn property. Proposed: Installation of riprap along the edges of an unnamed creekflowingacross the property. Tax Map Designation: Section 14, Lot 4/1 Zoning: Residential WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for a wetlands permit pursuant to Chapter 61, Wetlands/Watercourse Protection, of the North Tarrytown Village Code, for the installation of riprap along the edges of an unnamed creek flowing across the property located at 103 Farrington Avenue; and, WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Planning Board has reviewed numerous documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. Village of North Tarrytown Wetlands Permit Application prepared by the office of Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. and reviewed by James Hahn Engineering. 2. Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 3. Memorandum dated May 14, 1993, submitted by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc; and, WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on June 17, 1993 and July 22, 1993, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard and the public hearing was closed on the later date; and, WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning Consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and, �* WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant, the Building Inspector, and interested members of the public about the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, the proposed work is necessary in order to prevent the erosion of property located at 103 Farrington Avenue, North Tarrytown; and, WHEREAS, in the course of its review and pursuant to provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the followingfindingsand caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Waived the application fee of $250.00. 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding area. 3. Requested, received and reviewed a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). 4. After review of said field conditions, public comments, EAF, recommendations of the consultants as well as other matters noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and, as Lead Agency, issued a "Negative Declaration" determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action on June 17, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said wetlands permit application noted above is granted; provided however that this approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution. Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown Date: ' �V CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION Adopted at the July 22, 1993 meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approval for Philipsburg Manor Upper Mill Proposed: Development of a 100-space parking area and path to serve overflow needs from the existing 65-space parking lot Owner: Historic Hudson Valley Location: Philipsburg Manor Upper Mill, Continental Street Tax Map Designation: Section j£ t Block ZL , hot^.A Zoning: PPark W7JEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan approval pursuant to Article VIII of the Zoning Code and an application for a wetland permit pursuant to Chapter 61, Wetlands/Watercourse Protection, of the Village Code, for the development of a 100-space parking area and path to serve overflow needs from the existing Philipsburg Manor 65-space parking lot; and WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Planning Board has reviewed numerous documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. "Proposed Overflow Parking Area, Philipsburg Manor Upper Mill, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," site plan dated March 25, 1993 and revised April 7, 1993 and June 24, 1993, prepared by the office of R.M. Toole, Registered Landscape Architect. 2. "Wetlands Permit Application," prepared by R.M. Toole. 3. Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 4. Receipt from SEQRA Repository, NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs (File Number N3-553401-00006) regarding Negative Declaration (a copy of which is attached hereto and entered into the official minutes of the North Tarrytown Planning Board). 5. Written comments from the Westchester County Planning Board by Joseph R. Potenza, Deputy Commissioner (a copy of which is attached hereto and entered into the official minutes) dated June 25, 1993. �Declaration" determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action on June 17, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said site plan application and wetlands permit application noted above are granted conditional approval and the applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman, or as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy of the site plan resolution and upon final mylar copy of the site plan drawing revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permitfilingin the offices of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and provided, however, that this site plan approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the applicant has not obtained a building permit, the wetland permit shall expire on completion of the acts specified and, otherwise shall be valid for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution: 1. Recreation Fees: The applicants shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown fees in an amount to be determined by the North Tarrytown Board of Trustees. 2. Revision of the above noted site plan to include the amendments requested in the Village Planning Consultant's memorandum dated April 15, 1993 and July 13, 1993. Said memoranda are adopted in full as a condition of said approval herein. 3. The applicant will designate and construct six (6) handicapped parking spaces for handicapped use within the existing parking lot per New York State Building Code Section 1102.4. , 4 The Planning Board reserves the right to require that the Planning Consultant have an opportunity to review the final site plan for compliance with the above condition:;. �6. Written comments from the Westchester County Historic Preservation Planner, by Karen Kennedy (a copy of which is attached hereto and entered into the official minutes) dated June 22, 19931; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on June 17, 1993, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard and the public hearing was closed on that date; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning Consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant, the Building Inspector, and interested members of the public about the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the proposed site plan does not require filling existing wetland and the wetland permit is only required because of minimal disturbance to be made to the buffer area to provide and extend a path along the Pocantico River to serve pedestrians from the proposed parking area; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and pursuant to provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an application fee of $250.00. 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding area. 3. Requested, received and reviewed a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). 4. After review of said field conditions, public comments, EAF, recommendations of the consultants as well as other matters noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and, as Lead Agency, issued a "Negative �5. All construction materials are subject to the approval of the Village Building Inspector. 6. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect, engineer and/or landscape architect attesting that the property as developed conforms to the site plan as approved. 7. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facility, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications to parking, drainage, access, paving, landscaping and any other site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan. Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown Chairman • �• « llljjiijjEjiiADO NEwfjNEG A T I V E DECLARAT^ ON:::::;:::::;::::::::;:::::;:^^ ILE NUMBER :;::iN3553401-00006:i::.;:::Village of NORTH TARRYTOWN, Town of MOUNT |i!|iili|iijill||i||lli||| [AD AGENCY: | i | | : | 5 5 3 4 6 i | | ; | | | | : | i ; i V i l l a g e of IJIilJII )FF ICE o r WESTCHESTER county NORTH TARRYTOWN, Town o f MOUNT WESTCHESTER County BOARD : iiiiP 1 annirig IT I T L E : ;i;;Ph i 1 i p s b u r g Board Manor llJiJliliis illiiiJiliiiil-iiliiiii-ililiiiE lliliiiililiiiliiiliiiljilljilll^ DESCRIPTION:.^-Development o f 1 0 0 - s p a c e , g r a v e l - s u r f a c e d p k g a r e a o v e r f l o w need f r o m e x i s t pkg l o t . & path to servej JiipATE RECEIVED : : : = : ; : : = ^ ^iifeiiiiiiiNegative Declaration;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;^ ;TATUS: N Normal Void Conditioned Rescinded Current I M P O R T A N T Record > > N3-553401-00006 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Negative Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Village of NORTH TARRYTOWN Planning Board 28 Beekman Avenue Tarrytown, NY 10591 �<;. * v SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance yS* Project Number Date June 17. 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Village of North Tanvtown Planning Board as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: SEQR Status: Philipsburg Manor Upper Mills Overflow Parking Area Site Plan and Wetlands Permit Application Type I X Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X Description of Action: Location: No Development of a 100-space, gravel-surfaced parking area and path to serve overflow needs from the existing 65-space parking lot (Include street address and the name of the municipality /county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) Northern side of Continental Street, Village of North Tarrytown, Westchester County �$E,Qg< Negative Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: )(See 617.6(g) for requirements of this determination; see 617.6(h) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) The proposed action will not cause a significant adverse impact on land, water, air, plants and animals, agricultural land resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation, transportation, energy, public health, growth and character of the community or cause significant adverse noise and odor If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed. For Further Information: |Contact Person: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Telephone Number (914) 631-1440 For Type I Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. Applicant (if any) Historic Hudson Valley Other involved agencies (if any) M0inot3-00l.sjp:ev None �Approved with/]respect to substance and form: Village Attorney Dated 3 7fazJ<f2 Approved by the Planning Board Chai Dated: ing Chairman Filed with Village Clerk (X- C^ -G±«r1C~o*r Deputy Clerk Dated: Datja of Meetingf � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-07-22 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/27f45c2d55e7cb8738c7ca74750b9af1.pdf d00e0535445fa77ac106882595ca2e12 PDF Text Text A regular meeting was held by the Planning Board on Nay 20, 1993 at 8:00 PM in village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Members Present: Also Present: Absent: James Galgano, Chairman Edward McCarthy Roman Windas James Donovan Steven Salman Ellen Tsangaris Janet Gandolfo, Esq. Joseph Gulino, CAMCE, Consulting Engineers Susan Portman, Frederick P. Clark Associate Mr. Richard Ayers IN THE MATTER OF PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. 701 NORTH BROADWAY. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK Mr. Galgano stated that Phelps Memorial application expires in June and they are not ready to apply for a building permit. They would like to extend the site plan review permit for one year. A motion was made by Mr. McCarthy to extend the site plan review permit for one year, seconded by Mr. Donovan. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Galgano stated that the incinerator is not a part of the office building, and was not part of the site plan review. IN THE MATTER OF EMMA SERINA. 9 LAWRENCE AVENUE. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK Mr. Barstow who is representing the Serina's stated that the two story building on Lawrence Avenue would be a dispatching office and an apartment. The first floor would be the dispatching office for Mr. Serina's taxi service. There will only be one or two office employees. The second story would be an apartment most likely to be occupied by Mr. Serina. Now, the building is used as a garage. history of commercial use. The site does have a Mr. Galgano stated that there are some zoning variances needed. Ms. Gandolfo stated that it was suggested by Frederick P. Clark Associates that certain procedures should be completed, such as, the environmental review process, before going to the Zoning Board. �» The idea is to complete the planning process before going to the Zoning Board, so the applicant would not have to appear again before the Planning Board. Mr. Salman made a motion for a public hearing to be held on June 17, 1993 for a preliminary site plan review, seconded by Mr. Donovan. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Gandolfo stated that and E.A.F. should be filed and reviewed by the Village consultant. Mr. Barstow stated that this is not a large scale project. client would like to upgrade the property. His IN THE MATTER OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN. BELLWOOD AND FARRINGTON AVENUES, (103 Farrinaton Avenue). NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK Mr. Galgano stated that a public hearing was scheduled, but the public hearing notices were not sent out on time and legally a public hearing cannot take place. Mr. Salman made a motion to set the public hearing date for June 17, 1993, seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Donovan asked how thick would the riprap be and will it narrow the brook? Mr. Sohn stated that the riprap is approximately four feet and it will not narrow the brook. Mr. Sohn also stated that the riprap will replace the eroded soil and restore the banks. The riprap is made of stone. Ms. Tsangaris made a motion to declare the Planning Board as the lead agency seconded by Mr. Salman. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Portman stated that the E.A.F. should also be signed by the Village. IN THE MATTER OF THE UPPERMILL PARKING, CONTINENTAL STREET. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK Ms. Portman stated that nothing has presentation. changed since the last Ms. Gandolfo stated that one of the requirement is to have wetlands permit application completed. Ms. Portman stated that a full E.A.F. is also needed. A motion was made by Mr. Donovan to declare the Planning Board as the lead agency, seconded by Mr. Salman. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Mr. Windas to set a public hearing on June 17, 1993 seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously. �* IN THB MATTER OF CHARLES PATBMAM. TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK NORTH BROADWAY. MORTH Mr. Blancato, Esq. who is representing the applicant, submitted a check for escrow fees. Mr. Blancato stated that the Zoning Board set a public hearing to be scheduled next month. Mr. Blancato stated the the public's primary concern is traffic. Mr. Blancato introduced Mr. Bernard Adler who is their traffic consultant, is a registered, professional engineer. Mr. Adler stated that he is working with Michael Anthony from Frederick P. Clark Associates. Mr. Adlers goal is to look at the car wash, analyze the intersections and see how well the intersection will work during peak hours. The data has been collected and a report should be made within two weeks. Mr. Salman requested as a part of the traffic study that Route 448 and Route 9 be included. Mr. Donovan stated that he was concerned about having the car wash too close to the Philipse Plaza. A motion was made by Ms. Tsangaris to declare the Planning Board as lead agency seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion was not carried unanimously. Vote: 2-3. Discussion was ensued concerning zoning variances. Being no further business, Mr. Donovan made a motion to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mr. Salman. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, fadUxb&me Christine A. Yurkovi Recording Secretary �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, I N C . Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: May 12, 1993 Subject: Philipse Plaza Site Plan Application As stated in our March 12, 1993 memorandum, this is a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). After the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) is submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Board may declare its intent to be Lead Agency in the review of this application. The notice of intent and a copy of the application, plan and EAF should then be circulated to the involved and interested agencies. Since this application will require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) , the ZBA is an involved agency. According to the Village Attorney, the ZBA should not make a decision on the variances until it receives the completed application, including EAF, so that it can make an informed decision. We would also recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQRA process is completed. Susan J. Portman, Associate/Planning cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Donal M. Walsh, Jr., Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E. Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals Louis Contadino, AIA Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK A S S O C I A T E S , INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye. New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: May 12, 1993 Subject: Philipsbura Manor Upper Mill Site Plan Application Jim Donovan, of our office, has conducted an inspection of the property and does not believe that the area of the proposed parking contains any wetland. The site plan application does, however, still need to be accompanied by an application to the Planning Board for a wetland permit, due to any proposed improvements to the path and any other areas within 100 feet of the Pocantico River, as this area is regulated under the Village of North Tarrytown Wetland/Watercourse Protection Law. Since the Village currently has no official wetland application form, the Applicant should refer to the Wetland Law, §61-10, for information on what needs to be submitted. As stated in our April 15, 1993 memorandum, this is a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Applicant must prepare a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). The EAF should discuss the proposals of both applications. Since there are no other involved agencies, after the EAF is submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency in the review of this application. The EAF, application and plan will also need to be formally referred to the Westchester County Planning Board for review pursuant to §239M of the General Municipal Law. Susan J. Portman, Associate/Planning cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Donal M. Walsh, Jr., Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E., Village Engineer Robert M. Toole 500\not3-026.sjp Connecticut -(203)255-3100 FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK A S S O C I A T E S , INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: May 12, 1993 Subject: Review of Revised Site Plan for Sleepy Hollow Car Wash As requested, we have reviewed the following revised site plan for the proposed Sleepy Hollow Car Wash on the former Pickwick Post property, which is located at the intersection of North Broadway and Gordon Avenue, in the C-l Highway Commercial District: "Site Development Plan Prepared for Charles M. Pateman, Frank Racanelli, Thomas J. Lupetin," dated March 2, 1993 and revised April 22, 1993, prepared by Cronin and Associates, P.E., P.C. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Parking and Loading: A handicapped parking space has been added to the plan. All four parking spaces have been moved to the opposite side of the proposed building. It should be noted that the vehicles which will utilize these spaces (in either the current or original proposed location) will be parking with the driver-side door next to the building, unless these vehicles turn around on the property or enter through the bypass exit on North Broadway. The required loading space has been added to the plan. 2. Circulation: We anticipate that the storage capacity of the on-site vehicle waiting area will be included in the traffic study. 3. Landscaping: A grass area is shown on the plan between the car wash building and Gordon Avenue. The semi-circle portion of this grass area, which extends beyond the property line, should have a curb and be constructed of sidewalk materials. It is not clear what is to occur in the area between the proposed building and the five-foot wide planting strip near North Broadway. If this area is not to be used for parking or circulation, we would recommend the Applocant examine the feasibility of landscaping this area. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 4. Environmental Review: As stated in previous reports, this application is a Type I action under State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). We have completed Part 2 of the attached Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). At this time, the Planning Board may declare its intent to be Lead Agency in the review of this application. Since this application will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), the ZBA is an involved agency. Interested agencies include New York State Department of Transportation (Poughkeepsie and Valhalla), Westchester County Planning Board, Westchester County Health Department and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Albany and New Paltz). The Planning Board's notice of intent to be Lead Agency will need to be circulated to the involved and interested agencies. Attached is a draft notice of intent for circulation. The ZBA will have a maximum of 30 days to respond to the notice. The Planning Board can declare itself Lead Agency after it receives a response from the ZBA stating that it does not object to the Planning Board being Lead Agency or after the 30 day period has expired, whichever comes first. Within 20 days of declaration of Lead Agency, the Lead Agency must make a positive or negative determination of significance. Copies of the proposed site plan, EAF and application should be circulated with the notice of intent. The Applicant should provide additional copies of the site plan for circulation. According to the Village Attorney, the ZBA should not make a decision on the variance until it receives all of the relevant materials (e.g. EAF, application, site plan) so that it can make an informed decision. We would also recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQRA process is completed. It is our understanding that the Applicant is currently preparing a traffic study. Susan J. Portman, Associate/Planning Attachments cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Donal M. Walsh, Jr., Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E., Village Engineer Westchester County Planning Board, w/o attached New York State Department of Transportation (Valhalla), w/o attached Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals, w/o attached Charles M. Pateman 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK A S S O C I A T E S , INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP jjm Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: May 1 3 , 1993 Subject: Preliminary Review of Serina Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the site plan application for a property which is 2,207 square feet in size and is located on the western side of Lawrence Avenue, in the R-5 Residential District. The site presently contains a one-story dilapidated garage and has some broken paving and grass. The Applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a two-story 1,320 square foot office and apartment building. The Applicant has submitted the following plan: "Proposed Mixed-Use / 2 Story, Emma B. Serina, 9 Lawrence Ave., N. Tarrytown, N.Y.," scale 1" = 10', dated April 15, 1993, prepared by Barstow Architects. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Site Plan Contents: The site plan should have a north arrow, and should show sidewalks, curb cuts and opposite side of the street and an area map showing all streets and property within 1,000 feet of the Applicant's property at a scale of 1" = 400'. If a dumpster will be placed on the property its location should be shown on the plan. 2. Parking and Circulation: We assume that half of the proposed building (or 660 square feet) is to be used for office and half for one residential apartment. Two parking spaces are required for the office use and one for the apartment. As shown on the plan, all four of the spaces would require the vehicles to back out onto Lawrence Avenue, which we do not support. Spaces number 1 and 2 are undersized and should be redesigned to 9 * by 20' as required in the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown. The Applicant should indicate how the area labelled "driveway" will be used. According to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) , one of the spaces shown on the plan should be designed and designated Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation as a handicapped space with an accessible route to the building. Section 4.1.1(5a) of ADA states the following: "In new construction, a person or entity is not required to meet fully the requirements of these guidelines where that person or entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to do so. Full compliance will be considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features. If full compliance with the requirements of these guidelines is structurally impracticable, a person or entity shall comply with the requirements to the extent it is not structurally impracticable." The Applicant should either provide the handicapped space or, if the Applicant believes it is impracticable, demonstrate why it is impracticable. Section 62-14.B(2) of the Code states, "In R Districts. The required off-street parking space for more than two (2) vehicles may not be located in a required front yard." The proposed location of the parking area within the required front yard area will require an area variance from the Village Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Section 62-22.A states that, for commercial uses, "Entrance and exit driveways shall be not less than fifteen (15) feet nor more than twenty-five (25) feet in width, measured along the street line." The entrance to the parking area is shown along the entire frontage of the property, which measures over 43 feet. Consequently, a variance from this standard will also be required. Section 62-22.B. states, "Entrance and exit driveways shall be located not less than fifteen (15) feet from a side lot line, measured along the street line." The entrance driveway does not conform to this requirement either. In addition, §62-14.C "No access drive or driveway in any RDistrict shall be used to provide access to uses other than those permitted in such R-Districts." The plan must either be redesigned or multiple variances obtained in order to comply with these requirements. A loading space is required for an office use but one is not shown. A variance waiving this requirement will need to be requested when the Applicant applies for the other variances. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 3. Buffer: Section 62-14.D of the Code states, "Off-street parking areas for three (3) or more vehicles ... shall be effectively screened by a fence or hedge as provided in §62-9.C. The screening shall be on the side or sides which adjoin or face premises situated in any RDistrict ..." Section 62-9.C requires a five-foot wide buffer area to be provided in addition to any side or rear yard. The buffer is to include a fence and landscaping. The Applicant would need an area variance for the width of the buffer area. A hedge should be provided along the side yards to screen the parking area. 4. Zoning Compliance: According to the Building Inspector, the site plan should comply with the bulk standards identified in the Schedule of Regulations for the use "Other" in the R-5 District, but when and if a use variance is approved, the ZBA will need to determine which bulk standards should be used. The plan conforms with the requirements for maximum lot coverage, minimum lot width and one of the minimum side yard setbacks. The required minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet and the existing lot is only 2,207 square feet. The minimum front, rear and one of the side yard setbacks shown on the plan are smaller than the size required by the Village Code, which would also require the granting of additional multiple variances in order to proceed. The site plan could be redesigned in order to reduce the intensity of the nonconforming features. A few alternatives may be: •Rotate the location of the proposed building 90 degrees and center the building on the property behind the parking area. This may lessen the nonconformity of the side and rear yards and would permit the parking spaces to conform to the required size. Moving the building location could also prevent any interference of the proposed two-story building with the trees on the adjacent property to the south. •Redesign the parking area so that the spaces are all the required size and will not force drivers to back out onto the street. Spaces 1 and 2 could be rotated 90 degrees, the area where spaces 3 and 4 are shown could be used as the driveway area and spaces 3 and 4 could be moved to the area labelled "driveway." This could also alleviate the nonconforming oversized curb cut along the entire 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation frontage of the property by reducing the size of the driveway entrance. •The building could be built to three stories, with parking at grade level under the building. Alternatively, the building could be designed to overhang a portion of the parking area. The proposed office use is not a permitted use in the R-5 District. Moreover, §62-12.B of the Code states: "In any R-District, only a single-family detached dwelling may be erected on a nonconforming lot, provided that the front, side and rear yards of any such lot shall comply with the normal requirements for the district within which the lot is located." A use variance from the ZBA would be needed for the office use. Environmental Review; The Applicant has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), this is a Type I action because the property is located within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area (CEA) . The Applicant is required to submit a full (long form) EAF for a Type I action. After review of the full EAF, the Planning Board may declare its intent to be Lead Agency in the review of this action. A notice of intent to be Lead Agency should then be circulated to the involved (i.e. ZBA) and interested (e.g. