1 25 10 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/99ea4ef6b82e8e260ad9c160ccc81b43.pdf d4f580fca848eecfe96061719c2d9bce PDF Text Text f REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK September 22, 1994 & regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on September 22, 1994 at 8:00P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: ABSENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Ellen Tsangaris Steven Salman Edward McCarthy David Permutter James Donovan ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Susan J. Portman, Assoc./Planning Mark DiGennaro, CAMCE Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00P.M. tfr. John Hughes came forward and gave a preview of the application of Mr. James and Martha Bick of 3 Terrace Close, No. Tarrytown, N.Y. to merge a vacant lot designated as Section 11 * Block IS, Lot 9 on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown with three adjoining lots. 1. chestnut Ridge - Continuation flon Turnquist came forward and stated that he was the architect for Chestnut Ridge and Larry Rodrigues was the owner. He we*nt on to state that originally they were to come before the fc>oard 2 months ago for Chestnut Ridge - 76 Chestnut Street. Mr. Turnquist explained the proposed plans for parking to the boarcl . The work had already started when Mr. Rodriques decided that the cost of creating the ramp going down to the parking in back of the building was a very expensive proposition. He h a s since purchase an additional lot that backs up to 76 Chestnut street which is 83 Depyster Street. He demonstrated through the maps previously distributed to the board the 3 phase>s for creating the units and the parking spaces. The units that are in the process of being built now require 71/2 spaces. The intent at that time was to provide the parking spaces at 76 Chestnut Street, which was indicated �PAGE #2 « on the previous documents for 76 Chestnut Street. Mr. Turnquist stated "since we have not started that project and we are going to build the 26 spaces, we are here tonight to request that the board allow the Vilalge Building Department to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy with the condition that we will pick up the 71/2 spaces". Chairman Hritz asked how lonq it will take before the spaces are available. Mr. Turnquist stated that they can't start until they get the board's approval for cutting and backup. They have to file the documents with the Village for the retaining wall for the drainage. Mark Digennaro has received this document and is reviewing it. The applicant's engineer is providing additional information. By the beginning of next week, all these documents will be finalized and they will be sent to the Village's Engineering Consultant. Mr. Caetano asked Mr. Mnrgottn if, as long as the property is within 200 ft. of the building he is speaking about, can he take the 71/2 spaces and put It there? Mr. Margotta answered that the Zoning Board had already agreed that he could. He also stated that the Planning Board could not authorize a temporary certificate of occupancy. The Zoning Board had to do it. Tt would be a big help if this board would be in favor of it and let the Zoning Board know it. Ms. Gandolfo asked Mr. Turnquist what exactly they were looking for from the Planninq Roard. Mr. Turnquist stated that when the applicant got the final site approval for 1R5 Valley Plazn, a condition of the appeal was that 71/2 parking spaces would be provided. Ms. Gandolfo corrected him in that it was a requirement of the variance from the Zoning Board and the Planning Board put it in the site plan approval. They couldn't get the CO for the residencial until the parking was provided. Susan Portman stated that it was 0 parking spaces. Also, that 10 spaces be dedicated to the Village. Discussion continued on the parking spaces, the retaining wall ( 13 ft. high ), and how long it will take. Discussion also continued on the risk of building the wall and then later having it torn down. �PAGE #3 Mr. Caetano brought up the fact that he had already received approval from the Zoning Board for the project with 8 spaces and he's within the 200 ft. He's only taking it to another parking lot where he is building a retaining wall. Mr. Caetano can't see a reason why the approval of DiGennaro, after we say yes here tonight that it can't be done. Mr. Caetano moved that the Planning Board permit the applicant to construct a retaining wall and grade the premises at the Chestnut Ridge site at this time, subject to plans being submitted to the Vilalge Engineer and the Village Engineer approving those plans in writing. Mr. Salman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant is permitted to proceed with the grading of the property and retaining wall construction with the understanding that the applicant is proceeding at his own risk of a subsequent disapproval of the project. Discussion insued on a grace period to provide the parking spaces required for 185 Valley Plaza. Chairman Hritz mentioned his concern that another project of theirs that had been approved is short on parking spaces and is causing problems with the firehouse next door and now there is going to be another project where they are going to be short R spaces for some period of time. James Margotta mentioned that one of the solutions is that Mr. Rodriques pay for parking spaces for his tenants until the parking spaces are ready. Discussion as to where to park in that area continued. After taking a vote, Chairman Hritz was authorized to inform the Zoning Board that the Planning Board had no objection for a 60 day extension to provide the parking spaces for 185 Valley Plaza. Mr. Margotta indicated that he preferred to have it sent to the Zoning Board in writing. Ms. Gandolfo informed the applicant that if he went to the Zoning Board to ask for a delay to provide the parking, they need to let the adjcent property owners know. They would have to have a public hearing again. Ms. Portman bought up the fact that this was one part of a larger action. The Type 2 Action is something that doesn't need environmental review but if the retaining wall could have any visual inpact or any other concern to you and if you thought it would fall under this one you might want to say in �PAGE #4 the minutes that you also noted that it was a Type 2 Action. She went on to read: The construction or placement of minor structures, accessories or pernuent to exiting facilities, including garages, car parks, patios, swimming pools, fences, barnes or other buildings. So if the Planning Board thinks the re-grading and the building of the retaining wall could fall under that, the board can say it examined that aspect. Chairman Hritz ask for a motion to that effect. Mr. Perlmutter motion and Ms. Tsangaris seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Salaman asked to speak with regard to 1 Terrace Close in Sleepy Hollow Manor. The Zoning Code says that determination of lot yard or other space shall not be reduced to less then the minimum required by this ordiance. He asked for an interpertation of the code. Discussion followed about the law concerning the area of a lot. Being there were applicants waiting to be heard, Chairman Hritz stated that this issue could be taken up next week after everybody has had an opportunity to review the issue. 2. Shroba Sub-division Chairman Hritz opened the discussion with regard to the Shroba application. He asked Mr. Shroba if he had received a copy of the record of Frederick P. Clark, Assoc, comments on the proposal. Mr. Shroba answered yes. Chairman Hritz then asked if he had made arrangements to deal with the issues raised here or had any presentation on what he was planning to do. Discussion followed. Ms. Gandolfo commented that the applicant wants to sub-divide along the line indicated on the map and request a variance for the rear yard setback on lot IB. They want to leave the lot line where it is divided. This board would have to make a conditional approval of the Zoning Board to grant them a variance for the frame garage that you see in the back of the existing lot where the existing 21/2 story frame is because that's about 3 ft. too close. They need a �PAGE #5 variance for about 3 ft. along the backyard property line. And that would be the only variance they will need right now. Discussion followed on the proposed plans of the subdivision and the wall. Ms. Gandolfo stated that if the board grants the sub-division, it would have to be with the condition that they do get the variance for the frame garage. Mr. Gaetano asked if the property was going to be sold. Mr. Shroba answered that it is for his daughter. Chairman Hritz indicated that at some time in the future it may go out of the family and be owned by two separate people. Ms. Gandolfo suggested that the board call for a public hearing. Mr. Gaetano moved for a public hearing. Mr. McCarthy seconded and motion carried unanimously. 3. Hoqan Sub-division Chairman Hritz asked Mr. Hogan if he had received the Frederick P. Clark Assoc, memorandum. Mr. Hogan answered that he had recieved it tonight just before the meeting. Chairman Hritz asked him to give a brief explanation of what he was proposing to the board. Mr. Hogan stated that he was proposing a sub-division of the property at 19 Maple Street, North Tarrytown. "We submitted with the application a site plan dividing the property into 3 lots." He stated that he needed time to review the memorandum and he asked if he could communicate directly with Clark Assoc, in regard to the memorandum. He also asked what the options were. He wants to resolve this as soon as possible and he's willing to use whichever way is easier 2 lots or 3. Discussion on which way it would be easier followed. Last year, this was approved as a 3 family residence. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion for a public hearing. Mr. Caetano motion and Mr. Salman seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Steven Salman, has decided that instead of having the board change it's monthly meeting day to accomodate him, he would turn in his resignation as a Planning Board Member. �PAGE #6 Chairman Hritz said that all will miss him and he moved to pass a resolution to honor him for his service to the board. Mr. McCarthy reported to the board that he attended the Board of Trustees meeting with regard to the Rock of Salvation Church and that it went well. The minutes for July 21, 1994 were amended and approved. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned Respectfully submitted, fiu-nu>~./j' fa'4**' ^ Carmen G. Mariano Recording Secretary �o^*&>^ 11 August 1994 To: *rom: Planning Board James Margotta There will be no Planning Board meeting for the month of August, 1994. �«ft'< i Approved with respect to substance and form: VilAJage Attorney Dared: Approved by the Planning Board Filed with Village Clerk eiuik or Deputy Clerk Dated: f/^Jcf^L Jate^of Metetind � 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-1994 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_1994-09-22 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b199a3f3580681d7998e2f8e13d41e46.pdf 04f32a6d54882f761b933ee2b22696c6 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK July 21, 1994 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on July 21, 1994 at 8:00P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Steven Salman Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Susan J. Portman, Frederick P. Clark Assoc. Jose Blanco, Trustee Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00P.M. He stated that there were three items on the agenda but two were cancelled. The two cancelled agenda items were deferred to next month's meeting. They were Philipse Plaza and Chestnut Ridge. The item remaining on the agenda for this month was the Rock of Salvation Church application. Chairman Hritz went on to review some of the events that preceded this meeting. On June 6,1994, following the instructions of the Planning Board, a sub-committee met which consisted of members of the Planning Board, members of the Church and members of the Union Hose Fire Company and Trustee Jose Blanco to discuss ideas for easing some of the problems which the fire department raised regarding traffic, parking, educating the public, etc. Since that time the Planning Board requested that the Board of Trustees get involved and encouraged the Trustees to see what they could do about these conditions. Most of the conditions were pre-existing and many of the issues were issues which could only be addressed by the Board of Trustees. Chairman Hritz reported that the Trustees have adopted some changes in the parking around the area of the project and will continue to study the issue of the traffic as the project evolves. Chairman Hritz called upon Trustee Jose Blanco to report on behalf of the Board of Trustees. Trustee Blanco reported that the Board voted to eliminate parking spaces on Cedar Street and Cortlandt Street for the general public and just make them advailable for the firefighters �Page #2 when they are answering emergency calls. In addition, Ttustee Blanco suggested that the sub-committee be kept permanently to deal with the parking and traffic problems. He relayed a suggestion from a member of the public which was to create a dialogue between 100 College Avenue and the church to see if there were any available parking spaces in the lot of College Arms. Chairman Hritz asked if there was any member of the public who wished to address the Board on this application. He stated that the public hearing had been adjourned from the previous meeting and was still open to the public. Miguel Jiminez, 95 Beekman Avenue, stated that the church was willing to work with the Village and the Fire Department to ensure the safety of members of the public. He stated that they would set up a training program for parishioners and he invited the Fire Department ot participate in this program. He said that he had spoken to President John Cellante about this issue previously. Another member of the public suggested that the Village provide a school crossing guard for the church on Sunday mornings. He said that other churches have this. A discussion ensued regarding the monitoring of the traffic around the church during church services. Chairman Hritz asked if it was possible for members of the church to volunteer to be auxiliary police officers for the purpose of directing traffic around the church on Sunday mornings. Donald Caetano stated that the County had outruled the auxiliary police department and he suggested that they not get involved at this time. He stated that he would rather see the church provide monitors. Mr. Jiminez stated that Mayor Treacy said, during a Board of Trustees meeting, that the Village would consider posting a police officer near the church during church services. Also, the church would be willing to have boys dressed like Boy Scouts to help with the elderly and small children. Chairman Hritz stated that he understood that the van would'" be unloading and loading passengers in the alley next to the building and not in front of the church. That would be a condition of site plan approval. Mr. Jiminez stated that there will be a van unloading seniors and children in the alley, not in front of the church. The van will not park in the street. Daivd Perlmutter asked the attorney if there was any way the Planning Board can make it a condition of site plan approval that the church provide a monitor during all church services. �Page #3 Counsel Gandolfo stated that the Planning Board could not force the Board of Trustees to provide a monitor. The Planning Board can make any condition which is reasonable a condition of site plan approval. However, forcing the church to provide monitors can lead to problems if the monitors are not trained properly. A discussion ensued regarding monitoring and parking issues. Chairman Hritz stated that he would like to bring the matter to a conclusion. He stated that he had sensed at the last meeting that there was some thought on the part of the Board that the Day Care Center application be deferred at this time. Steven Salman made a motion to defer approval of the Day Care Center as part of this application at this time. The motion was seconded by Edward McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz asked for further discussion on the remaining part of the application. Donald Caetano asked Reverend Santiago if the church was financially ready to start construction on the project at this time. He wanted to know if there was a rush for an approval. Reverend Christian Santiago stated that the church was presently paying $1000 per month for rental of a church in Tarrytown. They are using the facility three times a week and they are paying mortgage payments of $1500 per month on the building on Cortlandt Street. He stated it was a financial burden on the church to have to make payments on both places. Edward McCarthy stated that he was concerned that the issues that the Fire Department has raised have not been answered. He didn't want to see combat but he thought maybe the Board should wait a little longer until some of the traffic issues are addressed more completely. Chairman Hritz stated that he respectfully disagrees with the Fire Chief. He stated that he feels the issues have been addressed. David Perlmutter stated that if the Board gave final approval there would be no incentive for the church to address the issue of parking. They should do it now or they never will. He stated that the Planning Board asked the Board of Trustees for help and they did not respond satisfactorily. �Page #4 Another discussion ensued regarding parking and safety. Donald Caetano made a motion to table the approval for another month to see if anything else can be worked out. He stated that the Planning Board should make a hard study and he didn't feel that the church wduld be hurt financially by the delay. He was concerned that the Fire Department's concerns were not being addressed. He stated that he made this motion in good faith for the Village and in good faith for the church. Chairman Hritz stated that he felt that the matter had been discussed long enough. He didn't think we were going to learn anything more in the next month that would change our minds. The Board of Trustees decided that a traffic light would be too costly and that the need was not outweighed by the cost. The discussion continued. Donald Caetano withdrew the motion to table the approval. Chairman Hritz stated that he knew that this was a very important discussion and that people of good conscience can disagree. He is glad that we are free to discuss our differences and thoughts in the open. He was willing to listen and be persuaded by a majority of the Board. A discussion ensued regarding conditioning the site plan approval upon the alley being next to the church being kept open and used to loading and unloading of passengers. Steven Salman made a motion to condition site plan approval requiring the alley next to the church being kept open and used to loading and unloading of passengers. Chairman Hritz seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Steven Salman made a motion to make a negative declaration for SEQRA purposes. David Perlmutter seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Edward McCarthy made a motion to encourage the church to put a monitor on the sidewalk, not to direct traffic, but to help people cross the sidewalk and street in front of the firehouse, to help direct the flow of pedestrian traffic and to ensure that the function of the firehouse is not interfered with. Donald Caetano seconded the motion. �Page #5 Motion carried unanimously. Steven Salman made a motion that the Planning Board grant site plan approval to the Rock of Salvation Church, subject to the above-mentioned conditions. Donald Caetano seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. A discussion followed regarding the final resolution for Phelps Memorial Hospital and the Chairman was authorized to sign said resolution. The minutes for the June 16,1994 were amended, revised and approved. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned Respectfully submitted, Carmen G. Marian/5 Recording Secretary �JUL-21-84 TKU 13:53 "rl/, iiJ, .ri-iCO/tC'Od LAW OFFICES STEVEN L. KROLESKI ISO EAST PROSPECT AVENUE MOUNT VERNON, N.Y. 10550 TEL; (914) 668-7707 FAXs (914) 667-2639 July 21, 1994 Jim Margotta Building Inspector 28 Beekman Avenue N o r t h Torxryfcovn, Mow Yoifk 1HRQ1 BY FAX & MAIL RE: PLANNING BOARD MEETING ANTONIO RODRIGUES PHILIPS PLAZA Dear Mr, Mai-gotta: I am the attorney for Antonio Rodrigues. As per your conversation with Mr, Louis Contadino, the architect, and on behalf of myself and as and for my client, Mr, Antonio Rodrigues, kindly let this letter reflect my formal cancellation of the Planning Board Meeting which is scheduled for tonight, July 21, 1994 at 8:00 P,M. at City Hall in North Tarrytown, regarding the above named matter. I am currently out of town and expect to return to my office next week, so I apologize for the unexpected postponement of this meeting. Therefore, I request that this matter be adjourned to a future date, and that you please contact either myself or Mr. Rodrigues in writing when another meeting can take place before the Board, I thank you for your courtesy in this matter and remain, Very tr SLK/dg r, t-x �4»* Approved wi to substance and form: Approved by the Planning Board Dated:: i/nAt Filed with Village Clerk -Clerk oi"» Deputy Clerk Dated: Q f<y? [qu 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-1994 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_1994-07-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f24351b90f9d1b521d8e2c165304a86a.pdf 94670d96b0e1c16694f8ad04e54c9497 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. OCTOBER 20, 1994 « A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on October 20, 1994 at 8:00P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Ellen Tsangaris James Donovan Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Susan J. Portman, Assoc./Planning Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00P.M. 1. Public Hearing - James Hoqan, Ex., 19 Maple St. James Hogan came forward and stated that he was present at the last meeting and is resubmitting a site plan dividing the property at 19 Maple St. into 2 parcels instead of 3. Chairman Hritz then asked Ms. Susan Portman if she had a chance to look at the revised plans. Ms. Portman answered that she had. She said that they looked fine. The existing garage is on the same lot with the house. She didn't have any other issues. Before going any further, Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to declare the board as a lead agency. Ms. Tsangaris moved. Mr. McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz inquired as to whether we had to circulate the lead agency status forms within 30 days and Mr. Margotta answered that he will send the plans to the County the day after this meeting. He did not send the plans before this because he did not receive a complete and final plan until today. Chairman Hritz asked if there was any member of the public who had anything more to say on this application. There was no answer. He asked if any member of the board had any further thoughts or ideas. He stated that the applicant did a good job to come within the recommendations of the planners. He also stated that they needed to decide if they could make a negative declaration and ask for a motion. �PAGE # 2 Mr. Perlmutter motioned that the board make a negative declaration. Mr. Donovan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz told Mr. Hogan that he had their approval on the condition that the County had no objections to the plan. Mr. Hogan asked for an explaination of the mechanics of the procedures from this point and Mr. Margotta explained the procedures to him. 2. Prelim Hearing - V & M Shroba, Sleepy Hollow Rd. Subdivision Applic Ms. Gandolfo stated that V & M Shroba would like to withdraw without prejudice subject to their re-submitting when they figure out what they want to do with the vacant lot. Board agreed to discontinue until further notice. Mr. Margotta explained that the applicant has 1 year from this date to re-activate the application. 3. Prelim Hearing - Al Peck, Irving Place Subdivision Chairman Hritz asked Mr. Peck to give a report about the project. Mr. Peck explained that Irving Place was a street created by the Van Tassel Apartments considered a private street. To the best of his knowledge, it used to be closed once a year because it was considered a private street. He doesn't He doesn't know whether they still close the street. The surveyor told him that Irving Place is a small by-pass connected with Teresa Street, and it's not marked on the survey. He will have it marked on the survey if the board reguests it. The surveyor signed the survey and corrected the lot numbers on it. Discussion as to who owns Teresa Street followed. Ms. Gandolfo stated that it is owned by the Van Tassel Apartments and it is a private way, it is not Village owned. Mr. Margotta pointed out that the Van Tassel pays taxes on it. Mr. Peck said that in any event they have to put on the survey where Irving Place is a through-way and where Teresa Street adjoins it. The History of the property is that it's been in the family for close to a hundred years or more and when the property was purchased, there were 2 lots on it and it's been that way ever since. Now that they have to dispose of the Estate, they're going to find it difficult to sell somebody 2 houses on one lot. It would be much easier to sell each lot and each house separtly. Chairman Hritz asked what year the houses were built. �PAGE #3 Mr. Peck answered over a hundred years. Mr. Margotta commented that they're very old houses. Mr. Caetano pointed out that the law reads that the street has to be closed once a year in order to keep it a private street. Discussion on Teresa Street being a private street ensued. Chairman Hritz pointed out that this is on for a preliminary' hearing this week and that he'll have to come back next month. Mr. Peck: "What do you want me to do?" "Are you going to consider the letters that were written or is that part of the Zoning Board problem?" Chairman Hritz said that it's our job. A variance is needed. Ms. Portman pointed out that several variances are needed. Discussion on the variances followed. The variances needed are lot size, lot width, side yard and total side yard. Chairman Hritz: "We are not going to resolve any of this tonight. We should send you to the Zoning Board." Mr. Margotta pointed out that he can't go to the Zoning Board until December. He told Mr. Peck that he will send him a letter telling him that he has to go before the Zoning Board and why. He will write u p a legal notice and set it up for the December meeting. Chairman Hritz ask for a motion to declare our intent to be the lead agency. Mr. Donovan motioned. Mr. McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Portman pointed out that they should wait until the Planning Board makes a negative declaration. Ms. Gandolfo: "We'll schedule it for a public hearing here and a public hearing before the Zoning Board." Chairman Hritz: "We'll send it to the Zoning Board and ask them to review it for Zoning purposes and to see if they'll grant the variances. If they do grant the variances, they will be subject to our overall review of the enviromental process." He asked for a motion to defer the Zoning issues to the Zoning Board. �PAGE # 4 Mr. Caetano motioned. Mr. Donovan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Prelim Hearing - Al Peck, Bedford Road Subdivision Chairman Hritz asked Mr. Peck to tell the board what the Bedford Road was about. Mr. Peck: "This property has also been in the family longer than a hundred years." He went on to explain about the lots and that he is spliting up the lots in order to sell them. Chairman Hritz pointed out that he didn't need a variance, Ms. Portman said that it was an unlisted action so he didn't need to circulate for lead agency. Discussion followed. Chairman Hritz asked Ms. Portman if there was anything in her report that she wanted to point out. Ms. Portman answered that just some corrections. Mr. McCarthy moved to schedule this for a public hearing and set up notices. Mr. Donovan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Public Hearing - James & Martha Bick, 3 Terreace CloseMerge Vacant Lot Chairman Hritz read the Public Hearing Notice. Mr. Hughes came forward and informed the board that they had just gotten the survey done and it wasn't complete. He wanted to pass the maps out so that at the November meeting he would be prepared. Chairman Hritz asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to speak on this application. There were none. Mr. Hughes explained the figures on the drawing of the maps and answered questions by the board. Discussion followed. Chairman Hritz asked if there was motion to continue this public hearing to the next month. Mr. Donovan motioned. Ms. Tsangaris seconded. Motion carried unanimously. t �PAGE # 5 6. Laurentino Rodrigues 7. Rock of Salvation Church Request for a reduction in Recreation Fees Laurentino Rodrigues $9,600.00 in Fees Rock of Salvation Church $32,000.00 in Fees Chairman Hritz began by saying that both'Mr. Rodrigues and the Rock of Salvation Church asked for a review and the Trustees had asked for a recommendation regarding the fees in light of a recent Supreme Court decision. Chairman Hritz went on to say that it was an issue that is dependent on the law and suggested that a sub-committee be appointed to look at this. Mr. Caetano: "I think it should go through the whole board as a committee." Discussion followed on the use of recreation fees and their validity. Chairman Hritz stated that he personaly felt that they shouldn't take the time of all the board members but should ask two or three people to look at the issue and get back to the board and have a full discussion in front of the board. Mr. Caetano, Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. Tsangaris and Mr. Hritz agreed to be on the committee. The committee will discuss a plan of action, then meet with the applicants and then report back to the board with a possible solution. a. Chestnut Ridge - Continued Chairman Hritz commented to he was here, he asked for a spaces in order to get some asked Mr. Rodrigues to give Mr. Rodrigues that the last time preliminary waiver of the parking construction done. The Chairman the board an update. Mr. Rodrigues answered that they have tried to get in touch with Clark Assoc, to review the parking lot for 185 Valley St. and Chestnut Ridge. The plan was approved only for excavating. Mr. DiGennaro: "What we are looking at is the retaining wall. The board gave an approval based on the retaining wall just for the begining of phase one which is the construction of the wall and the parking lot. Also, in order to perform a thorough review, we need all the components of the designs and the criteria of the conditions. We haven't gotten these items from Mr. Rodrigues and there are some questions that remain unanswered." �PAGE #6 Chairman Hritz asked if Mr. Rodrigues knew what was missing. Mr. DiGennaro answered yes. Mr. Rodrigues stated that it's not fair to him because he's has waited one month and hasn't gotten anywhere. Discussion followed. Chairman Hritz told Mr. Rodrigues that his application was continuing to next month and he was welcome to take it up with the Village Engineer in the interim. Chairman asked for a motion to approve the minutes from September 22, 1994. Mr. Perlmutter motioned. Ms. Tsangaris seconded. Motion Garried unanimously. Chairman Hritz pointed out that Ms. Portman has mentioned the provision of the Village Code that calls for an annual report on whether the codes are working. He asked Susan to ask around the organization and see if she seen any other reports that other Zoning Boards or Planning Boards have done around the County and bring it back to us. Mr. Perlmutter moved that the committee has noted that the Planning Board is down to 6 members and would like a 7th member appointed as quickly as possible. Mr. Donovan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, motion to adjourned was made by Mr. Perlmutter and seconded by Mr. Donovan. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully subm,it^ed, Carmen G. Mariano Recording Secretary �AGREEMENT The undersigned does hereby agree to the following. 1. I (We) am (are) the owner(s) of premises located at 3 Terrace Close North Tarrytown, New York 10591 for which an application is being submitted to the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board for she plan review. 2 I understand and agree that there are certain fees for which I am responsible in conjunction with said application. 3 I understand that the application fee is $500.00 per site plan submitted, plus an additional $10 00 per required parking space, as described in Section 62-3OF. I also understand that the Planning Board may seek the consultation of professional planners, engineers, surveyors, etc. and I will be responsible for any and all costs incurred by the Planning Board for such consultations and professional opinions at the prevailing hourly rate agreed upon by the Planning Board and the consultants. 1 understand that no employee of the Village nor any member of the Planning Board can advise me, in advance, of what the total consulting fees might be. I also understand that I may be obligated to pay recreation fees based upon the number of parking spaces required for site plan approval at the rate of $1,200.00 per parking space. 4 I shall provide a retainer of $2,500.00 to the Village of North Tarrytown to be held in escrow and applied towards the payment of consultation and professional fees incurred by the Village with regard to my application. When the balance of the escrow account is $1,000.00 or less, I shall deposit additional retainer funds into the escrow account so that the minimum balance in said account is never less than $1,000.00. The Village Treasurer's office shall provide me with a monthly statement indicating expenses incurred and the amount of monies withdrawn from said account. 5. I understand that if I withdraw my application prior to any action being taken by the Planning Board f am still responsible for any expenses incurred by the Village with regard to my application prior to such withdrawal. 6 I understand that if at any time the minimum balance in said escrow account falls below $1,000,00 the Planning Board may suspend the review of my site plan and/or the Building Inspector may refuse to issue any permits and/or certificates with regard to the premises. �7 If, at the termination of the Planning Board process, I still am indebted to the Village of North Tarrytown for any fees mentioned hereinabove, 1 undei stand that the amount of money still owed will be added to my property tax bill and become a lien against the property or the Village of North Tarrytown may take whatever legal action necessary against each owner, either individually or jointly, to collect such funds *- ier Owner Owner Dated; October 3 , 1994 �^ . ^P VILLAGE Of NORTH TARRYTOWN 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York .10591 * PLANNING BOARD 1. Subdivision Name/Planning Board Review: Matter of James and Martha Bick 2. Location (Tax section, block and lot number or other specific information) Section 11 Block IS, Lot 9 and 8 3. Property owner's name and address James and Martha Biick, 3 Terrace Close, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 A. Engineer or Surveyor's Name and Address CharlesaRiley, 61 Main Street, Tarrytown, New YOrk 5. Size in acres 1+ Proposed number of lots 1 6. Pee: $500.00 Date Paid: October 3, 1994 7. Is the entire parcel involved to be subdivided at this time? yes 8. Is any land to be dedicated to public use? No Acres N/A 9. Will any zoning changes or subdivision regulation waivers be requested? No Describe: N/A 10. Date of preliminary layout submission: O c t o b e r 3 ' 11. Conditions to be met in plat submission: 199 ^ None Note:Eleven(11)copies of all submissions are required with this application. ENCLOSED PLEASE BIND CHECK IN THE AMOUNT 0B' $500.00 PLUS A CHECK FOR $ BOR SITE PLAN SUH^TTTED, BOR EACH REQUIRED PARKING SPACE. . Signature: < A,M,™„. Address ^ ^ ^ ^ , / K ^ y , 3 Terrace Close North Tarrytown, New York �Additional pertinent information may be determined necessary or appropriate in addition to the below: Project: Matter of James and Martha Bick Date: October 3, 1994 Location: 3 Terrace Close, North Tarrytown, New York Architect/Engineer/Surveyor: Charles Riley Check list to be completed by applicant prior to submission to the Planning Board. If any item on this check list is not applicable to the site plan, please make a written notification on the site plan to this effect. 1. The name and address of the Owner of Record or the property and the name, address and professional seal of the individual preparing the site plan. 2. The names of all owners or record of adjacent properties. 3. The location of all existing structures and other man-made features of the site, as well as those on adjacent properties, including existing utility lines (gas and electric). < 4. The location and design of the proposed water supply sewage disposal and storm water drainage systems, including the locations, sizes, invert and rim elevations to the existing water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems. 5. Existing and proposed topography map of the subdivision, extending at least twenty (20) ft. beyond the site boundaries with contour intervals not greater than five (5) ft. and referenced to USGS or other approved bench mark and scale. 6. The nature and location of all other existing site features, including wetlands, water courses, wooded areas and rock outcrops. 7. The plan shall clearly indicate which site features are existing and proposed and which will be removed. 8. Owner's endorsement. 9. Planning Board Chairman's endorsement per subdivision regulations, Part IV, Page 7817 (14 10. The locations of nearest fire hydrants. 11. The widths of streets and avenues encompassing the site. 12. An area map showing all streets and property within one thousand (1,000) ft. of the applicant's property, at a scale of one (1) inch to four hundred (400) ft. All property owned by the applicant shall be clearly indentified. 13. Plow and pressure requirements for the fire sprinkler system and backflow preventers. 14. Cover letter to the Planning Board, including brief summary of proposed action in letter form, indicating scope of project, purpose and plans for development. �14-16-2 ( 2 / 8 7 ) - 7 c 617.21 . _ Appendix A S t a t e Environmental Quality Review SEQR FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The f u l l EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project o r 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 p r o j e c t that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those w h o determine significance m a y have l i t t l e or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be t e c h n i c a l l y expert in e n v i r o n m e n t a l analysis. In a d d i t i o n , m a n y w h o have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns a f f e c t i n g t h e question of significance. The f u l l EAF is i n t e n d e d t o provide a m e t h o d whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the d e t e r m i n a t i o n process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to f i t a project or action. Full EAF Components: The f u l l EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1 : Provides o b j e c t i v e data and i n f o r m a t i o n about a given project and its site. By identifying basic p r o j e c t data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses o n i d e n t i f y i n g the range of possible impacts t h a t may o c c u r f r o m a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an I m p a c t is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a p o t e n t i a l l y large i m p a c t . The form also identifies whether an i m p a c t can be m i t i g a t e d or reduced. Part 3: If any i m p a c t in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the i m p a c t is a c t u a l l y important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: D Part 1 D Part 2 DPart 3 U p o n review of the i n f o r m a t i o n recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting i n f o r m a t i o n , and considering b o t h the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the l e a d agency that: G$ A. The p r o j e c t w i l l not result in any large and important i m p a c t s ) and, therefore, is one w h i c h will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration w i l l be prepared. D B. A l t h o u g h the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there w i l l not be a significant e f f e c t for this Unlisted A c t i o n because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a C O N D I T I O N E D negative declaration w i l l be prepared.* D C. The p r o j e c t m a y result in one or more large and i m p o r t a n t impacts that may have a significant i m p a c t on the e n v i r o n m e n t , therefore a positive declaration w i l l be prepared. * A C o n d i t i o n e d N e g a t i v e Declaration is o n l y valid for Unlisted Actions James Bick and Martha Bick Planning Board - Village of North Name of Action Tarrytown N a m e of Lead Agency i Print or Type N a m e of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible O f f i c e r Signature of Responsible O f f i c e r in Lead Agency responsibl officer) Si iiggnnaattuurree^df Preparer (If different f r o m responsible October 3 , 1994 Date 1 �PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor .NOTICE: This d o c u m e n t is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant e f f e c t o n the environment. Please c o m p l e t e the entire f o r m . Parts A through E. Answers to these questions w i l l be considei as part of the a p p l i c a t i o n for approval and may be subject to further verification and p u b l i c review. Provide any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n y o u believe w i l l be needed to c o m p l e t e Parts 2 and 3. It is expected t h a t c o m p l e t i o n of the full EAF w i l l be dependent on i n f o r m a t i o n currently available and w i l l not i n v o l v e new studies, research or investigation. If i n f o r m a t i o n requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION JAMES BICK a n d MARTHA BICK LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) 3 T e r r a c e C l o s e , N o r t h T a r r y t w o n , New YOrk BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR ' James Bick and Martha B i c k ADDRESS 0 CITY/PO XT rj, ( 914, 631-8855 -,, 3 Terrace Close, fc, STATE m North Tarrytown ZIP CODE NY 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF OWNER (It different) same ( ) ADDRESS same STATE CITY/PO ZJPCODE same DESCRIPTION OF ACTION C r e a t i o n of one b u i l d i n g l o t - —• Please Complete Each Q u e s t i o n — I n d i c a t e N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of o v e r a l l project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1 . Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DForest DAgriculture DCommercial (ZlResidential (suburban) 2. Total acreage of p r o j e c t area: acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE M e a d o w or Brushland (Non-agricultural) PRESENTLY acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres Forested acres A g r i c u l t u r a l (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres W e t l a n d (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres W a t e r Surface Area acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or f i l l ) - acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres Other (Indicate t y p e L Residential 1+ 3. W h a t is p r e d o m i n a n t soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: D R u r a l (non-farm) DOther © W e l l drained J Q Q D P o o r l y drained acres 1±_ ', % of site D M o d e r a t e l y w e l l drained % of site % of site b. If any a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d is involved, h o w many acres of soil are classified w i t h i n soil group 1 through 4 of the N Land C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock o u t c r o p p i n g s on project site? a. W h a t is d e p t h t o bedrock? 10-15+ QKYes ( j n feet) 2 DNo �• 5 . A p p r o x i m a t e percentage of proposed project site w i t h slopes: CO-10% % DlO-15% E 1 5 % or greater % 4Q % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site-, or district, listed on the State or the N a t i o n a l Registers of Historic Places? DYes C3^o 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National N a t u r a l Landmarks? 8. W h a t is the d e p t h of the w a t e r table? 2 0 + DYes Lt$No (in feet) 9. Is site located over a p r i m a r y , principal, or sole source aquifer? DYes CBNo 10. D o hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes DNo 1 1 . Does project site c o n t a i n any species of plant or animal life that is i d e n t i f i e d as threatened or endangered? DYes Q2No 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 $No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the c o m m u n i t y or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes [?No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site i n c l u d e scenic views k n o w n t o be important to the c o m m u n i t y ? DYes C3NO 15. Streams w i t h i n or contiguous t o project area: None N/ A a. Name of Stream and name of River to w h i c h it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, w e t l a n d areas w i t h i n or contiguous to project area: a. N a m e N/A b. Size (In acres) 7 "' . Is the site served by existing public utilities? SYes DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient c a p a c i t y exist to allow connection? EYes b) If Yes, w i l l i m p r o v e m e n t be necessary to allow connection? DNo C3Ves DNo 18. Is the site l o c a t e d in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, A r t i c l e 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes ENo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant t o A r t i c l e 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? DYes DNo 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 d e v e l o p e d : 1+ acres initially; c. Project acreage t o r e m a i n undeveloped d. Length of project, in miles: N/A 1 »5+ acres. 1+ acres u l t i m a t e l y . acres. (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A f. Number of off-street p a r k i n g spaces existing ^/A ; proposed g. M a x i m u m vehicular trips generated per hour %• (upon c o m p l e t i o n of project)? h. If residential: N u m b e r a n d type of housing units: O n e Family Initially I Ultimately _L T w o Family i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure N/A M u l t i p l e Family height; j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project w i l l occupy is? 3 Condominium width; length. ft. �2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed'from the site? J _ _ 3. Wifl disturbed areas be reclaimed? DYes BNo DN/A a. If yes, for what intends, purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? tons/cubic yards DYes __* (3No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes _fNo 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 d<No 6. If single phase project Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated months, (including demolition). (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 N A month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase N/A month year. / d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes DYes BNo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is complete N 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ' DYes DYes l_No N/A b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged DYes L l3No 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? EYes a. If yes, what is the amount per month DYes DYes _3No N/A tons ; (_Yes : DNo ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain __Yes DNo 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 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? DYes ENo DYes ©No If yes . indicate type<s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity Total anticipated water usage per day ' 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain DYes . 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? 