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) agencies. After 30 days or receipt of the responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency, as long as no other involved agency objects, and make a determination of significance. The Lead Agency's preparation of a negative declaration or a findings statement (following a positive declaration and the preparation of an environmental impact statement) would complete the SEQRA review process. We recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQRA process is completed. 4 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 6. Further Information; In addition to the items mentioned above, further information is needed regarding the proposed building height, the proposed number and size of the office spaces and the proposed number and size of the residential apartments. Susan J. Portman, Associate/Planning cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Donal M. Walsh, Jr., Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E. Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals Robert Barstow 500\not3-027.sjp �14-16-2'(2/87)-7c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review SEQR FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 'urpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project *br action may be significant The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiallylarge impact The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ft Part 1 tf Part 2 DPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that D A. The project will not result in any large and important impacts) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. D B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* D C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions SLEEPY HOLLOW CAR WASH Name of Action Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Name of Lead Agency James Galgano Chairman Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) X Date * ~ ' �PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OP ACTION Sleepy Hollov Car Wash LOCATION OP ACTION (Inctud* Stmt Address, Municipality and County) Cox nf Mnrf.h Broadway & Gordon Ave., North Tarrytown, Westchester County NAME OP APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE (914) Franic Pacanelll, Charles Pateman, Thomas Lupetin 332-1400 ADDRESS rhagp ttidq. - 2nd F l o o r / 360 S o u t h Broadway CITY/PO Tarrytown ZIP CODE N.Y. 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OP OWNER (If different) MOFBffnTAT? KFALTV, STATE TNC C/0 Ian (212) Tissot 883-8201 ADDRESS 330 Madison Avenue CITY/PO STATE ZIPCO0E New York N.Y. 10017 DESCRIPTION OP ACTION Construction of Full Service Car Wash Please Complete Each Question— Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. D Rural (non-farm) 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial XSCommercial DResidential (suburban) D Forest D Agriculture DOther .32 Total acreage of project area: acres. AFTER COMPLETION PRESENTLY APPROXIMATE ACREACE 0 acres Meadow or Brushiand (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces JL21 Other (Indicate type) What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? _ acres _ acres H .32 acres acres acres acres acres Charlton, Fine sandy loam-Type R ^(Moderately well drained J - 0 0 % of site GWell drained % of site % of site G Poorly drained b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). a. Soil drainage: Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? GYes }fXNo a. What is depth to bedrock' 6 F t ( A v q iin feet) 2 �5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 330.10% «K G15H or greater _ _ GlO-15% % .% 6. Is project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? GYes XBNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? GYes jpNo 10+ 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? GYes 5ENo 10. Oo hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project,area? GYes £fr*o 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? GYes KJSlo According to « _ _ _ _ « — * Identify each species . ___«—__•-»-»__-___«-_-_»----____ 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) GYes 2D&o Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? GYes Z3No If yes. explain '„ 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? GYes 23No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project 5f«a: None a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary ' 16. Lakes, ponds, wet/and areas within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name _ • _ • _ - - — - - _ « « » - « _ - _ « « - - _ _ - - — » _ - _ » _ - b. Size (In acres) ~!7. Is the site served by existing public utilities? GSYes GNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? KJYes GNo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? GYes JSONo 8. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, . Section 303 and 304? GYes X2No 19.- Is the site located in or subscantiallvcantiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ZCl, and 6 NYCRR 617? ^Yes) ~ ^ S « £ 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? GYes j£lNo B. Project Description • 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor .32 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: *32 acres initially; «32 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: 0 (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A «,• f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing " ; prooosed 4 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 12 A v q . tnpnn cortipretiorr of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: " One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially «—_—————_ __».,«_-«-_----. Ultimately _ „_ _ - _ _ . - « • • — — i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 30 height: 35 width: 80 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 2 4 0 ft �2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? DYes C3No Q X3N/A a. If yes. for what intend., purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? tons/cubic yards DYes „ XBNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes XDSNO 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes _5fco 3 6. If single phase project Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes year, (including demolition). year. DYes DNo 3_?No 8 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 8 ; after project is complete 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? •12. Is surface liquid'waste disposal involved? OYes DYes X&lo If yes, explain ENo a. if yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged *T3. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes _No Type , 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 16. Will the project generate solid waste? 30yes a. If yes, what is the amount per month DYes QJNo X&No DNo 1 tons b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? c. If yes. give name QYes ElYes W e s t c h e s t e r County DNo location PeeksKill d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes 3_$No e. If Yes, explain __ 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes 3&N0 a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? years. DYes XXNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ., . ,. X_>Yes Total anticipated water usage per day & •****' • I XJfJo DNo ___ gallons/minute. . gallons/day. [4. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain DYes , , Normal Commercial Use f o r Car Wash F a c i l i t y lr yes , indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. -§No DYes ENo �25. Approvals Required: Submittal Date Type City. Town. Village Board GYes XJNo City. Town. Village Planning Board City. Town Zoning Board V.^flLA€ OjTes ( ^ W . DNo Site ^QtNo City. County Health Department DYes XXNo Other Local Agencies DYes X3iNo Other Regional Agencies DYes ^QJ^o State Agencies DYes JQPo Federal Agencies DYes Plan Approval 3/18/93 V<y,v^ c w t g. . _ m fiNo __ C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? IclYes DNo If Yes. indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Dzoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan Dspecial use permit Dresource management plan 2. What is the zoning classification^ the site? C - 1 Gsubdivision JOsite plan Dother _ HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted,by the present zoning? 8,400 SquaRE Foot Building 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? ( 2/800 SF Proposed) C - 1 NO CHANGE 5. What is die maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 8/400 Square Foot Building 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? DYes DNo 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? RETAIL A C T I V I T I E S RELATED PRIMARILY TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND SERVICEING OF AUTUMUBILES • 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? HYes DNo DYes X3^o 9. If the proposed action is die subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? . 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes 5QNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? DYes DNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes QYes 59No DNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Appiicant/SopffSgprTme ignature * O T ^ U L & ^ SPEEPY 'h> yfiffiw CAR WASH l-*JUA*A.e»y™» Date March 30/ 1993 Partner C h a r l e s M. P a t e m a n ^ " " ^ , . _ - . . It the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. t L �Part 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency Ceneral Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. if impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D •Y.es •N< a • QYes DNO • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. n D DYes QYes DNo • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. D D • D DYes DNO • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. a a DYes DNO • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. D • Construction in a designated floodway. • D D DYes DYes DYes DNO a a a a DYes DNo IMPACT ON LAND 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ^NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Other impacts Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DNO DNO ONO Will there be an effect t- ...iy urs.que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)SNO GYES Specific land forms: �IMPACT ON WATER Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15. 24. 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECU ffl^O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? "ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater , quality or quantity? HNO Examples that would apply to column 2 ' 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D • • • • D D D Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYes DYes D DYes D N O DYes DNo DYes DNo • D D Y es D D D D DYes • • D DYes DYes DYES Proposed Action will require a discharge permit Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. *. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. D D • • • • • • DYes DYes DYes OYes DYes • D DYes • Proposed Action will likely cauie siltation or other discharge into an existing body of wa«er to the extern that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. D • DYes • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1.100 gallons. D • DYes DNo • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo n G DYes DNo • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. other impart- &>-t ¥ ^ \: ^ *>rp,: n-. ^ •A ' f . f\i J> Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Examples that would applv to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water fipws ^NO 7 — i I DYES �2 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • D D D D DYes QYes DYes DYes DNO DNo DNo DNo a a a a a a D DYes DNo D DYes DNO D DYes DNO • DYes DNO D DYes DNO D DYes DNo a a a a D Y es D D DYes DYes DNo a D DYes DNO • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. a D DYes DNo • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. • a DYes DNo a D DYes ONo • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: D D • IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? . TS(NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial . development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? &MO Examples that would apply to column 2 # DYES Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? jBNO Examples that would apply to column 2 DNO DYES IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? XNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 �• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? QSjNO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. .• Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure ofiiistoric, prehistoric or paleontological importance? fflNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 BJNO DYES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity A maior reduction of an open space important to the community. • Other impacts. 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact a D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo a D DYes DNo a D DYes DNo a D DYes DNo a D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo a a a D CYes DNO D DYes DNO D DYes DNO D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change 13 a a �1 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? CNO Examples that would apply to column 2 • DYES Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Can Impact Be Mitigated By Large Project Change Impact D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo * Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. D D DYes DNo * Other impacts: D D DYes DNo • • D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. D D DYes DYes DNo DNo Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNo Other D D DYes DNo • • DYes DNo • D DYes DNo • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D • DYes DNO • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. D D DYes DNO • Other impacts: D D DYes DNO • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: A ^TOO^f cXp- T&MttC IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. W i l l proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Ij^NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 * Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. , NOISE AND OOOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). impacts: ____ . IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ENO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) , 10 �1 I 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD _ 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existinacommunitv? #NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Small to Moderate Impact • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. » Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment » Other impacts: • • D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo a a D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D Can Impact Be Potential Mitigated By Large Project Change Impact 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? JBJNO DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or Iff You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impacts) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impacts) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project changed). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM Project Name or Description Sleepy Hollow Car Wash Construction of Full Service Car Wash Project Location Corner of North Broadway and Gordon Avenue Name of Applicant Frank R a c a n e l l i , Charles Pateman and Thomas Lupetin Village Agency Intending to Act as Lead Agency Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Address 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown. New York 10591 Contact Person William T. Regan, Village Administrator Date Mailed Telephone Number (914) 631-0113 Type of Action (Check A or B) OX A. TYPE I • UNUSTED B. Lead agency must be chosen within 30 days of above date. Deadline Reply Date II. Required Approvals and Reviews (Check all permits, waivers, or other actions which may be required) • Rezoning • Subdivision Approval QX Site Development Plan Approval • Special Permit I3X Variance • Wetlands Permit • Stream Discharge Permit - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation • Sewage Disposal/Water Supply Approval - Westchester County Health Department • Review by Westchester County Department of Planning • Curb Cut Approval - New York State Department of Transportation/Westchester County Department of Public Works • Other. Specify: �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM - PAGE 2 III. IV. Environmental Significance of Action: Initial Review of Environmental Assessment Form indicates that: (Check A, B, or C - To be done by initiating agency) D A The proposed action appears likely to have a significant effect on the environment; a positive declaration is likely. • B. The proposed action appears not likely to have a significant effect on the environment; a negative declaration is likely. Q X C. No opinion has been made yet as to whether a positive or negative declaration is likely for this action. A Copy of this Form and the Environmental Assessment Form Has Been Sent to the Agencies Indicated on the Attached List. Attachments: Lead Agency Selection Reply Form List of Involved or Interested Agencies Environmental Assessment Form �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION REPLY FORM Reply Form to be Filled Out by Involved Agencies The (list agency) has examined this form and accompanying documentation for the application known as Sleepy Hollow Car Wash and: (Check A or B) • A. Does .not want to be Lead Agency. • B. Wants to be Lead Agency for this action. Additional comments or concerns (Attach additional pages if necessary): Reviewed by: Signature Name Title Date PLEASE RETURN TO THE AGENCY INITIATING THIS PROCESS (LISTED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS FORM) BY THE DATE INDICATED. IF NO REPLY IS RECEIVED BY THE DATE INDICATED, THE VILLAGE AGENCY INDICATED WILL ASSUME THAT YOU CONCUR WITH ITS DESIGNATION AS LEAD AGENCY. 500/not3-030.ld �LIST OF INVOLVED OR INTERESTED AGENCIES Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 D Westchester County Planning Board D c /oWestchester County Department of Planning 432 County Office Bulding White Plains, New York 10601 Zoning Board of Appeals Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 D Westchester County Department of Health 112 East Post Road White Plains, New York 10601 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Comers Road New Paltz, New York 12561 D New York State Department of Transportation 4 Burnett Boulevard, Region 8 Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 • New York State Department of Transportation Saw Mill River Road Valhalla, New York 10595 (Other Agencies) 500\not3-O30.jd �V Approved wi/fth respect to substance and form; Village Attorney Datyd: ^/ilj^ Approved by the Planning Board Q^*jt Chj&Trman or ActingiChairman baited: A ^^_ / 7, (4#j Filed with Village Clerk -Clerk-or Deputy Clerk Dated: G / I ^ (°I3 ze or Meeting 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-05-20 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/baaf03d1441d9c1a4da2f382229ff859.pdf c93c86e69de57c357fe6a1901610bad2 PDF Text Text A REGULAR MEETING WAS HELD BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON JUNE 17, 1993 AT 8:00 PM IN VILLAGE HALL 28 BEEKMAN AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 10591 MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: ABSENT: James Galgano Steven Salman Roman Windas James Donovan Ellen Tsangaris Richard Ayers Janet Gandolfo, Esq. Joseph Gulino, CAMCE Susan Portman, Frederick P. Clark Assoc. Edward McCarthy IN THE MATTER OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN. 103 FARRINGTON AVENUE. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK A public hearing was held to hear and consider the application of the Village of North Tarrytown which is seeking a wetlands permit to install riprap along the edges of an unnamed creek flowing across the property located at 103 Farrington Avenue. Mr. Galgano stated that the Planning Board is the lead agency. Mr. Fitzpatrick who resides at 142 Farrington Avenue stated that his property abuts the rear of 103 Farrington Avenue. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if Frederick P. Clark did a survey of the whole brook or did they stop at the Sohn property? Mr. Galgano stated he has not seen anything in their report about where they stopped. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the main problem with the brook is where it enters the pipe. He has no objection to the Sohns shoring up their land, but the lower half of the brook towards 142 Farrington is the major problem. If Mr. Sohn shores up the side of the brook and lets the water run free there is going to be more of a problem. Mr. Fitzpatrick feels that the Village should address the whole brook. The brook runs through a lot of area. They dump into an 18 to 24 inch pipe which goes into a catch basin or a man hole which is on his property line and into a 36 inch pipe. When it rains or thunderstorms, that brook runs into a lake. He feels before anything is done the Village should look into the problem a little further. Mr. Salman stated that the engineer who looked at the situation was not in attendance. Mr. Gulino stated that CAMCE was not asked to look at the situation, James Hahn had looked at the brook. �A representative from the Philipse Manor Improvement Association asked if the Board would consider the affect on the entire community before it approves a motion, because this problem affects a number of neighbors in the area. Mr. Salmon stated the Board should go into this with a little more detail since there is some concern with the neighbors. Mr. Salman also has a letter of June 9, 1992 and there is no description as to the depth of the study. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that there have been different engineers over the past 10 years but there is nothing in writing. Mr. Windas stated that they could ask the Board of Trustees' permission to do a comprehensive study. Mr. Gulino stated that he would need authorization from the Village in order to do a study. Mr. Salman was concerned if the study had already been completed and if the study from 1992 is sufficient. It was the intent of the Board to have everything completed by the next meeting. Mr. Donovan made a motion to continue the public hearing at the next meeting which will be July 22, 1993 seconded by Mr. Ayers. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OF THE PHILIPSEBURG MANOR, UPPER MILL PARKING. NORTH BROADWAY. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK Ms. Mary Vizvary who resides at 85 New Broadway stated that her mother has been a resident of Pleasant Street for 50 years. Ms. Vizvary has seen the plans ant it shows the entrance and the exit at the beginning of Continental Street which is a one-way street going west. She asked if there will be an overflow of traffic because it is narrow at the top of Continental St. A representative of Historic Hudson Valley stated that the flow would come out of Howard Street. The trees will still exist. Ms. Vizvary asked if they would think about the location of the entrance and the exit because there aren't enough parking spaces on Continental Street now. Mr. Salman stated that at last meeting it was mentioned that the lot would be locked at night for security purposes. The representative said it will be locked and because it is a seasonal lot, it would only be opened when the main lot is full. This will not be an event lot where everyone will leave right after; it is a rotational lot to bus people around. The tour would have 15 people per tour. Ms. Fannie Stone asked if the buses will be going through Continental Street because the road is not that wide. The representative from the Historic Hudson Valley stated that the buses will be used in the visitors lot. These will be shuttle buses. �Mr. John Cappello asked if commercial buses would also be in the new area? It was stated no, they allow only four to five shuttle buses in the front. Larger buses will be closer to the visitors lot. The property will not be over booked. They will only allow as much as they can handle. Mr. Slaman stated that in the final agreement it should read that vehicles larger than passenger size vans will not be allowed in the visitors lot. A motion was made by Mr. Ayers to close the public hearing seconded by Mr. Salman. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Mr. Windas stated that the proposals that were included in Frederick P. Clarks study such as the two way drive, signage and landscaping should be incorporated in the final site plan. Mr. Robert Toole agreed to make the changes and put them into final form. A motion was made by Mr. Windas that the project will not result in any large impact and, therefore, will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration will be prepared. The motion was seconded by Mr. Donovan and carried unanimously. A motion was made by Mr. Salman to approve the preliminary site plan subject to conditions that will be on the final site plan, seconded by Mr. Ayers. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OF EMMA SERINA. LAWRENCE AVENUE. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK Mr. Barstow stated that he was in attendance to submit the environmental review form requested by the Planning Board. He received a copy of Frederick P. Clarks review. The applicant does not need approval from the Department of Health, according to Susan Portman. Mr. Salman stated that he was concerned about the combination of residential and business uses. He was also concerned about residential nature of the neighborhood or encroachment of commercial establishments within the area. He feels it should stay residential. Mr. Galgano feels that this would be a better option than what is there now. �Mr. Serina stated that at one time this property was used by a roofing company. This property has always been commercial. Ms. Portman stated that the applicant needed to proceed with the environmental review process before the Planning Board. They have not been to the Zoning Board. Variances are required because it is a mixed use. Mr. Margotta stated that they did not have time to go to the Zoning Board. At the same time they could go to the Zoning Board, but they would not get their final decision until the SEQRA process is completed. Mr. Windas' recommendation is to send the applicant to the Zoning Board before the Planning Board reviews the site plan application. A motion was made by Mr. Salman to continue the public hearing until the next meeting which will be held on July 22, 1993, seconded by Mr. Donovan. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES M. PATEMAN. FRANK RACANELLI AND THOMAS J. LUPETIN, NORTH BROADWAY AND GORDON AVENUE. NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK The attorney for the applicants, Mr. Richard Blancato, distributed copies of a traffic impact study completed by the applicants traffic engineer. He stated that the engineer would be present at the next meeting to answer any questions regarding the study. It was asked whether the study which was being submitted included the area of the intersection of Route 448, Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. The Planning Board had requested that the study include this intersection during the meeting in May. Mr. Blancato stated that his traffic engineer advised the applicants not to go ahead with that part of the study because he felt it was irrelevant. The Board members had a different view and were concerned that the window of opportunity to include this area in the study had been lost because the schools are recessed for the summer. The Board agreed to look at the traffic study submitted by the applicant ant to hear the comments of Frederick P. Clark Assoc, before making ga final determination as to whether the study should include the above-mentioned intersection. After a short discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Salman to declare the intent of the Planning Board to declare itself lead agency, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Blancato stated to the Board that the Zoning Board had given the interpretation that a car wash is not a gasoline station and therefore, a permitted use. Discussion ensued as to whether any variances were required for the site and the question was referred to the Building Inspector. �Chairman Galgano opened the public hearing for comments. Mr. James Timmings, Rice Avenue, stated that there would be a hardship on emergency equipment if a car wash were built at the site. Also, on New Broadway, the traffic light only allows two to three cars to pass during one sequence. A car wash will create more traffic congestion. The people who live in Webber Park have always s felt pressure from the automotive uses in that area. The safety of the many children who live in the area needs to be taken into consideration. Mr. George Hritz, President of the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers Association, appreciates the Board's careful attention to this matter. He referred them to a letter dated May 8, 1993 sent by the Association which urged the Planning Board to oppose a car wash at the site for traffic and environmental reasons. In response to a question, Mr. Pateman stated that there will be no vacuum cleaners on the site. A representative of the Philipse Manor Improvement Association, stated that it is a contradiction for the Village to allow a car wash in that are when the emphasis has been on the historic value of the are. He stated that a car wash would not enhance the historic value of the area and objected to the name of Sleepy Hollow Car Wash for the project as he felt it compromised the historic nature of the name. He also questioned whether the water from the car wash would be drained into municipal sewer's and to the Yonkers plant to be recycled. Mr. Galgano stated that these questions would be answered by the applicant throughout the site plan review. Mr. Frank Hrotko, Gordon Avenue, stated that everyday the Buick dealership test drives their cars through Webber Park. He suggested that ta car counter be placed at the location to see how much traffic there actually is. A representative from Historic Hudson Valley expressed concern as to where the water from the car wash will drain. The pond at the he Manor has more wildlife now and he is concerned about the environmental impact. Also, in the past few years, they have had problems with oil leaking into the pond from the service stations along Route 9. Ms. Vizvary stated that the Board should take into consideration that the autodealer loads and unloads vehicles during day hours near the location. �Mr. Eugene Buonanno, state that the condition of the lot is a disgrace. The lot is filled with litter and cars. The traffic would be unbearable if a car wash were built. Broadway could not tolerate the traffic, and therefore, the traffic would be backed up on to Gordon Avenue. It would crate a hazardous and unsafe condition. He recommended that the Board be careful before any approvals are given. Ms. Millie Pellechi, Webber Avenue, stated that there is a lot of congestion on Route and this would cause more havoc in the area. The Board should take this into consideration. Mr. Fiorella, Gordon Avenue stated that in the past few years there have been more children in the area and this should be taken into consideration. Mr. Donovan questioned whether having a car wash was the best use for the site. Mr. Blancato stated that he hoped to answer the residents' questions at the next meeting. Mr. Timmings stated that Katrina Avenue should be included in the traffic study. Ms. Tsangaris made a motion to continue the public hearing at the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Salman. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Donovan questioned the idea considering the upgrade in the area. about having a car wash Mr. Blancato stated that he would hope to answer the residents questions at the next meeting. MINUTES A motion was made by Mr. Salman to approve the minutes of March 18, 1993, seconded by Mr. Ayers. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Mr. Salman to approve the minutes of April 22, 1993, seconded by Mr. Ayers. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Mr. Ayers to approve the minutes of May 19, 1993, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris. Motion carried unanimously. Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. Respectfully submitted^ Christine A. Yurkovie* �4 Approved*with respect to substance and form: Village Attorne Dfcted: C/nlv Approved by the Planning Board IMA ^"w^x Cha«rman or Acting Qjiairman Dalzed: >f.4/> /7/ '4 4 J Filed with Village Clerk x. p. jG-lerk TJT Deputy Clerk Dated: £ ^ 5 ^ / 9 3 >n^ jc Date of Meeting / f??j � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-06-17 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d4fb8a386ba4511fe683b6c832ff7388.pdf 4ea3988f905ba1dd763d1be4c690dd03 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK MARCH 18, 1993 DRAFT A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 18, 1993 at 8:00 PM in the Village Hall, North Tarrytown, New York. Present: James Galgano, Chairman Steve Salman Roman Windas James Donovan Edward McCarthy Richard Ayers Absent: Ellen Tsangaris Also Present: James Margotta, Building Inspector Robert Spencer, Village Attorney Chairman Galgano called the meeting to order at 8 P.M. 1. Preliminary Hearing - Philipse Plaza. North Broadway-Store. The Architect for the project described the proposed building to be built on the site, stating it would be a mixed use building with commercial space on the first floor and office space on the upper level. The artchitect stated he would be appearing before the Zoning Board and would request a change in zoning. Frederick Clark Associates, Inc. presented a Preliminary Review of Philipse Plaza. Discussion followed regarding the status of Uncle Jerry's Deli and the retaining walls at the rear of the property. Mr.Windas stated that Antonio's Cabinetry had been granted approval as a separate building with a separate parking area. Any future construction on an adjoining parcel must stand on its own. He stated that Antonio's must have its own parking area and the new building should have its own. * Discussion followed. The Board asked to review the plot plan that had been submitted and approved for Antonio's Cabinetry. , The architect stated that all the buildings would have sufficient parking even if the two buildings were owned by different owners. 1 �Mr.Spencer noted that the property is located in the C-l zone. The C-l zone includes the following as permitted principal uses: stores and shops for retail business and personal or business services, and planned commercial development group. Offices are not permitted in the C-l zone. Hence, the applicant needs to obtain a zone change or obtain a use variance. Mr.Spencer further noted that the drawings for the proposed project did indicate that there would not be sufficient parking on the portion of the premises used for Antonio's Cabinetry unless the lots were merged and the entire property was considered a planned commercial development group. The drawings appeared to provide for sufficient parking for a planned commercial development group. The applicant needs to decide if the project is to be considered a planned commercial development group. Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Mr. Windas to refer the matter to the Zoning Board for a use variance. Carried unanimously. 2. C M . Pateman. North Broadway-Informal Discussion on former Pickwick Post Property and construction of Car Wash. Mr. Pateman presented plans for a car wash on the portion of the former Pickwick Post Restaurant property on North Broadway. The former Pickwick Post property also includes residential lots on Gordon Avenue. The lots on North Broadway are zoned C-l commercial; the lots on Gordon Avenue are zoned R-4 for one and two family houses. Mr. Spencer stated the applicant did not have to split the residential lots from the commercial lots. There is a question whether a subdivision will be required for the undersized residential lots to build three houses on those lots. The permitted principal uses in the C-l zone include the following: gasoline service station and stores and shops for retail business and personal or business services. A gasoline service station includes a car wash as a permitted ancillary use. Mr. Spencer stated that in his opinion the proposed car wash could be considered a gas station under the Zoning Code, but that it could not be considered a store or shop for retail business or personal or business services. Section 62-19 of the Zoning Code requires a 300 foot separation between a gasoline service station and any public or private school, public library, museum, civic center, hospital, church, public park or playground, fire station or another gasoline service station. There are several gasoline service stations within 300 feet of the proposed car wash. Hence, the applicant must obtain an area variance. Mr. Pateman stated that the residential portion of the property would be a separate application. He stated that the car wash would occupy 20% of the lot whereas the zoning allows 60% coverage. 2 �Dr. Salman stated his concern about the traffic flow on Gordon Avenue which is a narrow street and the intersection of Broadway and Gordon Avenue. Mr. Pateman stated that a complete traffic analysis would be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Donovan stated he would like to see some other type of construction on the property, like a restaurant. Discussion followed regarding a change of zoning to allow other types of construction. Mr. Pateman stated that 80% of the water used will be recycled. He also stated that no area variances will be required. There will be no machines located outside the building. Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy, to set a Preliminary Hearing on April 15th. Carried unanimously. MINUTES: Dr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan, to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on February 18th, 1993 as submitted. Carried unanimously. Discussion followed regarding fees to be paid by Mr. Rodriguez in the amount of $5,000. before Site Plan Review. Mr. Margotta was directed to notify Mr. Rodriguez to deposit the funds with The Village . Dr. Salman stated that the Board should petition the Board of Trustees to change the Zoning on Route 9 and Gordon Avenue from C-2 and C-l Business. Mr. Margotta was instructed to send a memo to the Zoning Board to inform them of the Board's feeling about the Petitioner's Application for a car wash. The Planning Board would like the Board of Trustees to upgrade the area with a change in zoning as they feel the area is becoming "gasoline alley". Mr. Spencer reported that he had reviewed the escrow account of Bedford Park and reported a $2,000. balance. After discussion, memo is to be sent to the Village Treasurer to give the Board a monthly accounting of all escrow accounts that pertain to the Planning Board. 3 �There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Dr. Salman, that the same be duly adjourned. Carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted. Irene Amato Acting Clerk |] APR 2 01993 l i ! LJFPIJTY CLERK &"• ,-i \ 4 u . \v."-..i'>',"..-'..t, '' �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Portman. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut Frederick E. Wiedle, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE AICP David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder. AICP FAX (914) 967-6615 Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: March 12, 1993 Subject: Preliminary Review of Philipse Plaza Introduction As requested, we have reviewed the application for the proposed Zoning Map amendment and site plan approval for a property of approximately 42,800 square feet located along the east side of North Broadway, opposite Philipsburg Manor and at the intersection of North Broadway and Pocantico Street, in the C-l Highway Commercial District. portions of the site are steep and the property currently contains two buildings. One building houses Antonio Cabinetry (a manufacturing use) and the other contains Uncle Jerry's Italian Deli (a delicatessen use). Antonio Cabinetry was the subject of a site plan application which was approved February 20, 1992, and received use and area variances. Proposal The applicant proposes to redevelop a currently unappealing and underutilized property with a more attractive two-story building. The applicant requests a zoning change for the subject property from C-l Highway Commercial to C-2 General Commercial in order to build a retail and office building (containing 4,400 square feet of retail and 6,000 square feet of office space), demolish the existing deli building (which the applicant requested to remain standing and in operation until the new building is complete) and continue the manufacturing use of the Antonio Cabinetry building. When complete, the buildings on this property will comprise a "planned commercial development group" as defined in the Village Code because of the single ownership of the two buildings and the "certain facilities in common, such as yards, open space, ... and parking areas." �Application The applicant has submitted the following plans: 1. Sheet 1, "Site Plan: Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," dated February 22, 1993, prepared by Contadino Architects; 2. Sheet 2, "Ground Floor Plan and Second Floor Plan: Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," dated February 22, 1993, prepared by Contadino Architects; and 3. Sheet 3, "Elevations, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," dated February 22, 1993, prepared by Contadino Architects. Analysis and Recommendations 1. Zoning Map Amendment: The procedure that is required in order to amend the Zoning Map is contained within Section 62-53 of the Village Code. During its review of an application for rezoning, the Board of Trustees is required to refer the application to the Planning Board for a review and recommendation. The rezoning and site plan reviews can coincide if the Village so desires, although the rezoning resolution would have to precede the site plan resolution. Rezoning one relatively small property at the request of that property's owner to a zoning designation which is different than the surrounding zoning may be considered "spot zoning." Therefore, the Village may wish to consider rezoning a larger portion of the C-l District; for example, that portion of the C-l District opposite Philipsburg Manor, which might include this property and other properties in this section of the C-l District which are located on the east side of North Broadway between the Pocantico River to the north and the intersection with Pocantico Street to the southwest. The exact area to be recommended for rezoning would require further study. Although the Village's master plans recommend the continuation of automotive-related highway commercial development for this area, given the current economic climate and the value of Philipsburg Manor to the Village's image, such a rezoning might be expected to encourage attractive redevelopment of this area, which serves as the northern "gateway" to the Village's central business district. If, on the other hand, the Village determines that a rezoning is not appropriate, the applicant may try to obtain a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed 2 �office use and any delicatessen, restaurant or other types of uses not permitted in the C-l District (general retail use is permitted in the C-l District). Zoning Standards; The building lot coverage maximum is the same in the C-l and C-2 Districts for planned commercial development groups. A planned commercial development group is permitted a maximum of 35 percent building lot coverage. The proposal complies with this standard. This project should be considered a planned development group since it fits the definition and since only one principal building would otherwise be permitted on what is considered a single parcel for zoning purposes. Obviously, the zoning standards as applied to this property will change if it is rezoned. If the zoning for the site is changed to C-2, the maximum permitted building height will be 45 feet (instead of 35 feet) and front yard setbacks will no longer be required for any commercial use. Also, there will be no minimum lot width or minimum lot size requirement for any commercial use. The principal uses permitted in the C-2 District which are not permitted in the C-l include banks, offices, restaurants, delicatessens, printing and publishing plants, taverns and bars, as well as those uses which are permitted in the R-5 Residence District. Antonio Cabinetry; The site plan approval for Antonio Cabinetry was for the conversion of an existing 8,800 square foot building. The applicant received the necessary area and use variances to operate a light manufacturing use in the C-l District. In its January 7, 1992 review of the variances, the Westchester County Planning Board recommended; "The Village should consider the practicality of the proposed parking layout. The current plan appears to have limited turnaround and aisle areas. The plan should be reviewed to ensure that cars will not be required to back out onto the State highway." Recognizing the limitations of the parking design, in a February 20, 1992 memorandum to the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board, our firm recommended that: "any approvals that may be forthcoming with regard to the cabinetry shop application [should] be conditioned upon a requirement that the cabinet shop's parking area be reexamined whenever an application is made for the 3 �redevelopment of the remainder of the property. In this way, at some point in the future, it may be possible to improve upon the tight parking and circulation area shown on this plan." Parking; Thirteen of the parking spaces on the plan (the compact car parking spaces) are nonconforming in terms of size. The Zoning Code requires parking spaces to have a width of 9 feet and a length of 20 feet. Any variation from the Code standard to provide for compact car parking would require an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Further, signage should be provided which reserves these spaces for compact cars. Fifty parking spaces are required for this development and 50 are shown on the plan. The plan shows three of the 50 spaces as designed for handicap parking. Only two parking spaces need be designed for handicap use of the first 50 spaces required. The extra handicap space could be replaced with a standard parking space. One of the two handicap loading aisles may be removed and the two handicap spaces could share the remaining aisle. Circulation: The aisles in the parking area are only 20 feet wide, which is tight for good maneuvering and circulation. The location of the two loading spaces make it difficult, if not impossible, for an SU-30 truck to maneuver into and out of them. The sight distance for the entrance and exit driveways should meet New York State Department of Transportation standards. Due to sight distance and other conditions, a left turn into the southern entrance of the site may be unsafe. Street intersections and curb cuts on both sides of Broadway in the vicinity of the property should be shown on the plan in order to evaluate traffic safety issues such as circulation and conformance with the following Zoning Code standard in Section 62-22.C: "Entrance and exit driveways shall be located not less than twenty-five (25) feet from the corner of intersection streets, measured along the street lines." Buffers: To the east of the property is an R-4 Residence District. Section 62-9C(2) of the Code states that the required 5-foot buffer strip between non-residential uses and residential districts, "shall be in addition to any side or rear yard measurements" (emphasis added). The plan includes 4 �the buffer within the 20 foot rear yard. To correct this, the applicant should revise the plan to include the required buffer or the applicant may try to obtain an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Landscaping: The two proposed Sugar Maple trees shown on North Broadway should be changed to a type of tree better suited to survive well in urban conditions. Red and Norway Maples are able to withstand factors such as road salting and air pollution better than the Sugar Maple. Because of the location of the overhead wire, it may actually be preferable to use a smaller tree in those two locations, such as Flowering Pear, Hawthorne, Red Bud or Amelanchier. In addition, the islands in which these trees will be planted should be curbed in order to protect the trees. To further enhance the area, the Planning Board may want to request the addition of a tree on each side of the northerly access drive. Although they would be in the right-of-way, after careful review of sight distance considerations, the trees would most likely be found acceptable by the Department of Transportation. Another suggestion is to add a small tree on the island which shows a light fixture toward the south of the property, unless the tree will interfere with that fixture. The applicant may want to verify the availability of a Yellow Wood in the size specified. If there is a problem, the plan is more easily changed now than after approvals. The Planning Board may want to consider pedestrian circulation in this area and discuss the need for sidewalks. Environmental Review: According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the site plan and zoning change for the subject property constitute a Type I action. The reasons for this determination are that the action is located "substantially contiguous to" Philipsburg Manor (which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National Historic Landmark) and the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area. The applicant has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form. According to SEQRA, the applicant must submit a full Environmental Assessment Form for a Type I action. A Type I action is required to undergo a "coordinated review" by the Involved Agencies. Either the Village Board of Trustees (as the approving authority for a zone change), the Planning Board (as the approving authority for the site plan), 5 �or the Zoning Board of Appeals (as the approving authority of any variances) may be the Lead Agency. It is most likely that the Board of Trustees or the Planning Board would become the Lead Agency. The application may require approvals from County, State and other agencies which, although also eligible to become the Lead Agency, usually do not declare their intent to do so. The applicant should list the other required approvals on the full Environmental Assessment Form. Referral; According to the Westchester County Administrative Code Section 451, public hearing notices must be sent to the Westchester County Planning Board regarding actions including review of zoning amendments: "when such hearing is in connection with (1) the proposed ... amendment of a zoning ordinance or the proposed issuance of a special permit or use permit changing the use classification of property located within such municipality ... •• Additionally, the New York State General Municipal Law, Article 12-A requires the referral to the County Planning Board of actions including review of site plans and variances within 500 feet of any state highway (North Broadway is a state highway). Further Information; To assist in its review of this application, we recommend that the Planning Board request the following information from the applicant: •Survey of existing property, including topography (at two or five foot intervals), existing retaining walls and other structures. •Proposed grading plan and description of erosion control measures. •Information to describe how the Deli will function throughout construction (e.g., circulation and parking). •Location of neighboring structures (and uses). •Tax parcel lines for the subject property. Jim Donovan, ASIA, Vice President/Environmental Planning Michael A. Galante, Vice President/Transportation Susan J. Portman, Associate/Planning William T. Regan, Village Administrator Robert W. Spencer, Esq. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, PE Louis Contadino, AIA 6 �Approyved\ with respect to substance and form: Village' AttorfieY Dated: f>4 Approved by the Planning Board '/>s<y> *& Lairman or Acting Cha^yman )ated: 3fas fo3 Filed with Village Clerk Clerk or (Pepujty Clerk Dated x^ /<ZC ^-L». / g'yau Date of Meeting /ff^> � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-03-18 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/339da5983b5410b909fbeb36d21a17fb.pdf dab4a0298c69359502b09d50cbb000f5 PDF Text Text 'Jp*ULAR MEETING • North Tarrytown, New York April 22nd, 1993 A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown was held on Thursday, April 22nd, 1993 in the Village Hall, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: James Galgano, Chairman Steve Salman Richard Ayers Roman Windas James Donovan Ellen Tsangaris ABSENT: Edward McCarthy ALSO PRESENT: Donal Walsh, Village Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. Galgano called the meeting to order at 8 P.M. 1. Norbrotar Realty Inc. (C. Pateman) North Broadway-Car Wash(Subject to approval of ZBA) Mr. Pateman presented plans of proposed car wash to the Board and due to the fact there was no meeting of the ZBA the presentation was to be informal. Memorandum presented by Frederick P. Clark Associates Inc. reviewing Site Plan for Sleepy Hollow Car Wash and their review comments. Comments were regarding Zoning Standards, parking and loading, circulation of traffic, buffer and landscaping and environmental review. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Pateman stated he does not agree with interpretation tnat the car wash is a gasoline service station. He stated he has received a letter from the N.Y.S.D.O.T. and they have no objections to the project. Chairman Galgano stated he would" prefer Mr. Pateman receive approval of tne Zoning Boara of Appeals berore the Planning board discusses tne matter. Mr.. Pateman asked the Board to reduce the amount of money he would be required to submit no tne "Escrow Account:". Mr. Margotta stated that Mr. Pateman was very prompt with his payments After discussion, Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that the amount to be paid for consulting fees be reduced to $2,500. in this particular case, to.be paid on the approval of the project by the Zoning Board. Carried. • Mr. Pateman stated he would return to the May meeting and would address all the items that the Board raised. �V1*"1 % —2- Philipsburg Upper Mill, Continental Street-Preliminary Hearing-Proposed parking area. Mr. Bob Toole presented plans of the proposed parking area and stated that the area would be for the overflow of cars and buses. In 1994 the restoration would be conduting tours to Kykuit from the visitors center at the Restoration and additional parking areas will be needed. Memorandum from Clark Associates reviewing proposed overflow parking area presented to the Board. Memorandum includes comments on Zoning standards, parking requirements, buffers and landscaping, access and circulation and comments on wetland/ watercourse permits, and environmental review. (Copy in official minutes). Discussion followed regarding traffic from General Motors parking area, which is adjacent to proposed parking area. It was stated that the parking area would be closed during the winter months. Also discussed was the possibility of a footpath from the restoration to Kingsland Point Park. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that a public hearing on the matter be scheduled for May 20th, 1993 Discussion followed on interpretation of the Zoning Code and the Board authorized a letter to be sent to the Board of Trustees recommending a change of Zoning in the area of Route 9. Discussion followed on Planning Board Seminar to be held by Westchester County Department of Planning. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. pectfully submitted, Irene Amato Acting Clerk �Approved wjflth r e s p e c t t o s u b s t a n c e and form: V i l l a g e Attorney Daied: G/ll^J Approved by t h e P l a n n i n g Board CHa^irman .rman or A c t i n g Ch^riri Chairman F i l e d w i t h V i l l a g e Clerk d e r ^ - o r y D e p u t y Clerk Dated: G |<£-]°V7 t yr\o^^4^ Date o f Meeting /r /f?3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-04-22 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/5d7f3d2d7e74530f5bc6bd0317902a11.pdf 67425b636b835e799417d61b5b8f7328 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING PLANNING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 21, 1993 FINAL A regular meeting was held by the Planning Board of Appeals on January 21, 1993 in Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. Member Present: James Galgano Roman Windas Edward McCarthy Richard Ayers Steven Salman Also Present: James Margotta, Building Inspector Robert Spencer, Village Attorney Joseph Gulino, Charles Manganaro Engineers Susan Portman, Frederick P. Clark Associates Thomas Gissin, Frederick P. Clark Associates Ellen Tsangaris James Donovan Absent: IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE GELLERMAN, 170 HUNTER AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK. Mr. Hughes stated that there was a public hearing in October. Dr. Gellerman is in poor health. It is very likely that at this time nothing will be built on the new lot. The Zoning Board has approved the variances that were needed. The new lot is fully conforming. The lot on which the existing residence is located (Lot B) required side lot variances (6.2 feet exist and 10 feet is required) . There will be conforming side lot setbacks between the existing residence and any new residence. Mr. Windas made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Dr. Salman. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Windas made a motion that the subdivision will be a Type II SEQRA action which will have no material adverse impact on the environment, seconded by Dr. Salman. Motion carried unanimously. Dr. Salman made a motion to approve the subdivision, subject to the written comments made by the Planner, seconded by Mr. Ayers. Motion carried unanimously. FEB 2 2 1 " ' 5 \ OFPUfYCff �IN THE MATTER OP BEDFORD PARK ASSOCIATES, NORTH TARRYTOWM, MEW YORK. This is an update of the status of the project. Mr. Margotta stated that Jim Galgano signed the plat. Mr. Pateman has complied with everything. Mr. Pateman has put in the cul-desac and Joseph Gulino has made inspections. Mr. Spencer stated that he was concerned whether driveway permits had been issued for Webber Avenue. The permittee for the Bedford Road driveways is Racwel Development. Mr. Margotta stated that the developer has received curb cut approvals oh both "Bedford Road and Webber Avenue. Mr. Spencer stated that a deed of the property from North Tarrytown Associates to Bedford Park Associates has been filed. A question was raised concerning future fees. Does the responsibility of inspection fees fall on the buyer of vacant land or is the developer still responsible? Mr. Spencer stated that he would contact the developer and request payment of estimated inspection fees of $500.00 per lot before any lot is conveyed to a buyer. Discussion ensued. The subdivision plat is filed. Notes are made on the plat of vacant land to reference the resolutions approved and adopted by the Planning Board. Mr. Margotta stated that a copy of the plat will be given to whomever applies for a building permit. MINUTES Dr. Salman made a motion to approve the minutes of November 19, 1992, seconded by Mr. Ayers. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Christine A. Yurkovic Recording Secretary 2 �I BEDFORD PARK ASSOCIATES, INC. CHASE BUILDING - 2ND FLOOR 3 6 0 SOUTH BROADWAY TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 1 0 5 3 1 % (914) 6 9 3 - 1 2 3 1 FAX ( 9 1 4 ) 674-0291 FRANK RACANELU. PRES. MARIA RACANELU. SECTY. F e b r u a r y 2 , 1993 CHARLES M. PATEMAN. VICE PRES THOMAS J. LUPETUi. TREAs! Mr. Robert W. Spencer Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer 14 North Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 Re: Bedford Park Development Dear Bob: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 26, 1993 regarding items which appear to be open regarding the Bedford Park Development and respond as follows: • 1. Enclosed please find copies of the permits issued by the N.Y.S. Dept of Transportation for the driveways on Bedford Road and the County of Westchester Department of Public Works for the driveways on Webber Avenue. The permits cannot be transferred to Bedford Park Associates as they must be issued to the contractor who will be doing the actual construction work. Racwel Construction Inc. will be doing the actual construction work in this case. Racwel Construction Inc. is also owned by Frank Racanelli, President of Bedford Park Associates, Inc. 2. Enclosed please find a letter stating that the applicant has made the offers contained in conditions 10 through 13 of the Final Resolution and will abide by those offers. 3. With regard to paragraph 3 of your letter, we currently have an escrow amount of $5,000.00 on deposit with the Village designated for inspection fees. All inspections required by the site plan and subdivision approval have been completed and we believe that any further inspections would be within the jurisdiction of the Building Inspector and would therefore be covered by the Building Permit fee. • '**""ir n �I have also asked Fichard Blancato to give you a call and have advised him that we will withdraw the notice of claim filed against the Village. If you have any questions, please give us a call. CMP:lb Encl. �PERM 42m (12/91) STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY W O R K P E R M I T RmQOwmf\QC]A 60.00 0.00 •i el-,1.' ,-:'v->i!-' •'••« • ••'•-w... !;•-Permit No.: 08-92-0904 ,., (.-,,. ,;.•.. ~ project Identificatlori No.: "ll R e 6 e i v e t f i : : p $ l ^ ' - ' ^ 0 ^ 0 . ° r H H U o ^ ; - - f . . . . . . . „. w t»«. M Estimated'Completion Date: i ° V 0 i / 9 3 . JKSck or M. O. No.: 1Q33 SHNo- 4 4 8 •M l 7 o n f i l e 01 13 93 Liability Insurance: Policy No.: ™ Expiring: / / Deposit Rec. for $': ° ' 0 0 Disability Benefit Coverage: Policy No.: 2P47906A2$A. , . . , {i,:]Vyvi.,„, check or M.O. No.: • Permit Fee: Permittee: ';.-:•$ ' Dated: / / Esjirnated Cost OfWork Performed In the State Right-oNWay $: 0.00 RACWEL CONSTRUCTION, INC. -, - j •-< ,-- Chargeable to Bond No.: 3SE150338 63. MAIN SIR., . ! I or Undertaking on File: ( $ 4000.00) DOBBS FERRY, NY 10522 l i "r Workers' Compensation Policy No.: " ° 2 4 2 9 948 . atts '; • Billing Address: (Complete If -differenl from above) ;' Return of Deposit Made Payable to: (complete if different from Permittee) '•'•-I-:•]•'"•:•;••! ! '"X i >hi'.! '• . • M i Under the provisions of the Highway Law or Vehicle & Traffic Law permission is-hereby granted to the permittee to: . TO PROVIDE 4 DRIVEBAY CURB CDTS TO SERVE 4 SIRGLE FAMILY HOMES AS PART OF APPROVED SUBDIVISION KHOfffi AS BEDFORD PARK r THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC. IN ADDITION, ANYBODY WORKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS REQUIRED TO WEAR A HARD HAT A N D / r - n c r L E I C T l V C t M i i X ^ ^ i y F Y APPAREL (ORANGE) ty- WESTCHESTER Municipality OS* MOUNT PLEASANT.,..< Route # — as set forth and represented in the attached application at the particular location or area, or over the routes as stated therein, if required; and pursuant to the conditions and regulations whether, general or special, and methods of performing work, if any; a!? of which are sel forth in the application and form of this permit. Dated at: POUGHKEEPSIE, N>Y» Date Signed: n / i o / 9 2 This permit, with application and drawing (or copies thereof) placed in the hands of the contractor before any work begins. I NOTICE: Before work is started and upon its completion, the permitiee absolutely must notify the Resident Engineer, J. M. MCGOVERN. (914)592-6557 . .... SAW MILL .RIVER ROAD . VALHALLA,, NEW YORK 10595 UPON COMPLETION OF WORK AUTHORIZED, THE F O L L O W I N G WlLL B'E COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY THE PERMITTEE AND DELIVERED TO THE.RESIDENT ENGINEER..,_ « , _ .. .\_..\, \z'r':[,._-£_„. .._..!/'; Work authorized by this Permit was completed on _ j Refund of deposit or return of bond or reduction of amount charged against bond or deposit on file for this permit whichever is : appropriate, is requested. .''. J . . ...*.; *:_..., DATE - AUTHORIZED AGENT (If Any) - PERMITTEE--, v ' : * » acceptance of work performed as satisfactorily completed, the,Resident Engineer will.sign the following and forward to egional Office. ..,..,, Work authorized by this Permit has been satisfactorily completed ahd.is accepted (Reverse side of this form must be completed). ..-DATE . . . > : ' - : w . ^ w : . l ! - ! J ^ ^ ^ l f ^ f ^ l l ^ [/.Mfl'VM M .nil | , M | The Regional Office will forward this form to the Main Office with the appropriate box checked. To: HIGHWAY PERMIT SECTION: . . . Q D • D , . 1L. BW^ Refund of Deposit on this Permit Is authorized. ' . , . , ' Return of Bond furnished for this Permit Is authorized. -4 - -•••' '-•f ' Amount charged against Blanket Bond for this permit may be cancelled. Retain Bond for future permits. . ' ' ' > • ' < . DATE '"\'~ ' " •. '• • REGIONAL A TrtAFPlC*EMGlNEER "issuing authority reserves the right to suspend or revoke this permit, at Its discretion without a hearing or the necessity of showing cause, either before or during the operations authorized. , The Permittee will cause an approved copy of the application to be and remain attached hereto until ali work under the permit Is satisfactorily completed, in accordance with the terms of the attached application. All damaged of disturbed areas resulting from work performed pursuant to this permit will be repaired to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation. Upon completion of the work within the state highway right-of-way, authorized by the work permit, the person, firm, corporation, municipality, or state department or agency, and his or its successors in interest, shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of such work or portion of such work as set forth within the terms and conditions of the work permit. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-01-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/268361363e6c694ec35a4dea0e61c170.pdf d151c830f6fa969de6f5d9a97f1a86f2 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRRYTOWN FEBRUARY 18, 1993 FINAL A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 19th, 1993 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: James Galgano, Chairman Steve Salman Roman Wind as Ellen Tsangaris Edward McCarthy James Donovan ABSENT: Richard Ayers ALSO PRESENT: James Margotta, Building Inspector Robert Spencer, Village Attorney Chairman Galgano called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. MINUTES After a discussion, Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy, that the minutes of January 21, 1993 be approved with minor corrections. Unanimously carried. Chairman Galgano stated that the meeting was called to discuss various matters. BEDFORD PARK Dr. Salman requested that an accounting be given of the $15,000 paid by Mr. Pateman. He stated he thought the money was to be held in escrow for replanting of trees on the site, if required. Mr. Spencer stated he would check the original resolution and give a report at the next meeting. Mr. Margotta reported that Mr. Pateman had been selling lots at Bedford Park and has obtained one building permit to build a house on the cul-de-sac. USE OF CONSULTANTS Mr. Galgano stated he felt the planning and engineering consultants to the Village should not have to appear at each meeting as it was too costly to the applicants. After a discussion it was agreed that the consultants would not be called in for minor subdivisions. �ySNW'g AVTQ SHOP Ms. Tsangaris reported that she has observed parking on the sidewalk in front of Lenny's Auto Shop, and complaints have been received by the Village. Mr. Spencer stated it was a matter for the Police Department. Mr. Margotta stated there were no matters pending to present to the Board and unless something comes before him there need not be a March meeting. There being no further business to come before the Board Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy, that the same be duly adjourned. Unanimously carried. Respectfully submitted, Irene Amato Acting Clerk 1 • B B W .. MAR 2 5 '993 DFPUTY CLERK 2 �Approved with^respect to substance and form: \Utt W W ^ V i l l a g e Attorney Dated: ^ / I \J / l > ? Approved by the Planning Board /I (±<Mn£4> ^airman or Acting fated: Ohairman j/ifU Filed with Village Clerk Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: o. U I o o JANUARY 21, 1993 Date of Meeting � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-02-18 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f4531964d836cce9a969c1e29e5ea120.pdf 312b62a384c8b947b6736d8593ea83d2 PDF Text Text 4^ J REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK NOVEMBER 18th, 1993 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on November 18th, 1993 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrvtown, New York 10591. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Ellen Tsangarls Donald Caetano Edward McCarthy Roman Windas Steve Salman ABSENT; James ALSO P R E S E N T : Donovan Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Tom Gissen, Clark Assoc. Joe fiulino, CAMCE James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Hritz called 8 1. the meeting to order at P.M. Phelps Memorial Hospital Parking Lot-North Continuation. Broadway- Representative of the Hospital brought the Board up to date on the various items that have been discussed and changed. He stated that the Hospital representatives have been meeting with the Mayor and residents of Sleepy H o l l o w Manor and fencing will be installed with the Village assuming some of the cost of"the fence for the dump site,-as agreed upon by the Village prior to the previous installation of the fence. It was also stated that trucks will be entering the hospital from Route 117 entrance to dump leaves in the landfill. Mr. Hritz stated he understood that approximately $10,000. has been earmarked for the berms and the fencing, and said fencing will be approximately six feet in h e i g h t . M r . Bick stated that the six foot fence would be acceptable to him. Mr. Hritz also stated that the Sleepy Hollow Manor Improvement Assoc, would be willing to plant some Christmas trees to cover the fence. would Mr. Bick stated he understood that the project be completed in the Spring and he was agreeable. Discussion was held regarding the ownership of the f e n c e , once it is installed. It was agreed that the fence would be the property of the Hospital and would be maintained by them. I*-*' �-2Mr. Gulino stated he has conferred with the Hospital Engineer regarding the sewer easement between I.B.M. and the Hospital regulating the flow of sewerage and is awaiting the final easement. Mr. Gissen, Clark Assoc, stated they have received no further comments from the hospital as requested in their memo of November 3rd, 1993. Representatives of hospital stated that additional curbing would be too costly and they will conform to the request for stop signs, and the Handicap parking request will be rectified. Ms. Tsangaris stated that the parking lot at the present time is a mess and people are parking everywhere. She suggested that the stiping be completed as soon as possible. After discussion, Mr. Hritz appointed Mr. Caetano to act as go between with the hospital regarding the style of fencing. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that the hospital continue and go on with the fences as submitted in Exhibit -A" or a comparable fence acceptable to the Hospital and the Planning Board Chairman, said fencing to provide the proper shielding as agreed upon a,nd said Chairman will be reporting the progress to the Boar'd members. Carried. Discussion on letter received from the Westchester County Department of Health dated November 15th, 1993. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Hritz stated that Mr. Margotta, the Building Inspector will be monitoring the project regarding the items in the Health Department's letter. Ms. Gandolfo stated that all items discussed would be incorporated in the final resolution. Ms. Gandolfo stated that everyone will receive a copy of the resolution before the next meeting. 2. Emma Serina-9 Lawrence Avenue-Continuation Mr. Hritz stated that a revised draft was received by the Board regarding the Serina project. After a discussion Ms. Tsangaris moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that the Resolution be adopted as submitted. (Copy in official minutes). Carried. 3. Mr. & Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo, Washington Street-Three Family Dwelling-Continuation. __ Mr. Hritz stated that a draft resolution was received by the Board regarding the Ruivo project. �„-3After a discussion Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that the resolution be adopted as submitted. (Copy in official minutes). Carried. Mr. Hritz stated that the next meeting of the Board would be held on December 16th, 1993. Mr. Hritz stated if there was no agenda no meeting would be held. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, ' i^ ene Amato A c t i n g Clerk t • "Jj "* Iff F^ ^^ �Westchester County ANDREW P. O'ROURKE County Executive DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MARK & RAPOPORT, M.D„ M.P.H. Commissioner November 15, 1993 North Tarrytown Planning Board Town Hall Wildey Street North Tarrytovn, NY 10591 RE: Medical Office Bldg - Phelps Memorial Hospital Center F.E.A.F. Dear Sir/Madam: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the F.E.A.F. for the above referenced project. This Department would like to make the following comments: y 1. The heating source for the building may need Health Department approval 2. How will infectious waste be handled? »/* 3. Is there adequate water/pressure to serve this building? H^" 4 " Sincerel] Neil P. DiBenedetto Program Administrator NPD:vag cc: Laura Tessier District Office Chron File 19 Bradhurst Avenue • Hawthorne, MY. 10532 �REVISED D R A F T RESOLUTION Adopted at the September 23, 1993 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MIXED USE BUILDING. PROPOSED: ONE APARTMENT AND ONE OFFICE IN TWOSTORY BUILDING. OWNER: EMMA B. SERINA LOCATION: 9 LAWRENCE AVENUE TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 15, BLOCK 13, LOT 16A ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan approval pursuant to Article VIII of the Zoning Code of the Village of North Tarrytown for the demolition of an existing garage and development of a twostory, 1,200 square foot commercial office and residential apartment building, including related off-street parking and landscaping on a property that is approximately 2,207 square feet in size and is located on the western side of Lawrence Avenue approximately 70 feet north of the intersection with Beekman Avenue, as shown on the drawing prepared in the office of Barstow Architects, and further identified as follows: "Proposed Mixed-Use / 2 Story, Emma B. Serina, 9 Lawrence Ave., N. Tarrytown, N.Y.," scale 1" - 10', dated April 25, 1993 and last revised August 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the site plan proposes the construction of a twostory building with a commercial use (office) on the first floor which will be 600 square feet in size and, on the second floor, a residential apartment, also 600 square feet in size, with four outdoor paved parking spaces, a paved walkway between the street and the front entrance, and landscaping; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has received a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown for the proposed commercial use within the R-5 District, and the Applicant also received all necessary area variances to remedy the deficiency in the size of the lot; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's planning consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on June 17, 1993, which hearing was continued and �closed on September 23, 1993, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted, or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an application fee of $2 50; 2. Received recreation fees in the amount of $3,600; 3. Received engineering fees in the amount of $778.94, as of the date of approval; 4. Received reimbursement for payment of planning review costs in the amount of $1,129.86, as of the date of approval; 5. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding areas; 6. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village planning consultant, the Village engineering consultant and the Building Inspector; 7. Acting as Lead Agency, requested, received and reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 8. After circulation of the EAF and the Planning Board's notice of intent to be Lead Agency, and review of the property, the EAF and public comments, as well as other items noted above, the Planning Board declared itself the Lead Agency and circulated a "Negative Declaration," dated July 22, 1993, in which the Planning Board stated its determination of nonsignificance of environmental impact for this Type I action; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has revised the proposed plans consistent with the comments that have been made about the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said site plan application and plan noted above be and hereby are granted site plan approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy of this site plan resolution and upon the final mylar copy of the site plan drawing revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permit filing in the offices of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, I �provided, however, that this approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the Applicant has not obtained a building permit: 1. 2. Fees - The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown: 1.1 An inspection fee for construction inspection of the property for compliance with the approved site plan in accordance with the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code. 1.2 The payment of all remaining application review costs as noted and required in Section 62-30(f) of the Village Zoning Code, as approved by the Village Attorney. Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the planning and engineering consultants, to demonstrate the following: 2.1 A note shall be added regarding utilities and compliance with erosion control standards. 2.2 Additional information shall be provided on the plan regarding landscaping, including the location of the plantings, their sizes and species, and a hedge to be located along the side yards to screen the parking area. In addition, up to, but not exceeding, two (2) feet of the length of the parking spaces shown may be used as an area for "over-hang" of parked vehicles and may be landscaped with grass or other ground cover, instead of pavement. 2.3 A signature block should be added to the site plan for the signature of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or a professional engineer attesting to the construction of the site plan and its improvements as shown thereon. 4. All elements of this approved site plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Board may issue an 3 �extension of this time limit, or may modify any of the above conditions with respect thereto for a good cause. 5. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facilities, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications to parking, drainage, access, paving and other site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan in the interest of safety, convenience, aesthetics and the enjoyment and peace and quiet of adjacent neighbors. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: Date: George F. Hritz, Chairman Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board 500\not3-003.sjp:ev 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-11-18 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c5fc4f064b548cde062d443232f686f9.pdf f55f175191cba0802f4ba871f72714ae PDF Text Text A special meeting was held by the Planning Board on November 3, 1993 at 8:00 PM in Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Members Present: George Hritz, Chairman Steven Salman Donald Caetano Roman Windas Edward McCarthy James Donovan Also Present: Janet Gandolfo, Esq. James Margotta, Building Inspector Susan Portman, Frederick P. Clark Assoc. Joseph Gulino, CAMCE Absent: Ellen Tsangaris IN THE MATTER OF PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 701 NORTH BROADWAY, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order and stated that this meeting was requested by Phelps Memorial to discuss changes on the site plan and other issues. Mr. Hritz also stated that the Planning Board is intended to be the lead agency. Ms. Portman stated that the circulation has been made and there have been no responses at the present time, but thirty days have not passed. Mr. Davidow, Senior Vice Present of Phelps Memorial stated that the four outstanding issues have been done. A meeting was held to walk through the site and found that some concerns had developed with all the changes. Mr. Davidow contacted Mr. John Slaker, ASLA, of Design Landscaping who is familiar with the needs of this project. (Copy of Mr. Slakers recommendation in official minutes) This recommendation included a 3 foot berm topped by 5' -6' Norway Spruce and/or White Pine. This would be used to protect the area with visual contact. Mrs. Martha Bick, a resident of Sleepy Hollow Manor stated that the distance between the trees were too close. The trees would end up dying. She believes that the plan is not good. Where the parking lot is located, the headlights shine into her windows. Mr. Richard Weiss also a resident of Sleepy Hollow Manor stated that the parking lot is an extra addition as a result of the new construction. Mr. Todd Jack of Phelps Memorial Hospital stated that the office building if* on an 8-5PM schedule. He will try to rectify every problem concerning the new construction. �Mr. Weiss stated that as for the location of fence, it would be fine if it was moved somewhere else as long as the residents dot not suffer from the headlights at 5:00 PM. Sleepy Hollow Manor would be impacted. Mr. Salman stated that this lot should be closed a certain portion of the day and a tall fence should be put in at the south side of the exit so that the lights would not shine into Sleepy Hollow Manor. Mr. Bick stated could be put up disease -through cheaper and more that she would prefer trees and that a fence while they grow in. Mr. Salman stated that Evergreen trees is popular, a fence may be secure. Mr. Donovan stated that White Pines grow faster and berm is higher than the headlights. Dr. Salman also suggested box wood hedges. Mr. Weiss stated that the foliage has to be maintained. Dr. Salman asked who would determine if a tree is dead. Open spots would need to be replaced. A fence is more practicle and it would be less maintenance. Mr. Caetano suggested a double slide wood fence. this fence is used on the Taconic parkway. An example of Mr. Windas stated that the residents side needs to be resolved. The site plan should show berm, proposed trees and ideas concerning the fence so that a compromise is made. Mr. Todd Jack explained that area A, (the parking on the west side) betm and tress in the area may be sufficient. Area C cannot be rectified do to a grading problem. A fence may or may not solve the problem. Area B is the compost site for the leaves. This would have to be looked into. Mr. Hritz stated that area A is acceptable. Areas D and C need to be looked at. The plan is relatively indifferent. Mr. Gulino stated that a parking analysis was performed and it is more than adequate. The sewage plan will be submitted to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Gulino is awaiting a response from I.B.M. Ms. Portman reviewed her comment with the Board and stated that the dimension issue on the drawing will be addressed and the handicap issue has been done. (Review comments in official minutes). �The Board decided to meet with Mr. Davidow and Mr. Jack on Sunday, November 7, 1993 at 9:00 AM to walk through the site before any final decisions are made. Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Christine Yurkovic Recording Secretary �D R A F T RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 21, 199 3 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED: 2-LOT SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN 2 1/2 STORY BUILDING OWNER: MR. AND MRS. ARLINDO RUIVO LOCATION: 39 DEPEYSTER STREET (AT NORTHWEST CORNER WITH WASHINGTON STREET) TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 16, BLOCK 12, LOT 2 ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan and subdivision approval pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations of the Village of North Tarrytown, Chapter 62, Zoning, of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown and other requirements of the Village Code considered pertinent to the application, which application is to subdivide a property that is approximately 14,000 square feet in size and is located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Depeyster Street, and is known as tax Lot 16A of Section 15, Block 13, into two lots, to construct a three-family 2 1/2-story residence with three paved parking spaces and three garage spaces on the smaller lot, and to construct three paved parking spaces and to provide for the potential future development of three landbanked spaces on the larger lot, which contains an existing three-family residence, as shown on the drawing prepared in the office of Samuel F. Vieira, R.A., and further identified as follows: "Site Plan, Proposed Sub-division for: Mr. & Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo, 39 Depeyster St., N. Tarrytown, NY," dated 9/7/93 and last revised 10/19/93, scale 1" = 20*; and WHEREAS, the plan proposes the subdivision of the property into two lots, the larger to be approximately 8,100 square feet and the smaller to be approximately 5,800 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, the larger lot will contain the existing three-family three-story frame residence and the Applicant proposes to build a new macadam driveway and three paved spaces shown as P4, P5 and P6 on the plan, with spaces PI, P2 and P3 to be shown as "future parking" and to be landscaped until they may be needed or required by the Planning Board in the future; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to construct a 2 1/2 story three-family residence with three garage parking spaces, a macadam drivev/ay and three paved parking spaces on the smaller lot; and WHEREAS, evergreen hedges will be placed along the Washington Street side of the property to screen the view of the paved parking spaces on the larger lot as shown on the plan; and �WHEREAS, the smaller lot will be landscaped and a 5-foot high attractive fence will be located on the western boundary of the lot to screen parking spaces PI, P2 and P3; and WHEREAS, fencing, for safety purposes, will also be provided on the top of the proposed retaining walls; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has stated that the lighting in the parking areas will be controlled with motion detectors for energyefficiency and that the fixtures will be directed downward onto the property so that there will not be glare onto other properties; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has received an area variance for the size deficiency of the rear yard of the larger lot from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning and Engineering Consultants and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on October 21, 1993, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted, or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an application fee of $ ; 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding areas; 3. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning and Engineering Consultants and the Building Inspector; 4. Acting as Lead Agency, requested, received and reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 5. After review of the application, EAF, and property as well as other information submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Board declared itself Lead Agency and circulated a "Negative Declaration," dated October 21, 1993, in which the Planning Board stated its determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for site plan and subdivision approval and the plan noted above be and hereby are granted site plan and subdivision approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy 2 �of this site plan and subdivision resolution and upon the final mylar copy of the site plan and the final mylar copy of the subdivision plat drawing revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, and the Applicant may obtain the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health on the final subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Village Building Department, for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, and the offices of the Westchester County Clerk, provided, however, that this site plan approval shall expire within twelve (12) months of the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the Applicant has not obtain a building permit and the subdivision approval shall expire within ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 1. All references to the "Applicant" Applicant's successor and assigns. 2. Fees - The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown: 3. shall include the 2.1 An inspection fee for construction inspection of the property for compliance with the approved site plan in accordance with the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code; 2.2 A recreation fee in the amount of $ , subject to the approval of the Village Board of Trustees; 2.3 The reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-30(f) of the Village Zoning Code, as approved by the Village Attorney. Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Engineering Consultants, to demonstrate the following: 3.1 3.2 3.3 The signature block shall be revised to comply with the wording in Section HA(l)c(14c) of the Subdivision Regulations and to provide a line for the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health; Parking spaces PI, P2 and P3 shall be shown on the plan as "future parking" to be implemented by the Applicant as needed or within 180 days of being determined necessary by the Planning Board; The plan drawing shall be revised and titled "Final Site Plan" and a separate drawing showing the subdivision line but not including the proposed development shall be submitted and titled "Final Subdivision Plat"; 3 �3.4 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat and on the final site plan. 4. The landscaping to be provided on the smaller lot and the additional hedges and other landscaping materials shown to be provided on the larger lot shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition. There shall be diversity in the species of vegetation planted. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or a professional engineer attesting to construction of the site plan and its improvements as shown thereon. 6. All elements of this approved site plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Board may issue an extension on this time limit, or may modify any of the above conditions with respect thereto, for good cause. 7. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facilities, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications to parking, drainage, access, paving and other site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan and interest of safety, convenience, aesthetics and the enjoyment and peace and quiet of adjacent neighbors. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: Date: George F. Hritz, Chairman Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board 500\not3-045.sjp.crc 4 �I t I 14 YM {2'6~;-7t 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review SEOR FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM *W>urpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant The question of whether an action ma\ be significant is not always easy to answer Frequently, there are aspects of a proiect that are subjective or unmeasureable It is also understood that those who determine significance ma\ have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technicall\ expert in environmental analysis In addition. man\ who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information t o fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts. Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiallylarge impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: r£L Part 1 ^ Part 2 DPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the ead agency that. D A The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. G B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* D C The project may result in one or-more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency" fjhjrt**t\ Title of Responsible Officer $ Signature of Responsible Officer in/Lead Agency nature of Preparer (If different from froi responsible officer Signature Date rV vs ] • �r PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor i NOTICE Thi«. d o c u m e n t is designed to assist in d e t e r m i n i n g whether the a c t i o n p r o p o s e d may have a s i g n i f i c a nitt e f f e c t o n the e n v i r o n m e n t Please c o m p l e t e the entire f o r m Parts A t h r o u g h f Answers t o these questions w i l l be consi mdere^ as part of the a p p j , c a t i o n for a p p r o v a l and may be subiect to f u r t h e r v e r i f i c a t i o n a n d p u b l i c review Provide- any a d d i i n f o r m a t i o n y o u believe w i l l be needed t o c o m p l e t e Parts 2 and 3 l l is e x p e c t e d t h a t c o m p l e t i o n of t h e full EAF w i l l be dependent on i n f o r m a t i o n c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e a n d w i l l not i n v o l v e new studies, resea rch o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n If i n f o r m a t i o n requiring such a d d i t i o n a l w o r k is unavailable, so indie ate a n d specify each instance ' NAME OF ACTION StfiVgi 5;+ep[ftn ftno1 V^'Ance kffteajnfr* LOCATION OF ACTION (Include SVeel Address. Municipality end County) ^JN^SPONSDR NAME OF APPLICAlsn/SPONS< ' ' «ON% I BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS at^M: 5 ^ -U CITY/PO STATE iA rAfuofpitfrj U1 \ tt&H %ip_mdi£l NAME OF OWNER (|? different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITV.'PO ZIP CODE ^LJJ^BJS£- STATE LhJtftfPJV* M/ ZIP CODE </y i /*?sy DESCRIPTION OF ACTION rfOeu <L 5 > W Y £&6$7 -office. W rets***** *?**+«***- Please C o m p l e t e Each Q u e s t i o n — I n d i c a t e N.A. if not a p p l i c a b l e A. Site Description Physical setting o f overall project, b o t h d e v e l o p e d a n d u n d e v e l o p e d areas 1 Present l a n d u s e CUrban \ZForest 2 Clndustnal [^Commercial r LjAgncultu e T o t a l acreage o f project area - < ^ ^ acres Forested cropland, pasture etc) AFTER C O M P L E T I O N acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres W a t e r S u r f a c e Area acres acres L'nvegetatec acres (Rock, e a r t h or f i l l ) O t h e r ( I n d i c a t e type) acres , acres \\ hat is p r e d o m i n a n t so.I type(s] or. protect sue a Soil d r a i n a g e ^ U e l l draped (GO ? b A-e there o e d ' o •;•• <^ -'c r o p p i p p 1 c \ \ hi-: 's Ci - :K t o o« c o o . [ I M o d e r a t e ^ vseH drained ToT acres acres acres % of site % of site If a n \ a g n c j l t u r a l land is m \ o ! \ e d hov% a-ar^ Land C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System? ___ Lk£ % of sjte L. Poorly drained •i PRESENTLY W e t l a n d (Frev,h*ater or t i d a l as per Articles 24. 25 or ECL) Roads, b u i l d i n g ' s n d other p a v e d surfaces ^ EI'Rural (non-farm) DOther A P P R O X I M A T E ACREAGE M e a d o w or B r u s h l a n d (Non-agricultural) A g r i c u l t u r a l ( i n c l u d e s orchards '^^Residential (suburban) ac res of soil are classified ^ . t h i n soil g-Oup 1 t h r o u g h A of the acres (Sec- 1 N'^CRR 370; ( S p-r >T .ri tt-et /^N O M l �S App'o>""nat( percentage of p'opoiedp'oject s»'.t * i t h slopes /2&J0** % DlOISS. — 1f>9t, or greater b Is prefect substantial^ contiguous 10. o» contain a building Registers of Historic Places 7 Oes Cj^o 7 Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks' • What is the depth of the water table 9 7 site % V or district, listed on the State or the National CYes E?NTJ . {in feet) Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? DYes 0ko 10 D o hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area* 11 Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes ©ft»io DYes C?Co According to Identify each species 12 Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e , cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) DYes 13 Is the project DYes 14 Q»e site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? GfNb If yes, explain Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes 15 "T P 18 19 Name ~~ . b Is the site served by existing public utilities 7 £&Yes Size (In acres) jt^X a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allov\ connection 7 b) If Yes, will improvements be necessar\ to allow connection ^Yes 7 DNo DYes ,/SiNo Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 304? DYes CTfar Is the site located in or substantially contiguous^ifLa Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? 20 ' N a m e of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary Lakes, ponds, vvetland areas within or contiguous to project area a ^ Efko Streams within or contiguous to project area a it- Describe J6&e$ v " ^ ^ / Has the site ever been used for trie disposal of solid or hazardous wastes 7 DYes CNo B. Project Description 1 Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a Total c o n t i g u o u s acreage o w n e d or c o n t r o l l e d by project sponsor b Project acreage t o be developed . c ^ s ^ Q ^ a c r e s initially, / t ^ t _ _ _ 2 3 § Z j ^ ? acres u l t i m a t e ! \ c Project acreage t o remain u n d e v e l o p e d d Length of p r o j e c t , in miles e It the p r o j e c t is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed acres (If appropriate) f N u m b e r of off-street parking spaces ex.sting g M a x i m u m v e h i c u l a r trips generated per h o ^ r h It r e s i d e n t i a l initially. 0 acres >r' proposed s 3=^_>< ' u p o n c o m p l e t i o n of project 1 7 N u m b e r and t \ p e o* h:^Mr.g umts O n e Farr,il\ Two Famil\ I %. M u l t i p l e FarrnK Condominium :*(;.* -" •••;*•*" L I t . m a t t !\ D i m e n s i o n s (in t e e t l ot l a t e s t propesed structure / <-*•* height "Z* S width 7 U length �2 . H o * much natural materia! (it rock earth etc ) will be removed from the site' 3 Will disturbed areas be reclaimed' DYes 0Wo r tons'cubic yard* ON.A a M yes. for * h a t intend . purpose is the site being reclaimed 7 b Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation 7 DYes c Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation 7 . GN'o DYes DNo 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site' Q acres 5 Will any mature forest (o\er 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project 7 DYes Qpe 4 J 6 If single phase project. Anticipated period of construction ^ months, (including demolition) 7 If multi-phased. a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d V Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8 Will blasting occur during construction? DYes C r year. DYes DNo G^Ne 9 Number of jobs generated during construction 10 Number of jobs eliminated by this project year, (including demolition). p /O , after project is complete ' 11 Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? DYes 3Sk> If yes, explain | i 12 Is surface liquid waste disposal involved 7 DYes jBrsio r* i a If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc ) and amount b Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13 Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved 7 DYes \2^k> '. Type 14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal 7 Explain 15 Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain 7 16 Will the project generate solid waste7 DYes DYes DYes /5lNo If yes, what is the amount per month b If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used7 c If yes, give name tons • DYes DNo i ; location d Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? b ':'' .' If yes, what is the anticipated sue lite 7 DYes £>&o 7 tons month 7 years DYes C?N-o Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per da^j7 DYes V\il! project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels \\ :!! project result in an increase in energ\ use !i \t^ -. 7 D>es DYes 0No 3r^ro . IT water supply is from wells, indicate purrf. r :g capacity gallons'mmute s L. Total anticipated water usage per da\ , gallons/day Does project involve Local State or Fed-?':-' \ - d - g ; DYes ;• ^ 2?K© 7 , indicate t\pe'.sj • —1 1- r ! uNo ' If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposal 16 Will project use herbicides or pesticides "Y DYes If Yes, explain 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste 7 a I i&No a e /ff>&o ^ip __ �t Submittal Date 25 Approval* Required. Type Ot>. Town. Village Board -S«'ttPUr\ Gu^^kra-TT Village Planning Board City: Tovwv Zoning Board , Gttyr County Health Department -^ f. .AM . I m 4-* , A.J. _ l< I . . Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies DYes £ N O Federal Agencies DYes | 5 N O C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? /&¥« DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment d r o n i n g variance Dnew/revision of master plan Dspecial use permit Dresource management plan £"5" Osubdivision Osite plan Dother 2 What is the zoning classification's^ the site? 3 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning 7 £^ulfir*K/rtfy<-~ /UfrC&O ?-£S <&'->-< *l r*&feT DiSirlcf S'***>M~ f f r W u t <Ju&lli*4 A What is the proposed zoning of the site? &AMt grQyi«tt^> 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? hS£fir_ 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? f&£,/Q^AfnA1^ J2>$.'es )No /'c^vUUdXLc/JL^ 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoiningsurrounding land uses within a V* mile? 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? afces )No DYes £*Co /[r//ff~ a What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action require any authonzation(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes Bro a 12 If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? DYes DNo Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a If yes. is the existing road netvvck adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DYes £soo D'No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as ma\ be needed to clarifv. your project If there are or mav be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which vou propose to mitgate or c i Old them. E. Verification I cert if \ that the information provided abojf:-!;- irue to the bes' of m\ knowledge Applicant Sponsor Name ^^fPWJ^ Signature . <^r-~^^ Title Di'e ^_ ^ 7 7 - 3 /^CJft^f If the action is in the Coastal Area, and vou arc a stale aptnrv. complete tht Coastal Assessment Fu-m ire tc re p'i.e ceding * 'r. ihis assessment 5 * �Pari 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE | Reiponsibilit) ol lead Agenc> 'General Information (Read Carefull\) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided b\ the question Have m> responses and determinations been .' reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst f Identifying that an impact will be potential large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. An\ large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance Identifying an impact in column 2 simplv, asks that it be looked at further • f • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer b\ showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2 The examples are generalK applicable throughout the State and for most situations But, for any specific project or site other examples and or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3 •.The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects Instructions (Read carefully) a Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be an> impact r b Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers c If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds an> example provided, check column 2 If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 f ! d If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change!*) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible This must be explained in Part 3 IMPACT ON LAND Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? / ^ Q DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10% 1 2 3 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D DYes GNo u D QYes G'No n D D GYes DYes GNo CNO c GYes LNo ! I G>es CNO i I GYes !__>es GYes GNO GNO L_No 1 • Construction on land where the depth to.the water table is less than 3 feet • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface • — i • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage — • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i e , rock or soil) per year — — • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landiill • Construction in a designated floodwav, • Other impacts r— I—' I — — L # VVili there be an effect t- . .iy u:..que or u n u ^ a l lend torrns found on the site? (i e . cliffs, dunes, geological tor mat ions, etc \2.'s>Q DHS • Specific land forms , , — — G>e.^ I N : I e & - �IMPACT ON WATER W i l l proposed action affect any water body designated as protected' (Under Articles 15, 24. 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECU ^Ofto DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water bod\ 1 2 Small t o Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D D D D D D D D D D Can Impact Be M i t i g a t e d By Project Change DYes DNO DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. D D DYes DNo • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action w i l l adversely affect groundwater. • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. D D D D DYes DYes DNo D'No • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action w i l l likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natur.il conditions D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services D n D>es DNo • Proposed Action locates commercial and or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities D L-'^es DNO L'^es DNO Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts. ____ A W i l l proposed action affect any non-protected existing)or new body of water? yfao DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 1 0 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: 5 W i l l Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? CWO Examples that would apply to column 2 DNO DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1.100 gallons • Other D impacts 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water run oft? JZkQ, CYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • r,-,--;.o: ^o Act o-< w o J c i.r.;-.r-£c< !.''•• •>:: « ? : r ? I c •*.-. s 7 �Construction activity * o u l d excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an Agncultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e g . subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, ••trip cropping), or create a need for such measures ( e g cause a farm field t o drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: * * IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1 1 . W i l l proposed action affect aesthetic resources? 0KfO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21. Appendix B ) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast t o current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area • Other impacts. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? 0NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site • Proposed Action w.ill occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts- IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE A N D RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ^2*N.O DYES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity A major reduction of an open space important to the community • Other impacts 1 2 3 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be M i t i g a t e d By Project Change D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNO r> L_'Ye? D'S'o 13 • 9 r~ DNo �1 I Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO GNo DNO D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. D D DYes DNO • Other impacts. D D DYes DNO D D DYes DNo , D D D D DYes DYes DNO • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen D D DYes DNO • Other n fj DYes DNO DYes DNO DYes UNO D Yes _No DYes DNO D>e* DNO IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems' _*TO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES '• Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and or goods • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems • Other impacts Can Impact DBe O Mitigated By ) Project Cha _V: IMPACT O N ENERGY 15 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ^5NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? _WO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1.500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day) • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures impacts DNO IMPACT ON PUBLIC-HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? JfiTO Examples that v\ould apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i e oi!. pesticides, c hemic a Is. radiation, etc j in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there ma\ be a chronic lov\ level discharge or emission t r- • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i e toxic po^onous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc ) — • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons oi liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids • Proposed action ma\ result in the excavation or other disturbance witn.n 2 000 feet of a s>te used for the dispcsa1 of solid or hazardous v%aste 10 __r* C c — [ [ [• NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 c r �IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community &KO DYES Eiamples that would apply to column 2 1 I 2 Small lo Potential Large Moderate Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change • T h e permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likelv to grow by more than 5% D D DYes DNo • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals D D DYes DNo D D D D D D CYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e g schools, police and fire, etc ) D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNO DNo • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use •'Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment • Other impacts: 19 Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts'1 ffi^P CYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potential^ large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2 1 Briefly describe the impact 2 Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact b\ protect changed) 3 Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude thai this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider • The probabilitv of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanentk lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence trom local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project re'ate to this impact (Continue on attachments' n �I =' P. 14 :-2(2/87}-7: 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review i c SEQR FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM rpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: [ I Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic projtct data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. [ Part 2: 'Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiallylarge impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 63 Part 1 El Part 2 DPart 3 ^ B U p o n review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting ^^information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: 09 A. The project will not result in any large and important impacts) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. D B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* • C. The project may result in oneor-more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions ARLINDO RUIVO Name of Action P l a n n i n g Board - V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown Name of Lead Agency UTTT.TAM T REGAN - L/AJA4 -DMO Administrator Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (ft different from responsible of ficer) October 1 3 , 1993 Date 1 0 �• *.**• !+.J%lt.**Mt*1 PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE This document $ designed to assist in determining whether the action propose J may have a significant effect on the environment Please -omplete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application fo' coproval and may be subject to further verification and public review Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion.of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION ARLINDO RUIVO LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) 39 Depeyster S t r e e t , North T a r r y t o w n , Westchester NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( 9 1 4 ) 631-8855 ARLIHDQ RUIVQ AODRESS Lawrence Avenue CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE 10591 NY North Tarrytown NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE < same ) same ADDRESS same STATE CITY/PO ZIP CODE same DESCRIPTION OF ACTION S u b d i v i s i o n of p r e m i s e s t o p e r m i t c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h r e e ( 3 ) f a m i l y E n t i r e p r e m i s e s c o n s i s t of 14,000 s . f . residence Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban DIndustrial DForest DAgriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: DCommercial ®Residential (suburban) DRural (non-farm) DOther »33 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) PRESENTLY acres acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) R e s i d e n t i a l .33 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? _ a. Soil drainage: SWell drained DPoorly drained 100 acres acres acres acres acres acres .33 _ acres N/A % of site DModerately well drained _ % of site % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY! acres (See Land Classification System? J Z A "" -1 NYCRR 370). 4 Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? Approx. 10-15 DYes (in feet) 2 BNo I L �. 5 Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes F ft BPfl-mifc 100 D159» or greater. tt Ol0-15%____% % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, s »e. or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? DYes ©No 7. Is prr,e:t substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register oi National Natural Landmarks? DYes 8. What is the depth of the water table? Approx. (j n f ee t) EoNo * . 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? DYes ENo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes EJNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes EJNo According to _ _ Identify each species ' . 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? [i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) DYes SNo Describe : — 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes ®No If yes, explain ; ; 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes ElNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None. a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary [ 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name None. — « _ _ b. Size (In acres) 4fer. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ©Yes ONo ^ ^ a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ISIYes b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? BYes ONo DNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes ENo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous-^ a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 617? J&Yes (g&^ 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes ENo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor «33 b. Project acreage to be developed: *33 acres initially; »33 c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped None acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (|f appropriate) acres. acres ultimately. 1Q0 e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 96; f. MnmhAr ni off-street parking spare* exiting None • proposed Approx. 12- Subject, to Planning Board g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ^ A ^ ' h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions {in feet) of largest proposed structure (upon completion of project)? Muljiple^amily iltiple^amily Condominium 35 height;^— j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? width; 65 length. Subject to ARB ft. �None 2. How much natural material (i.e . rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed' DYes ENo ON/A a. If yes. for what intend * purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? tons/cubic yards DYes _ _ DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled f'. 'eclamation? t DYes DNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes BNo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6~8 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated j N / A (number). I b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? j DYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project DYes year. I DNo * ' / • A ; after project is complete N/ A | A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? • BNo N N year, (including demolition). DYes DYes BNo If yes, explain I ENo a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Il4 DYes ENo Type Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 16. Will the project generate solid waste? DYes DYes DYes ENo ©No ®No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes c. If yes, give name DNo ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes DNo e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? years. DYes ENo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes ENo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. WiJI project result in an increase in energy use? DYes DYes ®No HNo If yes , indicate type(s) 2. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity • N 'A Total anticipated water usage per day _ J H K L J ^ gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? DYes gallons/minute. HFt ^ 'J',t BNo °H^ \ I If Yes. explain 4 L �' w .Wttrti-! « J . * \ i * * \ * I r 25. Approvals Required: Submittal Date Type City. Town. Village Board DYes BNo City, Town. Village Plai.-ng Board BYes DNo S u b d i v i s i o n / S i t e Plan City. Town Zoning Boo.d BYes DNo Variance - Rear Yard City. County Health Department DYes DNo Other Local Agencies DYes DNo Other Regional Agencies DYes DNo State Agencies DYes DNo Federal Agencies DYes DNo 9/93 Received 8/93 : : C. Zoning and Planning Information r 1 . Does proposed action h volve a planning or zoning decision? BYes DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Szoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? 3 Dspecial use permit Dresource management plan_ ^Subdivision fijsite plan Dother R-5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Nine (9) dwelling units 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A Jb Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? EYes DNo 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? R e s i d e n t i a l and l i g h t commerical u s e s 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? S^<HA) £g SYes DNo DYes EJNo 2 Hr. 10 W i l l proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 11 W i l l the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes BNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? 12 DYes DNo W i l l the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DYes BNo DNo D. Informational Details i Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. ? A p l i c a n t / S p o n s o r Name f Signature *' \ ffi^ ARLINDO RUIVO M/'R^-? - Date 10-13-93 Title W w u If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 �» Part 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE t | Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) -• In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by t. " question: Have my responses and determinations been . >*?sonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert envi ^nmental analyst. £ <0£ntifying that an impact will be potentially large (column z) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. I Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 .simply | asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. •.The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. I b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. I - c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold I is lower than example, check column 1. | d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • • DYes DNo • Construction on land where the depth to. the water table is less than 3 feet. • D DYes DNo • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. n D DNo • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. D • DYes DYes • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. D D DYes DNO • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. D D DYes DNO • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO D D DY es DNo IMPACT ON LAND 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater. (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction in a designated floodway. • Other impacts Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DNO DNO ^P/V ill there be an effect V _..iy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)HNO Specific land forms: DYES �I 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNO • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. D D DYes DNO • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. D D DYes DNO • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. D D D D DYes DYes DNO • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. D D DYes DNO • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. D D DYes DNO • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. D • DYes DNo • Other D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo IMPACT ON WATER Will proposed action affect any wa.rr body designated as protected' (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Environ Mental Conservation Law. ECU BNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body r Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: W i l l proposed action affect any norvproi *cted existing or new body of water? BNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change 4 • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: 5. W i l l Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? BNO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. |* Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. impacts: W i l l proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ®NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows DNO 6 7 ft �.tKMLl.tClV. 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can I m p a c t Be M i t i g a t e d By Project Change I DYes DNo DYes . DNo D D D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action wili result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D D DYes DNO • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. D D DYes DNO • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. D D DYes DNo • • D DYes DNO D DYes DNo • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. D D DYes DNo • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo / Proposed Action • a\ cause substantial erosion Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway • Other impacts: a IMPACT O N AIR 7 - W i l l proposed action affect air quality? E)NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS A N D A N I M A L S Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ENO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other 9 impacts. rr> Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? ENO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT O N AGRICULTURAL L A N D RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ®NO DYES ^ ^ Examples that would apply to column 2 A e proposed action would sever, cross or limit access To agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields. pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 �,v&*aiAMtt* r Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, •ctrip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1 1 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? 0NO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts; IMPACT O N HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? IE)NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts. IMPACT O N OPEN SPACE A N D RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? | A Examples that would apply to column 2 ENO DYES ^•n"he permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. • Other impacts: a~ 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes pNo D D DYes pNo D D DYes pNo D D DYes pNo D D DYes CNo D D DYes CNo D D DYes CNo D D DYes DNo DDD 1". DYes DYes DYes CDNo C]No QNo Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change 13 D D D �IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 2 Small to Moderate impact Potential Larc^j Impaci D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D • DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNO • Other D D DYes DNO • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) D D DYes DNo • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D D DYes DNO Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. D D DYes DNO D D DYes DNo 14 Will there be an effect to ex sting transportation systems? BNO Examples that would apply to c lumn 2 DYES • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change/ IMPACT O N ENERGY 15 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation.or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: NOISE A N D ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ®NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 f Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. impacts: <L DNO IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? BNO Examples that would apply to column 2 • Other impacts: 10 DYES L �I IMPACT ON GROWTH AK'D CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 Will proposed actic - affect the character of the existing community? ENO DYES Examples that woulc apply to column 2 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potentiar Large Impact • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. •'Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNO D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO • Other imparts "~ Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DNO DNO 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? jSfNO DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions " " Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 �Approved with raspect to substance and form: Village^Attorney Dated: U //j^/<fu Approved by the Planning Board Chairma Dated: Filed with Village Clerk Clerk o r . D e p u t y Clerk Dated: / ^ 2 y / ? / )ate of Meetina Date Meeting 1 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-11-03 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/49a49cf07b984ec4679c72439b5b120a.pdf 3454db3c74092363042d982cecd16caa PDF Text Text *~_J=^1 -•-A-/- ^ ' <^*<r_ .fA ^ REGULAR MEETING y • 2.. -rz NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK OCTOBER 21st, 1993 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on October 21st, 1993 at 8:15 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Ellen Tsangaris Donald Caetano Edward McCarthy Roman Windas James Donovan ABSENT: Steven Salman ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Susan Portman, Clark Assoc. Joe Gulino, CAMCE James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. 1. C M . Pateman, F. Racanelli, T. Lupetin, North Broadway Car Wash Continued. Chairman Hritz stated that a letter had been received from the applicant's attorney requesting that the matter be adjourned sine die until it is determined what final action will be taken by the Board of Trustees regarding the moratorium. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that the matter be adjourned as requested. Carried. 2. Mr. & Mrs. A. Ruivo, 39 Depeyster Street-Public Hearing Three family residence. Mr. Hritz read the public notice hearing upon the application of Mr. and Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo for approval of a sub-division of property located at 39 Depeyster Street, North Tarrytown, New York and for approval of a Site Plan Application for the construction of a two and one-half story, three family residence at the site of one of the sub-divided parcels. The number of parking spaces proposed at the site of the three family residence is six (6). Mr. Hritz stated that a Memo was received by the Board from Clark Associates stating they had reviewed the application and recommended several minor changes. (Copy in official minutes). <• Mr. Hritz stated that a memo was received from the consulting engineers with several recommendations concerning storm water, potable water and sewerage. (Copy in official minutes). �-2Mr. Sam Vieira, Architect for the project stated that a revised set of drawings was submitted for the Borad to review. Plans were for the new construction on the "new" sub-divided lot. c . •:• : ; Discussion followed on trees that would be removed and the number of parking; spaces needed. Mr. Vieira stated there would be three garages and three parking spaces on the property. Mr. Hughes, Attorney for the applicant stated that they will comply with the recommendations of the Planner. Mr. Hughes stated that the applicant has submitted a full Environmental Assessment form for the Board to review. Discussion followed regarding a wall to be constructed at the rear of the property and the type of fencing to be installed. Mr. Vieira stated the property would be landscaped and there will be sufficient lighting on the east side of the house for the parking area. Mr. Vieira stated there will be dry wells for drainage and the property will be regraded. He also stated that the N.Y.S. Building Code requires a turnaround on the property. Ms. Tsangaris moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that the Planning Board be named the Lead Agency in the review of this Type I Action. Carried. The Board reviewed the environmental impact statement and Ms. Tsangaris moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that no significant impacts have been identified and recommends that the Board make a Negative Declaration. Carried. Mr. Margotta stated that due to changes in the Site Plan required by the N.Y.S. Housing Code that the matter be referred to the Zoning Board. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that the plans be accepted as submitted. Carried. 3. Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, North Broadway,-New Parking Spaces-Continued. Mr. Hritz read the Public Notice Hearing upon the application of Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, for approval of an amendment to a dite plan which was approved by the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board on April 14, 1992. The land on said site plan being located at 701 North Broadway, North Tarrytown, New York within the H Hospital District. The applicant proposes to amend the site plan to change the location and number of parking spaces at the site and to reduce the size of the proposed Phelps Professional Building. The �-3original approval was for the development of a 62,000 square foot medical office building and approximately 300 additional parking spaces. Representatives for the Hospital stated that a new ite Plan and Drainage Plan has been submitted along with an Envirionmental Assessment Form. It was stated that the new plans submitted are the actual plans they will be using during construction, and the number of parking spaces are the same as originally submitted. Mr. Hritz stated a memo was received from Clark Associates dated October 20th, 1993 with their review comments on the Amended Site Plan. Ms. Portman stated that various changes had been made in parking and islands located on the property. Ms. Portman stated their concerns appear to be parking and traffic circulation and they recommend that wider travel lanes be constructed and appropriate STOP signs be installed. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Hritz stated that a memo was received from the Consulting Engineers dated October 14, 1993 stating they have reviewed the drawings as submitted and recommended that a written agreement between IBM and Phelps Memorial Hospital be drated on the proposed reduction in sewerage entering the Village through the IBM force main due to existing problems with the Village sewer system (i.e. surcharging). He also stated that storm water runoff calculations, pipe sizing and pipe profiles should be submitted for review. (Copy of memo in official minutes). Mr. Hritz stated he was concerned with the changes being made that the Board was not aware of. Mr. Caetano stated that the meeting should be adjourned in order to confer with the Building Inspector and the Village Planning Consultants and the matter be resoleved before the plans were approved. Mr. Margotta stated that all construction should be halted until the matter is resolved. Mrs. Martha Bick, Terrace Close stated she is the nearest neighbor to the construction site and that many promises made by the hospital have not been kept. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that the matter be adjourned in order to confer with the Building Inspector, the Engineer and the Planning Consultants and the Representatives of the Hospita; that the Building Inspector meet and inspect the construction area and the various parking areas-«and the matter be resolved before the amended site plans are approved, thaf the hospital may proceed with construction of the building but there be no further construction on the parking areas in question, specifically the parking area containing 62 parking spaces. �-4If the Building Inspector finds any deviation from the motion as agreed the Building Inspector was to halt all work on the Building and the parking lots, and the Building Inspector was instructed to notify the hospital of any corrections to be made and that they be corrected before the next meeting with the Board. Unanimously carried. Mr. Margotta was to meet with the Hospital representatives on the following Monday. Discussion followed regarding the various changes proposed by the hospital and it was noted that the building has been moved ten feet from the approved site. Mr. Hritz stated the hospital has made changed and not informed the Board and he was very concerned. Mr. Margotta stated that the Building with the changes still conformed to the Building Code, and Zoning Ordinance. Representative for hospital stated they were redoing the parking lot and the lot will be restriped and they will meet the requirements. He also stated the existing parking lot has been there for many years. Representative stated that the building was moved so that the Emergency Room waiting area could be enlarged. Mr. Hritz stated if the hospital and Mr. Margotta resolved the matter at their meeting on Monday the Board would call for a Special Meeting and review the plans for the revised site plans. Mr. Gulino was directed to continue to resolve the matter of sewage treatment and that an agreement between IBM and the hospital be obtained by October 31st, 1993 and presented to the Board for their approval. Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that the issued raised by Mrs. Bick be resolved and that all correspondance on the matter be submitted to the Board for their review. Carried. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris that the Planning Board declare itself the Lead Agency in the review of this action. Carried. Ms. Gandolfo stated that certain legal requirements must be met and informed the hospital representatives to notify all agencies that were involved. Mr. Hritz stated that the next regular meeting of the Board would be held on November 18th, 1993. Discussion followed regarding ownership of the proposed building and Ms. Tsangaris stated it was her understanding that the hospital would not own the building but it would be privately owned by a group of Doctors, and therefore it would not be a non- �-5profit project. Mr. M^rgotta stated that the building would be assessed and would pay property taxes. There being r*o further business to come before the Board Mr. McCarthy mov^d, seconded by Mr. Donovon that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, Irene Amato Acting Clerk �03/1-P/94 11:34 2- JEANNE E METTLER PAGE r RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 21, 1993 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: S I T E PLAN A N D S U B D I V I S I O N A P P R O V A L PROPOSED: 2-LOT S U B D I V I S I O N A N D C O N S T R U C T I O N O F THREE-FAMILY R E S I D E N C E I N 2 1/2 S T O R Y B U I L D I N G OWNER: MR. AND M R S . A R L I N D O R U I V O LOCATION: 39 D E P E Y S T E R S T R E E T (AT N O R T H W E S T C O R N E R WITH WASHINGTON STREET) TAX DESIGNATION: S E C T I O N 16, B L O C K 12, L O T 2 ZONING: R-5 R E S I D E N T I A L WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan and subdivision approval pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations of the Village of North Tarrytown, Chapter 62, Zoning, of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown and other requirements of the Village Code considered pertinent to the application, which application is to subdivide a property that is approximately 14,000 square feet in size and is located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Depeyster Street, and is known as tax Lot 16A of Section 15, Block 13, into two lots, to construct a three-family 2 1/2-story residence with three paved parking spaces and three garage spaces on the smaller lot, and to construct three paved parking spaces and to provide for the potential future development of three landbanked spaces on the larger lot, which contains an existing three-family residence, as shown on the drawing prepared in the office of Samuel F. Vieira, R.A., and further identified as follows: "Site Plan, Proposed Sub-division for: Mr. & Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo, 39 Depeyster St., N. Tarrytown, NY,H dated 9/7/93 and last revised 10/19/93, scale l" « 20'; and WHEREAS, the plan proposes the subdivision of the property into two lots, the larger to be approximately 8,100 square feet and the smaller to be approximately 5,800 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, the larger lot will contain the existing three-family three-story frame residence and the Applicant proposes to build a new macadam driveway and three paved spaces shown as P4, P5 and P6 on the plan, with spaces PI, P2 and P3 to be shown as "future parking" and to be landscaped until they may be needed or required by the Planning Board in the future; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to construct a 2 1/2 story three-family residence with three garage parking spaces, a macadam driveway and three paved parking spaces on the smaller lot; and WHEREAS, evergreen hedges will be placed along the Washington street side of the property to screen the view of the paved parking spaces on the larger lot as shown on the plan; and 02 �03/1/,••'94 11:34 2- JEANNE E METTLEP P««SE 03 WHEREAS, the smaller lot will be landscaped and a 5-foot high attractive fence will be located on the western boundary of the lot to screen parking spaces Pi, P2 and P3; and WHEREAS, fencing, for safety purposes, will also be provided on the top of the proposed retaining walls; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has stated that the lighting in the parking areas will be controlled with motion detectors for energyefficiency and that the fixtures will be directed downward onto the property so that there will not be glare onto other properties; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has received an area variance for the size deficiency of the rear yard of the larger lot from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning and Engineering Consultants and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and ^ WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on October 21, 1993, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted, or conducted the following activities: } 1. Received an application fee of $250; 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding areas; 3» Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning and Engineering consultants and the Building Inspector? 4. Acting as Lead Agency, requested, received and reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 5. After review of the application, EAF, and property as well as other information submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Board declared itself Lead Agency and circulated a "Negative Declaration," dated October 21, 1993, in which the Planning Board stated its determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for site plan and subdivision approval and the plan noted above be and hereby are granted site plan and subdivision approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy �;:/17/\4 11:34 2- JEANNE E METTLER PAGE r of this site plan and subdivision resolution and upon the final mylar copy of the site plan and the final mylar copy of the subdivision plat drawing revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, and the Applicant may obtain the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health on the final subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Village Building Department, for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, and the offices of the Westchester County clerk, provided, however, that this site plan approval shall expire within twelve (12) months of the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the Applicant has not obtain a building permit and the subdivision approval shall expire within ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 1. All references to the "Applicant" Applicant's successor and assigns. 2. Fees - The Applicant Tarrytown: 3. shall include the shall pay to the Village of North 2.1 An inspection fee for construction inspection of the property for compliance with the approved site plan in accordance with the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code; 2.2 A recreation fee in the amount of subject to the approval of the Village Board of Trustees; 2.3 The reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-30(f) of the Village Zoning Code, as approved by the Village Attorney. Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Engineering Consultants, to demonstrate the following: 3.1 The signature block shall be revised to comply with the wording in Section HA(l)c(14c) of the Subdivision Regulations and to provide a line for the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health; 3.2 Parking spaces PI, P2 and P3 shall be shown on the plan as "future parking" to be implemented by the Applicant as needed or within 18• days of being determined necessary by the Planning Board; 3.3 The plan drawing shall be revised and titled "Final Site Plan" and a separate drawing showing the subdivision line but not including the proposed development shall be submitted and titled "Final Subdivision Plat"; �03/17/94 11:34 3.4 2- JEANNE E METTLEP PAGE The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat and on the final site plan. 4. The landscaping to be provided on the smaller lot and the additional hedges and other landscaping materials shown to be provided on the larger lot shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition. There shall be diversity in the species of vegetation planted. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or a professional engineer attesting to construction of the site plan and its improvements as shown thereon. 6. All elements of this approved site plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Board may issue an extension on this time limit, or may modify any of the above conditions with respect thereto, for good cause. 7. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facilities, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications to parking, drainage, access, paving and other site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan and Interest of safety, convenience, aesthetics and the enjoyment and peace and quiet of adjacent neighbors. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: .^^r 1 \ • / 7 Date: •itz, Chairman forth Tarrytown Planning Board 500\not3-045.«Jp.crc 4 r/n/tv �F R E D E R I C K P. C L A R K A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: October 20, 1993 Subject: Review of Amended Site Plan Application for Phelps Professional Office Building !