23. LUNo DNo b. If,yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? c. If yes, give name If yes, explain BNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? N/A A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DNo N/A ' gallons/minute. gallons/day. DYes BNo GDNo __No �25. Approvals Required: Submittal Date Type City. Town, Village Board DYes :ity. Town, Village Planning Board GNo • _Yes C N o Subdivision City, Town Zoning Board DYes 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 10-3-1994 . _, C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? EYes 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 c!assification(s)of the site? -.subdivision Dsite plan Dother R-15 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 1 building lot 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? . R-15 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 1 building lot;_ '•. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? QJYes DNo 7. What are the predominant land use{s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? Residential single family 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? _]Yes D N o 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? _ J a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 1+ a c r e 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? DYes K)No 1 1 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? QYes ENo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? __Yes D N o 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 DYes _]No 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. \pplicant/Sponsor Name JAMES BICK AND MARTHA BICK signature <^Q^LZZr^^/^^ Date October 3, 1994 Titlp Attorney If the action is in the Coastal Area, -nd you ire a. state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. �Part 2—PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General I n f o r m a t i o n (Read Carefully) • In c o m p l e t i n g the f o r m the reviewer should be guided by the questfon: Have my responses and d e t e r m i n a t i o n s b e e n reasonable? The reviewer is n o t expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • I d e n t i f y i n g that an impact w i l l be p o t e n t i a l l y large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily s i g n i f i c a n t . Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. I d e n t i f y i n g an i m p a c t in c o l u m n 2 s i m p l y asks t h a t it be l o o k e d at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the t h r e s h o l d of m a g n i t u d e that w o u l d trigger a response in c o l u m n 2. The examples are generally applicable t h r o u g h o u t the State a n d for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be a p p r o p r i a t e for a Potential Large I m p a c t response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, w i l l vary. Therefore, the examples are i l l u s t r a t i v e a n d 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 t e r m , short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there w i l l be any i m p a c t . b. M a y b e answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes t o a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) t o indicate the p o t e n t i a l size o f t h e impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check c o l u m n 2. If i m p a c t w i l l o c c u r b u t t h r e s h o l d is lower than example, check c o l u m n 1 . d. If reviewer has d o u b t about size of the i m p a c t then consider the impact as p o t e n t i a l l y large and p r o c e e d t o PART 3. e. If a p o t e n t i a l l y large impact checked in c o l u m n 2 can be mitigated by change{s) in the project t o a small t o m o d e r a t e impact, also check the Yes box in c o l u m n 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is n o t possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 IMPACT ON LAND 1 . W i l l the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? DNO DYES Examples that w o u l d apply to c o l u m n . 2 • Any construction on slopes of 1 5 % or greater, (15 f o o t rise per 100 f o o t 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 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 t h a t w i l l continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that w o u l d remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary l a n d f i l l . • Construction in a designated f l o o d w a y . }• Other impacts '. Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change • D DYes DNo D D QYes DNo n D D DYes . DYes DNo GNo DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo DYes DNo • • D • D D • • • D • 2. W i l l there be an effect t'.. „.iy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological f o r m a t i o n s , e t c . ) D N O DYES • Specific land forms: a D �IMPACT ON WATER 3\ Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24. 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ®NO GYES 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 D D D D D • D D D D Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYes DNO GYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo • DYes DNo D D D D DYes DNo 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 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 C 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 q D DYes 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: 4 . Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? 0NO 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? $NO 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. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. tt k* Other impacts: . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? C3NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 �2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D D • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • • • Other impacts: D D D DYes DYes DYes DYes D D DYes DNo • • • • DYes DNO D DYes DNO 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 DYes DNo • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. D a DYes DYes DNo DNo D Y es DNo • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DNo ONo DNo DNo IMPACT ON AIR 7. W i l l proposed action affect air quality? ENO 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. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. W i l l Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? BSNO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other • D impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? D8NO Examples that would apply to column 2 D D DYES • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • 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 a D IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES ^ J O . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? A ElNO 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 DYes DNo �1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • • D D D Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D D DYes DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo • 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 • DYes DNo • D DYes DNo D • DYes DNo D D D Y es DNo • • • DYes DNO D DYes DNO D D D Y es DNO • 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 ve3et_t.cn. D D DYes DNo D D D Y es • 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 • NO DYES 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? 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. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial. development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? DNO 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? DNO Examples that would apply to column 2 CYES IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? • NO 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 DNo �2 • 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 1 1 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ENO 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 fro'm 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 •srijoyment 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: Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D D Y es DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D • DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D CYes DNo IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? CNO 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 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: I D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo 9 �IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION *\4. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ENO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Small to Moderate Impact • • 2 Potential Large Impact D Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Chanc DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo • 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 • DYes DNo • Other impacts: D • DYes DNo D D DYes DNc • D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo • D DYes DNo 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 • • DYes DNO D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: _ _ D • IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? gtlNO 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 ODOR 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). • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? £)NO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • 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. • Other impacts: 10 �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential 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%. 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 DNo DNo DNo DNo DYes DYes DNo DNo DYes • No nnn 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change nnn IMPACT O N GROWTH A N D CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD " * . W i l l proposed action affect the character of the existing community? £JN0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 DYes DYes DYes • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) D DYes • Proposed Action will set- an important precedent for future projects. D a n n n • 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: • n D 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? DNO 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 t o the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 �Approved w|th respect to substance and form Li fiM V i l i l a g e A£torn< T e d : itHrn Approved by the^BJLanning Board . i \y Chairm Dated: Chairman ^ Filed with Village Clerk Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: � 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-1994 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_1994-10-20 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/4ebb70540f243c38e36803165bac9bfb.pdf 39b0a0e45155f267ea7f9544c52b3c66 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK November 17, 1994 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on November 17, 1994 at 8:00 p.m. at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT:- George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT:; Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Susan J. Portman, Assoc;/Planning Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE 7 Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. 1. CONTINUATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION RE: CHESTNUT RIDGE Applicant requested that application review be adjourned to December meeting. 2. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION BY JAMES AND MARTHA BICK, 3 TERRACE CLOSE Frederick P. Clark Assoc, raised the issue of whether a paper street was located on the premises in question and this issue was addressed by John Hughes, the attorney for the applicant. Mr. Hughes stated that he researched the title and there did not appear to be a paper street located in that area. Chairman Hritz asked Susan Portman whether she had any further outstanding issues and she replied that she did not. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to declare the Planning Board's intent to be lead agency in this application. Donald Caetano made the motion, seconded by David Perlmutter. Motion approved unanimously. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to make a negative declaration for SEQR at the December Meeting. David Perlmutter mad the motion, seconded by Donald Caetano. Motion approved unanimously. 3. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION BY AL PECK, IRVING PLACE The applicant distributed newly revised surveys of the premises to the Board members. A discussion ensued with regard to the parking available to the property. �PAGE #2 Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to declare the Planning Board lead agency for SEQR. Donald Caetano made the motion, seconded by David Perlmutter. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to make a negative declaration for SEQR. David Perlmutter made the motion, seconded by Donald Caetano. Motion carried unanimously. Donald Caetano made a motion to approve the application for subdivision. Seconded by David Perlmutter. Motion carried unanimously. 4. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: APPLICATION OF AL PECK SUBDIVISION OF PREMISES AT BEDFORD ROAD Mr. Peck addressed the Board and stated that the existing lot is 200 feet by 50 feet with one house. In order to sell the property, he has to subdivide the lot. The required area size for a lot in that district is 50 feet by 100 feet. Mr. peck stated that this was a simple subdivision with no variances needed. Chairman Hritz asked Susan Portman if she had any comments or objections to the application. She indicated that she had no additional comments other than the ones listed in her Memorandum to the Board. The Chairman asked for a motion to declare the Planning Board lead agency. Edward McCarthy made the motion, seconded by Donald Caetano. Motion carried unanimously. The Chairman asked for a motion to make a negative declaration for SEQR. Edward McCarthy made the motion, seconded by Donald Caetano. Motion carried unanimously. 5. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING RE; PHILIPSE PLAZA BY ANTONIO RODRIGUES FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, N. BROADWAY Chairman Hritz asked the applicant's architect if there were any substantial changes made from the previously submitted plans. The architect answered that he had redesigned the parking configuration in respect to the Antonio Carpentry building. He explained in more detail the changes that he made to the parking. A discussion followed regarding the parking spaces and the applearance of the project area. The Chairman asked if there was any member of the public who wished to address the Board. �PAGE #3 Mr. Landi, a member of the public, came forward and stated that he was very concerned about the retaining wall and how the traffic was going to be affected by this project. He owns the property adjacent to the project and he doesn't want to see any increased traffic. The architect explained the flow of traffic by referring to the site plans. A lengthy discussion followed with regard to the traffic impact on Old Broadway and the entire area as a result of this project. The Board adjourned the public hearing in this matter to the December meeting. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to have the Planning Board declare its intent to be lead agency in this application for SEQR. David Perlmutter made the motion, seconded by Donald Caetano. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz asked for a report from David Perlmutter with regard to his research into the issue of the validity of requiring recreation fees from applicants. Mr. Perlmutter reported that he had reviewed the Dolan case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and it is his opinion that the Supreme Court only addressed the "taking" of property rather than the payment of a fee into a particular fund. He stated that North Tarrytown should continue to enforce its requirement for a recreation fees until this requirement is determined to be invalid by the courts, if that be the case. Chairman Hritz asked the rest of the Board members to take this discussion under advisement until the next meeting. The minutes of the October 20, 1994 meeting were approved as submitted. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Carmen G. Mariano Recording Secretary �RESOLUTION Adopted at the November 17, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER: LEVY ESTATE APPLICANT: ALBERT PECK LOCATION: 15 SLEEPY HOLLOW ROAD TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 17, BLOCK 8, LOT 13 ZONING: R-3 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for subdivision approval (the application) 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 property located on the westerly side of Sleepy Hollow Road and the easterly side of Amos Street at 15 Sleepy Hollow Road into two (2) lots for residential development; and WHEREAS, Lot A would be 5,000 square feet in size and Lot B would be 5,000 square feet in size and would contain the existing dwelling, as shown on the drawing prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, and further identified as follows: "Preliminary Subdivision Map Prepared For Levy Est., Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale not shown (1" = 20'), date not shown; and WHEREAS, all references to the "Applicant" shall include the Applicant's successor and assigns; 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 subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board noted that the existing dwelling has a deficient front yard setback and noted that this existing non-conformity would not be aggravated by the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 1994, the Westchester County Planning Board informed the Village's Planning Consultant that they had no comments to offer on this application; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on November 17, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and �« WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered this a minor subdivision and treated the preliminary and final as a single approval; and WHEREAS, in the course of this 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; 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 Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant and the Building Inspector; 4. Requested, received and reviewed a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 5. After review of said field conditions, recommendations and EAF, as well as other materials and matters noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action and made a Negative Declaration on November 17, 1994, and noted on the EAF its determination of nonsignificance of environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for subdivision approval for a two (2) lot subdivision, as shown on the drawing entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Map Prepared For Levy Est. , Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale not shown (1" = 20'), date not shown, prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, be and is hereby granted 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 of this subdivision resolution and upon 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 mylar subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Westchester County Clerk, provided, however, that this subdivision approval shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this resolution if the following conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 2 �The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown the reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-3OF of the Village Zoning Code. Revision of the above noted plat to demonstrate the following: 2.1 The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivision Plat;" 2.2 The date and scale of the plat, the date of the survey, and the names of all of the neighboring property owners shall be provided on the plat; 2.3 The final plat shall comply with the requirements of Section 11 of the Village of North Tarrytown Subdivision Regulations; 2.4 The signature block for the endorsement of the Planning Board Chairman shall be revised to comply with Section ll.A(l)(c)(14c); 2.5 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: ^— fcP-^k Iritz, Chairman (f^North Tarrytown Plann^Rg-^Board 500\not4-036.sjp:ev 3 Date: /*/'>'JV �RESOLUTION Adopted at the November 17, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER: LEVY ESTATE APPLICANT: ALBERT PECK LOCATION: 21 AND 23 IRVING PLACE TAX DESIGNATION: SHEET 78, BLOCK 15, LOT 21 ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for subdivision approval (the application) 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 property located at 21 and 23 Irving Place into two (2) lots for residential development; and WHEREAS, Lot A would be 3,096 square feet in size and would contain the existing dwelling at 23 Irving Place and Lot B would be 3,419 square feet in size and would contain the existing dwelling at 21 Irving Place, as shown on the drawing prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, and further identified as follows: "Preliminary Subdivision Map Prepared For Albert Peck, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale 1" = 2 0 ' , dated July 15, 1994; and WHEREAS, all references to the "Applicant" shall include the Applicant's successor and assigns; 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 subdivision; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 1994, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted all area variances which that Board determined were necessary for the application; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on November 17, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered this a minor subdivision and treated the preliminary and final as a single approval; and �The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown reimbursement of all application review fees as noted required in Section 62-3OF of the Village Zoning Code. the and Revision of the above noted plat to demonstrate the follow^ ng: 2.1 The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivis. ion Plat;" 2.2 The final plat shall comply with the requirements of Section 11 of the Village of North Tarrytown Subdivision Regulations; 2.3 The signature block for the endorsement of the Planning Board Chairman shall be revised to comply with Section ll.A(l)(c)(14c); 2.4 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the fi^nal subdivision plat. The Building Inspector or Village Attorney shall confirm tt^at, during the 30-day circulation period, none of the involved agencies objected to the Planning Board becoming the I^ead Agency. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: hi Date: Chairman Tarrytown P 500\not4-042.sjp:ev 3 Board ll^SX / *" �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: November 11, 1994 Subject: Review of Bick Preliminary Subdivision As requested, we have reviewed the preliminary subdivision application submitted by James and Martha Bick for an area comprised of five previously subdivided building lots and a paper street located on the northern and western sides of the Terrace Close cul-de-sac in the R-2A Residence District. Tax Lots 1 (Bick), 2 (LoMascolo) and 4 (Golodetz) contain existing singlefamily dwellings. Lots 8 (owned by Bick) and 9 (ownership not known) are presently undeveloped. The Applicant is proposing to break up Lot 9 and distribute the pieces to Lots 2, 4 and 8, resubdivide Lot 8 to subtract a small triangular piece (the "new" Lot 8 is shown as "Lot B") , and add the small triangular piece from Lot 8 and the paper street to Lot 1 (the "new" Lot 1 is shown as "Lot A") . As a result, one building lot will be eliminated from the subdivision. The Applicant has submitted the following plan: "Subdivision Map Prepared For James A. & Martha A. Bick, ReSubdivision of Lot 1 - Block 3, An Unnumbered Parcel, Lot 8 Block 2 and a Portion of Lot 9 - Block 2 As Shown On Revised Map of Sleepy Hollow Manor - Filed in Westchester County Division of Land Records On June 23, 193 0 As Map No. 3621, Located in the Village of North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, N.Y.," scale 1" = 20', dated October 28, 1994, prepared by Charles H. Riley, Land Surveyor. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Subdivision Regulations Compliance: The subdivision plan should be revised to show the area of all of the properties involved in the subdivision, the names of the property owners of all of the involved properties and the location of the other two existing dwellings. The names of all involved property owners and their addresses should be added to the Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island -(516)364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/ Development/Environment /Transportation plan and the application. The existing and proposed lot sizes and dimensions of all involved properties should be shown on the plan. T h ^ names of all adjoining property owners should be shown on thxe plan. In addition, the existing and proposed subdivision lines should be labeled as such. The subdivision plan should that the subject properties 2A (not R-2) ctxid to make the the tax map number is shown 3, Lot 1). 2. be corrected to reflect the fact are located in Zoning District Rtax map numbers consistent (i.e., as both Block 1A, Lot 1 and Block Zoning Compliance: The Applicant should supply information regarding t h e current ownership of the 40-foot wide "unnumbered jparcel" which the Applicant has previously indicated is a "paper street." If that parcel is indeed a paper street, further research should be done in order to determine its status. The Applicant should research the history of th.e original subdivision, determine whether the parcel was ever dedicated to the Village or offered to the Village for dedication, and obtain the agreement of the Village (or any other involved party) stating that no party, other than t h e Bicks, has any right to improve the parcel. Although we aire not attorneys, based upon our experience, the matter of the paper street should be settled before allowing the creation o f Lot A, which would include existing Lot 1, the paper street and a triangular piece of existing Lot 8. Otherwise, at some point in the future, the Phelps Memorial Hospital property could be redeveloped for residential use and whoever has trie right to improve that parcel as a road (even though the wiclth of the parcel is probably substandard for a road right-of—way) would be creating a "left-over" triangular piece of land (approximately 6,075 square feet in size) which could not be used for residential development. If it is deter-mined that the parcel is a paper street, it may simplify the i_ssue to keep the triangular piece as a part of proposed Lot E3. Due to its lo-t width, proposed Lot B could probably not be subdivided in the future without a variance due to the fact that the lot -width would be insufficient for two lots. The Bicks have informally offered to restrict the property from further subdivision. If that is their intent, this offer should be statred on the subdivision plan. Other than t h e matters mentioned above concerning the paper street, the proposed subdivision appears to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 3. Environmental Review; According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the subdivision of the subject property constitutes a Type I Action because the property is located within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area. The Applicant has submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). We have reviewed the EAF and have enclosed a copy containing our recommended changes for your consideration. 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 agencies (i.e., the Westchester County Department of Health) and interested agencies (e.g., agencies, such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which maintain an interest in the application but do not have direct approval authority). After 30 days or receipt of the responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency, provided no other involved agency objects, and make a Determination of Significance. The Lead Agency's preparation of a Negative Declaration or Findings Statement (following a Positive Declaration and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement) will complete the SEQR review process. Under coordinated review, involved agencies may not make final decisions until the SEQR process is completed. 4. Other Issues: It does not appear that the public hearing notice correctly reflected the proposed subdivision since it stated that Lot 8 would be increased in size from 46,368 square feet (when it is actually approximately 28,660 square feet) to 58,331 square feet [which is the total area of both proposed Lots A (developed) and B (undeveloped), not a single undeveloped lot to be known as Lot 8 ] . Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Enclosure cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, Village Engineer John Hughes, Esq. James and Martha Bick 500\not4-031.sjp:aj 3 �14-16-2 (2/87)-7c 617.21 . _ Appendix A Stale 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 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 S I G N I F I C A N C E - T y p e 1 a n d Unlisted A c t i o n s Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: D Part 1 D Part 2 DPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (?2rts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magituc'e and importance of e2ch impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [^ 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 2nd important impacts that m2y have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions James Bick and Martha Bick £+ ^\ P l a n n i n g Board - V i l l a g e of North _ f2£j<^bdn,. jicv\ Name of Action Tarrytown Name of Lead Agency ^^P Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signatured Preparer (If different from responsible office:er) October 3 , 1994 Date 1 �PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor .NOTICE: This d o c u m e n t is designed to assist in determining whether jhe 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 considei as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any a d d i t i o n s 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 JAMES BICK and MARTHA BICK LOCATICN CF ACTION (Include Street Addftss, Municipality and County) 3 Terrace Close, North Tarrytwon, New YOrk BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME CF ArPUCANT/SPONSCR ( 914, 631-8855 James Bick and Martha Bick ADDRESS CITY/PO 3 Terrace Close, STATE North Tarrytown ZJPCODE NY 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF OWNER (If different) ( same ) ADDRESS same STATE CITY/PO ZIP CODE same DESCRIPTION CF ACTION Cj^a-fc-rGn o f o n e b u i l d i n g lot **<$ r-6 K ^ V ^ C . ** ^ j ' * ' * * 1 - '*** Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site D e s c r i p t i o n Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Glndustrial GCommercial [^'Residential (suburban) CForest GAgriculture GCther 2. Total acreage of project area: ^ • -^ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREACE Meadow or Erushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fiil) ~ Roads, buildings and ether paved surfaces Residential Other (Indicate :ype)_ PRESENTLY acres IZ 1+ acres acres acres acres acres acres acres GRural (non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION acres i- £ 1±_ acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type{s) on project site? '. a. Soil drainage: £ W e l i drained \QQ % of site DModerately well drained % of site CPoorly 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 N Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? 10-15+ A CXYes DNo (jn feet) �5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: CO-10% E l 5 % or greater % DlO-15% _Q % _% 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site-.'or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? DYes CSs'o '/. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 8. What is the depth of the water table? 20+ DYes t$No (in feet) 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 DNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes ENo 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 -?No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an' open space or recreation area? DYes E&s'o If yes, explain , __ 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes ONo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary N 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name y / A # ' b. Size (In acres) Is the site served by existing public utilities? __Yes DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? EYes b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? C?Ves DNo DNo IS. 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 to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? j^Yes DNo 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: 1+ acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped d. Length of project, in miles: N/A. 1.5+ 1+ (If appropriate) f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A %; ; proposed fl/_\ g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: ' One Family Two Family Ultimately acres ultimately. acres. e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed Initially acres. Multiple Family Condominium i . 1 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ' • height; j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 3 width; 60+ length. ft. �2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removecffrom the site? _____ tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? GYes ENo DN/A NA a. If yes, for what intends- purpose is the site being reclaimed? ' b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes G5No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes _5No 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 C&lo ' 6. If single phase project Anticipated period of construction . months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). N A b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 / month c. Approximate completion date of final phase N/A month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? DYes 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes year, (including demolition). year. uNo ENo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is complete —_L_A N A TO. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ' 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? DYes DSNo 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes 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? DYes {_&Jo If yes. explain N/A N/A Type 14. Will surface area of 2n existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain . 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? DYes DYes _JNO 16. Will the project generate solid waste? EYes GNo a. If yes. what is the amount per month N/A tons b. If.yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes DNo c. If yes, give name : : ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _$Yes DNo tons/month. ENo 19. Will project routinely produce oc'crs (mere than one hour per cay)? DYes __No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? DYes 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per day DYes years. DYes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? If yes , indicate type's) (3No ' 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain r_/A DYes ©No ' gallons/minute. gallons/day. DYes _DNo S , ENo ENo �25. Approvals Required: Submittal Date Type City. Town, Village Board lity. Town. Village Planning Board DYes £iYes CNo GNo •' Subdivision City. Town Zoning Board DYes CNo «6ity. County Health Department EYes CNo I***'*"-*'"^ Other Local Agencies DYes CNo m Other Regional Agencies DYes CNo State Agencies DYes CNo Federal Agencies DYes CNo " 10-3-1994 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? EYes CNo If Yes. indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Czoning variance Cspecial use permit CSsubdivision Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? R^Hk Gsite plan ^ : 3. What is the maximum poten* ?l development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? h b u i l d i n g lot- 2~ QJ^lliVyj i (Ctie en 1/iLh u"d€vtlcped /cf-^ 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? R-T5- NO Cy^^^K^ 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 1 bun dim lut- *Lh •. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? CSYes 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 s i n g l e f a m i l y , JOJfr-fabc/)«.I ; fl-l , K--2.fr, H . 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? £)Yes DNo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? - 1 (£€S«hA4*. s \cv\ - r€^tt^CJ c^ a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authcrization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes BDNo 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? CYes KS'o a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? N ^ C$Yes CNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing read network adequate to handle the additional traffic? CYes CYes £JNO CNo 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. A p p l i c a n t / S p o n s o r Name JAMES BICK AND MARTHA BICK signature ^77 rlr-YJ^ry^ Title Date O c t o b e r 3 , 1994 Attorney If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. �Part 2— PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) k 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 impzets 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 c o l u m n 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND W i l l the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? fiKO DYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y t o c o l u m n . 2 • Any construction on slopes of 1 5 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 f o o t of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed "0%. 1 2 S m a l l to Moderate Impact Potential Larg9 Impact D D DYes QN< D D GYes DN< n DYes DYes GNo D D n DNO • D DYes DNO D D DYes DNO D D D D D DNO • DYes DYes DYes D D D Y es DN< C a n I m p a c t Be M i t i g a t e d By Project C h a n g e 1. • Construction on land w h e r e the depth to the w a t e r table is less than 3 feet. • Construction ci paved p a r k i n g 2rea for 1,000 or more vehicles. • Construction en land w h e r e bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing g r o u n d surface. • Construction that w i l l c o n t i n u e for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that w o u l d remove more than 1,000 tens of natural m a t e r i e l (i.e., rock or soil) per year • Construction or expansion of a sanitary l a n d f i i l . • Construction in a designated f l o o d w a y . • Other impacts DNO DNO . W i l l there be an e f f e c t t'.. _.iy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological f o r m a t i o n s , etc.)j3^NO DYES Specific land forms: �1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D D D DYes DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO 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 DNo • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. D D DYes GNo • 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 GNo • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1.100 gallons. D DYes GNo IMPACT ON WATER Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ®NO GYES 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? QNO 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? SNO Examples that would apply to column 2 Can Impact Be Mitigated Sy Project Change DNO 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. 0 a 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. a D C'Yes CNO • Other D D DYes DNo D D D Y es DNO • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. impacts: . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? OMO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows. - •• 7 �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DYes DNO DNo DNo DNo a DYes DNo • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. • • D DYes DNo • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million 3TU's per hour. D D DYes DNo • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land.committed to industrial use. • 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 DYes DNo • • D GY es DNo Proposed Action may C2use substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? CNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? GSNO Examples that would apply to column 2 GYES • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site cr found on the site. • Application cf pesticide or herbicide mere than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo • Other D D D Y es DNc • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident cr migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. D D DYes D.No • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres cf mature forest (over 100 years of age) cr other locally important vegetation. D D DYes D'No D D D Y es • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. impacts- 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? CSN'O Examples that would apply to column 2 GYES IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 1 0 . Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? 3DNO DYES _ Examples that would apply to column 2 ^ B j T h e proposed action would sever, cress or limit access to agricultural ^ ^ l a n d (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 G DNC �^ ^ J r o p o s e d Action may C2use 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? jCxO 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. • D • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than TO million 3TU's per hour. D • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land.committed to industrial use. D • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial. development within existing industrial areas. D • Other impacts: D IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS fWill Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? £j,NO Examples that would apply to column 2 GYES • 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. D • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. a • Cther D impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect ncn-threatened CT non-er.car.gered species? ,££NO Examples that would applv to column 2 GYES • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. D • Proposed Action requires the removal cf more than TO acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important '•egetst.cn. D IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES TO. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? J2JNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ^ ^ T h e proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ^ ^ p n d (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) D �(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 1 1 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? KJNO 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 fro'm 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 of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? KJNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly cr 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 en the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing cr 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: I . 1 2 Small t o Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNO a D DYes DNo 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 LJYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change �Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large • Impact D D D D D D PYes GYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo a D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • Blasting w i t h i n 1,500 f e e t of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. D D D Y es DN« • O d o r s w i l l o c c u r r o u t i n e l y (more than one hour per day). D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l r e m o v e natural barriers that w o u l d act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNo • Other D • DYes DNo • Proposed A c t i o n m a y cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. o i l , pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of a c c i d e n t or upset c o n d i t i o n s , or there rr.2y be a chronic low level discharge or emission. D D DYes DNo • Proposed A c t i o n may r e s u l t in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any f o r m (i.e. t o x i c , p o i s o n o u s , highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, i n f e c t i o u s , etc.) D D• DYes C.No • Storage facilities for o n e m i l l i o n or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other f l a m m a b l e l i q u i d s , D D DYes DNo • Proposed a c t i o n m a y result in the excavation or other disturbance w i t h i n 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. D D DYes DNO • ' D DYes DNo IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 1 4 . W i l l there be an e f f e c t t o existing transportation systems? K'NO Examples t h a t w o u l d a p p l y t o column 2 "' DYES • A l t e r a t i o n of present patterns o f movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l result in major traffic problems. • O t h e r impacts: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Can Impact Be Mitigated By project Chang- I M P A C T O N ENERGY 15. W i l l proposed a c t i o n a f f e c t the community's sources of f u e l or energy supply? ©NO DYES Examples t h a t w o u l d a p p l y t o column 2 • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any f o r m of energy in t h e municipality. • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l r e q u i r e the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system t o serve more than 50 single or t w o f a m i l y residences or t o serve a m a j o r commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: N O I S E A N D ODOR IMPACTS 1 6 . W i l l there be o b j e c t i o n a b l e odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed A c t i o n ? • BONO DYES Examples t h a t w o u l d a p p l y t o column 2 • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l p r o d u c e operating noise exceeding the local a m b i e n t noise levels ior noise outside of structures. impacts: I M P A C T O N PUBLIC H E A L T H 17. W i l l Proposed A c t i o n a f f e c t public health and safety? _NO Examples t h a t w o u l d a p p l y t o column 2 • O t h e r impacts: 10 DYES �IMPACT O N GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD , p. W i l l proposed action affect the character of the existing community? £JNO DYES 1 Small t o Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large . Impact Can Impact Be M i t i g a t e d By Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 D D DYes DNo D D D Y es DNO D D D D D D DYes DNO DYes DNO DYes DNO Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) D D D Y es DNo Proposed Action will set- an important precedent for future projects. D D D D D D DYes DNO DYes DNO DYes DNO 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. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment Other impacts: ___ • 1 9 . Is there, or is there likely to be, pubjic controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ^ 3 N O 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 ;he impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change-'*). 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 �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 Michael A Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP (914) 967-6540 Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: November 10, 1994 Subject: Annual Report on Operation of Zoning Ordinance As requested at the last Planning Board meeting, I have asked other staff members if they have come across a requirement for an annual report from a Planning Board to a Village or Town Board in other municipalities. The only one we came across was in the Town/Village of Harrison, where that community's Planning Board prepares an annual summary of applications, approvals and denials. It is our opinion that the Planning Board has the right to make recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees regarding the operation of the Zoning Ordinance and other related legislation at any time. Having the Zoning Ordinance make this report mandatory is highly unusual and we therefore recommend that Section 62-48D of the Village Code either be removed or the term "shall prepare" should be changed to "may prepare" in order to ensure that the Planning Board is not prohibited from making recommendations as necessary. Assuming the Planning Board will be preparing a report of their recommendations to the Village Board, we have assembled a preliminary list of recommended Code amendments for your consideration (see attachment). Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Attachment cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark DiGennaro, Village Engineer 500\not4-0A6.sjp:ev Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX * (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN PRELIMINARY LIST OF ITEMS TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO VILLAGE BOARD FOR AMENDMENT Zoning Ordinance §62-29: Re-examine and clarify issue of when a site plan application shall be required. §62-34: Verify that the entire Section 62-34 was not repealed in 1992 (only Section 62-341 was to have been amended). Reexamine the recreation fee requirements and also determine whether a fee shall be required for site plan and/or subdivision approvals. May also want to remove building permit fees from Section 62-34 and add a reference to a separate fee schedule (would be easier to update fees in the future if not part of the Zoning Ordinance). §62-29 or 62-30: Add a list of materials and information to be submitted as part of a complete site plan application and a deadline for submission prior to Planning Board meeting. §62-3OF: Revise language to be consistent with application form and Village Code section regarding fees. Add a reference to a separate fee schedule. §62-14: Reevaluate parking standards (including number of spaces required per use, size of spaces, provide standards for compact and angled parking, add standards for aisle width, and add provision to give Planning Board the authority to revise number of spaces required under certain circumstances, as appropriate). Revise the definition of parking space in Section 62-4 (it is not appropriate to have regulations within definition). §62-30: Consider adding a requirement for a public hearing for site plan applications. Add and/or revise time frames for holding a public hearing, making a decision and filing of approval to be consistent with Village Law. §62-48D: Either change "shall prepare" or remove Part D altogether. The Planning Board should be able to make recommendations to the Village Board as appropriate without this section requiring it. §62-4: Simplify definition of "corner lot." Revise definition of "setback" so that it does not apply solely to front yard. �Subdivision Regulations Add a provision for a simplified, one-stage review process for minor subdivisions (two-lot subdivision and lot line realignment). Add definitions of major and minor subdivisions. Revise time frames for holding a public hearing, making a decision and filing of approval to be consistent with Village Law. §12B(2)(b): reservation. Revise the requirement Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. November 10, 1994 500\not4-046.sjp:ev from dedication to �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 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: November 11, 1994 Subject: Review of Bick Preliminary Subdivision As requested, we have reviewed the preliminary subdivision application submitted by James and Martha Bick for an area comprised of five previously subdivided building lots and a paper street located on the northern and western sides of the Terrace Close cul-de-sac in the R-2A Residence District. Tax Lots 1 (Bick), 2 (LoMascolo) and 4 (Golodetz) contain existing singlefamily dwellings. Lots 8 (owned by Bick) and 9 (ownership not known) are presently undeveloped. The Applicant is proposing to break up Lot 9 and distribute the pieces to Lots 2, 4 and 8, resubdivide Lot 8 to subtract a small triangular piece (the "new" Lot 8 is shown as "Lot B") , and add the small triangular piece from Lot 8 and the paper street to Lot 1 (the "new" Lot 1 is shown as "Lot A"). As a result, one building lot will be eliminated from the subdivision. The Applicant has submitted the following plan: "Subdivision Map Prepared For James A. & Martha A. Bick, ReSubdivision of Lot 1 - Block 3, An Unnumbered Parcel, Lot 8 Block 2 and a Portion of Lot 9 - Block 2 As Shown On Revised Map of Sleepy Hollow Manor - Filed in Westchester County Division of Land Records On June 23, 1930 As Map No. 3621, Located in the Village of North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, N.Y.," scale 1" = 20', dated October 28, 1994, prepared by Charles H. Riley, Land Surveyor. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Subdivision Regulations Compliance: The subdivision plan should be revised to show the area of all of the properties involved in the subdivision, the names of the property owners of all of the involved properties and the location of the other two existing dwellings. The names of all involved property owners and their addresses should be added to the Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation plan and the application. The existing and proposed lot sizes and dimensions of all involved properties should, be shown on the plan. The names of all adjoining property oyners should be shown on the plan. In addition, the existing and proposed subdivision lines should be labeled as such. The subdivision plan should that the subject properties 2A (not R-2) and to make the the tax map number is shown 3, Lot 1). 2. be corrected to reflect the fact are located in Zoning District Rtax map numbers consistent (i.e., as both Block 1A, Lot: 1 and Block Zoning Compliance: The Applicant should supply information regarding the current ownership of the 4 o-foot wide "unnumbered parcel" which the Applicant has previously indicated is a "paper street." If that parcel is indeed a paper street, further research should be done in order to determine its status. The Applicant should research the history of the original subdivision, determine whether the parcel was ever dedicated to the Village or offered to the Village for dedication, and obtain the agreement of the Village (or any other involved party) stating th.at no party, other than the Bicks, has any right to improve the parcel. Although we are not attorneys, based upon our experience, the matter of the paper street should be settled before allowing the creation of Lot A, which would include existing Lot 1, the paper street and a triangular piece of existing Lot 8. Otherwise, at some point in the future, the Phelps Memorial Hospital property could be redeveloped for residential use and whoever has the right to improve that parcel as a road (even though the width of the parcel is probably substandard for a road right-of-way) would be creating a "left-ovet" triangular piece of land (approximately 6,075 square feet in size) which could not be used for residential development. If it is determined that the parcel is a paper street, it may simplify the issue to keep the triangular piece as a part of proposed Lot B. Due to its lot width, proposed Lot B could probably not be subdivided in the future without a variance due to the fact that the lot width would be insufficient for two lots. The Bicks have informally offered to restrict the property from further subdivision. If that is their intent, this offer should be stated on the subdivision plan. Other than the matters mentioned above concerning the paper street, the proposed subdivision appears to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 3. Environmental Review: According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the subdivision of the subject property constitutes a Type I Action because the property is located within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area. The Applicant has submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) . We have reviewed the EAF and have enclosed a copy containing our recommended changes for your consideration. 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 agencies (i.e., the Westchester County Department of Health) and interested agencies (e.g., agencies, such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which maintain an interest in the application but do not have direct approval authority). After 30 days or receipt of the responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency, provided no other involved agency objects, and make a Determination of Significance. The Lead Agency's preparation of a Negative Declaration or Findings Statement (following a Positive Declaration and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement) will complete the SEQR review process. Under coordinated review, involved agencies may not make final decisions until the SEQR process is completed. 4. Other Issues; It does not appear that the public hearing notice correctly reflected the proposed subdivision since it stated that Lot 8 would be increased in size from 46,368 square feet (when it is actually approximately 28,660 square feet) to 58,331 square feet [which is the total area of both proposed Lots A (developed) and B (undeveloped), not a single undeveloped lot to be known as Lot 8]. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Enclosure cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, Village Engineer John Hughes, Esq. James and Martha Bick 500\notA-031.sjp:aj 3 �14-16-2 (2/87)-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 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 S I G N I F I C A N C E - T y p e 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: D Part 1 D Part 2 DPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 2nd 3 if appropriate), 2nd 2ny other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: \3 A. The project will not result in any large and important i m p a c t s ) 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 p r e p a r e d . ' D C. The project may result in one or more large 2nd 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 J a m e s B i c k a n d M a r t h a B i c k f£"-f* ^ f P l a n n i n g Board - V i l l a g e of N o r t h _ f2&jivbd»w. j i c v \ Name of Action Tarrytown N'2me of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency . >nsible officer) S i g n a&t u r e&d Preparer (If different from respons October 3, 1994 Date 1 �PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This d o c u m e n t is designed to assist in determining whether }he action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers t o these questions will b e considei as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any a d d i t i o n s information you believe will be needed t o 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 JAMES BICK a n d MARTHA BICK LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and Cotjnty) 3 T e r r a c e C l o s e , N o r t h T a r r y t w o n , New YOrk NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR 3USINESS TELEPHONE ( 914, James Bick and Martha Bick ADDRESS 0 ,_ 631-8855 • „n 3 Terrace Close, STATE North Tarrytown ZIP CODE NY 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF OWNER {If dllferent) same ( ) ADDRESS same STATE CITY/PO ZIP CODE same DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Cr£*t-rr5n of one b u i l d i n g lot A\A<& r-e/i, Jod'ViJi'e'"'! a h c.£j* c*>^t- 'o*~£ . 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: GUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial CSResidential (suburban) GForest DAgriculture QOther 2. Total acreage of project area: 2. , 3 acres. APPROXIMATE AC RE ACE Me2dcw or Srushiand (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fiil) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Residential Other (Indicate type). 1.2. 1+ GRural (non-farm) PRESENTLY acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 1±_ 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? [ a. Soil drainage: ©Well drained J Q Q % of site DModerately well drained % of site GPoorly 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 N" Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is d e p t h t o bedrock? 10-15+ QYes ONo (in feet) �5. A p p r o x i m a t e percentage of proposed project site w i t h slopes: C0-10% % DlO-15% E l 5% or greater __% __ % 6. Is project substantially c o n t i g u o u s to. or contain a building, site-.'or district, listed on the St'ate or the N a t i o n a l Registers of Historic Places? CYes Grfco '"/. Is project substantially c o n t i g u o u s to a site listed on the Register of National N a t u r a l Landmarks? 8. What is the depth of the water table? 20+ DYes SNo (in feet) 9. is site located over a p r i m a r y , principal, or sole source aquifer? CYes C_No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes DNo 1 1 . Does project site c o n t a i n any species of plant or animal life that is i d e n t i f i e d as threatened or endangered? DYes CXNo According to .. I d e n t i f y each species , ,. — _ — . _— . 12. Are there any u n i q u e or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other g e o l o g i c a l f o r m a t i o n s ) DYes C_>No Describe . - . _ 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as 2n open space or recreation area? DYes 14. C?No If yes, explain Does the present site i n c l u d e scenic views k n o w n to be important to the c o m m u n i t y ? DYes _*No 15. Streams w i t h i n or c o n t i g u o u s to project area: Nope a. N a m e of Stream and name of River to w h i c h it is tributary ' 16. Lakes, ponds, w e t l a n d areas w i t h i n or contiguous to project area: a. N a m e y/A -*• Size (In acres) 7 ' . Is the site served by existing public utilities? SYes DNo a) If Yes, does s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y exist to allow connection? EYes b) If Yes, w i l l i m p r o v e m e n t s be necessary to allow connection? GNo _?Ves DNo 13. Is the site l o c a t e d in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, A r t i c l e 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes KJNo 19. Is the site l o c a t e d in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to A r t i c l e 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ^Yes DNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes _jNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions 2S appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be d e v e l o p e d : 1+ c. Project acreage to r e m a i n undeveloped d. Length of p r o j e c t , in miles: N/A 1 • 5+ acres initially; ~ acres. H~ acres u l t i m a t e l y . acres. (If appropriate) e. If the project is 2n expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A f. Number of off-street p a r k i n g spaces existing K/A ; proposed g. M a x i m u m v e h i c u l a r trips generated per hour (upon c o m p l e t i o n of project)? h. If residential: N u m b e r a n d type of housing units: O n e Family T w o Family Initially i Ultimately J i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure %• N/A / M u l t i p l e Family . height; j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project w i l l occupy is? Condominium width; length ft. �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 yards DN/A a. If yes. for what i n t e n d s purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes ___ ______ CXNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes G&No 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 -JMO 6. If single phase p r o j e c t Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated months, (including demolition). (number). b. Anticipated d a t e of commencement phase 1 N /A month c. Approximate completion date of final phase . N A month / d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes year, (including demolition). year. DYes DNo BNo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is complete __A 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? DYes DYes G_No CSNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount 2L___ b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid w a s t e disposal involved? DYes L— C?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? EYes a. If yes, what is the a m o u n t per month DYes DYes CSNo _)No DNo N/A tons b. If.yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? c. If yes, give n a m e If yes, explain ; QYes : DNo ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes _No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? (_Yes DNo 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 cay)? DYes ENo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? DYes DYes SNo If yes , indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated w a t e r usage per day ' gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local. State or Federal funding? If Yes. explain gallons/minute. DYes w/A 4 _DNo , , ENo �25. Approvals Required: Submittal Type City. Town. Village Board DYes CNo &Yes CNo City, Town Zoning 3oard DYes CNo •ettv. County Health Department EYes CNo $**&«'* *Qr\ Other Local Agencies DYes CNo « Other Regional Agencies DYes CNo State Agencies DYes CNo Federal Agencies DYes CNo :ity. Town, Village Planning Board Date Subdivision 10-3-1994 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? EYes CNo If Yes. indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Czoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan Cspecial use permit Cresource management plan 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? R^S- QSsubdivision Dsite plan Dother ^ 3. What is the maximum poten*'?! development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? ^-building lo£— 2. dyJtttin^S 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? (Cri€ a R-P>. £*tcK undeveloped, NO /cf) jv^ 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 1 bull dim lvfr (L*. "•. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? 0Yes DNo 7. What are the predominant land use{s) and zoning classifications wiihin a V* mile radius of proposed action? Residential single f a m i l y , ioJfl'ftttfg Q& f j $--\ t iL^Zflr f H. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? £)Yes CNo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? - 1 (K-€Suk>^4y-'i,cv\ a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? If d t i - e - o^a>A. l r o f a u < _ Q*e. b ^ I t W ^ _ r€w*cJor/ c ^ j 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? DYes IS)No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? C'Yes ES'o a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? A^" C^Yes CNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes. is the existing read network adequate to handle the additional traffic? CYes CYes ?]No 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. Applicant/Sponsor Name JAKES BICK AND MARTHA BICK i-gnature :: <= ^lf71 ^ ^ l l Q ^ Date October 3, 1994 Title Attorney If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a stale agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 �Part 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) f 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 w i l l 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 change{s) in the project t o 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 S m a l l to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact O D DYes DNo D D D Y es DN( n DYes . DYes DNo D D D DNO 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 • DYes DNO • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO D D D Y es DN< IMPACT ON LAND 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? JBNO 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 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. • Construction in a designated floodway. • Other impacts # C a n Impact Be M i t i g a t e d By Project Change '. DNO Will there be an effect tt. _.iy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.JJ^NO DYES Specific land forms: �2 1 I M P A C T ON WATER 3. W i l l proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ®NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Small to Moderate Impact D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo DYes DNo • Dredging more than TOO 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? E5N0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or mere than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated By Impact " Project Change D D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. D D DYes DN6 • Construction or operation causing 2ny 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 D DYes DNO • Other D D D Y es DNc D D DYes DNo • Construction of a body o f W2ter 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 DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ,• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to itrve proposed (project) action. 0 impacts: ". Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface ' water runoff? UNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. - .. 7 DNO �Proposed A c t i o n may C2use substantial erosion. • Proposed A c t i o n is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h existing drainage patterns. • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l a l l o w development in a designated f l o o d w a y . • Other impacts: I M P A C T O N AIR 7 . W i l l proposed a c t i o n a f f e c t air quality? CNO DYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y t o c o l u m n 2 • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l i n d u c e 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. D • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l result in the incineration of more than 1 t o n of refuse per hour. D • Emission rate of t o t a l c o n t a m i n a n t s will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source p r o d u c i n g m o r e than 10 million 3TU's per hour. D • Proposed action w i l l a l l o w an increase in the a m o u n t of l a n d . c o m m i t t e d t o industrial use. D • D Proposed action w i l l a l l o w an increase in the density of i n d u s t r i a l . d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n existing industrial areas. D • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND A N I M A L S W i l l Proposed A c t i o n a f f e c t any threatened or endangered species? ©NO Examples that w o u l d a p p l y 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 p o r t i o n of a critical or significant w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t . D D • A p p l i c a t i o n of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. • Other D impacts: 9. W i l l Proposed A c t i o n substantially affect non-threatened cr non-endangered species? CSN'O Examples that w o u l d a p p l y to column 2 DYES Proposed A c t i o n w o u l d substantially interfere w i t h any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or w i l d l i f e species. D • Proposed A c t i o n requires the removal of more than 10 acres cf mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other l o c a l l y i m p o r t a n t vegetation. D • IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 1 0 . W i l l the Proposed A c t i o n affect agricultural land resources? £)NO DYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y to c o l u m n 2 |* The proposed action w o u l d sever, cross or l i m i t access t o a g r i c u l t u r a l land (includes c r o p l a n d , hayfields, pasture, v i n e y a r d , orchard, etc.) D �1 Small to Moderate Impact ^ ^ P r o p c s e d Action may C2use substantial erosion. • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: D D D D IMPACT ON AIR £'NO DYES 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? 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 p^r hour. D D • Emission rate cf total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a he2t source producing more than TO million 3TU's per hour. D • Proposed action will 2II0W an increase in the amount of land.committed to industrial use. D • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial. development within existing industrial areas. D • Other impacts: D IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS L Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? £'NO Examples that would apply to column 2 GYES • 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 • Removal cf any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. a • Application of pesticide or'herbicic'e more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • • Other impacts: D 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened cr non-endangered species? Z—TN'O Examples that would appiv to column 2 GYES • PrcDcsed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wiic'Iife species. a • Proposed Action requires the removal cf more than 10 acres cf mature forest (over ICO years of age) or other locally important a IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES ".0. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? J-5NO GYES 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.) D �1 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Small to Moderate Impact D DYes DNo D DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D • DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNc D D DY es DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • 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: D IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1 1 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ENO 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 fro'm 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 of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 .« • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantiallycontiguous 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 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: I D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNO �1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D D D D D DYes DNO DYes DNo DYes 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 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. D D DYes DNc • Odors will occvr routinely (more than one hour per day). D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo a D CYes DNo 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 cr emission. D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action may result in the burial cf "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) D D DYes CNO • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D D DYes DNo D DYes DNO D DYes DNo IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. W i l l there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ENO 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 Be Mitigated By Project Chanc; IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? &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 ODOR 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 • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action aiiect public health and safety? £'NO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of so'id or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: a • 10 �IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD " "*. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? £3NO DYES Examples that would 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: • I i Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Can Impact Be Large - Mitigated By Impact Project Change D D DYes DNo G D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO DNo DNo 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? >&NO 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 Pari 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 �F R E D E R I C K 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, 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: November 17, 1994 Subject: Review of Philipse Plaza Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the revised site plan drawings for the application known as "Philipse Plaza" located along the east side of North Broadway, opposite Philipsburg Manor and the intersection of North Broadway and Pocantico Street, in the C-l Highway Commercial District. The Philipse Plaza site plan application was most recently put on the July 1994 meeting agenda, at which time the application was not discussed by the Planning Board since the Applicant was unable to attend. 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) and Julio's Auto Repair (a motor vehicle repair shop). Antonio Cabinetry was the subject of a site plan application which was approved February 20, 1992 and received use and area variances. The Code will only allow more than one principal building on a property when it is designed as a "planned development group." This application should be considered an application for amended site plan approval for the entire lot. The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing delicatessen and motor vehicle repair shop building, replace it with a two-story commercial building (containing retail uses on the first floor and office on the second) and continue the manufacturing use of the Antonio Cabinetry building. The proposed building will contain 11,680 square feet of floor area, including 5,040 square feet of retail space and 6,640 square feet of office space. The Applicant has submitted the following plans: 1. Sheet CA, Sketch of Proposed Facade, "Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," dated February 22, 1993 and most recently revised April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 2. Sheet 1, "Site Survey, Topographic Map Prepared For Antonio & Linda Rodrigues, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., New York," scale 1" = 20', dated April 5, 1993 and roost recently revised April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects and John J. Muldoon; 3. Sheet SK-1, "Site Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 2 0 ' , dated October 7, 1994 and most recently revised November 7, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 4. Sheet 3, "Site Grading Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 20', dated April 26, 1994 and most recently revised November 7, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 5. Sheet 4, "Deli Operation Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 20', dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 6. Sheet 5, Visual Impact, "Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 10', dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 7. Sheet 6, "Ground Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1/8" = 1', dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; and 8. Sheet 7, Elevations, "Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1/8" = 1', dated February 22, 1993 and most recently revised April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Zoning Compliance: The site plan states that the maximum permitted lot coverage is 60%. This should be changed to reflect the fact that the maximum permitted lot coverage for a planned development group is 3 5%. As noted in our June 10, 1994 memorandum to the Planning Board, the proposed building does not comply with the required minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet as only 15 feet is provided. The plan will either need to be revised or a variance obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). 2. Parking and Loading: We assume that the entire first floor of the proposed building will be retail and service business uses and not contain other uses (such as a restaurant with seats, 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation which has a potentially more restrictive parking standard). Based on the parking standards for office and retail uses, a minimum of 47 parking spaces are required in addition to the eight spaces required for the manufacturing use, for a total of 55 required spaces. However, only 48 spaces are shown on the plan. In addition, the Zoning Code requires spaces to be 9' X 20• and most of the spaces on the plan are smaller than that. The deficient number and size of the parking spaces should either be corrected or variances obtained from the ZBA. As noted in our June 10, 1994 memorandum, we would prefer a 24-foot wide aisle rather than the 20-foot aisle shown. However, if the aisle is widened, the extra few feet will have to be taken from the building and/or the rear yard. The Applicant should consider using angled parking and one-way traffic flow. In addition, the aisle in the area shown in the "Compact Car Area" should be widened to at least 22 feet. As requested, a handicapped-accessible ramp from the parking area to the walkway arcade has been added to the plan. As required by the Zoning Code, a second loading space has been added to the plan. 3. Circulation and Traffic: 10, 1994, we recommend prepared to evaluate the Broadway in the vicinity and two-way access plans As noted in our memorandum of June that a limited traffic study be impact of this development on North of the site and to evaluate one-way for the site. The plan has been revised to show that the proposed northern access drive has been widened to 22 feet in width (not to scale). The ends of some of the parking islands should be cut back in order to allow for improved circulation. The plan shows the location of the proposed sidewalk, planting strip and relocated curb within the right-of-way of Route 9. The Board may recall that in August, as per the request of the Village, we sent a letter and a concept plan to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to suggest modest improvements to the intersection and to provide area for a sidewalk to serve this project. The Applicant should followup with NYSDOT regarding both the modifications proposed by the Applicant and the concept plan. In any case, the Applicant will need approval from NYSDOT for a Highway Work Permit. 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 4. Landscaping and Buffers: We recommend that the outstanding comments under Review Comment #5 in our memorandum to the Planning Board dated June 10, 1994 be addressed. 5. Environmental Review: We recommend that the outstanding comments under Review Comment #6 in our memorandum to the Planning Board dated June 10, 1994 be addressed, in particular the submission of a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 6. Referral: As per the Westchester County Planning Department's recommendation, the Village should send a copy of the proposed site plan, visual impact and elevation drawings (and the previously submitted area map) to the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for comment due to the site's proximity to Philipsburg Manor. 7. Further Information: As requested in our June 10, 1994 memorandum, if any freestanding signs are proposed, information regarding the dimensions and locations of the signs should be provided. Also, the Applicant should indicate whether the auto repair use will continue on the site during construction. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, Village Engineer Louis Contadino, AIA 500\not4-039.sjp.crc 4 �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 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP (914) 967-6540 Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: November 4, 1994 Subject: Recreation Fees I am writing in connection with the discussion recently regarding recreation fees and the U.S. Supreme Court case, Dolan v. Citv of Tiaard. As you may know, the New York State Village Law was amended (effective July 1993) concerning reservation of parkland and fees in lieu of parkland for residential site plan and subdivision approvals (see attachment). The State enabling legislation now requires planning boards to evaluate: "the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational facilities in the village based on [the] projected population growth to which the particular [residential] site plan [or subdivision plat] will contribute." Other communities have prepared studies in accordance with the enabling legislation of their existing facilities and future needs in order to determine the amount of park and recreation land needed and the appropriate amount of fees-in-lieu of land. A study such as is required by Village Law would appear to be consistent with the "rough proportionality" test from the Dolan case. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Attachment cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq. Donal M. Walsh, Esq. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector 500\not4-0A5.sjp Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �APPENDIX: VILLAGE LAW (EFFECTIVE JULY I. 19931 Relerrats o! matters to planning boards rower to make Investigations and reports Planning commissions APPENDIX: VILLAGE LAW (EFFECTIVE JULY 1. 19931 a The village board of trustees may by resolution provide lor the relerence ol any matter or class ol matters, other than those referred lo In subdivision ten ol this section, to the planning board before Pinal action Is taken thereon by the village board ol trustees or other office or officer of said village having final authority over said matter The village board of trustees may further stipulate that final action thereon shall not be taken until the planning board has submitted Its report thereon, or has had a reasonable time to be fixed by the village board of trustees In said resolution, to submit the report b In addition, the planning board shall have the fuH power and authority to make such Investigations, maps, reports, and recommendations In connection therewith relating to the planning and development ol the village as It seems desirable, providing the total expenditures of said board shaft not exceed the appropriation provided therefor proval with modifications or disapproval ol site plans submitted for approval. Any such waiver, which shal be subject lo appropriate conditions sel forth in the local taw adopted pursuant to this section, may be exercised in the event any such requirements are found not to be requisite In the interest of the pubic health, safely or general welfare or inappropriate to a particular site plan y (a) Before such authorized board may approve a site plan contorting residential units, such site plan shal also show, when required by such board, a park or parks suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes. Required findings |b) Land lor park, playground or other recreational purposes may not be required until the authorized board has made a finding thai a proper case exists for requiring that a part or parks be suitably located for playgrounds or other recreational purposes within the vilage. Such timings shal include an evaluation of the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational laclties in the vilage based on projected population growth lo which the particular site plan wM contribute. 12 Planning commission In any village In which there is a planning commission created under article twelve A ol the general municipal law, the board of trustees, instead of authorizing the appointment of a planning board under this article, may provide that the existing commission shall continue, the members thereof thereafter to be appointed in accordance with the provisions ol such article twelve A. and to have the powers and duties as specified for a planning board appointed under this article, provided, however, that In such village section two hundred thirty-eight of the general municipal law shal not be in force. Cash In leu of parkland S 7 725-a. Site plan review Definition ot "site plan" 1 Definition of site plan As used in this section the term "site plan" shall mean a rendering, drawing, or sketch prepared to specifications and containing necessary elements, as sel forth In the applicable zoning local law. which shows the arrangement, layout and design of the proposed use of a single parcel of land as shown on said plan Plats showing lots, blocks or sites which are subject to review pursuant to authority provided for the review of subdivisions under section 7-728 ol this article shal continue to be subject to such review and shall not be subject to review as site plans under this section 2 Approval of slle plans Approval by planning bond or other administrative body Ordinance or local law to specify uses subject to site plan approval, and to specify etements to be included on site plans Issuance of building perm! Area variances Conditions (a) The village board of trustees may. as part of a local law adopted pursuant to this article or other enabling taw. authorize the planning board or such other administrative body that it shal so designate, to review and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove site plan prepared lo specifications set forth in the local law and/or in regulations of such authorized board. Site plans shal show the arrangement, layout and design of the proposed use of the land on said plan. The local taw shal specify the land uses that require site plan approval and the elements to be included on plans submitted for approval. The required slle ptan etements which are included In the local law may include, where appropriate, those related to parking, means of access, screening, signs, landscaping, architectural features, location and dimensions ol buildings, adjacent land uses and physical features meant to protect adjacent land uses as w e l as any additional elements specified by the village board ol trustees in such local taw. Credit for land or cash In approved subdivision plat Procedures; notice and hearing; decision (b) When an authorization to approve site plans Is granted by the vilage board ol trustees pursuant to this section, the terms thereof may condition the issuance of a building permit upon such approval 3 Application lor area variance Nolwithatanolng any provisions ol law lo the contrary, where a proposed site plan contains one or more features which do not comply with the zoning regulations, applications may be made lo the zoning board of appeals for an area variance pursuant to section 7-712-b of this article, without the necessity ol a decision or determination of an administrative official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations 4 Conditions attached lo the approval of site plans The authorized board shal have the authority to impose such reasonable conditions and restrictions as are directly related to and incidental lo a proposed site plan. Upon Its approval ol said site plan, any such conditions must be met in connection with the issuance of permits by applicable enforcement agents or officers of the vMage 5 Waiver of conditions. The village board ol trustees may lurther empower the authorized board to. when reasonable, waive any requirements for the approval, ap- 6. Reservation of parkland on site plana containing residential units. Parkland or cash In leu for residential site plans deferral under General Municipal Law. section 239m Complance with Stale Environmental Quetty Review Act (c) In the event the authorized board makes a finolng pursuant to paragraph (b) ol this subdivision that the proposed site plan presents a proper case lor requiring a park or parks suitably located lor playgrounds or other recreational purposes, but that a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the requirements cannot be property located on such site ptan, the authorized board may require a sum of money In leu thereof to be established by the vilage board of trustees. In making such determination of suilabaty, the board shal assess the size and suitaoSry of lands shown on the site ptan which could be possible locations lor park or recreational facaWes. as wel as practical factors inducing whether there is a need for additional fadaHe* In the Immediate neighborhood. Any monies required by the authorized board In leu of land for park, playground or other recreational purposes, pursuant to the provisions of this section, shal be deposited Into a trust fund lo be used by the vilage exclusively for park, playground or other recreational purposes, Inducing the acquisition ol property (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this subdivision, if the land Included in a site plan under review is a portion of a subdrvision plat which has been reviewed and approved, the authorized board shal credit the appScant for any land set aside or money donated in leu thereof under such subdrvision ptat approval. In the event ol resubdnrision ol such ptal, nothing shal preclude the additional reservation ol parkland or money donated in leu thereof. 7. Public hearing and decision on site plans. In the event a public hearing Is required by local taw adopted by the vilage board of trustees, the authorized board shal conduct a pubic hearing within sixty-two days from the day an apptcation is received on any mailer referred lo M under this section. The authorized board shal mal notice of said hearing to the applicant at least ten days before such hearing, and shal give pubac notice ol said hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the vttage at least five days prior to the dale thereof and shal make a decision on the apptcation within sixty-two days after such hearing, or after the day the apptcation is received if no hearing has been held. The time within which the authorized board must render its decision may be extended by mutual consent of the apptcanl and such board. The decision of the authorized board shal immedtalery be fled In the office of the vatage clerk and a copy thereof mailed to the apptcanl Nothing herein shal preclude the holding ol a pubac hearing on any matter on which a pubic hearing is not so required. 8 Notice lo metropolitan, regional or county planning agency. At least tan days before such hearing, the authorized board shal mal notices thereof lo the county, metropolitan or regional planning agency, as required by section two hundred thirtyrune m ol the general municipal taw. which notice shal be accompanied by a lul statement of the matter under consideration, as defined in subdrvision one of section two hundred thirty nine-m of the general municipal taw In the event a pubac hearing is not required, the matter shal be referred to the metropoMan. county, or regional planning agency before final action Is taken thereon, il required by section two hundred thirty nine-m of the general municipal taw. 9. Complance with stale environmental qualty review act. The authorized board shal comply with the provisions of the state environmental qualty review act under article eight of the environmental conservation law and its implementing regulations as codHled m 0 NYCRR 6 1 7 . 121 �\ A P P E N D I X . V I L L A G E LAW I E I T E C T I V E JULY 1. I99J) APPENP>X= VRiAQE LAW (EfFECT-VE m v a final plat shall expire wilhln one hundred eighty days after Ihe dale of Ihe resolution granting conditional approval unless such requirements have been certified as completed 8 Extension ol time Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions ol this section, the planning board may extend the time In which a conditionally approved plat in final form must be submitted for signature If. In Its opinion, such extension is warranted by Ihe particular circumstances thereof, which time shall not exceed two additional periods of ninety days each Approval In sections fererraY pursuit Miction 239-n to General Municipal Law, 9 Approval of plat In sections. In granting conditional or final approval of a plat In final form, the planning board may permit the plat to be subdivided and developed in two or more sections and may in Its resolution granting conditional or final approval state that such requirements as It deems necessary to Insure the orderly development of the plat be completed before said sections may be signed by the duly authorized officer ol the planning board. Conditional or final approval ol Ihe sections of a final plat may be granted concurrently with conditional or final approval ol Ihe entire plat, subject to any requirements Imposed by the planning board. 10 Notice to county planning agency. When a county planning agency has been authorized to review subdivision plals pursuant to section two hundred thirty-nine-n ol the general municipal law, Ihe clerk ol the planning board shall refer a l applicable preliminary and final plats to such county planning agency as provided in that section. 