• Introduction As requested, we have reviewed the amended site plan application for the proposed medical office building on the Phelps Memorial Hospital Center property. The Applicant proposes to reduce the size of the building from 62,000 square feet to 45,700 square feet and from 4 stories to 3 stories (by 10 feet in height) , re-arrange the proposed locations of parking areas and reduce the number of parking spaces to be added. The Applicant has submitted the following items: 1. "1A, Campus Site Plan, Phelps Professional Building, Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, North Tarrytown, New York," dated 5/16/91 and last revised 11/6/91, scale 1" = 50', prepared by Mediplex Medical Building Corporation; 2. "1, Existing Hospital Site Plan, Proposed Medical Office Bldg., Phelps Memorial Hospital Ctr., North " Tarrytown, New York," dated 2/21/91 and last revised 11/6/91, scale 1" = 50', prepared by Mediplex Medical Building Corporation; 3. "IB, Amended Campus Site Plan, Phelps Professional Building, Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, North Tarrytown, New York," dated 10/6/93, scale 1" = 5 0 ' , prepared by Mediplex Medical Building Corporation; 4. "Revised Grading Plan, West Parking Expansion," dated 8/23/93 and last revised 9/21/93, scale 1" = 3 0 ' , prepared by Mediplex Medical Building Corp.; 5. Aerial photo, scale 1" = 200'; and 6. Full Environmental Assessment Form. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation II- REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Amended Site Plan - The Applicant proposes to have 98 fewer parking spaces on the site than were proposed in the approved site plan. The proposed medical office building has been reduced in size and height as noted above. The building has also been moved approximately 10 feet to the west. The existing MRI building and its improvements have been added to the site plan. Some of the parking spaces previously proposed near the speech center have been removed and spaces have been added to the northeast parking lot. A new parking lot has been proposed approximately 50 feet to the northwest of the proposed building and approximately 100 feet to the southwest of the James House, which will have one point of access and 62 parking spaces. The parking spaces previously proposed to the northeast of the medical office building (near the connector to the Hospital) have been removed. The 10 existing parallel parking spaces opposite the main entrance to the Hospital appear to have been removed. The parking in front of the Hospital has been changed to angle parking as opposed to the 90-degree parking which was previously approved. The emergency room drop-off area has been enlarged, made more square in shape, redesigned to eliminate the planted island and seven parking spaces have been added. A large tree to the south of the James House will apparently be preserved through the construction of a retaining wall. This will result in the loss of at least six of the previously approved parking spaces. The location of the proposed west parking lot will cause the removal of some of the vegetation which may currently assist in blocking the view of the Hospital facility from the Hudson River. However, combined with the reduction in height of the building, this minimal removal of vegetation should not significantly impact any views of the property from the Hudson River shoreline. Also, the proposed parking area is at least 500 feet from the nearest residence. The newly proposed west parking lot will be more convenient to the medical office building than was the previously proposed parking located near the speech center. Many of the parking islands throughout the site have been changed in shape from what was previously approved. Some of the proposed shapes appear to be more similar to the shape of the existing islands rather than what was approved. For example, the island at the main entrance 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation to the Hospital has been reduced in size and the island at the emergency room drop-off area has been removed. The shapes approved in the previous application were superior to the existing islands as they better aided traffic circulation. These islands should be made consistent with those previously approved, where possible. A review of the amended site plan shows that many of the parking aisles measure less than 22 feet wide. In some cases the aisles actually measure 18 feet and in one instance, at the entrance to the James House, a few parking spaces would only have an aisle which measures approximately 12 feet in width. Parking aisles less than 22 feet wide will create problems for motorists entering and exiting individual parking spaces. Therefore, the plan should be modified to reflect a standard 22-foot wide aisle with a perpendicular parking space that measures 9 x 20 feet. The site plan has been amended to reduce the number of parking spaces in the speech center parking area. It is our recommendation that "dead end" parking aisles not be built and that circulation be provided between aisles to eliminate vehicles backing up or turning around within aisles. Also, in the speech center area and the parking lot opposite the north-south roadway, the parking islands have been relocated and are now offset. Although this may be more aesthetically pleasing, it is our opinion that the aisles should be aligned to improve traffic flow between parking areas. By the speech center, where curb parking has been provided, the parking spaces measure 9 x 18 feet and should be 9 x 22 feet. An 18-foot parking space will be too tight and motorists will tend to take up "two parking spaces for one vehicle. The proposed new west parking lot is a long dead end lot which, in our opinion, should be avoided. The Applicant should study the feasibility of connecting this parking lot back into an existing parking area to create better circulation. The revised amended site plan should include adequate information to show where each proposed directional sign will be placed and a detailed description of each sign should be provided. For example, the type and size of sign as well as its height should be provided for review. 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Between the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and the proposed amended campus site plan, it is difficult to understand the number of parking spaces to be added. Question B.f on the EAF states that there are 688 existing spaces and 178 will be added for a total of 876 spaces. That actually adds up to 866 spaces. The amended site plan states that 188 spaces are proposed to be added for a total of 876. Our count of the parking added up to 886 spaces as opposed to either 876 or 866 spaces (not including the three-service vehicle parking spaces). Similarly, we counted 806 spaces as opposed to the 796 spaces stated on the plan under "total hospital parking." Although the parking summary on the amended site plan states that there are 35 spaces at the child care center, it appears that there is only enough space for 21 or 22 spaces. On the plan, the reference to "City" should be changed to "Village." 2. Lighting and Landscaping - The Applicant should distinguish between the existing and proposed trees and shrubs and mark any proposed plantings on the plan. The Applicant should provide information regarding the number, type and size of the plantings. We suggest that plantings be added to the islands and recommend that the Applicant locates any such plantings carefully so as not to block sight distances. In addition, the Applicant should provide diversity in planting. Lighting should be coordinated with the existing and proposed planting. The light from the existing pole light which is being relocated to the parking area to the north will be blocked by the tree next to it." Also, the new pole shown below the word "center" in speech center should be relocated closer to the proposed parking area. 3. Environmental Assessment Form - We have a few comments concerning the EAF (see enclosed). Question A. 19 was revised, since the property is located within the Hudson River shoreline critical environmental area. Question B.l.g., regarding maximum number of vehicle trips per hour, was not answered by the Applicant. However, since the proposed site plan calls for a reduction in the size of the building and the previously approved plan received a negative declaration, it is not likely that a significant traffic impact will result. Question B.f was 4 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation discussed above. Question C.7, regarding adjacent land uses, was revised to add "park" and to add the R-l and R2A residential zoning districts. Under Section E, we assume that the date is October 10, 1993, not 1991. 4. Environmental Review - The application is a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) . We recommend that the Planning Board declare its intent to be the Lead Agency and circulate a notice of its intent to the recommended circulation list provided below. Following the 30-day circulation period, assuming no involved agency objects, the Planning Board may declare itself the Lead Agency in the review of this matter. Based upon our review of the EAF, there do not appear to be any significant environmental impacts that should result from this proposal. Unless new information surfaces during the circulation period which indicates otherwise, we would recommend that, after the Planning Board becomes the Lead Agency, the Board makes a Negative Declaration determination of non-significance of the potential impacts. Circulation List for Coordinated Review Ms. Jean-Ann McGrane, Regional Director New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Regulatory Affairs 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561 Mr. Richard Peters, Planning and Program Management Director New York State Department of Transportation 4 Burnett Boulevard Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Mr. Al Caccese New York State Department Historic Preservation Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238 of Parks, Recreation and Westchester County Planning Board c/o Ms. P. Lynn Oliva, Commissioner Westchester County Planning Department 432 Michelian Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 5 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Ms. Laura E. Tessier, District Manager Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District 414 Michelian Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 Dr. Mark Rappaport, Commissioner of Health Westchester County Health Department 19 Bradhurst Avenue Hawthorne, New York 10532 Ms. Kathryn Fries, Town Clerk Town of Mount Pleasant 1 Town Hall Plaza Valhalla, New York 10595 III. Conclusion The most important issues at this time appear to be parking and traffic circulation. It is recommended that the Applicant modify the amended site plan to incorporate the comments noted above. The plan should show wider travel lanes and parking areas and sufficient information with regard to directional sign location and type. The plans should incorporate, where appropriate, STOP signs and any other directional signs. These signs must conform to the New York State Department of Transportation Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Michael A. Galante Vice President/Transportation Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning Enclosure cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E., Village Engineer Vincent DelBagno Todd Jack 500\not3-007„sjp:ev 6 �» 14-lb-i U 67)-7c •17.*. AppenJIx A Stat* Envlronnwiial Quality Review I 4 SEQF FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a projec or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer Frequent ly. there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable It is also understood that those who determine significance may Have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technical expert in environmenta analysis In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiall\large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: JS Part 1 JQ Part 2 OPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: D A The project will not result in any large and important impacKs) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. O B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* • C. The project may result in one or-more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions HecVia^ office $*;&«*^ pfceys He***.M U&fJT*i Ct^t^ Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 �PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant eft on the environment Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E Answers to these, questions will be c o m i d e as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public re v i e * Provide any addit>o information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not m \ c new studies, research or investigation If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and spec each instance. ' NAME OF ACTION LOCATION OF ACTION (Includt StrMt Addrmt. Municipality and County) NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE VlN&feMT C*±. g * f i N P ; D t e C } f t g cP OJftiMgPglNgi 1 ^ - 3 6 6 - \OQO ADDRESS io i NcTcra aeoApWAY CITY/PO IPO STATE NAME OF OWNER (If difl*r«Qt) BUSINESS TELEPHONE feuiLPtNfi ADDRESS / ^_ . Co.fL.r I rtl*-g6fe-IOCg \ ( e A M £ Ae Afrgyg ) CITY/PO ZIP CODE STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION wew MftacAL- or&c-e. eojL.piNci, 2>-erc*it*, 4z.f>1*> &6p4e> 4QUM&- F&er T & ACCOMMC?PATT& A f p ^ x i M A T E i - r <LO - 2 5 PHYSICIAN'S . F>UX-> ©UTPArT»ENr AhctU-AZf Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas 1 2 Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DForest DAgnculture T o t . , acreage of project area: OCommercial DResidential (suburban) JSOther ffrril&^M- C f r acres. ^ U APPROXIMATE ACREAGE M e a d o w or Brushland (Non-agricultural) D R u r a l (non-fa MEOlCAl M A * * * * * * PRESENTLY Forested in. Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc ) _C2_ AFTER C O M P L E T I O N !£. acres SSe. SL acres acres acres acre.; acre* acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres Water Surface Area acres acre* Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acre> iS. £L Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate t y p e L _ _ _ ie. acres acres acres acre* What is predominant soil type{s) on project site? D W e l l drained \QO % of site Soil drainage: b If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the \ D P o o r l y drained % of site E & t o d e r a t e l y well drained a % of site Land Classification System? f i C f c 4 f c acres (See 1 NYCRR 370) Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a What is depth to bedrock? Q«» t O Yes (in feet) DNo �\ ? *pp f ox'"^:e percer.ii.gi c proposed project site ...w^o •^•^»» S O *«, # 1 5 9 i or greater pClO-IS^t, _^& P "^ * % r b Is project substantially contiguous to. or contain j building, site, or district, listed on the State or the Nat ione Registers of Historic Places? DYes fljNo A 7 Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural landmarks' £ A B What is the depth of the water t a b l e > / L l 2 — (in feet) 9 Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? DYes CYes ^fv $^o 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes J4NO 11 Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered DYes MNO According to « _ ______ - Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations DYes • * Jtfhlo Describe ' __ 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area DYes J_.No If yes, explain ____ 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? JffYes DNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: _ a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name „ b. Size (In acres) 17 Is the site served by existing public utilities? pYes ONo a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ^Yes b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? BfYes DNo DNo 18 Is the site located in ah agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-A A Section 303 and 304? DYes J_(No 19 Is the site located in or substantially contiguous-** a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 6 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 617? J&Yes ( W P ) 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal oTsolid or hazardous wastes? DYes J^No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: t»Q acres initially; \0&> acres. jS^Li^xabflBfafracres ultimately c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped . d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) je. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed (f.^slumber of off-street parking spaces existing Q?W& g Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour h If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially OOfeS. HOT L2 %; _«_«»__ g>7<£> ( n f t newepfcy ; proposed (upon completion of project)? Multiple Family Condominium A^fLT Ultimately — . i. Dimensions (in feet) oi largest proposed structure JB£X. height; | v C > width; j Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? \a?— 3 —i [ y O ft length �2 Hovy much natural material (i t . rock. e«r»V etc.) will be removed from the site' 3 Will disturbed areas be reclaimed' OYes )^go tons'cubic yard* ON/A a If yes. for what intend., purpose i* the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? kfPNfe DYes ____ f^No c Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes jfiNo 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from sJCe^fiLNl^aJfexacres 5 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removedby this project' OYes .JjNo 6 If single phase project Anticipated period of construction . . months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: - a Total number of phases anticipated (number) b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8 Will blasting occur during construction? OYes DYes DNo )4NO 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction . _ ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project _ 11 Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12 Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes DYes ((No If yes. explain 5JNo a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13 Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes ^INO Type 14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain . , 15 Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 16 Will the project generate solid waste? RYes a. If yes, what is the amount per month OYes JANK "J&lo CtNo »^» tons b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? c If yes, give name OYes OYes . )E0No ; location d Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e If Yes. - p l a i n - h t e P t C A L , ' W 4 » r f e - IS PtSpCfrKO f * jtfVes ° * p H > * * * I Y - *JtOlt4-tNa WH-U U4VC A L&ZC KoutXiCN 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes tons/month b If yes. what is the anticipated site life? years. DYes J3(NO 19 Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes |£NO 20 Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21 Will project result in an increase in energy use? jtfYes If y « . md.cate type(s) g t - t t C T ^ C ^^fSJ.Ce.f DNo /^IL 22 If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23 tMfA^T jS&lo a If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposal? _ 18 Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DNo Total anticipated water usage per day DYes ftg&O jQNo l-OII g g « * gallons/minute. gallons/day. 24 Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? DYes If Yes. explain . )^>lo . 4 _—.—___—„ —__ �t 25 Approval* Required r City. Town. Village Board Submittal Date Type DYes DNo City. Town. Village Planning Board JSVes DNo City. Town Zoning Board DYes DNO City. County Health Department DYes DNO Other Local Agencies DYes DNo Other Regional'Agencies DYes DNo State Agencies RVes DNo Federal Agencies DYes DNo Mire g*rs PUN VAL. C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? XYes DNo If Yes. indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Dzoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan Dspecial use permit Dresource management plan Dsubdivision JHsite plan Dother 2 What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? 3 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? What is the proposed zoning of the site? SAME. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning' Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Jftes O What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action' 8 Is the proposed^ action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? J^Yes O a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? DYes 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, pohc fire protection)? j^Yes DNo a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? 12 JBffYes DNo Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ^ ^Yes DYes J^N* DNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project If there are or may be any advert impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate c avoid them. E. Verification L I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge Applicant/Spqru££-Name jl**ft*Jn^^ If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceedin: with this assessment. 5 �Part 2 — F R C J E C T * / A v - ' . S A N J '...>..,. Responsibility of Lead Agency ,»,Aw.*nuDt General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question Have my responses and determinations beer reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simpK asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold o: magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State arte for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. •.The impacts of each project on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative anc have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 2 IMPACT ON LAND Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? DNO BCVES Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on land where the depth tathe water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts Will there be an effect t*. ...iy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.))RfKJO DYES Specific land forms: : Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo n D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D DYes DNO D D DYes DNO D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNO D D DY es DNi DNO �T IMPACT O N WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected' (Under Articles 15.24.25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECU SfNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D DYes DNC DYes DNC Can Impact 6 Mitigated B> Projact Chang • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream a D D • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. D D D D D D DYes DNC DYes DNC DYes DNC a a a D DYes DNC D D DYes DYes DNC D D DYes DYes DNC • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. a a a D DYes DNC • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. a D DYes DNO • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. D D D DYes DYes DNC DNO • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. D D DYes CNO a D DYes • D N O • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. D n DYes CNO • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. D D DYes I iN'o i DYes CNO D DYes l_'Nc • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. • Other impacts: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? J(NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: 5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? J-JNO Examples that would apply to column 2 GNC DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. a • • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. a • Other a impacts. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? X N ° DYE5 Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows 7 DNO 6 & I DYes CNO �2 3 Can Impa Mitlpat* ProJactCt Small to Modarata Impact Potential Largt Impact D D D D D D D D DYe$ DYes DYes DYes D D DYes I • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D D DYes I • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. D D DYes [ • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. D D DYes [ • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. D D DYes [ • Other impacts: D D DYes C • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, o\/er or ne*t site or found on the site. D D D Y es • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. D D D D DYes D D Dv es L • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. D D DY es i_ • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation D D DYes C D D DYes • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7 -Will proposed action affect air quality? WNO DYE-S Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. " IMPACT ON PLANTS A N D ANIMALS 8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? J^NO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other 9 impacts: ,,. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? JBNO Examples that would apply to-column 2 DYes DYES IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? pgNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayt'ields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc ) 8 �r Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural.land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres 6f agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g.. subsurface drain tines, outlet ditches. •strip cropping): or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: ; IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? UNO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21. Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic Qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: ___^ 1 2 Small to Modtratt Impact Pottntial Largt Impact D D DYes I D D DYes I D DYes [ D D 3 Can Imps Mitlgattc Project Cr D Y es 11 • • • • IMPACT O N HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? J^NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: IMPACT O N OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 JJNO DYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. • A major reduction of an open space important to the community • Other impacts: D D DYes r D D DYes [ D D DYes L D D DYes D D DYes C D D DYes L D D DYes C D D DY es C D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes Z Z Z r- 13 �IMPACT O N TRANSPORTATION Can Impact Be Mltigatad By Projact Change^ Small to Modarata Impact Potential LarQt Impact D D D D D D DYes D D • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. D D • Other impacts: D • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? *NO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Ohio DYes Ohio DYes D N O DYes DNO DYes DNO D DYes DNO D D DYes D N O D D D D DYes DYes DNO • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNO • Other D D DYes DNO * Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. D D DYes DNo * Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) D D DYes DNo * Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D D DYes DNo * Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste D D DYCS DNO * Other impacts D D DYes D N O • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: _ — IMPACT O N ENERGY 15 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? JBNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. . NOISE A N D ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? X N O DYESExamples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. impacts: DNO IMPACT O N PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? DNO XYES Examples that would apply to column 2 W "-*- W * P t i B TUfc UfcdaUTUgAgg, 10 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: October 14, 1993 Subject: Ruivo Site Plan and Subdivision Review As requested, we have reviewed the application of Mr. and Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo for site plan and subdivision approval for a proposed two-lot subdivision of a 14,000 square foot parcel, with the tax designation Section 16, Block 12, Lot 2, located on North Washington Street at the northwest corner of Depeyster Street in the R-5 Residence District. The Applicant has submitted the following subdivision and site plan prepared by Samuel F. Vieira, R.A. : "Proposed Sub-division For: Mr. and Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo, 39 Depeyster St., N. Tarrytown, NY," dated 9/7/93. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Proposed Subdivision: The Applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two lots, one to be approximately 5,800 square feet and the other to be 8,100 square feet in size. The property contains a three-story, three-family residence which will remain on the larger lot. The plan generally satisfies the requirements of a preliminary subdivision plat, although certain information, such as the names of adjoining property owners, is not provided. Also, the area map is not to scale. 2. Proposed Site Plan: On the smaller lot, the Applicant proposes the construction of a two and a half story, threefamily residence with three outdoor parking spaces and three garage spaces. The Applicant also proposes to provide six parking spaces on the larger lot for the existing residence. 