11 Expiration ol approval. The signature of the duty authorized officer of the planning board constituting final approval by the planning board of a plat as herein provided, or the approval by such board of Ihe development of a plat or plats already filed In the office ol Ihe county dark or register of the county In which such plat or plats are located If such plals are entirety or partialy undeveloped; or Ihe certificate ol the vMage clerk as to the date ol Ihe submission ol the final plat and the failure of the planning board to take action within Ihe time herein provided, shall expire within sixty-two days from the date ol such approval, or from the dale such certificate la issued, unless within such sixty-two day period such plat or a section thereof shaft have been duly filed or recorded by Ihe owner in the office of the county clerk or register In the event Ihe owner shall file only a section ol such approved plat in Ihe office of the county dark or register, the entire approved plat shall be filed within thirty days of the Rang of such section with the vMage clerk in each visage In which any portion ol the land described in the plat Is situated. Such section shall encompass at least ten percent of the total number of tola contained in the approved plat, and the approval ol the remaining sections of the approved plat Shad expire unless said sections are fled before the expiration of the exemption period to which such plat la entitled under the provisions of section 7-708 ol this article. (b) suitable monuments be placed al block corners and other necessary points as may be required by the board and the location thereof is shown on Ihe map of such pial. Required Improvements y Reservation ofparkJand or cash In leu thereof Required findings Cash In leu of parkland 'So *t original—probably should read "auttabWy" ll (a) the streets and highways be of sufficient width and suitable grade and thai ba suitably located to accommodate the prospective traffic, to afford adequate Rght and air. to lacaHale Are protection, and to provide access ol nrefightJng equipment to buildings If there be an official map. vMage comprehensive plan or functional/master plans, such streets and highways shad ba coorrjnated so as to compose a convenient 126 3 Compliance with zoning regulations. Where a zoning ordinance or local law has been adopted by the vHage. the lots shown on said plat shal al least comply with the requirements thereof subject, however, to the provisions of section 7-738 of this article. 4. Reservation of parkland on subdivision plats containing residential units. (a) Before Ihe planning board may approve a subdivision plat containing residential units, such subdrvision pial shal also show, when required by such board, a park or parks suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes. (b) Land lor park, playground or other recreational purposes may not be required until the planning board has made a finding thai a proper case exists lor requiring thai a park or parks ba suitably located for playgrounds or other recreational purposes within the vttage. Such findings aha* Include an evaluation of the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational fadttea In the vMage based on projected t'jputatton growth to which Ihe particular subdivision plat wM contribute. (c) In the event the planning board makes a Nrwang pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivision thai the proposed subdrvision plat presents a proper case for requiring a park or parka suitably located for playgrounds or other recreational purposes, but that a suitable park or parks of adequate aha to meet the requirement cannot ba property located on such aubdMslon plat, the planning board may require a sum of money in leu thereof. In an amount to be estabtahed by the vOege board of trustees. In making such determination of auHablMy. the board shal assess the size and suitably* of land shown on the subdMalon plat which could ba possfct* locations lor park or recreaUonai tecMlM. as w a l as practical factor* fnckjdkig whether there I* a need for additional facxWes in Ihe kwnedtete neighborhood. Any moneys required by the planning board In l e u of land for park, playground or other recreational purposes, pursuant to the provisions of (his (action, shal ba deposited into a trust fund to ba used by the vHage exclusively lor park, playground or other recreational purpose*. IncfcjrJng the acquisition of properly. S. Character of the development, in making such determination regarding streets, highways, parks and required Improvements, the planning board t h a i take Into consideration the prospective character of the development, whether dense residence, open residence, business or Industrial. Area variances 1. Purpose. Before the approval by the planning board of a plat showing lots, blocks or sites, with or without streets or highways, or the approval ol a plat already fled In the office of the clerk ol the county wherein such plat la situated II the plat Is entirely or partialy undeveloped, the planning board t h a i require that the land shown on the plat be ol such character that it can be used safety for bu»c*ng purposes without danger to hearth or perl from fire, flood, drainage or other menace to neighboring properties or the puofic health, safety and welfare. 2. Additional requirements The planning board shall also require that: (c) all streets or other pubHc places shown on such plats be suitably graded and paved: street signs, sidewalks, street lighting standards, curbs, gutters, street trees, water mains, fire alarm signal devices (Including necessary ducts and cables or other connecting facilities), sanitary sewers and storm drains be Installed a l in accordance with standards, specifications and procedures acceptable to the appropriate vttage departments except as hereinafter provided, or alternatively that a performance bond or other security be furnished to the vWage. as hereinafter provided. Compliance with zoning 13 Compliance with state environmental quaWy review act. The planning board shal comply with the provisions ol the stale environmental qualty review act under article eight ol the environmental conservation law and Its Implementing regulation" as codified In 6 NYCRR 6 1 7 . | 7-730. Subdivision review; approval of plals; additional requisites General reoutremerHs \m} system conforming to the official map and properly related to the proposals shown in the comprehensive plan of the village: 12. Subdrvision abandonment. The owner of an approved subdivision may abandon such subdivision pursuant to the provisions ol section five hundred sixty of the real property tax law. Comptmnca with State Environment* Quality Review Act -, Waivers 6 Applcatton for area variance. Notwithstanding any provision o' law to the contrary, where a pial contains one or mora lota which do not comply with the zoning local law regulations, appacatlon may ba mad* to the zoning board of appeal* for an area variance pursuant to section 7-712-b of thia article, without the necessity of a decision or determination of an adrnW*lr*tiv* official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations. In reviewing such appkcafJon the zoning board of appeal* shal request the planning board to provide • written recorrvnendetton cortcerrtng the proposed variance. 7 Waiver of requirementa. The planning board may waive, when reasonable, any requirement* or Improvements lor the approval, approval with modWcaaon* or Disapproval of subdrvision* submitted for K* approval. Any such waiver, which shal ba subject to appropriate conoloon*. may ba *x*rcfsad In th* event any such requirements or Improvements are found not to be requisite In t h * inter**! of t h * pubic health, safety, and general welfare or ln*ppropn*l* because of inadequacy or lack of connecting (acmes adjacent or in proximity to the subdrvision. 127 �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 70. Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown Planning Board DATE: 10/31/94 Sean Treacy, Mayor PROJECT: 520.037/Hogan S u b d i v i s i o n Linda E. David, Village Administrator FAX NO.: J a n e t A.-Gandolfo, E s q . , James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, V i l l a g e Engineer WE TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 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 Comnlent THE FOLLOWING: Description Date No. of Copies 1 10/20/94 Nee a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n 1 10/31/94 Draft Resolut i o n REMARKS: 0 n October 2 8 , 1994, County Planning Department. I spoke with Ed Hoffmeister a t t h e Westchester He said the County Planning Board d i d not have any comments on t h i s subd i v i s i o n . cc: James F. Hogan 192 Webber Avenue North Tarrytown, NY 10591 Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 gy Susan J . Portman, AICP Associate /jfiannmg FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance K ' Project Number Date October 20. 1994 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: Hogan Two-Lot Subdivision Type I Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: Two-lot subdivision of a property 0.4 acres in size. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 19 Maple Street, Village of North Tarrvtown, Westchester County. Tax Map Sheet 17, Block 9, Lot 2-A. �6EQR Negative Declaration Page 2 ^measons 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. For Further Information: Contact Person: Linda E. David, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Telephone Number: (914) 631-1440 �D R A F T RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 20, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER: ESTATE OF VICTORIA M. HOGAN APPLICANT: JAMES F. HOGAN LOCATION: 19 MAPLE STREET TAX DESIGNATION: SHEET 17, BLOCK 9, LOT 2-A ZONING: R-4 RESIDENTIAL �RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 20, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER: ESTATE OF VICTORIA M. HOGAN APPLICANT: JAMES F. HOGAN LOCATION: 19 MAPLE STREET TAX DESIGNATION: SHEET 17, BLOCK 9, LOT 2-A ZONING: R-4 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for subdivision approval (the application) 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 property located on the northern side of Maple Street at 19 Maple Street into two (2) lots for residential development; and WHEREAS, Lot A would be 5,625 square feet in size and Lot B would be 11,250 square feet in size and would contain the existing three-family dwelling and detached garage, as shown on the drawing prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, and further identified as follows: "Subdivision Map Prepared for the Estate of Victoria M. Hogan, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale 1" = 2 0 ' , dated August 7, 1994 and most recently revised September 28, 1994; and WHEREAS, all references to the "Applicant" shall include the Applicant's successor and assigns; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals previously granted a use variance for the existing threefamily dwelling on Lot B; and WHEREAS, in the original application, the Applicant proposed a three-lot subdivision and the Applicant subsequently revised the application to propose a two-lot subdivision; 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 subdivision; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 1994, the Westchester County Planning Board informed the Village's Planning Consultant that they had no comments to offer on this application; and �WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on October 20, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered this a minor subdivision and treated the preliminary and final as a single approval; and WHEREAS, in the course of this 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 $580; 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding areas; 3. Referred the application to the Westchester County Planning Board pursuant to Sections 239-1, m and n of the General Municipal Law because the subject property is within 500 feet of the Old Croton Railway State Park; 4. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant and the Building Inspector; 5. Requested, received and reviewed a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 6. After review of said field conditions, recommendations and EAF, as well as other materials and matters noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action and made a Negative Declaration on October 20, 1994, and noted on the EAF its determination of nonsignificance of environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for subdivision approval for a two (2) lot subdivision, as shown on the drawing entitled "Subdivision Map Prepared for the Estate of Victoria M. Hogan, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale 1" = 2 0', dated August 7, 1994 and most recently revised September 28, 1994, prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, be and is hereby granted 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 of this subdivision resolution and upon 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 2 �Department of Health on the final mylar subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Westchester County clerk, provided, however, that this subdivision approval shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this resolution if the following conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 1. The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown the reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-3OF of the Village Zoning Code. 2. Revision of the above noted plat to demonstrate the following: 2.1 The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivision Plat;" 2.2 The final plat shall comply with the requirements of Section 11 of the Village of North Tarrytown Subdivision Regulations; 2.3 The signature block for the endorsement of the Planning Board Chairman shall be revised to comply with Section ll.A(l)(c)(14c); 2.4 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: Date: George F. Hritz, Chairman Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board 500\not4-006.sjp:ev 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Pcrtman. AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman. AICP Plahning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Metier, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye. New York 1058C "(914)967-05-^ JO: Jim Donovan. RLA.ASLA Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board D^jg. 10/21/94 Sean Treacy, Linda David, James Margotta, Janet Gandolfo, Mark DiGennaro, PR0JECT: 520.040/Levy E s t ; , FAX NO.: Albert Peck WE TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) As requested As per conversation Per request of ( ) ( ) ( ) First Class Mai .Express Delivery Telefax-# of Pages (including cover sheet) Our Messenger Your Messenger Hand Delivery FOR YOUR: ( ) ( ) ( ) Approval Review Distribution ( ) W ( ) ( ) ( ) File Information Use Comment THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies 1 Description Date 10/21/94 Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency, Circii l a t i o n L i s t and EAF REMARKS: ;-" ... - ' cc: Involved and Interested^"Agencies Connecticut -(203)255-3100 By_Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island • (516) 3.64-4§44l Ir �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM Project Name or Description Levy Estate Subdivision, Irving Place The s i t e p r e s e n t l y contains two single-family dwellings. A two-lot subdivision i s proposed ( i n order t o provide one building per l o t ) . Project Location 21 and 23 Irving Place, North Tarrytown, NY 10591 Name of Applicant Albert Peck for the Levy Estate Village Agency Intending to Act as Lead Agency Planning Board Address Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY 10591 Contact Person Linda David, Village Administrator Date Mailed 10/21/94 Telephone Number (914) 631-1440 Type off Action (Check A or B) H A. TYPE I • UNLISTED B. Lead agency must be chosen within 30 days of above date. Deadline Reply Date November 21, 1994 (preferably by Planning Board meeting 11/17/94) II. Required Approvals and Reviews (Check all permits, waivers, or other actions which may be required) D Rezoning $ . Subdivision Approval • - • , - Site Development Plan Approval Special Permit Eel . - Variance • Wetlands Permit D Stream Discharge Permit - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation • Sewage Disposal/Water Supply Approval - Westchester County Health Department D Review by Westchester County Department of Planning • •, r - •-•- 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 Hi. 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. Q B. The proposed action appears not likely to have a significant effect on the environment; a negative declaration is likely. • No opinion has been made yet as to whether a positive or negative declaration is likely for this action. C. 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 FiHed Out by Involved Agencies The O'st agency) has examined this form and accompanying documentation for the application known as Levy Estate Subdivision, Irving Place • and: (Check A or B) A. Does not want to be Lead Agency. D 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/nol3-030.jd �LIST OF INVOLVED OR INTERESTED AGENCIES (only those marked with an "X") • 0 Planning Board Village elf North Tarrytown 28 Beekman-Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 D Westchester 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 EI Westchester County Department of Health 112 East Post Road White Plains, New York 10601 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners 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 Mil River Road Valhalla, New York 10595 (Other Agencies) 500\not3-O30.jd �14/16-2 (2/87)-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 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 S I G N I F I C A N C E - T y p e 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: £D Part 1 J3 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 impactfs) 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 LeV^ BifK-H. JvJedi^Ji'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 jre of Preparer (If different from responsible off leer) Date 1 �r/.:.i - i - i r . o j t c i INF OI.I/.ATION ,! '-.01iC£ ~it»- • - ' X ^ " . i . : . • . « . . . - . ; . • : . - • ' . ' pre ; C M C r ;•> f.e>- <-i,- :"\ :•-.: c f{ t c •. on the envijor ••.<r-r>t PJc-JU-f-" c c ; • : • ( • • • . . '. •: ,'• ; '..••••:•: to ) ( , ( « qui >:;cr.<. * . ' , :c cor.nr.a .. e s p a r t o ' the ripplicetiori for app.'o-.fii «»:£ rue'. U ^ L ' ; i c t to further verii<cat. on and public review Pio\ic"t an> a d d i t i o n ^ information you b c i i t \ c will be ncccitc' to'corr.p!itc Pens 2 and 3 It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve r c iv !•'.-»*'.c>. it : c.":: t*. C" :r \ i >: t . . ; • . ii i'i : t ' • ' . . -.'<_. >. • • : . . . . ' < • 1 <. '. • " . • • . • a : 1 r.:-.- • K* *.•! C'-"*- /V." ' ... ^ u e - o i v ( s ) W - le^j £***& LOCATION OF ACTION (include St;«l AdCess. Municipality trxJ County) BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF APPLICANTVSPONSOr? ADDRESS ft PnO€* £T> CITY/PO M. TXigJg-VTSWM NAME OF OWNER (II different) ZIP CODE K/,V. Ito^ i BUSINESS TELEPHONE eg. f| Ug.\/f T ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE 2\& . krsrkiAo^T - 621-"Wil STATE Z:F CODE LA/J^J « £ 9 / IA£>^K>WN>,... j / , Yl DESCRIPTION C? ACTIOS ) ' /£ 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 DCommercial Efoesidential (suburban) CForest ^Agriculture 2. Totaf acreage of project area: . * J^ APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 7 COther acres. Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECU Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) '. 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. boil drainage; ^ W e l l drained \ O Q % of site OPoorly drained DRural (non-farm) PRESENTLY acres acres acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres : acres ^acres acres acres acres s/S? acres '. DModerately well drained acres L <l** acres 1 acres acres [acres % 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 NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? DYes JsSfNo (in feet) % » • �( •« . nfr::'i-: » • * - . • •• r • •••••• . r." :c •: c " - . . ! '.. 1 -- •• *.:• <• c . ' ' ••• :•' '. '.'• f-: '•• c ',! • S . ;. Is project sut i;cr.'.::-:., tosi;-^--: - : \i- c SJU . i : ; c : o:. i.\«. i . i r .:«.: ;:'»»'».; :.r.;.' '*;•...•. ' 1 tr:'.6. What is the depth o? the *a:er tar't. : 9 !• «.:'.r fo'r.'.'d o"v. ••' "• - " . v *•; '.•;• hu-v. rg f i«. .. • „ c : i},i"- "i ; L<t>. . J.' . . • • - . ^.".t *L= (in feci) :*"'• " ' r r <r'< ! ' i " ; f r r v : ' -• •. . : : -: " . v " : " • : ••• •"'.'•) u- •'*>•' f*Vr« 2*>*Co **:«•• \r, :'r- <•.•••(.;'. a r c j " Z '*o; L^isLo , DYes Zfco According to Identify each species '.—1 '—1 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) CYes O&to Describe . 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes E$No If yes, explain .. , _ _ 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes @K'o #A 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary lb L?.'f.c-f, pcr.df, v. f.i?.r-d are2S v.;'.* .*. o: CO.v..gjc.-,_> to p:c-;CC. a:vi b. Si2e (In acres) a. Name 17, Is the site served by existing public utilities? £?¥es GNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist t o allow connection? JSS'es b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? DYes DNo DNo IS. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant t o Agriculture and Markets Lav., Arf.de 2S;AA Section 303 and 304? DYes CJNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 617? ElVes DNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes E2Ko 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 t o be developed: 'J**? acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped d., Length of project, in miles: ' * ' ^ -acres. ' t<5~ (»f appropriate) e . l f the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ' g..Maximum vehicular trips generated per Knur ; proposed K//A h. if residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially _2 acres ultimately. acres. %; ~~Z~~ (upon completion of project)? M u l t i p l e Family Condominium - Ultimately &. i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? * ^ ^ - •-- 3. 1 ft. 7 length �2 Ho* much natu'al material (i e 'cc^. earth, etc ) * i l l be r c m o u d from the s:ie' 3. Will d'sturbed areas be recla<med> DYes i$No ^-(0 tons.'cuttc >2rds DN.'A a. If yes. for what i n t e n d . , purpose is the site being reclaimed' b. Will topsotl be stockpiled for reclamation? GYes . l£No c. W i l l upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes £QNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres 5. Will any mature forest (over TOO years old) or other locally-important vegetation be- removed by this project? DYes [?No j 6/---Jf single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. if multi-phased: i/ a. Total number of phases anticipated N/rT __ ''\ (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month c. Approximate completion date of final phase DYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project year, (including demolition) month a d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? months, (including demolition) year. DYes DNo l^lo r\//f ; after project is complete * 1 1 . Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes DYes G3^jo If yes. explain G^No 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 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 JQNO _5No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, w i l l an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes c. If yes. give name DNo ; location d. W i l l 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 LBNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 1 8 . Will project use herbicides or pesticides? years. DYes ENo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes DNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 23.-Will project result in an increase in energy use? DYes DYes ESNo If yes , indicate type(sj '_ 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity £: 23. Total anticipated water usage per day - : gallons/minute. gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes. explain _JNo DYes 4 J!_No • ---. �25. Approvals Requited: Submittal T>pe City. Town. Village Board CYes CNo Qiiy Town, Village Planning Board EYes EJYes DNo D NO City, Toww Zoning Board _<Yes _5Yes DNo DNO €-tty. County Health Department EYes CN'o CN'O Other Local Agencies DYes • No Oiher Regional Agencies GYes CNO State Agencies DYes DN'o Federal Agencies CYes • No Date 5«-^*^ > ^ ^ n ____, C •Q/i/l.UCEcJ Vz/MiiS ISCPI- f/<IG l&j- \\M***'W\ C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? _7¥es DNo If Yes. indicate decision required: • zoning amendment t^zoning variance Especial use permit ^subdivision • new/revision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother 2. What is the zoning c!assification(s}of the site? Dsite plan . jL""^ 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Q\nt -'A-fav*\>'»iD"g!l>rM <_—-—-^e'C r ~~ C*o<3- cr>ltM£l-eh-W 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? K & $ lfl<£ U T U U - (**& C ^ ^ 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? >E$Yes DNo 7. 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? Q-. 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? _ __3Yes DNo CYes _5NO a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? _ 10. Will proposed action require any authorizations) 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 EZfNo 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 DYes ©No 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. Applicant/Sponsor Name . % Signature XZ\\ J&-fcifa(&Cr~ T'itlp A&Ct{\Xl*<ir If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessrvjnt Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 �p s r i 2—PROJECT IMPACTS A N D 1 H L i R N'.AGNuUDL Responsibility of Lead Agency C e n t r a l I n f o r m a t i o n (Read Carefully) • In c o m p l e t i n g the f o r m the reviewer should be guided by the question Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected t o be an expert e n v i r o n m e n t a l analyst • • I d e n t i f y i n g t h a t an i m p a c t w i l l be potentially large (column 2) does not mean th2t it is also necessarily significant. A n y - l a r g e i m p a c t m u s t be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance I d e n t i f y i n g an impact in c o l u m n 2 s i m p l y asks t h a t it be l o o k e d at further. • The Examples p r o v i d e d are t o assist the reviewer by showing types of i m p a c t s and wherever possible the threshold of m a g n i t u d e that w o u l d trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and f o r most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a Potential Large I m p a c t response, thus requiring e v a l u a t i o n in Part 3. • The impacts of e a c h project, on each site, in each locality, w i l l vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative a n d 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 t h e j m p o r t a n c e of each question • In i d e n t i f y i n g i m p a c t s , consider long term, short term and c u m l a t i v e effects. Instructions (Read c a r e f u l l y ) a. Answer each of t h e 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there w i l l be any i m p a c t . b. M a y b e answers s h o u l d be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes t o a question then check the appropriate box ( c o l u m n 1 or 2) t o indicate the p o t e n t i a l size of t h e i m p a c t . If i m p a c t t h r e s h o l d equals or exceeds any example p r o v i d e d , check c o l u m n 2. If i m p a c t w i l l occur but t h r e s h o l d Is lower t h a n e x a m p l e , check c o l u m n 1. d . If reviewer has d o u b t a b o u t size of the i m p a c t then consider t h e i m p a c t as p o t e n t i a l l y large and proceed t o PART 3. e. If a p o t e n t i a l l y large i m p a c t checked in c o l u m n 2 can be m i t i g a t e d by change(s) in the project to a small to m o d e r a t e i m p a c t , also c h e c k the Yes box in c o l u m n 3. A No response indicates t h a t such a reduction is n o t possible. This m u s t be e x p l a i n e d in Part 3. I M P A C T ON L A N D 1 . W i l l the proposed a c t i o n result in a physical change to the project site? 0NO DYES Examples t h a t w o u l d apply t o column 2 • A n y c o n s t r u c t i o n o n slopes of 1 5 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 f o o t of length), or w h e r e the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • C o n s t r u c t i o n o n l a n d where the depth to the water table is less than 3 iect 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D DYes D D DYes DN< n GYes DYes CNO Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DNo • C o n s t r u c t i o n o n l a n d where bedrock is exposed or generally w i t h i n 3 f e e t of existing g r o u n d surface. D G D • C o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t w i l l c o n t i n u e for more than 1 year or i n v o l v e more t h a n one phase or stage. D D DYes DNO • Excavation for m i n i n g purposes that w o u l d remove more t h a n 1,000 tons of n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l (i.e.. rock or soil) per year. D D DYes DNO • C o n s t r u c t i o n or expansion of a sanitary l a n d f i l l . D D D D D D DYes.. DYes DYes DNO DNO D D D Y es DN< • C o n s t r u c t i o n c i p a v e d parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. • C o n s t r u c t i o n in a d e s l g n a t e d f l o o d w a y . • Other impacts DNO DNO 2 . W i l l there be an e f f e c t t-' ...iy un.que or unusual land f o r m s f o u n d on t h e site? (i.e.. c l i f f s , dunes, geological formations, etc.)J3_J>'0 DYES • Specific --• i land forms: �1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potenlial Large Impact D D D D DYes DN'O 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 conveved off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will like'v ca .^ siltation or other discharge into an .existing body of water t o ti o ex;*-'*: that there will be an obvious visual .contrast to natural conditions. D D. _^es D.So • Proposed Action w i l l 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 tieatment and/or storage facilities. D D DYes DNo • Other D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected' (Under Articles 1 5, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. E t l ) <&NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. • Dredging more than TOO 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-protected existing or new body of water? ,0HO 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 l i t i g a t e d 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? E&s'O 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: 6 . W i l l proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? B&O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 V �Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D D D D D D D D • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. 1 Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYes DNO DYes DNo DYes CNo 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 DY es DNo • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • • D DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DY es # • 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? _&0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? _?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? >__SO " 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 ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? $NO DYES v 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 Ti~- DN< �• 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 Agncultutsl District, more than 2.5 acres o£''agncultural Und. 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 1 1 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ®NO 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 resuit 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 paleontologica) importance? 0NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to an\ 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 A N D RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apj?ly to column 2 ^$NQ DYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreationTTopponunrty.*" • A major reduction of an open space important to the community • Other impacts: . 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact. D D DYes DNo D D DYes CNO 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 Dsv» D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo. D D D ' D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo ' DNo Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change 13 �1 Small l o Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D D D D D DYes DN© DYes 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 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. D D DYes DN( • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). 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 D D EZlYes . ' D N o a. D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNO D DYes IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. W i l l there be an effect to existing transportation systems* Ek'O Example* that would apply to column 2 CY.ES • 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 DYes D N O IMPACT O N ENERGY 15. W i l l proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? 0NO 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 ODOR IMPACTS 16. W i l l there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ,0NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside o f structures. impacts: . DNo IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. W i l l Proposed Action affect public health and safety? jSbJO Examples that would apply to column 2 .DYES • Proposed Action may cause a risk o f explosion or release of hazardous subsfances (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 f o r m (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive; radioactive, irritating, infectious**etc.) """' .".""" .'"" '."' . . . " . * . • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance w i t h i n 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. " • Other impacts: ^ '. 10 DNo �IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing communis ? #*0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 1 2 3 Small to Moderate Impact 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%. • 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 project. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. • Other impacts: n L_> D DYes DNo G D GYes DNO D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D 19. Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? xSSiO DYES If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Prnceed 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 tor e2ch impact identified in Column 2 of Pan 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 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 �F R E D E R I C K 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: October 14, 1994 Subject: Bick Preliminary Subdivision Application As we have received a copy of the application for preliminary subdivision approval but have not received a plan, we do not have any substantial comments to offer at this time. If the plan is submitted in advance of the November meeting (a minimum of 10 days before the meeting is required in the Subdivision Regulations), we will review it for that meeting. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building inspector Mark DiGennaro, Village Engineer John Hughes, Esq. James and Martha Bick Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �/) Approved ^ith respect to substance and form: h Li./ Village /Attorney Approved by the/PTaVining Board Filed with Village Clerk Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: Oct. £d }\??y 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-1994 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_1994-11-17 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7ebbfb52bb0bedbaca7ff70def81e74c.pdf ff8edd92c42c73479b14006e673a4c33 PDF Text Text v. REGULAR NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORKMARCH 17th, 1994 MEETING A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on March 17th, 199A at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman A v e n u e , North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Steve Donald Roman Edward Hritz, Chairman Salman Caetano Windas McCarthy ABSENT: Ellen James Tsangaris Donovan ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Susan Portman, Clark Associates Joe Gulino, CAMCE James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Hritz called 1. the meeting to order at 8:00 John & Maureen Petry, Amos Street-Preliminary Sub-Division-One family residence. P.M Hearing- Mr. & M r s . Petry outlined the sub-division they were seeking in order to construct a one-family residence. M r s . Petry stated that the new residence would i";ui Anos Street and the present house would share a common driveway with the new house . Mr. Margotta stated there was sufficient separate driveway for the new residence. would land for a Chairman Hritz asked if there was anyone present like to address the Board on the matter. who M s . Portman submitted memo reviewing the sub-division with several comments regarding size of the lots, zoning requirements and environmental review. (Copy in official minutes ) . Joe Gulino, Engineer stated he does not foresee a problem but questioned the placement of dry wells on the property. Mr. Petry stated plans called water coming off the roof of proposed for a dry well to catch residence. �-2Arthur Brady, Attorney for the Estate of Anna DeCarlo stated he would be appearing before the Zoning Board for several variances that may be required for the present residence. He also stated that M r s . DeCarlo was Mr. Petry's grandmother. Discussion followed regarding proposed curb cuts the present residence when the garage is eliminated. for M s . Portman stated that the plans should show the location of parking for Lot I and indicate where parking will be for Lot I I , after sub-division is granted. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy Public Hearing be scheduled for the April meeting. that a Carried. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that the Planning Board be declared the Lead Agency for this action. Carried. After a discussion M r . Caetano moved, seconded by M r . McCarthy that this is an Unlisted Action and the Board herewith makes a negative declaration finding of non-significance of environmental impact. Carried. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that conditional approval be granted for the sub-division as requested. Carried. 2. Ge r aid Bregman , 185 V a 1 1 i ;•- Stft-i i-Continua tier . Mr. Hritz asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. Mr. Samares asked if the owners of 185 Valley Street have appeared before the Zoning Board and have Final Site Plans been approved by the Board. Mr. Margotta stated that Preliminary Site Plan is before the Board and the Resolution for Approval of Site Plan is before the Board for their consideration. Chairman Hritz read the Resolution for Site Approval and asked for comments of the Board. Discussion followed regarding Item 3 on Page inspection by a Structural Engineer. Plan 3 regarding Mr. Margotta stated that a Building Permit would not be issued until certified drawings were received signed by a Structural Engineer. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by M r . Caetano that the resolution granting Site Plan Approval for construction of mixed use building be approved as submitted. Carried. (Copy in official m i n u t e s ) . �-3Chairman Hritz read Resolution adopted at the October 21st, 1993 meeting of the Village of North Tarrytow wn Planning Board granting Site Plan approval and sub-division approval for 2-Lot sub-division and construction of threefamily residence in 2 1/2 story building at the northwest corner of Depeyster Street and Washington Street t submitted by Mr. Ruivo. Discussion followed regarding the meeting to be held in April. The tentative date was set for April 28th, 1994. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, —CJ~ Irene Amato Acting Clerk �10 February 1994 To: from: Planning Board James T. Margotta There will be no scheduled meeting of the Planning Board on February 17, 1994. 4 �Approved with respect to substance and form: Village Attorney Dated: the Planning Board hairmafi Filed with Village Clerk -Clerk—or Deputy Clerk Dated: pjfy J Date5 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-1994 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_1994-03-17 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/328f82da38226151975a0b7a16a62469.pdf 35136c0e8491630ac5723d72cb34455f PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK APRIL 28th, 1994 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on April 28th, 1994 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Ellen Tsangaris James Donovan David Perlmutter ABSENT: Steve Salman Edward McCarthy ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Barnes Margotta, Building Inspector Joe Gulino, CAMCE Tom Gissen, Clark Assoc. Mr. Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and thanked outgoing Board member, Ray Windas whose term has expired.and stated that he will be missed. He welcomed Mr. David Perlmutter, a resident of the Village for many years. 1. Rock of Salvation, Cortlandt Street-Continuation. Ron Turnquist, Architect for the Project addressed and the Board and presented drawings for the Board to review. Mr. Turnquist described the building as it now is and outlined the proposed projects. He stated the building would be completed in stages with the first stage to be the completion of a Sanctuary with a capacity of 300 people. He also stated that eventually meeting rooms, day care center and kitchen would be added. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the Union Hose Fire House, which is adjacent to the proposed project is concerned about the increased flow of traffic and would like to review the plans before the Public Hearing. After a discussion regarding the Day Care Center, Rev. San Diego stated that application will be made to the State and they will determine the number of children and the size of the center. Mr. Gissen stated that a Full Environmental Assessment Form will have to be submitted for their review. Mr. Gulino, Engineer for the Village stated he has reviewed the proposed site plan dated December 6th, 1993 and offerred several comments in a memo dated April 28th, 1994. (Copy in Official Minutes). �-2Mr. Hritz suggested that the Architect submit site plan to the Police and Fire Departments for their comments. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that a Public Hearing be set for the meeting to be held on May 19th, 1994. Carried. 2. Petry Subdivision, Amos Street-Two Lots. Mr. Hritz read the notice of Public Hearing for the application of John and Maureen Petry seeking a subdivision for a parcel of land located at 41 Amos Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y. The applicants are proposing to subdivide the property into two lots. Lot one would be 6,567.4 square feet in size and lot two would be 6,013.4 square feet in size. Mr. Hritz asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. Mrs. Petry stated she had submitted a revised plot plan to show present house, driveway and the garage that will be torn down. It is their intention to create another lot, and to erect a new house on the new lot. Glen Weeks, 174 Webber Avenue stated he would like to be able to review the Site Plan as submitted and asked several questions regarding drainage, asbestos on the old garage and the removal of same, erosion and stated he would like assurances from the owners and the village that his property would be protected during construction. Mr. Hritz stated that the Building Inspector would inspect and make sure that necessary precautions were taken to protect his property. Mr. Gulino stated he has reviewed the subdivision plan dated April 7, 1994 and offered several comments regarding drainage and water and sewer locations. (Copy in official minutes) Mr. Gissen stated he has reviewed the subdivision plans dated April 7th, 1994 and offered several comments regarding parking and curb cut on Webber Avenue. (Copy of memo in offical minutes) . Mr. Weeks asked for further information regarding the size of the proposed house and its location on the new lot. Mr. Hritz stated that the Zoning Board will be meeting on the matter at their May meeting and the couples should meet to discuss the matter before then. He stated the Planning Board would meeting after the Zoning Board meeting and would review the matter. Discussion followed regarding the retaining wall and the Building Inspector stated it was in poor condition and will have to be repaired or replaced. �After a discussion, Mr. Perlmutter moved, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris that the matter be adjourned to the May meeting. Carried. 3. Viscogliosi-176-178 North Washington Street.-Subdivision» Mr. John Hughes, Attorney stated that the property at 176 North Washington Street was a 4-family residence and , the 178 North Washington Street was a 1-family residence. He stated it was the intent of his client to sub-divide the property and sell one or both buildings. He stated the four family residence has been there many years and the one family residence was built in the 1950's. Mr. Hughes stated he would submit a survey and an EAF for the Board to review. Mr. Gissen stated they have reviewed the application and stated the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted the necessary variances and submitted a memo with their comments. (Memo in official minutes). CAMCE memo in official minutes. Ms. Tsangaris moved, seconded by Mr. Perlmutter to declare the Planning Board the Lead Agency. Carried. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Perlmutter that a Public Hearing be held at the May 19th meeting to discuss the matter. Carried. 4. Phelps Memorial Hospital Office Building Discussion. Mr. Gulino reported CAMCE had received a letter from Phelps Memorial Hospital stated they have negotiated the reduction of flow from the IBM forced main at their World Trade Center Pump Station. (Copy in official minutes). Discussion followed regarding the six foot fence to be installed. Mr. Hritz stated the hospital would like the fees waived and the matter was referred to the Village Board. Discussion followed regarding variances that would be needed to erect a six-foot fence. Also discussed was the significant number of fees that the Hospital has not paid. There being no further business to come before the meeting Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. ctfully submitted submitted ne Amato ing Clerk /j \ �s C H A R L E S A . M A N G A N A R O C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S MEMORANDUM TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Mr. Joseph A. Gulino, P.E. Project Engineer DATE: April 28, 1994 RE: DeCarip/PetQLSubdivision on Amos Street Village of North Tarrytown, New York CAMCE No. 800-22 As requested, we have reviewed the latest revised subdivision plan dated April 7, 1994 by John J. Muldoon, L.S. and offer the following comments or recommendations. Court Pla^a North. 25 Main Street A) A storm drainage design for the house and driveway should be submitted for review consisting of a dry well and piping. This will require a percolation test signed and sealed by a New York State licensed engineer. B) The house connections sizes for water and sewer and location should be shown on the drawing. The 4-inch water line should be replaced with a minimum of 6-inch pipeline, preferably an 8-inch pipeline as per the "Ten States Standards" for water supply. C) A fire flow test should be performed to ascertain fire flow capacities for this area. Once the above information is submitted, final recommendations will be made to the Board. If you should have any questions, please let us know. Hackensack, NJ 07601-7032 201 342 4200 lax 201 342.0790 JAG/jr 120E 75thSI.Suite8C New York. NY10O21 212 683 7712 PO Box io07 East Stroudsburg. PA 18301 717 421 1499 cc: Ms. Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Ms. Susan J. Portman, Associate, Frederick P. Clark Associates Mr. and Mrs. John Petry, Owner VNT\800-22\JG042H4M.JR I �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: April 22, 1994 Subject: Review of Petrv/DeCarlo Subdivision As requested, we have reviewed the subdivision application submitted by John and Maureen Petry, as contract vendee, for a property which is approximately 0.29 acres in size, located at 41 Amos Street on the western side of Amos Street and the eastern side of Webber Avenue in the R-3 Residence District. The site (a "through lot") presently contains a two-story dwelling and a detached garage with a short macadam driveway off of Amos Street. The Applicants are proposing to subdivide the property into two lots. Lot 1 would be 6,554.4 square feet in size and would contain the existing dwelling. Lot 2 would be 5,999.7 square feet and would contain the existing garage. The Plan shows that the garage would be removed from Lot 2 and a new macadam driveway is proposed to be constructed off of Webber Avenue to serve Lot 1. The Applicants have submitted the following plan: "Subdivision of Lands of the Estate of Anna DeCarlo Situate at North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, N.Y.," scale 1" = 2 0 ' , dated April 7, 1994, prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Application Status: The Planning Board made a negative declaration regarding the potential environmental impacts of this subdivision and approved the preliminary subdivision at the meeting in March. We distributed the draft resolution of preliminary subdivision approval by mail on April 1, 1994. 