3. Zoning: The Applicant received an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the rear yard of the larger lot. The plan generally complies with the Zoning Code of the Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 M X • (914) 96/-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Village of memorandum. North Tarrytown, except as noted in this 4. Parking: As shown on the plan, the size and number of proposed parking spaces are consistent with the Zoning Code. At the Planning Board meeting in September, the Applicant questioned whether the Planning Board would want the Applicant to provide the six proposed parking spaces on the larger lot. The Applicant stated that the spaces are being added to serve the needs of the residents of the property. Through the use of landscaping, the parking area could be sufficiently screened from the neighboring properties. Although on-street parking is allowed in the area surrounding the site, there are some restrictions as to permitted days and times. Still, in order to reduce the amount of pavement and retain some of the green space on the property, if the Board agrees with the reduction of the number of spaces, it may request that certain spaces be "landbanked" and shown on the plan with dashed lines and designated as "future parking." If at any time the property owner or the Planning Board found that these spaces were needed to serve the residents of the property, the spaces would be paved in accordance with the approved layout. If the spaces are landbanked, we recommend landbanking not more than three of the spaces on the larger lot (specifically, PI, P2 and P3 - unless one of the other spaces contains the existing tree). If the spaces are not landbanked, we recommend the driveway be widened to not more than 20 feet. 5. Buffers and Landscaping: The plan shows a solid hedge along a portion of Washington Street to buffer the proposed on-site parking. It is not clear whether this is an existing hedge or a new hedge. It should be noted that a fence is not shown within the buffer area. It is the Planning Board's prerogative to require a fence if the Board determines that a fence is necessary for screening the parking area. Depending on the type of hedge and its location, the Planning Board may find that a hedge is sufficient for screening purposes. If any of the parking is landbanked, it may be possible to save the existing tree which is located on the Washington Street side of the larger lot, near proposed spaces 3 and 4. The landscaped area in the southeastern corner of the larger lot should not contain plantings which may affect sight distance from the street. A sight triangle measuring approximately 18 feet north and 18 feet west from that corner should be maintained. Regarding the fence that is shown along the rear lot line of the smaller lot, the fence should be located on the inner side of a five-foot wide buffer area, as required in Section 622 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 14D(2). This buffer area is not shown on the plan and should be added. The location of the existing trees near the proposed parking area on the smaller lot should be shown on the plan so it is clear whether the trees are on the property and are to be removed or whether action can be taken to safeguard and preserve these trees. The Applicant should provide information concerning the type, size and number of plantings to be added on the site. Also, lighting for both parking areas should be provided in accordance with Section 62-14D(5) and the Applicant should affirm that the lighting will not cause a glare onto neighboring properties. 6. Environmental Review: The Applicant submitted a full Environmental Assessment Form (see attached). We have corrected a few of the items in Part 1, including questions A.19, B.l(g), B.l(h), B.23, C.l and C.9. The Planning Board should declare itself the Lead Agency in the review of this Type I action. As no significant environmental impacts have been identified, we recommend that the Board make a Negative Declaration. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning Attachment cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, PE, Village Engineer John Hughes, Jr., Esq. Sam Vieira 500\not3-004.sjp 3 �1 4 - ^ 2 (2/S7)-7c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review SEQR FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a. project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy t o answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The i u l l EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic projt ct data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: 'focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiallylarge impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 S) Part 2 DPart 3 'Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: 13 A. The project will not result in any large and important impacts) and, therefore, is one which w i l l not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. D B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* D C. The project may result in one or-more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions ARLINDO RUIVO Name of Action Planning Board - Village of North Tarrytown Name of Lead Agency WILLIAM T. REGAN Administrator Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency c — _ x / i' s Signature of Preparer (1f different from responsible officer) October 1 3 , 1993 Date 1 �PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE. This document < designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment Please romplete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application fo* c oproval and may be subject to further verification and public review Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion.of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION ARLINDO RUIVO LOCATION OF ACTION (Includ* Straet Address. Municipality and County) 39 Depeyster S t r e e t , North T a r r y t o w n , Westchester NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( 9 1 4 ) 631-8855 ARLINDO RUIVQ ADDRESS Lawrence Avenue STATE CITY/PO ZIP CODE 10591 NY North Tarrytown NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( same ) same ADDRESS same CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE same DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Subdivision of premises to permit construction of three (3) family residence Entire premises consist of 14,000 s.f. Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DForest DAgriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: ---" DCommercial ^Residential (suburban) DRural (non-farm) DOther »33 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) PRESENTLY acres Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECU acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate rypp) .33 Residential r What is p edominant soil type(s) on project site? _ a. Soil drainage: SWell drained DPoorly drained 100 acres ^il acres N/A % of sJte % of site OModerately well drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY! V Land Classification System? N/A a c r e s (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4 Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? Approx. 10-15 DYes SNo (m feet) L L �§ $. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes r 6 Is oro/ect substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, s *e. or district, listed on the State or the National Regufers of Historic Places? DYes BNo 1 EO-10% 100 D 1 5 % or greater % Dl0-1596 % 7 Is preset substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register on National Natural Landmarks? % CYes ENo 8 What is the depth of the water table? Approx. (j n f e et) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes BNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes ENo 11 Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes ©No According to Identify each species ' 12 Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) DYes ENo Describe : 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes 63 No If yes. explain _______________»_. 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes ®No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: ___£__: -__-___-_____ a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name None. Is the site served by existing public utilities? GSYes b. Size (In acres) DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? SYes b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? DNo SI Yes DNo 18 Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes ®No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguoys-Xo a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? JgJYes (pte 20 Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes ENo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed. "33 c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped d. Length of project, in miles: N/A «33 acres initially; None acres. «33 acres ultimately. acres. (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing None g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour -> ^ ' %• 1 2 - Subject t o P l a n n i n g Boar* (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family MultipleTamily Initially ^ / Ultimately i Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 100 proposed Approx. 2 ( _>-*=w*il"p 2 35 Condominium ( height; I Linear feet oi frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? • 3 width; 65 length. Subject to AR* ft. �'.Ml^U- *|£ None 2 How much natural material (i e . rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site' 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed' DYes ENo ' tons/cubic y*i*d> ON/A a. If yes. for what i n t e n d . , purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes . DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? C DYes DNo 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6-8 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated I N ' A (number). | b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project DYes year. I DNo * ' / • A N ; after project is complete / A | A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. is surface liquid waste disposal involved? : BNo N N year, (including demolition) DYes DYes BNo If yes, explain | SNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged J 3. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes BNo Type *14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain 15 Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 16. Will the project generate solid waste? DYes DYes DYes BNo BNo BNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes c. If yes, give name DNo ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes DNo e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes BNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b tons/month. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18 Will project use herbicides or pesticides? years. DYes BNo 19 Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes BNo 20 Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. WiJI project result in an increase in energy use? DYes DYes BNo BNo If yes , indicate type(s) If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity • K Total anticipated water usage per day N 'A >9S ^gallons/day 24 Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? DYes gallons/minute. ^ ^ ^ t °~^ \ ENo If Yes, explain l. it �I 25: Approval* Required: r City. Town. Village Board OYes BNo J City. Town. Village Plaur ng Board ®Yes DNo City. Town Zoning Board ®Yes DNo City, County Health Department DYes DNo Other Local Agencies DYes DNo Other Regional Agencies DYes DNo State Agencies DYes DNo Federal Agencies DYes DNo Submittal Date Type Subdivision/Site Plan 9/93 Variance - Rear Yard Received 8/93 • •. C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action it volve a planning or zoning decision? BYes DNo If Yes, indicate decision required Ozoning amendment Ezoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan_ 2. What is t h e zoning classification(s)of the site? 3 Dspecial use permit ^Subdivision rfsite plan Dother R-5 What is t h e maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Nitie (9) dwelling u n i t s 4 What is t h e proposed zoning of the site? N/A 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A ; Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? BYes DNo What are t h e predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? Residential and light commerical uses Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? EYes DNo DYes BNo 2 5TdC>0 £a n - 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes BNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? 12 DYes DNo Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DYes ElNo DNo D. informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Ipplicant/Sponsor Name Signature ^-< ARLINDO RUIVO J ^ *'---?-^-> - A~ - Date 10-13-93 Title 4 & £ i £ J If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment5 # i �Part 2—PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) •• in completing the form the reviewer should be guided by ti r question: Have my responses and determinations been^ t>?sonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. £ » ro^ntifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant, Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 .simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. •„The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. j | . f f [ Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. T b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. I c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2, If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. r IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. 1 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D DYes DNo • D D Y es DN< n D D D DYes DYes DNO D D DYes DNO 2 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change • Construction on land where the depth to. the water table is less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 ieet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. • Construction in a designated floodway. • Other impacts D D DYes DNO D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO Will there be an effect t<. ...iy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etcjENO DYES Specific land forms: D DYes DNo • D DNo DNO �2 r IMPACT ON WATER Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected' (Under Articles 15. 24. 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECL) ENO CYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: Will proposed action affect any non-proi ?cted existing or new body of water? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 1 0 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change •Yes •Yes •No •NO •Yes DNO •Yes DNO •Yes DNo 4 • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ®NO Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. impacts: Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows 7 DN< •Yes •Yes •No •No •Yes •Yes •NO •NO •Yes •NO •Yes • NO •Yes •Yes •NO •Yes •NO •Yes • NO •Yes DNo •Yes DNo •Yes DNo • • Yes DNo • • Yes CNO DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Other •Yes • NO �1 Small to Moderate Impact r a 2 Potential Largo Impact D D D D D D D • Proposed Action wili result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. • Proposed Action ' ^ay cause substantial erosion Proposed Actio?, is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYes DNo DYes . DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. D D DYes DNO • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. D D DYes DNO • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. D D DYes DNO • Other impacts: D D DYes DNO • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. D D DYes DNo • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: . IMPACT ON AIR 7 - W i l l proposed action affect air quality? 0NO DYES Examples that would apply t o column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. IMPACT ON PLANTS A N D A N I M A L S Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? BNO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other 9 impacts: D w, Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? BNO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL L A N D RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ^ H i e proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ^ ^ a n d (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 i 1 �J I r i » • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres oi agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, -strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: IMPACT O N AESTHETIC RESOURCES W i l l proposed action affect aesthetic resources? BNO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21. Appendix B.) Examples that would apply t o column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts, 2 3 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo D D 11 IMPACT O N HISTORIC A N D ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paieontological importance? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNO D D DYes DNO D D DYes DNO D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 ENO DYES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. • Other impacts: 9 �1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Larc? Impact D D D D D D • Y e s ' _ONO •Yes DNo DYes DNo D • •Yes DNo • Proposed Action will require the creation.or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than SO single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. D D •Yes DNo • Other impacts: D D •Yes DNo D D •Yes •No D D • D •Yes •Yes •No •No • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D •Yes •NO • Other D • •Yes •NO • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. D D •Yes DNo • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) D D •Yes DNo • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D D •Yes DNo Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. D D •Yes DNO D D • Yes DNo IMPACT O N TRANSPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to exiting transportation systems? BNO Examples that would apply to c lumn 2 DYES • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change/ IMPACT O N ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? E)NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. NOISE A N D ODOR IMPACTS 16 k» Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? BNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? BNO Examples that would apply to column 2 • Other impacts: 10 DYES �r, 8 IMPACT ON GROWTH AKD CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed actio.- affect the character of the existing community? EJNO DYES Examples that woulc apply to column 2 The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. 'Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: ______ "" 1 2 3 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D • DYes ' -DNo .D D DYes DNo D D D D D a DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? JSlNO DYES If Any Action fn Pari 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project changefs). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 �RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 21, 1993 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED: 2-LOT SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN 2 1/2 STORY BUILDING OWNER: MR. AND MRS. ARLINDO RUIVO LOCATION: 39 DEPEYSTER STREET (AT NORTHWEST CORNER WITH WASHINGTON STREET) TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 16, BLOCK 12, LOT 2 ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan and subdivision approval pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations of the Village of North Tarrytown, Chapter 62, Zoning, of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown and other requirements of the Village Code considered pertinent to the application, which application is to subdivide a property that is approximately 14,000 square feet in size and is located at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Depeyster Street, and is known as tax Lot 16A of Section 15, Block 13, into two lots, to construct a three-family 2 1/2-story residence with three paved parking spaces and three garage spaces on the smaller lot, and to construct three paved parking spaces and to provide for the potential future development of three landbanked spaces on the larger lot, which contains an existing three-family residence, as shown on the drawing prepared in the office of Samuel F. Vieira, R.A., and further identified as follows: "Site Plan, Proposed Sub-division for: Mr. & Mrs. Arlindo Ruivo, 39 Depeyster St., N. Tarrytown, NY," dated 9/7/93 and last revised 10/19/93, scale 1" = 20'; and WHEREAS, the plan proposes the subdivision of the property into two lots, the larger to be approximately 8,100 square feet and the smaller to be approximately 5,800 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, the larger lot will contain the existing three-family three-story frame residence and the Applicant proposes to build a new macadam driveway and three paved spaces shown as P4, P5 and P6 on the plan, with spaces PI, P2 and P3 to be shown as "future parking" and to be landscaped until they may be needed or required by the Planning Board in the future; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to construct a 2 1/2 story three-family residence with three garage parking spaces, a macadam driveway and three paved parking spaces on the smaller lot; and WHEREAS, evergreen hedges will be placed along the Washington Street side of the property to screen the view of the paved parking spaces on the larger lot as shown on the plan; and �WHEREAS, the smaller lot will be landscaped and a 5-foot high attractive fence will be located on the western boundary of the lot to screen parking spaces PI, P2 and P3; and WHEREAS, fencing, for safety purposes, will also be provided on the top of the proposed retaining walls; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has stated that the lighting in the parking areas will be controlled with motion detectors for energyefficiency and that the fixtures will be directed downward onto the property so that there will not be glare onto other properties; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has received an area variance for the size deficiency of the rear yard of the larger lot from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning and Engineering Consultants and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on October 21, 1993, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted, or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an application fee of $250; 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding areas; 3. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning and Engineering Consultants and the Building Inspector; 4. Acting as Lead Agency, requested, received and reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 5. After review of the application, EAF, and property as well as other information submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Board declared itself Lead Agency and circulated a "Negative Declaration," dated October 21, 1993, in which the Planning Board stated its determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for site plan and subdivision approval and the plan noted above be and hereby are granted site plan and subdivision approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy 2 �of this site plan and subdivision resolution and upon the final mylar copy of the site plan and the final mylar copy of the subdivision plat drawing revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, and the Applicant may obtain the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health on the final subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Village Building Department, for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, and the offices of the Westchester County Clerk, provided, however, that this site plan approval shall expire within twelve (12) months of the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the Applicant has not obtain a building permit and the subdivision approval shall expire within ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 1. All references to the "Applicant" Applicant's successor and assigns. 2. Fees - The Applicant Tarrytown: 3. shall include the shall pay to the Village of North 2.1 An inspection fee for construction inspection of the property for compliance with the approved site plan in accordance with the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code; 2.2 A recreation fee in the amount of $ , subject to the approval of the Village Board of Trustees; 2.3 The reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-30(f) of the Village Zoning Code, as approved by the Village Attorney. Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Engineering Consultants, to demonstrate the following: 3.1 The signature block shall be revised to comply with the wording in Section HA(l)c(14c) of the Subdivision Regulations and to provide a line for the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health; 3.2 Parking spaces PI, P2 and P3 shall be shown on the plan as "future parking" to be implemented by the Applicant as needed or within 180 days of being determined necessary by the Planning Board; 3.3 The plan drawing shall be revised and titled "Final Site Plan" and a separate drawing showing the subdivision line but not including the proposed development shall be submitted and titled "Final Subdivision Plat"; 3 �3.4 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat and on the final site plan. 4. The landscaping to be provided on the smaller lot and the additional hedges and other landscaping materials shown to be provided on the larger lot shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition. There shall be diversity in the species of vegetation planted. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or a professional engineer attesting to construction of the site plan and its improvements as shown thereon. 6. All elements of this approved site plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Board may issue an extension on this time limit, or may modify any of the above conditions with respect thereto, for good cause. 7. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facilities, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications.to parking, drainage, access, paving and other site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan and interest of safety, convenience, aesthetics and the enjoyment and peace and quiet of adjacent neighbors. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN 500\not3-0A5.sjp.crc 4 �Approved with respect to substance and form; Villager Attorney Dated: J^tJ?y Approved by the Planning Board Chairman of Aotinq^Chairman Dated: / Filed with Village Clerk Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: ^ ^ y S^pk^Us Date of Heeti Heetmg 2 3 M3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 4. Referral. Under Section 239-M of the General Municipal Law, this application will need to be referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, because the property has frontage on State Route 9 and because the property is located within 500 feet from the boundary of the Village. Of course, we are willing to meet with the Applicant to review our comments, if the Applicant so desires. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E., Village Engineer Vincent Del Bagno 500\not3-021.sjp:aj:ev 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, AICP Howard!- Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: September 21, 1993 Subject: Review of Revised Site Plan for Serina Proper-tv As requested, we have reviewed the revised site plan for the Serina property. The site is 2,207 square feet in size and is located on the western side of Lawrence Avenue, in the R-5 Residential District. The Applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a two-story, 1,200 square foot building to contain one office and one apartment. According to the Applicant, all necessary variances have been obtained from the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals. The Applicant has submitted the following revised plan: "Proposed Mixed-Use / 2 Story, Emma B. Serina, 9 Lawrence Ave., N. Tarrytown, N.Y.," scale 1" = 10', dated April 25, 1993 and revised August 1, 1993, prepared by Barstow Architects. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Plan Revisions: The floor area of the proposed building has been reduced by 60 square feet to 1,200 square feet, reducing the building lot coverage by three percent. The location of the proposed building has been moved towards the center of the property. As a result, although the undersized rear yard decreases by approximately six inches, the front yard setback is increased by three and a half feet. This new design allows for adequate side yards and proper size parking spaces. A four foot wide walk is shown between the street and the building. 2. Landscaping: The Applicant should indicate whether landscaping or pavement will be placed in the areas on the site to the north and south of the proposed building. The area directly to the east of the proposed building is shown as landscaped. The Applicant should provide more information regarding landscaping, including the location of the Connecticut -(203)255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island •(516)364-4544 �FREDERICK P. ClXARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Developmer—it/Environment/Transportation plantings, their sizes and species. It is also not clear whether a hedge is to be provided along the side yards to screen the parking area. We recommend that a hedge be provided. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Janet A . Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T . Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph ^A. Gulino, P.E., Village Engineer Robert £3arstow 500\not3-062.sjp:ev 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1993-10-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993