2. Subdivision Regulation Compliance: The recent submission generally complies with the requirements of information to be supplied for a final subdivision plan. 3 Parking: The issue of the provision of parking for Lot 1 has been resolved with the location of a proposed 12 ' wide macadam driveway off of Webber Avenue. Since Webber Avenue is a - Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation County road, approval of a curb-cut along Webber Avenue will be subject to the Westchester County Department of Public Works. Additional comments were provided by the Department of Public Works in the March 30, 1994 letter from the Westchester County Planning Board to James T. Margotta. 4. Dedication: The Applicants' plan indicates that Webber Avenue is 49.5 feet in width. In compliance with Section 12B(2)(b) of the Village Subdivision Regulations, a strip of land 0.25 feet in width has been shown on the plan for dedication along Webber Avenue on both lots. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, PE, Village Engineer John and Maureen Petry John J. Muldoon 500\notA-005.sjp 2 �V x 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR t : The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project n may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequenti are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine inificance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental aalysis In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting * question of significance The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination •ocess has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. «fl 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: IS Part 1 B Part 2 QPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting nation, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the agency that: • "B 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.* 0 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 M a t t e r of V l s c o g l i o s l ~T\MQ LOt Name of Action J*ubd«^»^ioA P l a n n i n g Board - V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown Name oi Lead Agency . f ResponsibleOfficuJriUaidAgency tfeof ' Title of Responsible Officer iature of Responsible Officer in LeadXgepcy Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) ' JOHN J. HUGHES, JR. May 16, 1994 Date �i Ap PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor fc NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significantd RRe ( o n the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be conui ^as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addrtf Is Information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 i Wl It is expected that completion of the full EAF w i l l be dependent on information currently available and will notiml new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate andsp ' ' $ each instance. IQ Q 11 D NAME OF ACTION Matter of V l s c o g l i o s i Tuud lo-f- i u b c W t ^ C M LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Strefll Address, Municipality and County) 1 7 6 - 1 7 8 North Washington S t r e e t , North Tarrytown, W e s t c h e s t e r County NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Marcello Visjpogliosi 12 Ai BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( 9 1 4 ) 631-8855 AOORESS c / o J . Hughes, J r . , Esq. 49 Beekman Avenue CTTY/FO STATE North Tarrytown, NY ZIP CODE 10591 NY NAME OF OWNER (If different) 14 BUSINESS TELEPHONE same as owner ( •) :„„ C N/A AOORESS 15 St: N/A crrv/po N/A STATE ZIP CO0E N/A N/A 16 La DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Subdivision - 2 lots 17 Is a) b) 18 Is Se 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: OUrban DIndustrial •Commercial CSResidential (suburban) DForest OAgriculture 2. T o t a l acreage of project area: \ ^ 0>\5 19 Is of • R u r a l (non-ft 20 Ha -DOther acres. PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION arres arm Forested acres arm Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc acre* arm W e t l a n d (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL)) acres arm W a t e r Surface Area acres acre? Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres APPROXIMATE ACREAGE M e a d o w or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces\A\nAS£apiA<i(A.C)2.J J Other (Indicate type! R e s i d e n t i a l 3. W h a t is predominant soil type(s) on project site? 0« l i s -J** U rlo&n IflrtrJ - f" htor\-ton • • B. Pr Phys a. b c. d *cr«* acres acres ; & acre (bw\(ikA a. Soil drainage: B W e l l drained 100 % of site DModerately well drained % of site • Poorly drained % of site If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of theN Land Classification System' acres (See 1 NYCRR 370) N/A 4. A r c there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. W h a t is depth to bedrock' A p p r o x . 1 0 - 1 5 r *r DYes (in (£;No feet) In V i. 1 I I �slopes. #0-16% D15% /oft or greater _ % !s project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National icant effec Registers of Historic Places? DYes 2lNo consider DYes IS No addition Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? What is the depth of the water tahlp?APP.10- {in feet) otHBfoto DYes QNo a n d specif Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? i Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes CSNo Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes BNo According to Identify each species Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) DYes ®No Describe : 20DE ) Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes ©No If yes, explain _ ^ _ > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ » _ _ _ _ 4 Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes ®No :OOE 5 Streams within o r contiguous t o project area: None a. N a m e o f Stream a n d name of River to which it is tributary I Lakes, ponds, w e t l a n d areas within or contiguous t o project area: a. N a m e None N/A b. Size (In acres) N/A 7 Is the site served by existing public utilities? OYes DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? DYes DNo b) If Yes, w i l l improvements be necessary to allow connection? S9Yes DNo I Is the site located in a n agricultural district certified pursuant t o Agriculture a n d M a r k e t s Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes K)No ' Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? @Yes DNo ( n o n - f a n * Has the site ever been used for the disposal o f solid or hazardous wastes? LETION DYes CSNo (J, Project Description Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled b y project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: ']^ 0*\* acres initially; y ^ O ' * ^ u c.'-Project acreage to remain undeveloped acres. acres ultimately. acn d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent o f expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing -frMaxmium-wmetHai^rips^enerated -per hopr — 6 N ," ^ h. If residential: Number and tyt&of housing; units;) *&. One Family '*• Two Family oftl Initially * Ultimately 1 ... %v 6 -fQfo.1 ; proposed (upon completion of 'project)? N^" CM&totf& Multiple Family 1 Condominium _ J. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 35 height; 20* j Jffi lehgth. width j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy u?APP iwfabit 3 �2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? DYes DNo N/A tons/cub 0N/A a. If yes. for what intend., purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes • ©No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes ENo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None ac 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this pre DYes 0No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated N ^A (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 N /A month N c. Approximate completion date of final phase N A month N/A / d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 0. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction .10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project /A DYes yssr, (including derr y^. QNo EJNo N/A ; after project is complete . N/A N/A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes DYes 0No (SNo 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? I yes, explain DYes N/A , N/A QNo 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 a. If yes, what is the amount per month DYes (SNo C&Nc 03No N/A tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? c. If yes, give name OYss No a d d i t i o n a l waste GO Yes N/A DNo ; location N /A d. Will any wastes not go into a sewa'ge disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? LYes ©No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? K)No No a d d i t i o n a l N/A N/A tons/month years. DYes QSNo 1g, Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes KJNo 20. W i l l project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 2 1 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? If yes , indicate type(s) DYes Total anticipated water usage per day N/A N/A gallons/minute gallons/day 2 4 Does project involve Local. State or Federal funding? If Yes. explain E3No N/A 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23 DYes DYes N/A 09No . 4 ENo �DYes ED No City. Town. Village Planning Board 3Yes 3 Yes DNo City. Town Zoning Board 0Yes DNo City, County Health Department DYes K)No DYes EJNo Other Regional Agencies DYes 09 No State Agencies DYes ©No federal Agencies DYes CSNo ^ City, ^own.. Village Board her Local Agencies Subdivision Variances - already granted 4794_ ion) c. Zoning and Planning Information I Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ©Yes DNo If Yes. indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Qflzoning variance Dspecial use permit Bsubdivision Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother R I What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? "5 Dsite plan ^ ) What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Five (5) r e s i d e n t i a l units fecijfi'yi«t l^/f^YtfOlflHCeTy? TIAJO hor2-FfLwiitu JfrtffliVgS CClie i What is the proposed zoning of the site? R-5 MO Clyanjg, ; pe.<r , / o 4 Q 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 5—s«cidantial units. /si A 6 Is the proposed action consistenfwith the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ED Yes DNo ^ What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? Residential - multi-family. Cinq/p-flwihlf CCMMencid | Cfrrfc., 'ft^fK-Hdyttl, (hAlt>licl$M'P*WC R . - J , p - t y g - ^ i Prbi C-ht-Z <-> r^ ' ' ** ' I Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? EDYes DNo 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 2 a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? ^lcnac ace attached-stag. AffftiX'Z-rfOO 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? S^-ft DYes BNo 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes QNo HA< a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? GBYes DNo 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? A/A DYes a. If yes. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? EYes GSNo 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. j certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my k n ^ ) e c f | e / ^ Applicant/Sponsor Name Cant/bponSOr Name ture ^j/U , Marcello n a r c e x x o Viecogliosi VXBCUKXXOSX i&td&1<vfk , k fak**j fc H^i '"-' l h t Title . flats ; V / ^ v '''•'-'• 5/16/94 9BSJL action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding this assessment. 5 �I c-ii ^ - P R O J E C T I M P A C ' I S A N D I H h i H M A G U i ' i u U L Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) ' • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations b* 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 signifies Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 sim: 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 magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State? for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropn<! 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 i have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each quest-: • 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 off impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshc 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 PARI e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to modern impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. V must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? G9NO 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 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 drlespaniion oi a ^anitaty-Undfilt- J * £ — • Construction in a'designated floodway."^fS^%:icv:--:";;' ""£: • Other'impacts • "r&lStqKr* - " 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D DYes DNc • D DYes DNc n D D DYes DNc DYes DNe D DYes DNc D D D ! D GYes -rQ- D Can Impact E; Mitigated By Project Chang •vG- DNOJ -G.Yes---{3Nc; • D DYes'"GNO 2. Will there be an effect V .iy uiii<|ui> or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)ONO DYES •W*A • Specific land forms: _. D —"Ves • GNo �IMPACT O N WATER WW proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECU KNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 elopable area of site contains a protected water body. • Iging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. 1 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Moderate Impact r oieMiai Large Impact D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DNo D DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNO D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo D D DYes DNO 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 came siltation or other discharge into an existing body of waier io tue 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 commei_iai and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. D DYes DNo Other D QYes DNo DYes DNo Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. •Other impacts: ( Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? UNO DYES Eiamples that would apply to column 2 • A10% 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: i Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? QNO Examples that would apply to column 2 DNO DYES Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a sburce of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. « ed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 s per minute pumping capacity •Construction or operation causing any contamination ot a water supply system impacts: roposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface d ^ P runoff? ENO DYES Eiamples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows D D DNO �Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D D D D D D • DYes DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo GNo D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D a DYes GNo • 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 a DYes GNO • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. D a DYes GNO • Other impacts: D a GYes GNO a a a a a a a a GYes GNo GYes GYes GNO GYes GNO a a a GYes GNO G GYes GNO a a GYes GNO '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? BNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. _, IMPACT O N PLANTS A N D ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? El NO 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? E3NO Examples that would apply to column 2 GNO 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. I M P A C T O N AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES LO Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? BNO 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 • I �» struction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of iultural 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. 1 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 t o drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: IMPACT O N AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 W i l l proposed action affect aesthetic resources? BONO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply t o column 2 1 Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different f r o m 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. ct components that w i l l result in the elimination or significant ning of scenic views known to be important to the area »Other impacts: » IMPACT O N HISTORIC A N D A R C H A E O L O G I C A L RESOURCES 12 W i l l Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? ENO DYES Examples that would apply t o 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 O P E N S P A C E A N D RECREATION 13 Witt Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? mples that would apply t o column 2 CD NO DYES ermanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity, • i A major reduction of an open space important to the community • Other impacts: 9 # •m 2 1 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 DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D CYes DNo .DYes DNo D Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo �IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ENO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D D D • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • • Other impacts: D Can Impact Bt Mitigated By Project Change 18 DYes DYes DYes DNe DNJ DNC IMPACT ON 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: • T P • T w • P • P • P OI D D DYes D D DYes • D (e DNe • P • Pi • O D D DYes DNo • D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo • • DYes DNO D D DYes DNO NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable QfJors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Hasting 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. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? BNO 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. _ •-ProposedAction may result in^he burial x>f "hazardous ^vastes- in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) ^uStorage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural fleas or other flammable liquids. • 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. • Other impacts: _ _ _ _ D :g; D D a D DYes Part miti Instr Disc 1 F 2. C DNo 3 t B r — - © Y e s —QNo • C DYes DNo DYes Dm DYes DN« (C �IMPACT O N GROWTH A N D CHARACTER OF C O M M U N I T Y OR N E I G H B O R H O O D ,18 Will'proposed action affect the character of the existing community? I ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 1 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • a DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo DYes DNo DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo , ^ V 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. 2 a a • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • • • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. D D D • Other • a • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) impacts: i 3 i Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? El N O DYES Iff 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 l 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 litigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: jl Briefly describe the impact. j! Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). J 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. ^•totinue on attachments) 11 7 ? ~««^tmmm~* ~~ ~^~^ ~:_T~__ir~ H �< V Approved/iwith r e s p e c t t o substance and form: Vifllage Attorney D<Jited: Approved^ by t h e planning Board > i< r Acting Chairroa F i l e d with V i l l a g e Clerk e%g£3T=e^- Deputy Clerk D^ted: Ifajiy � 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-1994 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_1994-04-28 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/29cd5099406655f3f400e64b68af4aba.pdf 7f5385f0688020daeba09a170bba896c PDF Text Text A regular meeting was held by the Planning Board on May 19, 1994 at 8:00 PM in Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarry town, New York 10591 Members Present: Also Present: Absent: George Hritz, Chairman Ellen Tsangaris Donald Caetano David Perlmutter Edward McCarthy Janet Gandolfo, Esq. James Margotta, Building Inspector Susan Portman, Frederick P. Clark Assoc. Joseph Gulino, CAMCE Steven Salman James Donovan Mr. Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. IN THE MATTER OF THE VISCOGLIOSI SUBDIVISION. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK. Mr. John Hughes, Esq. has submitted a letter to the Building Inspector requesting an adjournment of the public hearing. (Letter attached in official minutes). Adjournment granted. IN THE MATTER OF PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. 701 NORTH BROADWAY. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK Phelps Memorial Hospital will not be present at this meeting due to a discussion of ongoing Planning Board fees owned to the Village. They have requested a special meeting, but will most likely be scheduled for next month's meeting. IN THE MATTER OF THE ROCK OF SALVATION CHURCH. 131 CORTLANDT STREET. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK 10591 Mr. Turnquist who is the architect for the applicant stated that there have been several meetings prior to this meeting. On May 16th there was a meeting which included all parties, the Fire Department, Police Department and the Building Inspector. The primary concern is about the Fire Departments safety, especially double parking during a fire. Mr. Turnquist stated that two parking spaces would be eliminated and used as a drop-off for the church and it could be used by the Fire Department. At this point the fireman do not have a place to park. The drop off point would be a 15 minute parking zone. �Reverend Santiago suggested creating another parking space in the church's driveway. The gate could be moved back another 20 feet. The Fire Department would have one more additional parking spot. This would be taking a step towards accommodating Union Hose. Kevin Stevens, Esq. from West Nyack, New York stated that the church is in spirit of cooperation. The proposal for discussion for a more final understanding of accommodations can be reached. Mr. John Cellante, President of Union Hose and Deputy Chief of the Training Department stated that there are issues of safety on Cortlandt Street now with parking and traffic without the church. Where the Church and day care center will be, vehicles will constantly be coming in and out. Mr. Cellante said that it was requested in the letter that a traffic impact study be completed for the sake of safety. The Fire Department is not here to fight the church. Mr. Cellante stated that there is a safety issue. The fire apparatus does not belong near pedestrians. Something will happen sooner or later. Ms. Nancy Vargas stated that she is a resident of Ossining and has been a member of the congregation for 30 years. In Ossining there is a day care center next to a fire house. Out of 130 members only two need to be dropped off. Mr. Miquel Valle stated that he is of Spanish decent. He has lived on Cortlandt Street for 15 years and has lived in the Village for 33 years. There is no place for the fireman to park once things get started, there will be less places to park. The fireman are here to serve the community. Now some of the fireman park on the sidewalks. Mr. Vargas stated that he worked for Federal Express and has been driving for six years. He drives through Cortlandt Street all the time and it is very packed with cars. He feels that this issue should have been brought up years ago. Mr. Richard Gross stated that he was the former Fire Chief and also a member of the First Reformed Church. The church is well aware that parking is not available on Cortlandt Street. The First Reformed church left Tarrytown because of the parking situation. The lot used was always filled. Where would the employees of the day care center park? A deeper investigation should be done. This is not a paid fire department. Reverend Santiago stated that they did not move because of a traffic concern. There is a lot more traffic on Broadway than on Cortlandt Street. �Mr. Hritz stated that every Village should have our problems. Many people are going to church and many people are volunteering to fight fires. Mr. Jose Chevere of 95 Beekman Avenue stated that whoever owns the building the same traffic problem will exist and Union Hose will have the same complaints. There is a parking problem Village wide. Mr. Chevere asked if the architect could make concessions to provide a space and a driveway which would be more accommodating also if an alarm sounds people will move. Mr. Richard Chulla is the First Assistant Chief. He is a 17 year member of Union Hose and stated that it is almost impossible to drive the truck up the street. There will be more of a problem with a day care center being there. A traffic study should be done. Mr. Miquel Valle of 15 Chestnut Street works for the Tarrytown School District. When driving a bus it is impossible to get up and down the streets. Imagine a fire truck. How would a problem be avoided if one should occur. Ms. E. Santiago has been a member of the church for 20 years. She stated that there are alternate exits perpendicular from College Avenue. Deliveries are made on Cortlandt Street all the time. She stated the members of the church are educated people. The issue of a day care center would be brought out in later stages. She stated that the church is not trying to cause caos in the Village. Mr. Jiminez stated that he is a member of the church and that this is a tough problem. He has friends on both sides. There is no parking in the Village at all. He also apologized if he offended anyone at an earlier meeting. The church is looking for a solution. He and the church want to go by the book to go to church in peace and worship. Also to make a better community. He believes the Fire Department is fantastic. There needs to be a solution for parking. Mr. Hritz stated that with so much good will on both sides, we should be albe to come up with a solution. Mr. Caetano stated that with respect to the Fire Department, this has been a problem for years. He stated that the complaints have been heard and we are trying to come up with a solution. The Fire Department and the church should cooperate and come up with a solution. Since there is no solution now the problem should be studied further. He suggested that the Reverend and the Board should discuss the situation and come up with a solution in a month or so. -3- l �Mr. John Cappello who has been a member of Union Hose for 38 years stated that he has been attending the meeting and has never heard a discriminatory remark about the church, the Fire Department is only requesting an impact study. Mr. Stevens, Esq. stated that according to the review of the application, question 17 of the EAF asks if there an effect on health and safety, the answer is no. Mr. Hritz stated the the EAF is subject to the Planning Board's review and acceptance. Frederick P. Clark Assoc, only makes recommendations to the Board. Mr. Cellante stated that maybe Clinton Street could be used for parking. Ms. J. Marab is glad to hear that there is no discrimination. The obvious problem is parking maybe the Church could find parking elsewhere. Right now the church is paying the mortgage rental. The concerns of the Fire Department is understandable. The apparatus should not be blocked. There are not a lot of member who drive and a reduction of the building will cause problems. Mr. George Samaras of Valley Street stated that this is a problem for the Fire Department and the church. He asked why the Village isn't spending the money so that both sides could be happy. Mr. Richard Vargas stated that there are goals to be worked out with the community to clean up the street. This can be worked out with the community. We will pray that this will be worked out. Mr. Hritz stated that this is a public problem, not simply a church-fire house problem. A public solution may solve a long overdue problem. Mr. Gonzolez showed the Board and Mr. Turnquist open space behind the building that may or may not be used for parking. Mr. John Morabito who was born on Cortlandt street and who is also the Fire Chief stated that this is a problem for safety. The fireman are only asking for a traffic study. Safety is a concern for both the church and the fireman. Mr. Miquel Valle stated that when Con Edison was there they only did work on the driveway, they never worked on the street. Mr. Cappello stated that at the Zoning Board meeting he saw the plans and the driveway would be designated for buses. Mr. Vargas said that the plan could change and their would be a meeting for safety requirements which would alleviate any accidents. �Mr. Jose Chevere stated that there is illegal double parking in the vicinity which may be caused by the three bars in the area. This should not be a reflection on the church. Mr. Turnquist stated that in addition to all the information, Rev. Santiago has given a list of the meetings and services which was requested by Frederick P. Clark Assoc. There are 41 members in North Tarrytown, 18 in Ossining (5 cars), 8 in Tarrytown and 23 members from White Plains. (6 cars). The parishioners that will be picked up by the mini bus will be determined at a later date. The day care center does not plan to open until 1997. Meeting nights are on Wednesday and Friday from 7:30 to 9:00 Pm. 20 (+)(-) attend at this time. Youth services on Sunday usually consist of 25 people from 10:00 AM to 12 Noon and 16( + ) (-) attend between 4:30 and 6:00 PM. The day care center will begin at 8:30 AM until 5:00PM. Mr. Jiminez of 95 Beekman Avenue is a member of the church and the Fire Department. He stated that both parties should work together as friends. There is a God that will help. Mr. Manvel Navlca has worked with the Fire Department and the church and does not see a great problem in the future. Mr. Caetano made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Perlmutter. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Tsangaris made a motion to declare the Planning Board lead agency, seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Portman stated that this use will generate 11 additional cars maximum. Peak hours are different. The traffic engineer feels that this is not a significant impact. Mr. McCarthy stated that there is a parking authority Committee which may be able to help. Mr. Hritz stated that an inquiry could be sent to the Board of Trustees for ideas and comments. Mr. Gulino stated that the water sewers should be checked. Mr. Caetano stated that this is not an every day problem. Ms. Tsangaris stated that this problem needs to be solved because in the future it will come back to the Boards. Also she does not know if a study is needed. Mr. McCarthy stated that maybe the problem could be solved by a sub-committee. -5- �Mr. Caetano made a motion to have a sub-committee from the Boards to meet with representatives from the church and the Fire Department to discuss ideas and comments, in one month, seconded by Mr. Perlmutter. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Perlmutter made a motion to have Mr. Caetano, Mr. Hritz and Mr. McCarthy as a sub-committee, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OP PETRY. BEDFORD ROAD. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK Ms. Petry stated that the drawings are the same, and as for the sub-divided property Mrs. Petry spoke with engineers and used the engineers requests. Mr. and Mrs. Weeks who reside at 174 Webber Avenue thanked the Board for allowing them to speak. Mr. Weaks stated that according to Frederick P. Clarks memo of March 11, 1994 the parking should exist on Amos street (not Webber Avenue). It was stated at the March meeting the applicant wanted the parking on Webber Avenue due to the type of construction. Mr. Ceconi the executor of the property stated it would be more appealing to have parking off Webber Avenue. Mr. Ceconi stated that it would be in full compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Weaks stated that by having the driveway on Webber off the north sides allow accessibility to three entrances. In regards to drainage there has not been a drainage problem. There has not bee a drainage problem in 77 years. Mrs. Ceconi has lived on Amos street for 65 year and has not had a drainage problem. Mr. Weeks showed the Board pictures of the drainage problem through the property line. There are puddles in the center of the sub-division which is referred to as lot 2. Mr. Reilly the contractor for the applicant stated that by having a driveway there would not be any more puddling. The Board has a policy of zero net increase for run-off situations. There will not be an increase in drainage. Mr. Weaks state that back filling will change the elevation. He does not want the run-off crossing the property line and going into his basement, which is lower than grade. Mr. Caetano asked if they have had water in their basement. Weaks state there has not been any water yet. -6- Mr. �Mr. Reilly stated that he hopes water does not go into the Week's basement, but retaining wall is not needed. There will be hay and silt that will take the water away during the construction. Mr. Weaks asked if the hay collapses and the catch basins were clogged there may be a problem. It was stated that dry walls should solve the problem. Mrs. Weaks stated that more time was needed for sufficient study. A variance is needed concerning the parking space. There could be a condition in the resolution concerning the locations of both driveways. Placement of the driveway onto the property would be up to the Planning board. Mr. Weaks stated that Frederick P. Clarks recommendation should be used. Mr. Weaks also stated that by having the catch basin on the corner of the property may not solve the issue of water drainage to his property. It was stated that this is just a subdivision plan for a variance which is a zoning board issue and is premature at this point. Mr. Brady, Esq. stated that there is a concern for traffic in the cul-de-sac where kids play. It works better if a driveway was put in the back. The Petry's are planning to put in a walking path. As for a sprinkler system, Mr. Gulino stated that this was a manufactured house and a sprinkler system is not needed. Mr. Weeks asked if the drainage issue could be a part of the resolution to have solid concrete walls. Mrs. Weaks stated that she would like more time to discuss the drainage issue. Mr. Caetano made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Mr. Caetano stated that the dry well could be installed needed. if Mr. Hritz stated that drainage condition could be put to the Manganaro firm (Joe Gulino) for review. Ms. Tsangaris made a motion to have a condition concerning the drainage situation reviewed and that the applicant comply with Joe Gulino's memorandum of March, 1994, seconded by Mr. Caetano. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Perlmutter stated that it would not be realistic to have parking on Webber Avenue because it is too far from the house. �A motion was made by Mr. Perlmutter to include the conditions that are stated in the Westchester County letter dated March 30, 1994 (attached in official minutes), seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Ms. Tsangaris made a motion to approve the driveway with certain conditions as stated in the above resolution, seconded by Mr. Hritz. VOTE: Mr. Hritz - Aye Mr. Caetano - Nay Mr. McCarthy - Aye Mr. Perlmutter - Nay Ms. Tsangaris - Aye Mr. Caetano made a motion to approve the sub-division subject to the conditions discussed which will be made part of a formal resolution, seconded by Mr. Perlmutter. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Caetano made a motion to approve the minutes of July 16, 1993, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Christine A. Yurkovic u Recording Secretary -8- �C H A R g . E S A . M A N G A N A R O C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S MEMORANDUM TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Mr. Joseph A. Gulino, P.E. Project Engineer DATE: April 28, 1994 RE: Rock of Salvation Church on Cortland Street Village of North Tarrytown, NY CAMCE No. 800-20 As requested, we have reviewed the proposed site plan (dated December 6, 1993) for Rock of Salvation Church and offer the following comments or recommendations: Court Plaza North. ^ Main Street A) The structure is existing and no addition or alteration to the surrounding driveways are intended. Therefore, stormwater runoff from the site should not be altered. To the best of our knowledge, there are no existing problems with drainage in the immediate area. B) The existing water and sewer pipelines and house connections should be shown, as well as all pertinent data to determine the capacity of the existing system. An estimate on flow demand should be established and submitted for review. C) A fire flow test should be performed in the immediate vicinity to determine if adequate fire flow exists for this structure. Once the above information is submitted we can make final recommendations to the Board. If you should have any questions, please let us know. Hackensack. NJ O?"601-7O32 201 342.4200 lax 201342.0790 JAG/jr 120 E 75th St. Su «te8C New York. NY 1 0 0 3 1 212 683 7712 P 0 Box 1007 East Stroudsburg. P A 18301 717 421 1499 cc: Ms. Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Ms. Susan J. Portman, Associate, Frederick P. Clark Associates Mr. Ronald E. Turnquist, Architect VNT\80O-2OUC042WMJR I �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 jjm Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: April 22, 1994 Subject: Review of Viscoaliosi Preliminary Subdivision As requested, we have reviewed the subdivision application submitted by Marcello Viscogliosi for a property which is approximately 5,800 square feet in size, located at 176-178 North Washington Street in the R-5 Residence District. The site presently contains a two and a half story one-family dwelling, a two and a half story four-family dwelling and a detached concrete garage. Lot 1 (176 Washington Street) would be 2,725 square feet in size and would contain the existing one-family dwelling. Lot 2 (178 Washington Street) would be 3,083 square feet and would contain the four-family residence and garage. The fact that the property presently contains two principal buildings is a legal nonconformity, which non-conformity would be eliminated through the subdivision of the property (the maximum of one principal building per lot is required in Section 62-7.C of the Zoning Code). The Applicant has submitted the following plan: "Survey of Property Prepared For Marcello Viscogliosi, Situate Village of North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester Co., New York," scale 1" = 10', dated June 12, 1990 and revised May 10, 1992, prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor. Connecticut • (203) 255 3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Subdivision Regulation Compliance; We find that the proposed subdivision line could be better located so that Lot 2 would not have control over a portion (approximately 220 square feet) of the front yard which is currently located behind a chain link fence and would not be accessible to Lot 2. It is possible that some of the area of Lot 2 that would be lost by relocating the western 20 feet of the subdivision line to coincide with the fence could be recaptured by moving the central portion of the subdivision line about three feet to the south. The easements which were discussed in the July 21, 1993 Zoning Board of Appeals1 (ZBA) minutes should be shown on the subdivision plan. The easements should allow both driveway access and parking for both lots. An area map has not been provided for the proposed subdivision. Other required information that was not shown on the plan includes the location of all existing structures on adjacent properties, names of adjoining property owners, location of nearest fire hydrants, utility lines, sidewalks and street width. It is not clear why the application form states that the property is approximately 15 acres in size. 2. Zoning Compliance: In July 1993, the ZBA voted to approve all of the variances it found were necessary for the proposed subdivision, including variances for lot area, building coverage and setback deficiencies. 3. Referrals: According to Section 239-n of the General Municipal Law, if the subject property is located within 500 feet of a municipal boundary (Village of Tarrytown), the Planning Board is required to refer the application to the Westchester County Planning Board for its review. The County Planning Board has a maximum of 30 days to comment. If the subject property is located within 500 feet of a municipal boundary, according to Section 452 of the Westchester County Administrative Code and Section 6.B(l)(g) of the Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Board is required to give notice of a hearing on the application and send a copy of the application at least ten days before the hearing date to the Village of Tarrytown. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 4. Environmental Review; The Applicant has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). According to Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the proposed subdivision 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 EAF for a Type I action. Unless other involved agencies can be identified (i.e., other agencies with approval authority over this application), the Planning Board is the lead agency in the review of this matter. After receipt and review of the EAF, the Planning Board must make a determination of significance regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, PE, Village Engineer Marcello Viscogliosi John J. Muldoon 500\not4-021.sjp 3 �C H A R L E S A . M A N G A N A R O C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S MEMORANDUM TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Mr. Joseph A. Gulino, P.E. Project Engineer DATE: April 28, 1994 RE: Viscogliosi Subdivision Located at 176-178 No. Washington Street Village of North Tarrytown, New York CAMCE No. 800-23 As requested, we have reviewed the subdivision map prepared by John J. Muldoon, L.S., last revised June 12, 1992 and offer the following recommendations: Court Plaza North, 25 Main Street A) The location of all existing structures and other man-made features of the site, as well as those on adjacent properties, including existing utility lines (gas & electric) should be shown on the drawing. B) The location and design of the proposed water supply, sewerage, stormwater drainage systems including the locations, sizes, invert, and rim elevations to the existing water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems should be submitted. C) Existing and proposed topography map of the subdivision, extending at least twenty (20) ft. beyond the site boundaries with contour intervals not greater than five (5) ft. and referenced to USGS or other approved bench mark and seals should be shown. Hackensack NJ 07601-7032 201 342 4200 fax 201 342 0790 120 E 75th St. Suite 8C The nature and location of all other existing site features, including wetlands, water courses, wooded areas, and rock outcrops should be shown. New York. NY 10021 212 683 7712 P 0 Box 1007 The plan shall clearly indicate which site features are existing and proposed, and which will be removed. East Stroucsourg. PA 18301 717 421 1499 Owner's endorsement should be shown. �C H A R L E S A . M A N G A N A R O C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S G) Planning Board Chairman's endorsement per subdivision regulations, Part IV, Page 7817 (14C) should be shown. H) The locations of nearest fire hydrants should be shown. J) An area map showing all streets and property within one thousand (1,000) ft of the applicant's property, at a scale of one (1) inch to four hundred (400) ft. should be shown. All property owned by the applicant shall be clearly identified. Once the above information is submitted, final recommendations will be made to the Board. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. JAG/jr cc: Ms. Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Ms. Susan J. Portman, Associate, Frederick P. Clark Associates Mr. John J. Muldoon, L.S. VNT\80O-23VGO4284M JR1 �Phelps Phelps Memorial Hospital Center /Oi Wort". Broadway . North Tarryiown NY 10591-1096 914-366-3000 April 22, 1994 Mr. Joe Gulino CAMCE Court Plaza North 25 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601-7032 Dear Mr. Gulino:' We are pleased to inform you that we have negotiated the reduction of flow from the IBM forced main at their World Trade Center Pump Station. In conjunction with this agreement, IBM is requesting your written approval of this project. Specifically your approval to the plans and specifications prepared by Chas Sells, dated November, 1993, and marked final March, 1994, will be required before we can finalize our agreement with IBM. We must also confirm that your approval will relieve both IBM and Phelps from any further obligation respecting sewage modifications related to the Medical Office Building project. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Bruce B. Dfcvidow, FACHE Senior Vice President/ Chief Operating Officer BBD:dg MOB\CAMCE cc: Todd Jack Vincent Del Bagno Keith F. Safian James Margotta �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 2. Zoning Compliance: The application meets the zoning requirements of the R-3 Residence District with regard to minimum lot size and minimum lot width. Because of the existing dwelling on Lot 1, that Lot has an existing nonconformity concerning the required minimum front yard. The existing garage is non-conforming concerning the required front and side yard setbacks. The existing garage is proposed to be removed and a dwelling constructed on Lot 2 which would not conform with the required minimum side and front yard setbacks (a minimum total of 15 feet for both side yards and a 20 foot front yard). It appears that a dwelling could be situated on proposed Lot 2 and conform to the required setbacks. However, it is not clear why the proposed dwelling is not situated accordingly. It is our understanding that the Zoning Code was amended a few years ago and, as a result, the Planning Board does not have site plan approval for an individual dwelling in a subdivision of fewer than three lots. In that case, the variances for the setback deficiencies would not be needed until after subdivision approval. The only issue which would appear to require a variance in order for the subdivision itself to be approved would be the fact that the existing parking for the existing dwelling on Lot 1 is being removed (the garage) and the parking as required in Section 62-14E of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown (one space for each dwelling unit) is not being provided. This issue should be resolved with either a shared driveway, 18 feet in width, off of Amos Street (with the appropriate easements) or the provision of separate driveways off of Amos Street. 3» Access: The Applicants have demonstrated that Amos Street has a wider right-of-way than does Webber Avenue, presumably for the purpose of using Amos Street as the location for determining the front yard setback, as per Section 62-13A of the Code. It appears, due to the proposed location of the driveway, that the rear of the house is proposed to face Amos Street. In any event, we find that the house should face Amos Street and that the driveway access for both lots should be off of Amos Street. Amos Street is a dead-end street with slower traffic than Webber Avenue. Webber Avenue is a through County road. Approval of curb-cuts along Webber Avenue would be subject to the Westchester County Department of Public Works while approval along Amos Street would be subject to the approval of the Village. We advise against the provision of additional curb cuts along Webber Avenue. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning- Deveiopment/Environment/Transportation 2. Zoning Compliance: The application meets the zoning requirements of the R-3 Residence District with regard to minimum lot size and minimum lot width. Because of the existing dwelling on Lot 1, that Lot has an existing nonconformity concerning the required minimum front yard. The existing garage is non-conforming concerning the required front and side yard setbacks. The existing garage is proposed to be removed and a dwelling constructed on Lot 2 which would not conform with the required minimum side and front yard setbacks (a minimum total of 15 feet for both side yards and a 20 foot front yard) . It appears that a dwelling could be situated on proposed Lot 2 and conform to the required setbacks. However, it is not clear why the proposed dwelling is not situated accordingly. It is our understanding that the Zoning Code was amended a few years ago and, as a result, the Planning Board does not have site plan approval for an individual dwelling in a subdivision of fewer than three lots. In that case, the variances for the setback deficiencies would not be needed until after subdivision approval. The only issue which would appear to require a variance in order for the subdivision itself to be approved would be the fact that the existing parking for the existing dwelling on Lot 1 is being removed (the garage) and the parking as required in Section 62-14E of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown (one space for each dwelling unit) is not being provided. This issue should be resolved with either a shared driveway, 18 feet in width, off of Amos Street (with the appropriate easements) or the provision of separate driveways off of Amos Street. 3. Access: The Applicants have demonstrated that Amos Street has a wider right-of-way than does Webber Avenue, presumably for the purpose of using Amos Street as the location for determining the front yard setback, as per Section 62-13A of the Code. It appears, due to the proposed location of the driveway, that the rear of the house is proposed to face Amos Street. In any event, we find that the house should face Amos Street and that the driveway access for both lots should be off of Amos Street. Amos Street is a dead-end street with slower traffic than Webber Avenue. Webber Avenue is a through County road. Approval of curb-cuts along Webber Avenue would be subject to the Westchester County Department of Public Works while approval along Amos Street would be subject to the approval of the Village. We advise against the provision of additional curb cuts along Webber Avenue. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/ Development/Environment/Transportation 4. Dedication; The Applicants1 drawing indicates that Webber Avenue is 49.5 feet in width. As per Section 12B(2) (b) of the Village Subdivision Regulations: Subdivisions that adjoin or include existing streets that do not conform to widths as shown on the Master Plan or Official Map or the street width requirements of this ordinance shall dedicate additional width along either one (1) or both sides of said road. If . . . subdivision is along one (1) side only, one-half (1/2) of the required extra width shall be dedicated. . .[emphasis added]. Assuming that Webber Avenue is a "local street" with a required right-of-way width of 50 feet (see Section 12B(2)(a) of the Regulations), both of the lots would need to dedicate a strip of land three inches wide along Webber Avenue. This should be shown on the plat. 5. Referral: According to Section 239-n of the General Municipal Law, since the subject property is located within 500 feet of a State road (Bedford Road is State Route 448) and a County Road (Webber Avenue), the Planning Board is required to refer this application to the Westchester County Planning Board for its review. The County Planning Board has a maximum of 30 days to comment. 6. Environmental Review: The Applicants have submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). According to Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the proposed subdivision is an Unlisted Action. As an Unlisted Action, a coordinated review between agencies is not required. We have completed the second page of the EAF and enclose it for your consideration. Based on our review, we recommend that the Planning Board declare itself the Lead Agency and make a negative declaration finding of non-significance of environmental impacts. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning Enclosure cc: Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer John and Maureen Petry John J. Muldoon 3 �I /l n'. M ** SEQR 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review .'ID NUMEF.R / SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only / ART l—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) A Jflhn 4 rrlftU&frf, > h ' 3. PROJECT LOCATION: / / 2,. PROJECT NAME 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR Municipality f County fry/(fS/O/£"£/&/£_ 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersection!, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) t / / 4/vlO-S S / " 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: L d New D Expansion D Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially ^ / acres ^ / Ultimately 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR^OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESECTIONS? J2 DYes Q^No If No. describe briefly ^ .• ^ M •\-\ A - #^4-1 8 . WHAT, IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? [^Residential Describe: LJ Industrial [_) Commercial D Agriculture O Park/Forest'Open space D Other 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR L O C A L ) ? , LiYes 11. LJNO If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTIOS HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? LJYes LDNo If yes, list agency name and permit/approval 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REOUIRE MODIFICATION? DYes BNO I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor Signature: name: <foMtt ?ncsi \?\\^ «* ^ quAU^ Dale \6tT j^2£= ^ If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 �P«jfrBT H-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.12? D Yes II yes, coordinate Ihe review process and use the FULL EAF. S No I B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 8 NYCRR, PART 617.6? may be superseded by another involved agency. D Yes j If No, • negative declaration (S No j j I C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED W I T H THE F O L L O W I N G : (Answers may be handwrllten, If legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: Mo C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: Mo C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: N6 C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly. Mo C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. Mo C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly. C7. Other Impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. 0. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE. CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? D Yes E No If Yes, explain briefly PART III—DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, Important or otherwise significant Each effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (0 magnitude, if necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addre^ed. D Check this box if you have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. D Check this box if you have determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental Impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: U Name of If ad Agency r / ^ ^ Print or Type r4*Vne of Responsible Officer in I ead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible O/ficer in l e a d Agency Signature of Prepare^ (If different from responsible officer) Mw Dale 2 �617.21 \ /•' « SEQR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM :: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project n may be significant The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequenti are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine jnificance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental •alysis In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting '* question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination ocess has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. id 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 complete* for this project: « B Part 1 B Part 2 DPart 3 eview of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting ation. and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the gency that: Q 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. 0 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.* 0 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 M a t t e r of V i s c o g l i o s i Two LOf >Iubd«VtlJQA Name of Action Planning Board - Village of North Tarrytown Name of Lead Agency HLJ Fof ' Title of Responsible Officer ruicor Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency reparer (If different from iresponsible officer) Signature of Preparer JOHN J . HUGHES» J R . ^nature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency May 1 6 , 1994 Date 1 �I Ar PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor Is NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significante) Re on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consid cons* ^ ^ s part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additff Is ^ B i f o r m a t i o n you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. Wl lot inT It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available a n d will not new studies, research or investigation If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate andsp '• ' 5 each instance. 10 D 11. D NAME OF ACTION M a t t e r o f V i s c o g l i o s i TIAJO LO^ JobcWi'jiCio LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address. Municipality and County) 1 7 6 - 1 7 8 N o r t h Washington S t r e e t , N o r t h T a r r y t o w n , Westchester NAME OF APPUCANT/SPONSOR County 12. Ai BUSINESS TELEPHONE Marcello Visjrogliosi (914) 631-8855 ADDRESS c/o J. Hughes, Jr., Esq., 49 Beekman Avenue CfTY/FO STATE N o r t h T a r r y t o w n , NY ZIP CODE 10591 NY 14. BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF OWNER (II different) same as owner < » Is t • ) N/A ADDRESS 15 St: N/A crrY/po N/A STATE ZIP CODE N/A N/A 16. La DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Subdivision - 2 lots 17. Is a) b) 18 Is Se Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description 19. Is of Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: OUrban Olndustrial DForest DAgriculture DCommercial OResidential (suburban) 2. Total acreage of project area: . acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) PRESENTLY j£L acres acres acres acres acres acres ^cres acres ttr)oAy\LA*d-(\\<»>f\ior\ (btvipleX Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc ) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earch or fill) Roadsr-buildings and other paved "surJaces|fl.^iC^>M|tw«OZii U nth^FJTnAi^tpr^^r Residential _ t. W h a t ii predominant soil typeKs) on project site? a. Soil drainage: CD Well drained DPoorly drained DRural (non-fijjo. Ha -OOther 100 % of site % of site Q.)S DModerately well drained AFTER COMPLETION B. Pr awf 1 Phy< acre<j . acre; . acre . acre .-acre -fr-Q- JSL DYes ,in o f£'No feet) b. c. d . acre -e— . acre f. % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of theK Land Classification System' acres (See 1 NYCRR 370) N/A Are there bedrock outcroppmgs on project site? What is depth to bedrock' Approx. 1 0 - 1 5 a g h In u: i. : i i �slopes 7(t-l6% Dl5% iQb or greater ii project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National DYes ©No ni effo Registers of Historic Places? nsiderf Jditioru' Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? What is the depth of the water fahlp?APP.10- fin feet) Folw DYes G5No 1 specif Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes DYes IS No QDNo 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 Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) DYes ©No Describe : )E ) Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes ©No If yes, explain . \ Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes ©No ->E 5 Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary i Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name None N/A b. Size ( I n acres) N/A 7 Is the site served by existing public utilities? JSYes DNo DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist t o a l l o w connection? {DYes DNo b) If Yes, w i l l i m p r o v e m e n t s be necessary t o allow connection? ©Yes I Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 304? DYes E3No i Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ©Yes DNo Dn-farm j Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? TION{ acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3cres i # DYes QJNo Project Description Physical d i m e n s i o n s and scale o f p r o j e c t (fill i n dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor >J6 O* »£acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: •& cO. 1$ acres initially; ' ^ O* '\Z acres ultimately. c.'-Project acreage t o remain u n d e v e l o p e d 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existjnjg_ 6 ; proposed 6 ftfol -jt^Maximum-vehtcular trips-generated-per^hour — -N/A - - (upon cpmplieUoh of project)? N^" CM&W&~; k tf residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium 1 Initially _ 2 Ultimately _ i i Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 35 height; 20* width: j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy u?APP ^(sbi\ length. �2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? DYes DNo N/A tons/cub EN/A a. If yes, for what intend .* purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes : ©No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes (SNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None a, 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this pre DYes 0No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated ^' (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 ^/A c. Approximate completion date of final phase N A ' 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 N month 'A y& ,r, (including den N/A DYes year. QlNo EJNo N/A ; after project is complete 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes DYes ONo b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I' yes, explain (SNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount DYes N/A N/A QlNo 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? DYes a. If yes, what is the amount per month DV-ss DYes l&No CSNo ©No N/A tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? c. If yes, give name /A N/A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 16. Will the project generate solid waste? N No a d d i t i o n a l waste QQYes N/A ; DNo N location 'A d. Will any wastes not go into a sewa'ge disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? LYes _-N< e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes a. If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ENo N/A N/A NO a d d i t i o n a l tons/month. years. DYes CSNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes __Q_No_ -20^-Will-project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? If yes . indicate type{s) DYes Total anticipated water usage per day ______________ N/A N/A gallons/minute. gallons/day 24 Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes. explain QENo KJNo N/A 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. DYes — DYes N/A 29No . 4 I �City.'^own Village Board DYes ENo City. Town. Village Planning Board 3 Yes 3Yes D No DNo Subdivision C«ty.*Town Zoning Board QlYes D No DNo Variances - already granted City. County Health Department DYes KJNo DYes IS No Other Regional Agencies DYes ffiNo State Agencies DYes ®No federal Agencies DYes ENo her Local Agencies 4/94 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes DNo If Yes. indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Bzoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan Dspecial use permit Dresource management plan R 2 What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ^subdivision Dsite plan Dother ~5 3 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Five ( 5 ) r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s feiiflMQ 4 What is the proposed zoning of the site? u),ffr V&fi&Hces)' R-5 TyuO hQi-2'fMilu J)|^/|IVKS Nft G k a v ^ g . p€.r &**& h~h} 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 5 residential units rVJ A i Is the proposed action consistentrwith the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? BYes 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 - m u l t i - f a m i l y . Cfn<fr--fa*ti'/l4'. CCmmGK id I Cfrrfci irtJ-Hmftd/lflJ, AIAH«C/$&»>''"P*k J)C p n W R.-j t p-a p-^- £_£ ^ l | C - i ^ I Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a Vi mile? J If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? EYes DNo L-.-,--..^^,.^—.— P l e a s e see a t t a c h e d feey. ApprflX- 2y7flQ K) Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? S^.ffc DYes ENo 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes G9No HAr a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? SYes DNo 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? A/A DYes a. If yes. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ®Yes 0No DNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse mpacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or jvoid them Oerfticatiou — I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge UppKcant/Sponsor Name ^r..r^-./,^ Marcello Viscogliosi ULJ ,£1^ m J*.M*:«j fc. N*** III ' Title Date 5/16/94 2-_H M e action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding •ilk this assessment. 5 �i <.: - <. — r h O J E G l i t i ( * r A O ' i w A U U ~lhc.iri U'nkCai*i t u u t - Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations b» 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 signifies Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 sirr.: asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshol: magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the Stat?; for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropm 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: have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each quest" • 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* impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but thresh; 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 PARI e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to mode;impact also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible Tl must be explained in Part J. 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • D G Yes DNC • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. D D GYes DNC • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. G D D D GYes DNC GYes Cvj • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. D D GYes DNC! • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1.000 tons of natural material (i.e.. rock or soil) per year. D D GYes DNCI S- -G O. G -l-S^es- GNC' 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 on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction, orlexpaosion oi a sanitary landfill. — --— •Construction in a designated flood way. '~^4y~-y-S. •' • Other impacts __: " ^ •-"'•' - Can Impact •: Mitigated 6) Project Chanc I i D D GYes GNci GYes GNc I 2. Will there be an effect t- . .iy uii.ijuc or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations. etc.)ONO DYES • Specific land forms: tf G — Nes .NC �Moderate Impact rc;ei.;iai Large Impact D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo l>sed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 _ ons per minute pumping capacity D D DYes DNo Construction or operation causing any contamination ot a water supply system. D D DYes DNo Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. .iquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently to not exist or have inadequate capacity. D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo Roposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per D D DYes DNo Proposed Action will likely caum siltation or other discharge into an xisting body of water to tue extent that there will be an obvious visual ontrast to natural conditions. D D DYes DNo roposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical roducts greater than 1,100 gallons. D . D DYes DNo roposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water r.oVor sewer services. D D DYes DNo roposed Action locates comma J a i and/or industrial uses which may >quire new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D r-i DYes DNo Ot i i b i i , . IMPACT ON WATER .Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) KNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Q^elopable area of site contains a protected water body. t^Pging 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-protected existing or new body of water? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 A10% 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? BNO Examples that would apply to column 2 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYES Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a sburce of water that does not *iave approval to serve proposed (project) action. « crti^ >ther impacts: proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface i runoff? BNO DYES • samples that would apply to column 2 oposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 f it �^ ^ > r o p o s e d Action may cause substantial erosion. 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D D D • D • Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change, DYes ONo DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D a 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 a D D Y es ONc • • DYes DNo • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. D D DYes DNo • Other D D DYes DNo • 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 — o f - m a t u r e forest (over~100 yea r s o f age) or other locally important vegetation. D G DYes DNo a D DYes DNo • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR ENO DYES 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. , IMPACT O N PLANTS A N D ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ENO 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. impacts. 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? ENO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES I M P A C T ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 3 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ©NO 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 NMHT �struction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ultural 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 O N A E S T H E T I C RESOURCES Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ENO 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. jBuect components that will result in the elimination or significant l ^ ^ n i n g of scenic views known to be important to the area Other impacts: MPACT O N HISTORIC A N D A R C H A E O L O G I C A L RESOURCES Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? K)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 }f historic places. \ny impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the oroject site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: IMPACT O N O P E N S P A C E A N D RECREATION Wifl Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? ^ b a m p l e s that would apply to column 2 El NO DYES ^^^>ermanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. \ major reduction of an open space important to the community. J)ther impacts: f 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 DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DY es DNO D D CYes DNo D D DYes DNO D D DYes DNO D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo ONo Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 3 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Bi Mitigated ^ y Project Char-ngi • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods D a • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. a D D GYes GYes GYes D^o Dtr^o D»o a a D GYes G i flo D GYes D No D D GYes G NO a a a GYes O f No D GYes GYes CUNo DUNo IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 1 4 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? KINO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES D • Other impacts: IMPACT O N ENERGY 1 5 . Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? S N O ^ 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: N O I S E A N D ODOR IMPACTS 1 6 . Will there be objectionable op*ors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • b lasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. D D • 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. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D • GYes CONo • Other D D GYes QNo • D GYes O -GYes - - O impacts: IMPACT O N PUBLIC HEALTH 1 7 . Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? BNO 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 tnay-restHt4n^the burial^>f "hazardous wastes'- in any form. (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural fgas or other flammable liquids. • 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. Other impacts: m ' D - Q •'••- G G GYes C3o D C GYes C3 GYes O a �-'• IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF C O M M U N I T Y OR N E I G H B O R H O O D WiU'propos'ed action affect the character of the existing community? ENO DYES 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D DYes DNO • D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo • DYes DNo DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 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. D • • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. •D D D Other impacts: 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? El N O 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 rt 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be itigated. structions scuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 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). 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 corisequence~6f t H e l m p a c t ~ . " • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. ttinue on attachments) 11 & iai .- �Approved/)with respect to substance and form: Village Attorn* Dated: Approved by the Planning Board rvi; lairman ^ r Acting Chainua lated: F i l e d with V i l l a g e Clerk e±GT%r-or Deputy Clerk Dated: ^£?J y W � 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-1994 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_1994-05-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ef65038f1f133275563b0fba15675160.pdf 2031c41378c4ba535a6e41674e28658a PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK JUNE 16,1994 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on June 16,1994 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Ellen Tsangaris Steven Salman James Donovan Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph Gulino, CAMCE Susan J. Portman, Assoc/Planning Jose Blanco, Trustee Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. 1. 176-178 North Washington Street - Subdivision. Mr. Hughes: "May 1, Mr. Chairman, pass out these revised plans to show you what I'm talking about" The plans were passed out. "We discussed this the last time, it's a minor subdivision. We bad some delays here, we continue to have delays. But anyway, there are a few items remaining to be done. I'm going to ask you tonight to consider giving my client conditional approval to sub-divide this properly. Only because it's such minor subdivision. These are two nonconforming structures owned by the same family. If you recall, one is a 4-famiIy and a 1-family structure. They're non-conforming pieces. They have existed there for many, many years and the only purpose of this is to allow this application, this one family home to be sold separately. Nothing is to be changed in structure or building by this application." Chairman Hritz: "What about the driveways - are they both on Washington Street?" Mr. Hughes: "There's only one driveway". �PAGE # 2 Chairman Hritz: "Are there any members of the public here for this matter other than the applicant?" No members of the public addressed the board. Chairman Hritz: "There is one thing we need to do. We have a short form EAF here available to members. Do we have a motion to make a negative declaration." Don Caetano: "So moved." Ellen Tsangaris: "Second." Chairman Hritz: "All in favor." Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hughes: "There are two memorandaums which I have that both consultants have agreed upon with minor changes." Chairman Hritz: "Can you summarize them for us quickly, Susan?" Susan Portman: "I think the two main comments that we had were to move the subdivision line so as to divide the driveway without dividing up the front yard of the single family house. Also, the plan should be revised to show the casements. There was a discussion regarding the driveway between board and Mr. Hughes. Chairman Hritz: "Do we have a motion to make a negative declaration and to grant conditional approval of the subdivision." Edward McCarthy: "So moved." Don Caetano: "Second." Chairman Hritz: "AH in favor." Motion carried unanimously. 2. Application of Phelps Memorial Hospital Center for Site Plan Approval. �PAGE # 3 The Chairman asked if there was any member of the public who wished to address the Board. Todd Jack, site manager for the project was present on behalf of the applicant. Todd Jack: "Here's the site plans you requested for the fence." Chairman Hritz: "Let me see that." Todd Jack: "I'm presenting two documents. One is the site plan showing the construction of the fence and the second one is the West parking lot. Chairman Hritz: "Now, let me make a couple things clear. Has the distance of the fence changed at all?" Todd Jack: "No, it hasn't." Chairman Hritz: "Has the configuration of the parking lot changed at all?" Todd Jack: "No, it hasn't." Chairman Hritz: "And the size is the same. This is just a specification of what was previously discussed.?" Todd Jack: "Correct." Janet Gandolfo: "Are these the revised plans?" Does the building department have a complete set of the revised plans?" James Margotta: "This is what we have right now>" Chairman Hritz: "And this is a plan for a six foot fence?" Todd Jack: "Correct." Chairman Hritz: "If I could ask this council to discuss an idea that we had on how to expedite the approval of a six foot fence. Phelps did not want to build a six foot fence but we are reguesting this as an accommodatiom to the neighbors. The fence is in the middle of the project, not along the outside of the property line. If this board approves it, it isn't necessary to go back and forth to the Zoning Board." Attorney Gandolfo stated that the applicant would not need a variance. The Planning Board can make this a requirement of the site plan approval. T* �PAGE #4 Chairman Hritz: And I understand the hospital has paid all the fees it owes to date. Are there any further questions from any of the members of the board? Any further comments.? Attorney Gandolfo stated that she was concerned about the sewer hook-up agreement between IBM, Phelps and the Village. They have had several meetings regarding this issue and to date, the Village has not received a written proposal for the terms of the agreement. She stated that this site plan approval would be conditional upon the Village's engineer and counsel reviewing any agreement and approving same. Phelps should understand that no Certificate of Occupancy would be granted unless this agreement is executed. Discussion continued about the hook-up between IBM and Phelps. Chairman Hirtz: "Subject to these conditions, do we have a motion to approve these plans." Donald Caetano: "I make a motion to make a negative declaration and to approve the plans according to the conditions stipulated by the board." David Perlmutter: "Second." Chairman Hritz: "All in favor?" Motion carried unanimously. 3. John and Maureen Petry - 41 Amos Street - Subdivision. Chairman Hritz: "This next matter is John and Maureen Petry - 41 Amos Street. This matter has been previously approved. What we're back here for the approval of a resolution, which we had amended at our last meeting." He went on to read the resolution. Steven Salman: "I've got a question - when this lot is sold, do these stipulations and conditions go along with the deed?" Chairman Hritz: "Yes, this is the resolution adopted by the planning board and any title the lawyer looking at the history of the property is going to discover that there are restrictions and conditions of record." Steven Salman: "We have seen it before where people come up to Jim Margotta and they don't know about the conditions and then there is a problem." �PAGE #5 Chairman Hritz: "That's their problem. When a person buys property he should do a thorough search." Steven Salman: "Does this go along with the deed when it's sold?" Janet Gandolfo: "If a proper title search is done before purchase, the Building Department is contacted and this file remains a record of the Building Department." Discussion continued about the resolution - the possible sale of the house and the conditions being met. Chairman Hritz: "As amended, is there a motion to approve the resolution?' Don Caetano: "So moved." Steven Salman: "Second" Motion carried unanimously. 4. Rock of Salvation, Cortlandt Street - Continuation of Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval. Chairman Hritz: "I can report that the sub-committee and representatives of the Church and members of the Union Hose Fire Company met a few weeks ago to discuss possible remedies to the vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as looking at possible remedies for the parking problem. Also attending the meeting was Mr. Jose Blanco, as a representative of the Board of Trustees. He is here with us tonight. In order to expedite this matter, I took the liberty of suggesting to Mr. Blanco that he raise a number of issues with the board in the work-section for discussion. Those issues will be dealt with at a public hearing of the Board of Trustees to be held on July 19. I would like to ask Mr. Blanco if he could report to the board and the public as to the position of the Board of Trustees." Mr. Jose Blanco: "I think basically the Board of Trustees discussed some ideas - 1 made a sketch of them. I think I gave copies to everybody here. The idea of the traffic light being by the firehouse went over well. Also, the yellow zone on the curve, all the way around the Firehouse went well. Keep in mind that both of these are still open for public hearing. We'll have to see what the public has to say about this." ft Chairman Hritz: "Thank you." The chairman went on to discuss the ideas of the sub-committee. What the sub-committee already did, based on the discussion at the time, was to put everything on the table, including pre-existing situations. i �Trying to come up with some ideas on how to deal with problems that exist presently with the Fire Department and also to explore further what additional problems might arise as a result of site plan approval. The idea of the traffic light being installed, Mr. McCathy's idea, right at the intersection of College Avenue Cedar Street - Cortlandt Street, which light could be activated from the Firehouse so that the Police Department won't have to be called upon, was generally thought to be a good idea. Chairman Hritz went on to read other options being considered. He stated that no solutions at this point have been made. He then asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Miguel Jimenez: "I'm resident of North Tarrytown and a member of the Rock of Salvation Church. I don't know the intention of this board tonight. If they going to take a vote or not on the Church. I know the public hearing takes 3 months before they make any kind of decision and I know the Church doesn't have the resources in order to wait such a long period. We been waiting more than 3 or 4 months already. I know the board is considered this project very deep. As a person, a community person, I implore to this board tonight to take a vote and to grant a variance to the Rock of Salvation Church. Thank you." Chairman Hritz: "Trustee Blanco, can you tell us what your best guess is of when the parking and traffic light issues could be resolved by the Trustees." Jose Blanco: "The first thing with the traffic light issue is to find out the cost. At that point, prepare a resolution for the public hearing at a later date. For the summer, we only have one official board meeting. So we may be looking for that meeting in July." Chairman Hritz: "What part of July is it?" Jose Blanco: "Mid-July." Chairman Hritz: "Before the 3rd Thursday in July?" Jose Blanco: "I believe the meeting is going to be actually on July 19." Discussion between Chairman Hritz and Jose Blanco continued about the parking and the traffic light and the approval by the Board of Trustees. Donald Caetano: "I don't feel that we should discuss anything further. I feel that we should table it. We have to know what the Board of Trustees action is going to be. I don't care what the lawyer says. We have to do this in a proper manner so that the Village won't be liable in any way. I wish to make a motion on the floor that this be tabled until further notification from our Board of Trustees �about the traffic light. Whether it's going to be put in after the job is completed and that they give their approval. I would like to have it clarified in all ways." Chairman Hritz: "May i suggest that you hold your motion. There are a couple of members who may want to speak." Discussion continued about the traffic light and parking. Some members of the audience stated their views. Chairman Hritz stated that he felt that the general consensus of the Planning Board was to approve the application but that they would like to work out these issues prior to a vote. He indicated that a vote should be taken at the July meeting. He attempted to assure the church that matters were being handled as expeditiously as possible but that they did have to consider the concerns raised by the Fire Department. David Perlmutter: "We are going from a very low density use to a high density use and I think that it behooves the Village to move slowly to make sure that all concerns are addressed." Donald Caetano: "I move to table this approval." David Perlmutter: "Second." Chairman Hritz: "All in favor?" Motion carried unanimously. 5. Prelimary discussion re: Philips Plaza, North Broadway Antonio Rodriquez gave the board a brief overview of his project. Adjourned to July meeting for further discussion. The Planning Board confirmed that all previous Planning Board minutes have been approved as amended and corrected and submitted to the Village Clerk. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Carmen G. Mariano Recording Secretary _ �D R A F T RESOLUTION Adopted at the June 16, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER AND APPLICANT: MARCELLO VISCOGLIOSI LOCATION: 176-178 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 16, BLOCK 8A, LOT 15 ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL �RESOLUTION Adopted at the June 16, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER AND APPLICANT: MARCELLO VISCOGLIOSI LOCATION: 176-178 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 16, BLOCK 8A, LOT 15 ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for subdivision approval (the Application) 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 which is approximately 5,800 square feet in size and is located on the east side of North Washington Street into two (2) lots for residential development; and WHEREAS, Lot 1 would be approximately 2,726 square feet in size and would contain the existing single-family dwelling (176 North Washington Street) and Lot 2 would be approximately 3,082 square feet in size and would contain the existing four-family dwelling and garage (178 North Washington Street), as shown on the drawing originally prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, and further identified as follows: "Subdivision Map Prepared For Marcello Viscogliosi & Ellen Balea, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale 1" = 10', dated January 20, 1994; and WHEREAS, the presence of two (2) principal buildings on one (1) lot is an existing non-conformity, which non-conformity will be eliminated by this subdivision; and WHEREAS, all references to the "Applicant" shall include the Applicant's successor and assigns; and WHEREAS, in July 1993, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted all variances which that Board determined were necessary for this subdivision application; and WHEREAS, easements will be provided for the use of and access to the common driveway and parking area; and �WHEREAS, the Applicant has revised the location of the proposed subdivision line on the plat, as requested by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning Consultant, Engineering Consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on May 19, 1994 and continued through June 16, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, in the course of this 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 area; 3. Referred the application to the Village of Tarrytown, pursuant to Section 452 of the Westchester County Administrative Code and the Village of North Tarrytown Subdivision Regulations, and to the Westchester County Planning Board, pursuant to Section 239-n of the General Municipal Law, because the subject property is located within 500 feet of the municipal boundary with the Village of Tarrytown; 4. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant and the Building Inspector; 5. Requested, received and reviewed a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 6. After review of said field conditions, recommendations and EAF, as well as other materials and matters noted above, the Planning Board declared itself the Lead Agency and issued a "Negative Declaration" determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I Action on June 16, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for subdivision approval for a two (2) lot subdivision, as shown on the drawing, "Subdivision Map Prepared For Marcello Viscogliosi & Ellen Balea, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale 1" = 10', dated January 20, 1994, 2 �prepared by John J. Muldoon, be and is hereby granted 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 of this subdivision resolution and upon 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 mylar subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Westchester County Clerk, provided, however, that this subdivision approval shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this resolution if the following conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 1. The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown the reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-30(f) of the Village Zoning Code. 2. Revision of the above noted plat to demonstrate the following: 3. 2.1 The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivision Plat;" 2.2 The plat shall be revised to show the correct street addresses of the existing buildings; 2.3 The final plat shall comply with the requirements of Section 11 of the Village of North Tarrytown Subdivision Regulations; 2.4 The signature block for the endorsement of the Planning Board Chairman shall be revised to comply with Section ll.A(l)(c)(14c); 2.5 The parking and driveway easements shall be shown on the plat; 2.6 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat. The Applicant shall comply with the requests of the Village Engineering Consultant in his memorandum dated April 28, 1994. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN 500\not4-044.sjp.crc 3 �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, 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: June 10, 1994 Subject: Review of Philipse Plaza Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the site plan application known as "Philipse Plaza" for a property approximately 42,800 square feet in size located along the east side of North Broadway, opposite Philipsburg Manor and the intersection of North Broadway and Pocantico Street, in the C-l Highway Commercial District. The Philipse Plaza site plan application was originally submitted to the Planning Board in February 1993 and was reviewed through June 1993, at which time the Applicant requested the deferral of the review until this recent submission. This site plan submission is slightly different from the version of the plan the Board reviewed last spring. 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. The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing delicatessen building, replace it with a two-story commercial building (containing retail uses on the first floor and office on the second) and continue the manufacturing use of the Antonio Cabinetry building. The proposed building will contain 11,680 square feet of floor area, including 5,040 square feet of retail space and 6,640 square feet of office space. This is an increase of 1,280 square feet from the plan drawings submitted previously. The Applicant has proposed that the delicatessen building remain standing and in operation until the new building is complete. Part of the site is steep and much of it is proposed to be regraded. The Applicant has submitted the following plans: 1. Sheet CA, Sketch of Proposed Facade, "Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," dated February 22, 1993 and most recently revised April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 2. Sheet 1, "Site Survey, Topographic Map Prepared For Antonio & Linda Rodrigues, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., New York," scale 1" = 20*, dated April 5, 1993 and most recently revised April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects and John J. Muldoon; 3. Sheet 2, "Area Map, Site Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 2 0 ' , dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 4. Sheet 3, "Site Grading Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 20', dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 5. Sheet 4, "Deli Operation Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 2 0 ' , dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 6. Sheet 5, Visual Impact, "Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1" = 10', dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; 7. Sheet 6, "Ground Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan, Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," scale 1/8" = 1', dated April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects; and 8. Sheet 7, Elevations, "Philipse Plaza, Village of North Tarrytown, New York," dated February 22, 1993 and most recently revised April 26, 1994, prepared by Contadino Architects. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. 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, 1991 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." 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 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 be conditioned upon a requirement that the cabinet shop's parking area be reexamined whenever an application is made for the redevelopment of the remainder of the property. In this way, at some point in the future, it may be possible to improve upon the type parking and circulation area shown on this plan." The resolution of site plan approval, dated February 22, 1992, included the following condition: "2. The applicant shall apply for amended site plan approval so as to revise his parking and circulation plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Board at the time of application for any site plan approval, subdivision approval or building permit that affects the remaining portion of the property . . . located immediately to the north of the proposed kitchen cabinet manufacturing shop and associated parking area." The Code will only allow more than one principal building on a property when it is designed as a "planned development group." The parking and loading area for Antonio Cabinetry should be redesigned and coordinated with that which is being proposed on the remainder of the site. The entire site should be shown on the proposed site plan and this application should then be considered an application for amended site plan approval affecting all uses on the entire lot. 2. Zoning Compliance: The proposed retail and office uses are consistent with the Village's plans, including the December 1993 "C-l Highway Commercial District Planning and Zoning Study," and the principal uses permitted by the Zoning Code in the C-l District. The C-l District does not require a minimum lot size, minimum lot width or minimum side yard setbacks for the proposed uses. The site appears to comply with the maximum lot coverage for a planned development group of 35%. The proposed building complies with the required minimum front yard setback. The proposed building does not comply with the required minimum rear yard setback of 2 0 feet as only 15 feet is provided. The plan will either need to be revised or a variance obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) . 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation The maximum building height permitted is 35 feet and the proposed building is 35 feet at its highest point. (However, according to the Code, building height for a sloped roof is measured as the average of the slope, which would probably be about 31 feet in the case of the proposed building.) 3. Parking and Loading: We assume that the entire first floor will be retail and service business uses and not contain other uses (such as a restaurant with seats, which has a different parking standard). Based on the parking standards for office and retail uses, a minimum of 47 parking spaces are required. However, only 40 spaces are shown on the plan. Also, the plan notes that 32%, or 13, of the spaces are designed for compact cars. The Zoning Code requires spaces to be 9' X 20' and those spaces which are not designated "compact" on the plan are shown as 10' X 18'. The reduction in number of parking spaces and the change in size of the parking space should either be revised or variances obtained from the ZBA. In addition, the eight spaces required for the Cabinetry building should be shown on the plan. The aisle shown on the site plan is 20 feet wide. We recommend a 24-foot wide aisle. However, if the aisle is widened, the extra few feet will have to be taken from the building and/or the rear yard. The Applicant should consider using angled parking and one-way traffic flow. Also, the site plan should try to incorporate a continuous sidewalk along its frontage. Two handicap spaces are shown on the plan. However, including the required parking for Antonio Cabinetry, the total number of required parking spaces on the site would be 55. Three of the 55 required spaces must be designed for handicapped use. A handicapped-accessible ramp from the parking area to the walkway arcade should also be provided. One loading space is shown on the plan. Because the total floor area of the buildings on the site would exceed 20,000 square feet, two loading spaces may be required. 4. Circulation and Traffic: The site is located on North Broadway (Route 9) opposite the intersection of Pocantico Street and the entrance to Philipsburg Manor. It is proposed that two access drives be provided with one directly to North Broadway and, to the north, an access drive located on the portion of North Broadway to the east of the "grass island." The existing use has an almost continuous curb cut along North Broadway, and a traffic signal facing the driveway opposite 4 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Pocantico Street. With the proposed redevelopment of the site, the Applicant would restrict access to two drives and, therefore, the existing traffic signal at North Broadway and Pocantico Street would no longer control access to this site. We recommend that a limited traffic study be prepared to evaluate impact of this development on North Broadway in the vicinity of the site. It is recommended that the traffic study be conducted during weekday morning and afternoon peak hours and the Saturday midday peak hour at the intersection of North Broadway and Pocantico Street/Philipsburg Manor (including the intersection with the portion of North Broadway located to the east of the southern end of the grass island) and the North Broadway intersection at East Gordon Avenue/Pierson Avenue, located north of the Pocantico Street intersection. In addition, the two proposed access drives should be evaluated during the same time periods with a oneway concept plan and with two-way access drive traffic flow, for comparison purposes. 5. Landscaping and Buffers; To the east of the property is an R4 Residence District. Section 62-9C(2) of the Code states that the required five-foot wide buffer strip between nonresidential uses and residential districts, "shall be in addition to any side or rear yard measurements." The plan does not show the required buffer area, which would increase the aggregate rear yard setback requirement to 2 5 feet as compared with the 15 feet proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant should either revise the plan to include the required buffer or try to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. That section of the Code also allows the Planning Board to require a fence to be provided in the buffer strip. However, due to the change in grade, it is not clear that a five-foot high fence would block the view of the nonresidential use from the residences above. In combination with the regrading and the removal of existing landscaping and trees, the plan proposes to terrace the rear of the property. We recommend increasing the amount of landscaping in this area in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed and as an added buffer for the houses to the east, particularly if the variances are granted. The current site plan does not show landscaping. A landscaping plan should be submitted to the Board which will include a plant list containing plant species, number and size. 6. Environmental Review: According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the site plan and 5 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation variances 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 is required to submit a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). We understand that this is being prepared. A Type I action is required to undergo a "coordinated review" by the involved agencies. 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 agencies (i.e., agencies with approval authority, including the ZBA) and interested agencies (e.g., agencies, such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which maintain an interest in the application but do not have direct approval authority). After 30 days or receipt of the responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency, provided 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) will complete the SEQR review process. We would recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQR process is completed. 7. Referral: Section 239-m of the New York State General Municipal Law requires the referral to the Westchester 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). However, as this was done about a year ago and as the site plan has not been changed substantially, it is our opinion that it would not be necessary to forward the application again. The following are the comments that the County had provided in a letter dated April 21, 1993 from Joseph Potenza to James Margotta: The proposed plan should be submitted to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for their review and approval. The proposed number of on-site parking spaces is consistent with the benchmark standards for off-street parking recommended in the County Planning Department's publication on Off-Street Parking. 6 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Mixed use development at this location in the village, as proposed, is consistent with the principles of the County Planning Board's proposed Patterns For Westchester: The Land and the People. The general appearance of this area as viewed from the state highway would be improved by the proposed development. Comments more specifically relating to the potential impacts on the nearby Philipsburg Manor have been provided by the County's Historic Preservation Planner and are enclosed. In the attachment to that letter from Karen Kennedy, Historic Preservation Planner, Kennedy recommends specific building materials and that the Village communicate with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for comment on the proposed building due to its proximity to Philipsburg Manor. 8. Further Information: The plan should be revised to show the entire lot, including the Antonio Cabinetry building and parking area, as well as to respond to the above comments. If any freestanding signs are proposed, information regarding the dimensions and locations of the signs should also be provided. Michael A. Galante, Vice President/Transportation Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning cc: Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, PE, Village Engineer Louis Contadino, AIA 500\not4-039.sjp.crc 7 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, I N C . 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: June 10, 1994 Subject: Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 1994. As requested, I have enclosed the following materials for your consideration: 1. Draft Resolution of Subdivision Approval for the Petry/DeCarlo Subdivision Application 2. Memorandum Regarding the Philipse Plaza Site Plan Application 3. Parts l and 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form for the Viscogliosi Subdivision (176-178 North Washington Street). Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Enclosures cc: Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, PE, Village Engineer 500\not4-040.sjp Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �D R A F T RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER: ESTATE OF ANNA DE CARLO APPLICANT: JOHN AND MAUREEN PETRY LOCATION: 41 AMOS STREET AND THE EASTERN SIDE OF WEBBER AVENUE TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 17, BLOCK 7, LOT 18 ZONING: R-3 RESIDENTIAL �V RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER: ESTATE OF ANNA DE CARLO APPLICANT: JOHN AND MAUREEN PETRY LOCATION: 41 AMOS STREET AND THE EASTERN SIDE OF WEBBER AVENUE TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 17, BLOCK 7, LOT 18 ZONING: R-3 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for subdivision approval (the Application) 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 property located on the western side of Amos Street and the eastern side of Webber Avenue at 41 Amos Street into two (2) lots for single-family residential development; and WHEREAS, Lot 1 would be approximately 6,554.4 square feet in size and would contain the existing dwelling and Lot 2 would be approximately 5,999.7 square feet in size, as shown on the drawing prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, and further identified as follows: "Subdivision of Lands of the Estate of Anna DeCarlo, Situate at North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, N.Y.," scale 1" = 20', dated April 7, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to remove the existing garage and driveway from Lot 2; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will provide a driveway and a parking space for the existing house on Lot 1 off of Webber Avenue; and WHEREAS, as per Section 12B(2)(b) of the Subdivision Regulations, the Applicant has shown on the plat a strip of land to be dedicated which is 0.25 feet wide extending along the entire frontage of both Lots 1 and 2 along Webber Avenue; and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's Planning Consultant, Engineering Consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed subdivision; and �WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on May 19, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, in the course of this 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 $2,510; 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding area; 3. Referred the application to the Westchester County Planning Board pursuant to Sections 239-1, m and n of the General Municipal Law because the subject property is located on a County road (Webber Avenue); 4. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Planning Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant and the Building Inspector; 5. Requested, received and reviewed a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) ; 6. After review of said field conditions, recommendations and EAF, as well as other materials and matters noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action and made a Negative Declaration on March 17, 1994, and noted on the EAF its determination of nonsignificance of environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for subdivision approval for a two (2) lot subdivision, as shown on the drawing entitled "Subdivision of Lands of the Estate of Anna DeCarlo Situate at North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, N.Y.", scale 1" - 20', dated April 7, 1994, prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, be and is hereby granted 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 of this subdivision resolution and upon 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 2 �County Clerk, provided, however, that this subdivision approval shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this resolution if the following conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained a building permit for construction of the driveway and parking space on Lot 1: 1. All references to the "Applicant" Applicant's successor and assigns. 2. 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 this resolution, including the provision of a driveway and parking space on Lot 1, in accordance with the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code; 2.2 The reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-30(f) of the Village Zoning Code. Revision of the above noted plat to demonstrate the following: 3.1 The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivision Plat;" 3.2 The dimensions of the parking space and driveway for Lot 1 shall be shown on the plat; 3.3 A line shall be provided for the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health; 3.4 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat. 4. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals being granted by the appropriate Westchester County approval authorities with regard to the driveway to be constructed on Lot 1 off of Webber Avenue. 5. The Applicant shall comply with the requests of the Westchester County Department of Public Works as described in the letter from the Westchester County Planning Board to James T. Margotta dated March 30, 1994. 6. The Applicant shall comply with the requests of the Village Engineering Consultant as described in his memorandum to the North Tarrytown Planning Board dated April 28, 1994. 3 �7. The owners of the adjacent property shall be permitted to submit a report prepared by their consultant for review by the Village Engineering Consultant. 8. The driveway and parking space on Lot 1 and any future improvements on Lot 2 shall be constructed so as to yield no net increase in stormwater runoff. The drainage plan for Lot 1 and, at that time that a house and driveway may be proposed for construction on Lot 2, the drainage plan for Lot 2 shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Village Engineering Consultant. The driveway for Lot 2 shall be graded so as to slope towards the south, away from the neighboring property to the north. 9. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the driveway and parking space on Lot 1, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the plat complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or professional engineer attesting to construction of the site improvements as shown thereon. 10. The driveway and parking space on Lot 1 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector within eighteen (18) months from the date of the issuance of a 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. 11. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the improvements, 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 details, which do not comply with the approved plat and 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\not4-012.sjp.crc 4 �J Approved w i t h r e s p e c t t o s u b s t a n c e and form: Viljlage A t t o r n Dailed: Approved by the Planning Board Filed with Village Clerk -Clerk or- Deputy Clerk Dated: 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-1994 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_1994-06-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/bd4c86e2bc1b2287d485cd4a0ddf5faa.pdf 0d3c332ce6d2376f910c9e1e76024f35 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING ~"~ NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK JANUARY 20th, 1994 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on January 20th, 1994 at 8:00 P.M. In the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George H r l t z , Chairman Steve Salman Ellen Tsangarls Donald Caetano James Donovan Roman Windas Edward McCarthy ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Susan Portman, Clark Associates Joe Gulino, CAMCE James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. 1. Phelps Memorial Hospital Medical Office Building-Fence. Mr. Todd Jack, representing Phelps Memorial Hospital presented changes to draft resolution dated December 16th, 1993 asking for approval of the Board, in order to proceed with the installation of the fencing. (Copy in official minutes). Discussion followed regarding the height of the fence to be installed and it was determined that a six foot fence would need a variance from the Zoning Board. The matter was referred to the Zoning Board with the Planning Board urging the Zoning Board to grant a variance allowing a six foot fence to be installed. After a discussion it was agreed that Items 2.4 and 2.5 were agreeable to the Board. Due to the matter being referred to the Zoning Board Chairman Hritz stated that no action would be taken on the proposed amendments until the February meeting of the Board. 2. Route 9 Corridor (C-l District) Zone Changes. Chairman Hritz stated that the members of the Board had received correspondence regarding the zoning changes of Route 9. He stated the Board of Trustees has referred the matter to the Board to consider. Susan Portman outlined the proposed zoning text amendements as submitted in her memorandum to the Board of Trustees dated December 31st, 1993. (Copy in official minutes). Ms. Gandolfo stated that any present use that does not conform to the new code will be allowed to continue, unless it is abandoned for more than one year. �-2Mr. Hritz stated the. Board is interested in reviewing the zoning changes proposed and their job is to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Discussion followed regarding enforcement of the code, the defining the definition of "junked cars", complaints whether oral or written. It was also recommended that "Commercial" or "Highway Commercial" be changed to "Historic Preservation". Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that the Planning Board accede to the Board of Trustees and that the Board of Trustees be the Lead Agency. Carried. Chairman Hritz asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. Mr. Emil Frandsen, 162 Highland Avenue, stated he was the owner of property on Route 9 which houses an Animal Hospital, and Auto Body Repair Shop and a Meinke Muffler Shop. He would like to know if the new zoning would have any effect on this type of business. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the mentioned businesses would continue to be non-conforming. Mr. Donovan stated if the code was too restrictive businesses would not want to come into North Tarrytown. Mr. Eddie Keegan, 285 North Broadway informed the Board he has been in business in North Tarrytown for over fourteen years and prior to that in business in White Plains for over forty-two years. He feels that changing the zoning would not be in the best interest of the business people. Mr. Hritz stated he would draft a letter to be sent to the Board of Trustees urging them to take into consideration the issues raised and asking them to improve the appearances of the area to prepare for the increased tourism. 3. Gerald Bregman-185 Valley Street-Stores and Apartments. Mr. Ron Turnquist, Architect for the project presented plans and model of proposed project. Mr. Turnquist stated that there will be five retail st&res and five apartments facing Chestnut Street. He stated the project has received the various variances for sideyards, rear yards and parking. Mr. Turnquist stated that parking will be provided for the apartments on the property at 76 Chestnut Street. Mr. Turnquist stated that Mr. Rodrigues is in the process of purchasing 76 Chestnut Street and will create 18 parking spaces, of which 8 parking spaces will be for the project and 10 will be dedicated to the village for off-street parking. He stated that the Zoning Board oi Appeals did stipulate that the parking will have to be constructed �-3at the same time as the dwelling units, and before a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Mr. Turnquist stated that the roof area of the building was turned into a sitting area and will be landscaped and paved, with benches to be installed for resting. Susan Portman, Clark Associates presented memorandum dated January 13th, 1994 reviewing the Site Plan. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Joe Gulino, CAMCE Engineer stated they have reviewe the revised site plan dated December 10th, 1993 and offered a memorandum dated January 17th, 1994 outlining their comments regarding foundation of present building, located and design of proposed water supply, sewage disposal and drainage systems. (Copy in official minutes). Ms. Portman stated that Mr. Turnquist has submitted a long form EAF which will be reviewed. After a discussion, Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that this is a Type I Action and will have no significant effect on the environment and that the Board accept the plans as submitted and allow the applicant to proceed with the project. Carried. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that the Planning Board be declared the lead Agency for this action. Carried. Mr. Caetano moved to approve the Site Plan in order to allow Mr. Rodrigues to proceed with the parking lot and that Mr. Rodrigues comply with the suggestions made by CAMCE and Clark Associates and that the Building Inspector review the final drawings on the parking lot prior to the issuance of a building permit. Seconded by Mr. Donovan. Carried. Mr. Rodrigues was informed that the Recreation fee would be approximately $9600. and must be paid before a building permit could be issued. Mr. Rodrigues stated that the building was an existing building and felt that the recreation fee should not have to be paid . Ms. Gandolfo stated the Planning Board did not have the power to waive the fee. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Gandolfo presented a list of Unpaid Fees for projects previously approved. (Copy in official minutes). �& .*+ -4Mr. Margotta stated that a fee of $2,500. was imposed when the application is submitted. The money is held in escrow and drawn upon as bills from consultants are received. When the money is exhausted the applicant must replenish the account. He stated if the account is not replenished the matter will not be put on the agenda. After a discussion it was decided that an attempt will be made to collect the long overdue accounts. MINUTES Mr. Windas moved seconded, by Mr. Caetano that the minutes of the September, 1993 and the October, 1993 minutes be approved as submitted. Carried. There being no further business to come before the meeting Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, »—»- ;re>ie Amato Acting Clerk &d �D n ft P f RESOLUTION Adopted at the Jfctt • ? 6 , 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MIXED USE BUILDING. PROPOSED: FIVE APARTMENTS, FIVE RETAIL SPACES AND ONE OFFICE IN TWO-STORY BUILDING (PLUS LOFT). OWNER: GERALD BREGMAN LOCATION: 185 VALLEY STREET TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 16, BLOCK 1, LOT 11 ZONING: C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 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 redevelopment of an existing one-story building to create a two-story (plus third story loft) retail and residential apartment building with an office, and an outdoor sitting area on a property that is approximately 4,900 square feet in size and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Valley Street, as shown on the drawings prepared in the office of Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects, and further identified as follows: "1, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Lower Level Plan, Site Plan and Locations Map," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, and last revised December 10, 1993; and "2, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Upper Level and Loft Plans, Data and Symbols," scale 1/4" = 1 ' , dated November 30, 1993, and last revised December 10, 1993; and WHEREAS, the site plan proposes the redevelopment of an existing one-story building to create a two-story building plus a third story loft (33 feet in height) , with five retail spaces on the first level to be accessible from Valley Street, five onebedroom apartments on the second level to be accessible from Chestnut Street and an office on the second level and loft level, for a total addition of 2,980 square feet in floor area, and an outdoor sitting area with planters on the second level (approximately 500 square feet in size); 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 Building Inspector has determined that the Applicant has received all necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown for the proposed site plan, conditioned on the Applicant's agreement to provide, in perpetuity, at least eight (8) nearby, off-site, off-street parking spaces at 76 Chestnut Street; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has conditioned the approval of the variance regarding parking on the Planning Board's approval of a site plan for the parking area at 76 Chestnut Street; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held by the Planning Board at the Village Hall on January 20, 1994, 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. Received and reviewed an elevations drawing of the proposed development, dated December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist; 4. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village planning consultant, the Village engineering consultant and the Building Inspector; 5. 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); and 6. After 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 issued a "Negative Declaration," dated January 20, 1994, 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 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 2 �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 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 required recreation fees in the amount of jtoQQ approved by the Village Attorney. 1.3 The reimbursement 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. as Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the planning and engineering consultants, to demonstrate the following: 2.1 Additional information shall be provided on the plan regarding landscaping, including the sizes and species of plantings. 2.2 The plan drawing shall be revised and titled, "Final Site Plan." 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. The structure and foundation shall be investigated by a structural engineer to determine its adequacy in supporting the proposed additional floors, to the satisfaction of the Village engineering consultant. 4. The location of the nearest fire hydrants and the location and design of the proposed water supply, sewage disposal and stormwater drainage systems, including the locations, sizes, invert and rim elevations to the existing systems, shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Village engineering consultant. 3 �5. All exterior light fixtures shall be positioned so as to prevent glare upon adjacent properties. 6. The Applicant shall submit an application to the Planning Board for site plan approval and receive site plan approval for the proposed parking lot at 76 Chestnut Street. 7. 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. 8. 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 condition's with respect thereto for a good cause. 9. 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 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 500\not4-OK.sjp:ev 4 �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: January 13, 1994 Subject: Review of Valley Plaza Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the revised site plan and full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) which have been submitted for the Valley Plaza property, located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Valley Street in the C-2 General Commercial District. The proposed building will have an additional 2,980 square feet of floor area. The Applicant has submitted the following plans and documents: 1. "1, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Lower Level Plan, Site Plan and Location Map," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, and most recently revised December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects; 2. " 2 , Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Upper Level and Loft Plans, Data and Symbols," scale: 1/4" = 1', dated November 30, 1993 and most recently revised December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects; 3. "3, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Elevations," scale 1/4" = l 1 , dated December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects; and 4. Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated December 24, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects. Connecticut -(203)255-3100 FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island -(516)364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Open Space Requirement: In the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, Part I, multiple dwellings are identified as a permitted use in the C-2 District by reference to all permitted uses in the R-5 District. However, under the R-5 District standards, there is a requirement that 100 square feet of "usable open space" be provided for each multiple dwelling unit. The revised site plan shows a proposed outdoor sitting area, approximately 500 square feet in size. This sitting area would be an attractive addition to the proposed building and, although the term "open space" may be argued, this is more usable passive recreation space than currently exists on the property. The Building Inspector, and if necessary the Zoning Board of Appeals, should determine whether this satisfies the usable open space requirement (and whether the requirement applies to R-5 District uses in the C-2 District). The sitting area includes four benches, three lamp posts and six trees in planters (see elevation drawings). In a rooftop setting, the main concerns for planting involve the weight and water issues. The plantings should be irrigated. The Applicant's architect and/or engineer should be certain that the planters will drain property. The Applicant's architect should also be certain to select a tree species which is suitable for planting in a container and which will not be exceedingly heavy. As well, a "soil-less" soil mixture is recommended for planting. In addition, care should be taken in the lighting of the sitting area so as not to direct light or glare onto neighboring properties and into the proposed dwelling units. 2. Environmental Assessment Form: We have revised a few of the answers provided on the EAF (see enclosed). 3. Environmental Review Status: 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). At this time, the Planning Board may declare its intent to be the Lead Agency. The notice of intent to be Lead Agency and the EAF should then be circulated to the involved and interested agencies. We have prepared a draft notice for circulation (see enclosed). After 30 days or receipt of responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation may declare itself Lead Agency, provided no other involved agency objects, and the Planning Board may then make a determination of significance. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning Enclosures cc: Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer Gerald Bregman Ronald E. Turnquist 500\not4-000.sjp:ev 3 �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM Project Name or Description V a l l e y Plaza Proposed second s t o r y and loft addition t o e x i s t i n g 1-story building t o contain five r e t a i l spaces, five dwelling u n i t s and one o f f i c e . Project Location 185 V a l l e y Street Name of Applicant Gerald Bregman Village Agency Intending to Act as Lead Agency Address 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Contact Person Date Mailed I. Planning Board Linda David, V i l l a g e A d m i n i s t r a t o r Telephone Number (914) 631-0533 Type of Action (Check A or B) M A. • B. TYPE I UNUSTED 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 a Subdivision Approval XX Site Development Plan Approval • Special Permit XX Variance • Wetlands Permit • Stream Discharge Permit - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation X£ Area Sewage Disposal/Water Supply Approval - Westchester County Health Department Review • 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. Environmental Significance of Action: Initial Review of Environmental Assessment Form indicates that: (Check A, B, or C - To be done by Initiating agency) • 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. • C. No opinion has been made yet as to whether a positive or negative declaration is likely for this action. Valley Plaza Site Plan and Variance Applications IV. A Copy of this Form and the Environmental Assessment Form Has Been Sent to the Agencies Indicated on the Attached Ust. 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 Vallev Plaza S i t e Plan and Variance Applications and: (Check A or B) D A. Does not want to be Lead Agency. EK B. Wants to b e 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 (USTED ON THE FIRST PAGE O F 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. 800/not3-030,Jd �LIST OF INVOLVED OR INTERESTED AGENCIES BPC Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 D Westchester County Department of Planning 432 County Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 EK Zoning Board of Appeals Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 0X Westchester County Department of Health 112 East Post Road White Plains, New York 10601 EK New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561 • New York State Department of transportation 4 Burnett Boulevard, Region 8 Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 D New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 D New York State Department of Transportation Saw Mill River Road Valhalla, New York 10595 (Other Agencies) 5O0\noO43O.Jd �i4-ie*2 (2'67)~7c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review SEQF4 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Ipose: 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. Frequent* \y, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or n<> formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert In environmental analysis. In addition, many who hrve knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to p ovide 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 I \ F 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 n.viewer 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 writ iher an impact is likely to be considered small t o 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 Prrt 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 cc mpleled for this project: D Part 1 D Part 2 DPart 3 pon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting formation, and considering bcth the magitude and Importance of each impact, It is reasonably determined by the ead agency that: 4 D A. The project will net result in any large and Important impact(s) 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 projec t could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant e'ffect f o r this Unlisled Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration w i l l 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 V a l l e y Plaza (185 Valley S t r e e t , North Tarrytown, NY) 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 �PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE; this document is d c gnrd to assist In determining \shether the action proposed may have a significant effect] ect. on the environment Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be conside ^js part of the application for approval and maybe subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition rnfoimation you believe will b>* 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. 5 NAME OF ACTION _______ V a l l e y Plaz• t LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Stfoet redress, Municipality wid County) 185 V a l l e y : ' t r e e t , North T a r r y t o w n , KY 10591 (Westchester Co.) NAME OF ArruCANTJSPONSOR Turnquist | BUSINESS TELEPHONE (914) 631-9107 Architects ADDRESS 95 BeeJqnan .'.venue STATE CITY/PO NY- : .:: North Tarry'.own NAME OF OWNER (H different) Gerald 2IP CODE 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE Bregrran (914) 631-0287 r ADDRESS 17 7 C r e s t D r i v e CITY/PO STATE Tarrytown NY: ZIP CODE 10591 DESCniPTfOf. OF ACTION R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of; 1 s t o r y r e t a i l s p a c e and a d d i t i o n of 5 second f l o o r d w e l l i n g u n i t s , ¥ 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: EDUrban Dlndustrlal DComrnerclal DResldential (suburban) DForest DAgriculture DOthct ; _ 0*11 , acrp<; 2, Tot.il acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) . Forested Agricultural (Includes orcftaid$. cropland, pasture, etc) Wetland (freshwater or tlda! as per Articles 24, 25 of fci I Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Ro?ds, buildings and other { aved surfaces Other i n d i c a t e type) ..,,..., PRESENTLY acres acres acres ..,.v, acres ~+ , acres »,^^- r . acres Li„ acres acres • Rural (non«farm] AFTER COMPLETION , , acres —«—> acres ' acres , acres . acres acres " acres acres • , What Is predominant soil type 0 on project site? ^ . J j l / . / i L « . % of site' a Soil drainage! DVVell < rained w % of site DModeratoly well difllned _ • Poo»l> drained , ^ % of site .b. II any .^rlcultural land Is I volved, hqw many acres of sHLare classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY!' land Classification Syston » , _ acres (Sao 1 Nyc.RR 3?'0), ' , • s Are there M f o c k outcropping on project site? OY.eV/- OHo a, What i< depth to bedrocM Ij/ft,, „„(tiH<'"0 ;:v,i , �5. Appro* "•••ale percentage of " o p c w d project site with slept s 6 DO-10^ N/A D 1 5 % or Rreater *; • fhrvi59» ','•** , ^ Is pro/r't substantially co li^uous t o , 01 contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Register* of Historic Places * DVes ©No 7. Is projer t substantially con' guouv'lo a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? N / 'e. What is the depth of the water i,-»Me? DYes J&No ^ . (in'feetl 9. Is site lecnted over a ' p r i m r r y , principal, or sole sourer r<cit.'ifer? DYes CSNo 10. Ho hunting, fishing o r shc'l fishing opportunities presently exist i n the project area? DYes ©No 11. Does project site c o n t a i n a n y species of plant or animnl life'' that is identified as threatened or endangered? IJYes D3No According to -j. ; » , Identify each spores ', '"";• • ' 12. Are thrrr. a n y unique or c uisual l a n d forms' on t h e project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes; other geological formations) : DYes CSNo Describe „ •• ' -' '' • ' ' • > : . \ ' • 13. Is the project site present y used b y the c o m m u n i t y or neighborhood as an open space o r recreation area? DVes CSNo f yes, explain „ _ ..,_ . _ - _ _ u • _»__«_--. 14. Does tlrf? present site i n c l ' d e scenic views known t o be i m p o r t a n t to the community? I !Yes SNo '; 15. Streams within o r c o n t i g u o . s t o project area: Nona ., f . Name of Stream i n d name o f River to w h i c h it is tributary 16, Lakes, p-nds, wetland area; within or contiguous to projoi. t area: p Name None „ _ ^ L _ • h Size (In acres) — _ 17, Is the s i " served by existing public utilities? KJYes UNo a) If Yes. does sufficient cavacity f»lst tO'allp'w c o n n r , c i i " ' , ; ' CSYes DNo b) If Ye< '••••ill I m p r o v e m e n t 1 b r necessary to allow c o n n f ion? DYes ENo 18, Is the s»" located in a n jig-ici/lli'ial district certified p u n u a n t t o Agriculture a n d Markets L a w , Article 25<AA, Section .•.'<* and 304?' Hies IS N o 19, Is the sit-:- located In or s u f ^ ' a n t i a l l v contiguous to a O i l 1 ' •' Environmental Area designated pursuant t o Article 8 of the EC I , and 6 NYCRR M,7 j^Yes ^ ^ 20, Has the '.ite ever been used for the disposal o f solid or h.vardous wastes? DNes KINo '' ' * * l' ' B. Projecl Description 1 . Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill In dimensions /«< appropriate) a. Total " w i t l g u o u s acreage o w n e d or c o n t r o l l e d b y ' p r o j f i sponsor Q..-..A.1 b. P r o j e u acreage t o be deselopedN / A , 0 < l ( , acres l u i i i a l l y ; QA\.~ -, acres, , acres ultimately. c. ProjerM acreage t o remain u n d e v e l o p e d „ D _ . J i Z A — . . «i' "vs. d. Length " f project, In m i l e - : „ M/A , (I( approprlat'') ,• e. If the project Is an expaiHon, Indicate percent of e>.p^ , " | on proposed (. Numb- of ofr-t,... p . , H , „ , , , „ .xblin, ^ g M a x i m u m vehicular t r i p * i eneraled per hour ,*T&S9t..> ,—„„.. . •^Ultimately ^P, , %i .^ p o s e d ^ ^ h. If residential; Number anr" t y p * of housing units: One Fam ly Two Family Initially 7-0 _,.. „ „ . . , Dlmensi-'iij (in feet) of Inn \<i proposed structure? J L L , ^ ( ^h^r\y (upon c o m p l e t i o n o f project)? „ u_ , § '„ "„i /> '" • ( .. ''Condominium Multiple Fflmlly, , ,Q„„,,,.. ' , • !, ,,,> ,• ', „, L ,,,«. : „„ „ * height; _JLP. . , „ width; „ 1 & C U , length, "'' ••i-j, I inear f ' " I of frontarje ai<- g fl public thoroughfare pfV«|< < will occupy is? J & P 3 ••''|- , ft ' M1",,,:, ' . ' . , . » ' '• <W,' w 1 ( • • • • • ; > ! ' ' ' ' • • ' • ! • ' i ' ' ; ' f " ' : ' " ' ' ' ' i k ' " ' ' " ' ' ' ' " " ' i / ' w ' ' ^ i! " ^ ' »•' ' ' : ^ ' 1 ' ' 1 — �2. How much natural n.atpfiJ (t »• 'uck, earth, cr11 j .,dl U removed from the sn •' N/A xoni/cutic ydrd> 3. Will disturbed areav he reclaimf*i> DYes -l"J.No fcDN/A a. K yes, for vshai intend . purpose Is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled lor reclamation' DYes DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled (or reclamation? DYes Of Jo ' 4. How many acres of vegetaiion (trees, shrubs, gruund covers) will be removed fr.Jin site? N/Af acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetatio . be removed by this project? r DYes BNo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 _ month-, (including demolition)., 7. If multi-phased: a, Total number of phases anticipated __J1L!*. .1 (number), b, Anticipated date of commencement phase I month c, Approximate completion date of final phase month d, Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? DYes 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYo ,. . _ year, (Including demolition). year. Dl v.> K)No 9. Number of jobs generated during construction .. >u'i -, ; after project is c .mplete 15+ 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ft 11. Will project require relocation ot any projects wi lacilities? DYes (}3Nv If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Du*> K3No a, If yes, Indicate type of waste (sewage, indu:tiial, etc.) and amount b, Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged ' 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? il-DYes DNo Type Sewage 14. Will surface area of an existing \w,ter body Include or decrease by proposal? Explain 15. Is project or any poition of project located in a mO year flood plain? DYi-. DYes 18, Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes IS)No 20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding (he lucal ambient noise levels? if vat . inHir.atft tvnt.M PeeUt<l\ DYes $No GDNo tons/month 19, Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes 21, Will project result In an Increase In energy use? _ : C3No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? EDYes DNo a. If yes, what Is the amount per month Z.i0 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid \saste facility be UM/<J? KlYes , DNo c. If yes, give name « J ^ C S n 2 m z n 3 £ = 8 t o « ^ -f.^aafc d Will any wastes not go Into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary Luinll? e. If Yes, explain 17, Will the project Involve the disposal of solid wasiu? , DYes a, If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal' b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? _ . years, JflNo tSIYus LjNo DYes 1S3N*. DNo a l e c t r i a a l & Qvui £or ho.abincr and ) ah tine? 22, If water supply Is from wells, Indicate pumping < ap.icily 23, Total anticipated water usage pel day MQ±^ lllh , (jallons/i iriute, < ,.. ^lions/day, a p p r o * , f &O0 ^ f>6 24, Does project Involve local, State or federal furulinu? DYes $No ' - •r* �y 2*>. A p p r o \ a l i Required: \ . Ciiv, Town, Village Board CS.Ye$ DNo building permit City, Town, Village Plannhi Board ESYes DNo p i qtl.P ^ nrJf b)nnr<^ City, Town Zoning Board KJYes PNC zrmipg City, County Health Department DYes CvJNo Of dor Local Agencies IS Yes DNo Other Regional Agencies DYes K-No , DYes $No DYes ©No • » m WF Submittal Date Type Stflio Agencies Federal Agencies hoard flpp^nyq 1 variannp arnfr-i f f t n t - n r n l rpvipw hnard C. Zoning and Plannltg Information 1 . Hoes proposed action i n o h e a planning or zoning decision? DNo RYes. If Yes, Indicate decision requiredDzonlng amendment Rzdnln'g variance Dnew/revlsion of m.-" or p h n Dspc-clal use permit '.DreKui'co mnnnR'-ment plan..; 2. What Is the zoning class* -r.ationf.0of the site? J ^ L i H l ^ n f e i l q Dsubdivislon Klsite plan Dother .______»___«««»«»«__«___»___. 6&\€Vftl G M J A ^ C . V J What Is the maximum po Mitlnl development of the* she if developed 'as permitted by the present zoning? ..presently .noiir uiiXcumi ng„.r Laxil -J*...;J•:irking,f p.t;a-—r'.na .expansion pprm.ittei%. 4. What is the proposed zo- ng of the site? — e x i s t i n g . . & m u l t i p l e dw»I3.i.ng. 5. What is the maximum po ntlal development of the site if developed as permitted by the,proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action c c Ustent vs 1th the recommend*-'! uses In adopted local land use plans? , •' KJYes DNo |7, What are the predominate land use(s) and zoning cl.i.'f-ifc ntlons within a V* mile radius of proposed action? 8, l< the proposed action compatible with ad|olnlnB ; s'Mfn'indlng land uses within a V< mile? KJYes 9. If the proposed action is 'he subdivision of land, boss tunny lots are proposed?' , lil& DNo , a. What is the mlnmum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action reqi1 -e any authorlzatlon(s) for the formation of sewer or water, districts? Kpr^s iONo 11, Will the proposed action -rcntr? a demand.for rny community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? B3Yc' DNo a. If yes, is existing < -pacify sufficient to handle* piojected demand? Ds)Yes DNo 12 AS ill the proposed action i suit In the generation of tialfic significantly above present levels? a, If yes, is the exist' t\ road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DYes GJN'o DNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional Inf^matlon as may be r w d r d \o < larlfy your pio|c<t. If thete are or may be any adverse Impact.', associated with your p iposnl, piease discuss such impacts and the Measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification l certify that the Informal! n provided above Is true Vi I ho best of my knowledge, Date App!lr*MtKfoj nature lltM* Wv^IIZl ' • lthe *> Hon Isjln the CoaiFal An'.rJ and )tm m with till* assessment, •. 12/24/93 lie .J&flW t-ejai a Male w w v , n»mplet« th<? C o i t a l AMeiimenl Form before proceeding ' ..'•^....i:. MMatia^IMIM, �Part ' - P R O J E C T IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE f Reipomibllii) nl lead Agency ( Genrt*! Information (Read C*1 lully) • In ' "mpleting the form the ' vi^vct .should be guided b\ the question- Have my responses and determinations been ' ro'^nableT The reviewer is -M expected to be an expert onvironrnentalanalyst, £ / Identifying that an impact v 'I br potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. [* An\ large impact must be c> Muatcd in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an Impact In column 2$lmply p asH that it be looked at fur' >or • Thf rxamples provided are t< asMst the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of nvriitude that would trigger a response in column 2Thr examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for mo$t situations. But, for my spc'cific project or site otlinr examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for ^ Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. ', • J V impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality,-will vary. Therefore) the examples are Illustrative and. ha\r been offered as guidance. 1lt?> do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question, ' • Tlv "umber of examples per n a t i o n does not indicate the importance of each question, » • In identifying impacts, cons'ir' T ionp, term, short term and cumlative effects, ' I Jnstrn< "ons (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 quesi -ms in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. M*>he answers should be cc 'sidered as Yes answers, c. If answering Yes to a questio \ then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate; the potential size of the, Impact. If Impact threshold c -als or exceeds any example provided, check column 2, If Impact will occur but threshold is lover than example, cheel column 1,., d. If maower has doubt about s r.e of the Impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large Impact < >eck<?d in column 2 can be mlt'nated by changr(s) In the project to a small to moderate Imp^t, also check the Yes Ivx in column 3, A No response indicates that,such a reduction is not possible, This must be explained in Part 3 IMPACT ON LAND 1 , Will 'he proposed action resul in a ph\ «lcal change to llm ptf-cct site? KINO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 * Any < wislruction on slopes of ''5% oi greater, (15 foot ri.'f p'<r 100 foot of length), or where the gf.eral slopes in the project a m exceed 10?(< * Conjunction on land where th;- 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 r'i existing ground surfm*. * Connection that will continue for more than 1 year or Involve more, than "lift phase or stage, * Exc»v.*Mon for mining purpose that would remove more tli.m 1,000 tons " ' natural material (I e., ff.ik or soil) per year, * Con.s'"".tlon or expansion of n unitary landfill, % Construction In a designated 11 odway * Other impacts , _-—...*... * 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact a D DVes DNo a a DYes DNo D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo' • a a a a DYes DNo DVes DNo DYes • Yes DYes DNO i.i Can Impaot Be Mitigated By Projeot Change r r. N DNo DNO L |( j ^ W I I I i «?fe be an effect <-'• „.i\ " .«<i«»n n» unusual land fomx found on ..^fciesh'MI.e., cliffs, dune?., 8c«-«i rjlt al formations, ctc.JW'N'^ OYES '^?peclfi- land forms: _ ... „..„„,J^^,.^ «.* n 13 DYes DNo �IMPACT O N WATER V> ill proposed action affec« any %s ater body designated as protected' (l'">der Articles 15, 24, 25 of he f nvirpnmental Conservation Law, ECU E3NO DYES f »»rnpl(»» that would appl*. <o column 2 T> .olopable area of site cc t?ins a protected water body 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential LarQe Impact D • D i g g i n g more than 100 c u ' i c Nards of material from 1 channel of a protected stream. • D t e n s i o n of utility distribute • facilities through a protected svater body. D D D D D • • O»»'truction in a designate < f t ^ l m a t e r or tidal wetland O0''-r impacts: L . 4 . Will proposed action affec' any non-protected existing or new body of water? ' . GO NO DYES Samples that would apply 'o column 2 • A V i % increase or decrease, -u the surface area of any body of water or n ore than a 10 acre Increase or decrease. • Coivtructlon of a body of wa*er that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • O i l " r Impacts: . ; . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundsvater quality or quantity? K)NO E^'Mples that would apply o column 2' •Yes DYes DNo DNo •Yes •Yes •Yes DNo ONo DNo D •Yes ONo Q D D •Yes •Yes DNo DNo D D D D •Yes •Yes ONo DNo D D • Yes DNo a D •Yes DNo D D D • Yes • Yes DNo DNo D D • Yes, DNo; a ° •Yes EJNo • D • Yes DNo a a O • Yes .-DNo•'. D • Yes DNo a ' • . DYes DNo D • YOI QNO" • DYES Prt'!"'sed Action will requite i discharge permit. r Prc'f e d Action requires us • of a source of wakv th.-'t does not ha\<- approval to serve prop' •ed Ipf-'ject) action Pre: ' e d Action requires wa«- r Mipp'v from svclh with nt'" 1 '' i than 45 gal' its per minute pumplnp •ap«c it-, Co/i"fuctlon or operation cr< -inn any contamination of a '•• nter supp'v system. a f f f t groundwater. Prcf-'-ed Action will advers' Liqi" • effluent will be comes • • off the site t o facilities \shk h presently do n -i exist or have Inadequ.' e capacity, Propped Action would use ••ater in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. Prop' 'ed Action will likely c«- <s<? slltntlon or other dijehativ' Into an exls'.i'-n body of water t o the <• ent that there will be an ol\ lews visual coninM t o natural conditions P r o i " " e d Action will requif the storage of petroleum at chemical p r e ' " ' ts greater than 1,100 R< lions Prop' ,r>d Action will allow ic idential uses In areas without water and,'' * sewer services, Proi , f , d Action locates camp • -fdal and/or industrial uses v, filch may fequi'" new or expansion of e - stlnii waste'treatment and.'oi storage facllif'"s, Other 1 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Impacts' j ^ W i l l proposed action alter >' a'mtv* flow or paltenn, r<» nifface ^ A v o t " runoff I^MO DYES ^ ^ E x a m r l e s thai would apply tf -OIUIMM ; • P r o f " ''d Action would c h a w flood v,aler flosvs 7 a O \ �1 Small to Moderate Impact • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion oposed Action is Incompatible with existing drainage patterns, oposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: «__»_«-____--»____«____---«-^^ t D D D D 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Urge Mitigated By Impact Project Change D DYes DNo D DYes DNo D DYe$ DNo D DYe$ DNo * IMPACT ON AIR RPNO DYES 7.-Will proposed action affect a r quality? Examples that would apply t( column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1, XX) or more vehicle trips In any ifTven hour, • Proposed Action will result in he Incineration of more than 1 tpn of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contami lants will exceed 5 lbs, per hour or a heat source producing more thjn 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: __ D D ... ' DYes DNo D. O DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D O .'"' DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo ° ° DYes DNo ri a •Ves DNo IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect a iy threatened or endangered Apecles? D3NO DYES ^rxamples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near He or found on the site, • Removal of any portion of a < Itlcal of significant wildlife habitat. • Application of pesticide or herb clde more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other Impacts: ' 3, Will Proposed Action substant1, lly affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? K3N6 DYES Examples that would apply to-olumn 2 • Proposed Action would substai 'tally interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wlldM? <p^cics. 1 Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 year • of age) of other locally Important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 0, Will the Proposed Action affe^.t anrlcultural land resources? C3NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 The proposed action would sever c»o<* or limit access to agricultural IjaL (Includes cropland, hayfleld', pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc) 8 0 �1 -V • onstruction activity would txcavate or compact the soil profile'of agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, If Ic ated in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would db upt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e,$, subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, ••trip cropping); or create a nei.'d for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to I creased runoff) • Other impacts: _______»_____-«__-. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affec' aesthetic resources? KJNQ 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 marvmade or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible -to users of aesthetic resources which vvlh eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. roject components that will result In the elimination or significant !reenlng of scenic views kno <n to be important to the area. • • Other Impacts; _~_>-._«^»-_»___-____~__~. IMPACT ON' HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12, Will Proposed Action lmpa< t nny site or structure of historic, pre« historic or paleontologlcal nnortance? GDNO DYES Examples that would apply {•> column 2 • Propped Action occurring wh -lly or nar'tfally within or substantially continuous to any facility or jH li«»"H *-<n the State or National Register of Imiorlc places. • Any impact to an archaeolopi' il site or fossil bed located within the projf ' site. « Prof *'d Action will occur I an moa designated as sensitive for arch." logical sites on the N'i Site Inventory, » Othfi Impacts: . IMPACT ON OPEN f WOE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or fu!""? open spaces or recrc (lonnl opportunities? ' Examples that would apply "> column 2 ISjNO DYES «^3e p« imanent foreclosure of * future recreational'opportunity, t^^mfli'-w reduction of an ope*' siwe Important to the community. * Oth«."' impacts: , ,,. , . , ..'. ',, . 3 \ >/ Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change • • D •Yes QNo D •Yes DNo D D •Yes ONo D • •Yes DNo D • •Yes DNo D • •Yes ONo D D •Yes D'No D D •Yes •DNo D D •Yes DNo D D" •Yes DNo D a •Yes DNo a 0 •Yes ONo , GQO Small to Moderate Impact 2 (Potential Large Impact D •Yes •Yes •Yes DNo DNo DNo D �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Q D D D D D DYes DYes 'DNo DNo PX«* DNo D D DYes DNo a D' DYes DNo a D DYes DNo • Blasting within 1,500 feet r. a hospital, school or othe,r sensitive facility. ' o d d s will occur routinely (i* ore than one hour per day). D D DYes DNo ( D a • Proposed Action will produ* e operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for nols- outside of structures a D DYes DYes DNo DNo • Proposed Action will remov- natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNo • Othf i D D DYes DNo D • DYes DNo a a DYes DNq • Storap.c facilities for one mllli n or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquid 1 D a DYes DNo « pfop'vod action may result i the excavation or other disturbance ^ v l t h m ?,000 feet of a site use' for ih* disposal of solid ot hazardous D D DYes DNO a , b DYes D No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to ousting transportation systems? KJNO Example* that would appis to column 2 DYES w * Alteration of present p a t t e r n of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Changer IMPACT ON ENERGY 1S. Will proposed action affoct the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? _ $NO DYES ftamples that would app!y to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause i greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in. the m jnlclpallty. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply systeir to ser\e more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a m a j ' i commercial or industrial use. • Other Impacts: « NOISE Al 1 ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionab ? odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? KNO DYES Examples that would applv o column 2 impacts: __^ IMPACT Of PUBLIC-HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affer public health and safety? 13NO Examples that would apply o column 2 DYES, • Propped Action may cause a si' of explosion or release of hazardous substances (I.e. oil, pesticides, • lemlcals, radiation, etc) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic losv level discharge or emission, • Proposed Action may result In • he burial of "hazardous wastes" In any form (I e, toxic, poisonous, l ghly reactive, radioactive, Irritating, Infectious, etc.) ' > O l h * " impacts: _~ _. 10 �IMPACT ON GP JWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNI Y OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 Wj|| proposed action affe< the cliaracter of the existing community? 59 NO DYES rumples that would app1 to column 2 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • The permanent population f the city, town or village in vshich the project is located is likely t' grow by more than S%, • Th* municipal budget for c nitfil expenditures or operating services will increase by more than Ho per year as a result of this project, • Proposed action will conflie' with officially adopted pl«\ns or goals, • Proposed action will cause r change in the density of land use. •"Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or .-uoas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a dr nand for additional community services (e R schools, police and fire, Ac ) • Proposed Action will set an • nportant precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create r eliminate employment • Otb r r impacts: ; . D ,' >n : 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYe* Ohio D D DYes DNo a D D D D D DYes DYe$ DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes D M O D D D D DYes DYes DYes a D DNo DNo DNo 19. Is ^rc, or Is there likely to bo, public controversy related to po* ntial adverse environmental Impacts? G3NO DYES If Any Actio In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannoi Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of l.ond Agency Part 3 <"ijst be preparedlf one :r m«»re Impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even If the Impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions ** " Discus* the following for each Impact identified In Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the Impact 2. Desr rlbe (If applicable) how thr Impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate Impact by project changes). 3. Bas'-' on the Information av/» lablt\ decide If It is reason*!'!** to conclude that this Impact is Important, 1 " answer the question of Impottance, consider: * The probability of t l f Impact occurring * The duration of the Impact * Its Irreversibility, lncli'dln« permanently lost resound of value " Whelher the Impact c in or will be controlled ; < * The regional consequ'nee M the Impact $' < " Its potential dlvergenr? ffrMii local neods and nO'iN * Whether known obJcUon* to the project folate H- diU Impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 �PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS IN POOR ORIGINAL CONDITION �David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. 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: December 10, 1S93 Subject: Preliminary Review of Valley Plaza Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the site plan application for a property which is approximately 4,900 square feet in size, triangular in shape and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Valley Street in the C-2 General Commercial District. The site presently contains a onestory building (including a garage) which covers practically the entire lot. The Applicant is proposing the renovation of the existing first floor for retail use and the construction of a second floor for residential apartments and an office and a third floor loft for that office. The building permit application states that the proposed building will have a total floor area of 2,980 square feet and be 33 feet in height. Five retail spaces are proposed and five one-bedroom dwelling units are proposed. The Applicant has submitted the following plans: 1. "1, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Lower Level Plan, Site Plan and Location Map," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects; 2. "2, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Upper Level and Loft Plans, Data and Symbols," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Zoning Compliance: The proposed uses are permitted in the C-2 District. The proposed 'project complies with the permitted maximum building height and appears to comply with the required minimum lot width. The proposed project will exacerbate any existing nonconformities although it will be an aesthetic and economic Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation improvement to the property and the surrounding area. Several variances will be needed for its approval. The only way to avoid the need for many or all of the variances would be by demolition of the existing building and redesign of the site. The minimum required lot size for five dwelling units is 8,000 square feet and the lot is only 4,900 square feet in size. A variance for lot size will be needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The maximum permitted lot coverage for the residential use is 35%. The actual building lot coverage is nearly 100% and since the residential portion of the coverage is certainly more than 35% a variance will be needed. (If the Applicant is proposing a building which will contain more than two stories on a lot which is 4,900 square feet in size and the building covers nearly 100% of the lot, the floor area figure given in the application does not make sense. The Applicant should clarify whether the 2,980 square feet means that there will be 2,980 additional square feet of floor area and what the total floor area will be.) For a residential use, the required minimum front yard is 2 0 feet, the minimum side yard is three feet for one side and 12 feet for both and the minimum rear yard is 25 feet. None of these setbacks has been provided and variances will be needed. 2. Parking. Loading and Circulation: No parking is proposed to be provided on the property and the existing garage space is proposed to be removed. No loading is provided for the retail uses. It is not clear whether the existing garage was used for parking, loading or both and what its capacity is. Still, the removal of this parking opportunity is aggravated by the addition of parking demand to the site. It is assumed that loading will occur in the on-street parking spaces and the vehicular travel lanes on Valley Street. This is not an ideal situation as far as safety and convenience. Eight parking spaces are required for the dwelling units and, as none are proposed to be provided, a variance will be needed. Residential parking would have to be through private individual rental of parking spaces on another property or onstreet parking on Chestnut Street. Valley Street has metered parking. There are a few restrictions for parking on Chestnut Street for certain hours during the week. 3. Environmental Review: The Applicant has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), 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 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 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, provided no other involved agency (i.e. ZBA) 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 SEQR review process. We would recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQR process is completed. Although based on preliminary review it does not appear that the project will adversely impact the critical environmental area, compliance with this process is required by State law. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer Gerald Bregman Ronald E. Turnquist 500\not3-009.sjp:aj 3 �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: December 16, 1993 Subject: Preliminary Review of Rock of Salvation Church Site Plan The Applicant and the Building Inspector have determined that site plan approval is needed for the conversion of this building and, as requested, we have reviewed the submitted site plan consistent with that determination. The site plan application is for a property which is approximately 11,320 square feet in size and located at 131 Cortlandt Street in the C-2 General Commercial District. The site presently contains a one-story brick building with a side loading area and a concrete driveway. The Applicant is proposing the conversion of the building from its former use as a Con Edison Company electrical sub-station to a church with 300 permanent seats, an approximately 170 square foot day care center, 13 classrooms (one of which is proposed to double as a children's nursery during services), four meeting rooms, two offices and a kitchen. The first floor of the building is 7,867 square feet in floor area and the proposed mezzanine is proposed to be an additional 3,150 square feet. The Applicant has submitted the following plans: 1. "1, Rock of Salvation Church, Rev. Christian Santiago, Pastor, 131 Cortlandt Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y., Site Location, Site Plan and Data," scale as noted, dated December 6, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects; 2. "2, Rock of Salvation Church, Rev. Christian Santiago, Pastor, 131 Cortlandt Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y., Schematic Plan of First Floor," scale as noted, dated December 6, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects; 3. "3, Rock of Salvation Church, Rev. Christian Santiago, Pastor, 131 Cortlandt Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y., Schematic Plan of Mezzanine," scale as noted, dated December 6, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Zoning Compliance: The proposed church use is permitted in the C-2 District. The building and the lot comply with the permitted maximum building height (no change from the existing is proposed), minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum rear yard and one of the required minimum side yards complies. The existing building does not comply with the required maximum lot coverage, minimum front yard and minimum combined side yards. Still, it does not appear that the Applicant will need any variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for lot coverage and front and side yard setbacks because there is not a proposal to modify the outside of the existing building in such a way as to aggravate those preexisting nonconformities and because the change in use from the substation to the church also will not aggravate them. As per Section 62-15D and 62-15E, the Church is allowed one sign, which shall not exceed 2 0 square feet in area. No sign details have been provided at this time. 2. Parking and Circulation: No parking is proposed to be provided on the property other than on the existing driveway (which is too narrow to allow cars to pass). The lack of parking on the site is aggravated by the additional parking demand generated by the proposed use. The previous use of the building, based on existing floor area, probably only would have been required to provide eight off-street parking spaces (this does not account for the parking requirement based on the maximum number of employees). With the proposed use, at least 38 parking spaces (based only on the number of permanent seats) or 73 spaces (based on total floor area) are required. Usually the greater number, or 7 3 spaces, is that which is required in a situation in which two standards are provided in the Code. Since the proposed use will increase the parking demand from the previous use and will aggravate the existing non-conformity, a variance will be needed from the ZBA. Required handicap parking also has not been provided on this site. 3. Proposed Day Care Use: Unlike the H Hospital District, none of the other zoning districts specifically permit day care centers as an accessory use. The question of whether a day care center is a permitted accessory or ancillary use to a church in the C-2 District is for the Building Inspector to decide. If it is determined that it is not a permitted accessory use, a use variance will be needed from the ZBA. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation The day care use is proposed to operate five days per week and to occur throughout the building (i.e. the first floor classrooms), not simply to be limited to the space designated on the plan. The Applicant should provide more information concerning the number of children and day care employees which are anticipated. If the Applicant does not want to provide the day care center at this time the designation of that use should not be included on the plan. If a day care center is determined to be permitted by the Zoning Code, the center should adhere to any and all New York State licensing and design requirements for day care centers (we would need to check whether a day care center in connection with a religious use would be exempt from those regulations). 4. Environmental Review: The Applicant has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), 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 3 0 days or receipt of the responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency, provided no other involved agency (i.e. ZBA) 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 SEQR review process. We would recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQR process is completed. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer Ronald E. Turnquist 500\not3-023.sjp 3 �CHANGES TO DRAFT RESOLOTIOM DATED 12/16/93 2.4 A fence shall be shown on the plan located, whenever possible, approximately 2-4 feet back from the curb along the south side of the southeast driveway approximately 25 feet from the maple tree located to the south of the 62 spot accessory lot to the south where the existing hedge begins. This fence shall be six feet in height and composed of spruce wood set in concrete and the style of fence and construction of the fence shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, Building Inspector and Hospital in order to screen all headlights coming from the Hospital driveway and parking area to the east in order to protect the adjacent residential district. The Hospital will pay up to $7,000 for this fence and the Village will pay up to $1,000, for a total cost not to exceed $8,000. 2.5 In addition, the Hospital shall spend $2,000 for landscaping by the new accessory lot. This landscaping will be mutually agreed to by the Planning Board and Hospital. Total cost to the Hospital for the fence and landscaping will be approximately $9,000 tjut need not exceed $9,000. 2.6 The handicap parking spaces shall be shown on the plan and constructed and designated in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). BBD\RES0L £^Z_js^ ^>^- ^^- �»«-• -<%F C H A R L E S A . M A N G A N A R O C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S • MEMORANDUM TO Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer DATE January 17, 1994 RE Phelps Memorial Hospital Village of North Tarrytown, NY CAMCE No. 800-17 In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the site plans and reports submitted by the Applicant's Engineer. The Applicant to date has not yet submitted information concerning the sewer force main located between IBM and Sleepy Hollow Manor. The Applicant's Engineer had indicated that his report would be revised to include the following: A. Force main size, length and material type; and B. A headloss calculation for the Force main based on a flow of 400 gpm, 225 gpm and 190 gpm. Once the above information is submitted and reviewed, final recommendations will be made to the Board. court piaza North. 25 Main streei Hackensack, NJ 07601-7032 201.342.4200 fax 201.342.0790 120 E. 75th St. Suite 8C New York. NY 10021 212.683.7712 P.O Box 1007 East Stroudsburg, PA 18301 717.421.1499 if you should have any questions or require further information, please let us know. JAG/11 cc: Ms. Linda David, Administrator Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Janet A. Gandolfo, Attorney Ms. Susan J. Portman, AICP Mr. Edward Gonsalves, P.E. VNPV800-I7\JGOII74M.LL # �-«p- . ~H> C H A R L E S A . M A N G A N A R O CONSULTING ENGINEERS «pf MEMORANDUM TO: Village o f North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Mr. Joseph A . Gulino Project Engineer DATE: January 17, 1994 RE: Preliminary Review o f the Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street Village of North Tarrytown, N Y C A M C E N o . 800-19 In accordance with your request, w e have reviewed the latest revised site plan dated December 10, 1993. Our comments concerning this project are as follows: # A. The structure and foundation should be investigated b y a Structural Engineer ' to determine its adequacy in supporting additional floors above it. B. The location and design o f the proposed water supply, sewage disposal, and stormwater drainage systems including the locations, sizes, invert, and rim elevations to the existing systems, should be submitted for review. C. The location o f the nearest fire hydrants should be shown on the drawings. Once the above information is submitted and reviewed, final recommendations will be made to the Board. Court Plaza North, 25 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601-7032 j f v o u should have any questions or require further information, please let u s know. 201.342.4200 lax 201.342.0790 120 E 75th St., Suite 8C New York, NY 10021 JAG/11 212.683.7712 PO BOX 1007 East stroudsburg, PA 18301 cc. 717421 m y n d a ^ ^ Administrator Mr* James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Janet A . Gandolfo, Attorney Ms. Susan J. Portman, AICP Mr. Ronald E . Tumquist, R.A. Ms VNPU00-I9MO0II74M.LLI �David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board DATE: January 21, 1994 TO: Linda David, Village Administrator PROJECT: 520.032/Valley Plaza Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq. FAX NO.: James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer W E TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) As requested a t m e e t i n g 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 (x) ( ) () File Information ( ) ( ) Use Cornrnent THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies 1 Description Date 1/2 0/94 Negati.ve Declairation - Valley Plaza REMARKS: cc: Gerald Bregman Ronald E. Turnquist Connecticut •(203)255-3100 By Susan J . Portman, AICP Associate/Planning FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island •(516)364-4544 �SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number Date January 20. 1994 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 wll not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: SEQR Status: Valley Plaza Site Plan Type I X Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: Proposed second-story and loft addition to existing one-story building to contain five retail spaces, five dwelling units and one office. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 185 Valley Street, Village of North Tarrytown, Westchester County �SEQR 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: m ontact Person: Linda David, 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 Region 3, Department of Environmental Conservation, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, New York 12561 Gerald Bregman, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Ronald E. Turnquist, 95 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 500\not4-O06.sjp.crc \ � 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-1994 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_1994-01-20 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/105a7c2c01075602ddd3c966bc70ec07.pdf a73ea8a7637d36998cf1affc9ea39c9d PDF Text Text D R A F T 2/9/95 RESOLUTION Adopted at the December 15, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: RESUBDIVISION TO REMOVE ONE BUILDING LOT OWNER: JAMES AND MARTHA BICK, ET AL APPLICANT: JAMES AND MARTHA BICK LOCATION: TERRACE CLOSE, BIRCH CLOSE TAX MAP DESIGNATIONS: 11/1A/1, 11/1S/2A, 11/1S/2B1, 11/1S/8, 11/1S/9 ZONING: R-2A RESIDENTIAL �RESOLUTION Adopted at the December 15, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: RESUBDIVISION TO REMOVE OlTE BUILDING LOT OWNER: JAMES AND MARTHA BICK, ET AL APPLICANT: JAMES AND MARTHA BICK LOCATION: TERRACE CLOSE, BIRCH CLOSE TAX MAP DESIGNATIONS: 11/1A/1, 11/1S/2A, 11/1S/2B1, 11/1S/8, 11/1S/9 ZONING: R-2A RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for subdivision approval (the application) 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 Cocie considered pertinent to the application, which application is also considered an application for site plan approval as required in Section 62-29 of the Zoning Code, and which application is to resubdivide properties located at 3 and 4 Terrace Close and 6 Birch Close; and WHEREAS, Lot A would be approximately 25,863 square feet in size and would contain the existing dwelling at 3 Terrace Close and would be made up of the existing parcel known as Section 11, BlocK 1A, Lot 1, an unnumbered parcel, and a portion of the existing parcel known as Section 11, Block IS, Lot 8; and WHEREAS, Lot B would be approximately 32,468 square feet in size and would be made up of portions of the existing parcels known as Section 11, Block IS, Lot 8 and Section 11, Block IS, Lot 9; and WHEREAS, approximately 5,950 square feet of the existing parcel known as Section 11, Block IS, Lot 9 would be added to the side of the parcel at 4 Terrace Close and approximately 12,0 00 square feet of the existing parcel known as Section 11, Block is, Lot 9 would be added to the rear of the parcel at 6 Birch Close; and WHEREAS, the proposed resubdivision is shown on the drawing prepared by Charles H. Riley, Land Surveyor, and further identified as follows: "Subdivision Map Prepared For James A. & Martha A. Bick, ReSubdivision of Lot 1 - Block 3, An Unnumbered Parcel, Lot 8 Block 2 and a Portion of Lot 9 - Block 2 As Shown On Revised Map of Sleepy Hollow Manor - Filed in Westchester Courvty Division of Land Records On June 23, 19 3 0 As Map No. 3 621, �Located in the Village of North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, N.Y.," scale 1" = 20*, dated October 28, 1994; and WHEREAS, all references to the "Applicant" shall include the Applicant's successor and assigns; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a copy of a title report which states that the Bicks are the current owners of the unnumbered parcel; 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 subdivision; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on November 17, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered this a minor subdivision and treated the preliminary and final as a single approval; and WHEREAS, in the course of this 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; 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 Consultant and the Building Inspector; 4. Requested, received and reviewed a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); 5. Circulated the EAF and the notice of the Planning Board's intent to be the Lead Agency on November 18, 1994 and received a letter of no objection from the other involved agency dated December 6, 1994; 6. After review of said field conditions, recommendations and EAF, as well as other materials and matters noted above, the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed action is an Type I Action and made a Negative Declaration on December 15, 1994, and noted on the EAF its determination of non-significance of environmental impact. 2 �NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for resubdivision and site plan approval, as shown on the drawing entitled "Subdivision Map Prepared For James A. & Martha A. Bick, Re-Subdivision of Lot 1 - Block 3, An Unnumbered Parcel, Lot 8 Block 2 and a Portion of Lot 9 - Block 2 As Shown On Revised Map of Sleepy Hollow Manor - Filed in Westchester County Division of Land Records On June 23, 1930 As Map No. 3621, Located in the Village of North Tarrytown, Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, N.Y.," scale l" = 20', dated October 28, 1994, prepared by Charles H. Riley, Land Surveyor, be and is hereby granted subdivision and 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 subdivision resolution and upon 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 mylar subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Westchester County Clerk, provided, however, that this subdivision approval shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this resolution if the following conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 1. The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown the reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-30F of the Village Zoning Code. 2. Revision of the above noted plat to demonstrate the following: 2.1 The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivision Plat;" 2.2 The final plat shall comply with the requirements of Section 11 of the Village of North Tarrytown Subdivision Regulations; 2.3 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final plat; 2.4 The tax map designations for all of the properties shall be provided on the plat; 2.5 Any information on the plat, including the title, which incorrectly refers to the tax map designations of the involved properties shall be corrected, as appropriate; 2.6 The names and addresses of all of the property owners of all of the involved properties shall be added to the plat; 3 involved �2.7 The existing and proposed property lines, area and dimensions of all of the properties involved in the subdivision shall be shown on the plat; 2.8 The area map shall be revised to correctly indicate all of the properties involved in the subdivision; 2.9 The plat shall be corrected to reflect the fact that the involved properties are located in Zoning District R-2A (not R-2). PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: s ^ /**? ^ \ ^ M ^ 7 J Chairman :h Tarrytown Planning Board 500\not4-043.sjp:ev 4 Date: r//j>/<)y / 7 �D R A F T 2/9/95 RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 19, 1995 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER AND APPLICANT: MARGARET M. AND VINCENT S. SHROBA LOCATION: 81 SLEEPY HOLLOW ROAD TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 17, BLOCK 6, LOT 14 ZONING: R-3 RESIDENTIAL �RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 19, 1995 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED ACTION: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) LOTS OWNER AND APPLICANT: MARGARET M. AND VINCENT S. SHROBA LOCATION: 81 SLEEPY HOLLOW ROAD TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 17, BLOCK 6, LOT 14 ZONING: R-3 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for subdivision approval (the application) 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 Cocie considered pertinent to the application, which application is also considered an application for site plan approval as required in Section 62-29 of the Zoning Code, and which application is to subdivide property located at 81 Sleepy Hollow Road into two (2) lots for residential development; and WHEREAS, Lot 1A would be 6,235.2 square feet in size and Lot IB would be 14,537.5 square feet in size and would contain the existing dwelling at 81 Sleepy Hollow Road, as shown on the drawing prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, and further identified as follows: "Subdivision Map Prepared For Vincent S. & Margaret M. Shroba, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale 1" = 20', dated October 10, 1994; and WHEREAS, all references to the "Applicant" shall include the Applicant's successor and assigns; 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 subdivision; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on October 20, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered this a minor subdivision and treated the preliminary and final as a single approval; and �WHEREAS, in the course of this 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; 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 Consultant, the Village Engineering Consultant and the Building Inspector; 4. 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 said field conditions, recommendations and EAF, as well as other materials and matters noted above, the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action and made a Negative Declaration on January 19, 1995, and noted on the EAF its determination of non-significance of environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for subdivision and site plan approval for a two (2) lot subdivision, as shown on the drawing entitled "Subdivision Map Prepared For Vincent S. & Margaret M. Shroba, Situate Village of No. Tarrytown, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Westchester Co., N.Y.," scale 1" - 20*, dated October 10, 1994, prepared by John J. Muldoon, Professional Land Surveyor, be and is hereby granted subdivision and 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 subdivision and site plan resolution and upon 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 mylar subdivision plat which endorsements shall permit filing in the offices of the Westchester County Clerk, provided, however, that this subdivision approval shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this resolution if the following conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board: 1. The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown the reimbursement of all application review fees as noted and required in Section 62-30F of the Village Zoning Code. 2. Revision of the above noted plat to demonstrate the following: 2 �2.1 The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivision Plat;" 2.2 The existing section, block and lot numbers shall be provided on the plat; 2.3 The final plat shall comply with the requirements of Section 11 of the Village of North Tarrytown Subdivision Regulations; 2.4 The signature block for the endorsement of the Planning Board Chairman shall be revised to comply with Section ll.A(l)(c)(14c); 2.5 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN By: ^- 7V ' ' V"° / ^ V George F. H r i t z , Chairman V i l i a ^ B - o £ - N o r t h Tarrytown Planning Board 500\not5-004.sjp:ev 3 Date: _ _ V W ^ �SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance * Project Number Date: January 19, 1995 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 Tarrytown 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: Shroba Subdivision SEQR Status: Type I Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X < No Description of Action: Two-iot subdivision of a property approximately 0.477 acres in size. One lot will contain an existing house and detached garage. Location: t> (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 81 Sleepy Hollow Road, North Tarrytown, Westchester County, New York Tax Map Section 17, Block 6, Lot 14 T, �"SEQR 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 wW not cause a significant adverse impact on land, ground or surface water quality or quantity, drainage patterns, air quality, plants and animals, agricultural land resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation, traffic and transportation systems, solid waste production, energy, public health, growth and character of the community, cause conflict with community plans or goals, or cause significant adverse noise and odor. If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed. For Further Information: « Contact Person: Linda David, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Telephone Number: (914) 631-1440 cc: Mayor Treacy Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark DiGennaro, Village Engineer Vincent and Margaret Shroba 500\not5-003.sjp �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Port man, 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: February 10, 1995 Subject: Review of Chestnut Ridae/Hillside Court Site Plan Plans: Site plans and other drawings (total of eight) prepared by Turnquist Architects, all but sheet SD-2 were revised 1/25/95. 1. Project Description: Two 3-story buildings containing a total of 18 dwelling units (32 bedrooms). 2. Plan Revisions: Increased size of office space at 76 Chestnut Street from 800 to 900 square feet. Removed two 2-bedroom dwelling units previously proposed for Hillside Court. Reduced the total number of parking spaces from 49 to 45. Provided five sitting areas as "usable open space." Proposed additional landscaping. Increased the setback for Hillside Court an additional five feet from Depeyster Street. Made two of the units in Hillside Court into handicapped adaptable units. Provided wheelchair lifts for each building. Widened the entrance to the Chestnut Ridge garage to 22 feet. Moved driveways to comply with Section 62-22.B of Zoning Code. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Provided refuse areas for each building. Zoning Compliance: Variance required for lot size. Variance required for building coverage. Variance required for front yard setback for Chestnut Ridge (see Section 62-13.b(2) of the Zoning Code regarding Hillside Court). Variance required for single and total side yards for Chestnut Ridge. Variance required for rear yard of Chestnut Ridge. Variance required for loading space. Parking and Circulation: Spaces #9, #10, #28, #29, #30 are not full-size parking spaces and should be appropriately designated for compact car parking. Two handicap parking spaces are shown. At least one should have a loading aisle of eight feet in width. The Applicant should demonstrate that the wheelchair lift will not interfere with the opening of the car door for a handicapped person utilizing parking space #17. The curb radius for the driveway onto Depeyster Street should be increased. A sign should be provided at entrance to the parking area for Hillside Court which indicates the clearance height. The Applicant should indicate the route the Valley Plaza residents will take to access the parking area (i.e., through the Chestnut Ridge building). Refuse: It is assumed that the refuse containers will be cans rather than dumpsters. If dumpsters are proposed, the Applicant should indicate how they will be emptied. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 6 » Landscaping and Buffers: • The trees should be drawn at a larger size, showing a canopy of approximately 10 to 15 feet. • We recommend that trees only be provided in the following locations (other trees now shown on the plan should be redrawn as shrubs): • One in the southeastern corner of the site (Sitting Area E ) ; • Three along the easterly side and one northwesterly corner of Sitting Area C; • One in the parking island between spaces #20 and 21; • One at the northern point of Sitting Area A, one to the north of spaces #21 and 22 (southwestern point of Sitting Area A) and one to the north of spaces #23 and 24; • One to the east of space #31 (Sitting Area B ) ; • One to the east of the lower level unit in Chestnut Ridge (south of the staircase labeled "A") - a few more shrubs could also be added to the east of staircase A. in the We recommend that the trees be a mixture of Zelkova, Hornbeam, Linden, Katsura or similar species; approximately 1 1/2 inch minimum caliper when planted. • We recommend that the shrubs be a mixture of Inkberry, Taxus (Yew), Spirea, Juniper (in sunny areas), Japanese Holly or similar species; approximately 15 to 18 inches in diameter when planted. We note that a four-foot high chain link fence is proposed on top of the proposed retaining wall on the eastern side of the property. The Planning Board may want to request evergreen plantings between the proposed retaining wall and the adjacent properties on the east side of the site. [We recommend approximately 10 trees; Leyland Cypress and/or Arborvitae, 5 to 6 feet in height when planted.] 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 7. Other Comments: The Planning Board may want to ask the Applicant to note on the plan that the rooms marked as "D," assumed to be the dining areas, will not be enclosed to create additional bedrooms. 8. Subdivision; The Applicant should indicate whether the subdivision line will be dissolved or restrictive covenants will be filed. 9. Environmental Review; The Planning Board may declare itself the Lead Agency and either ask for additional information or make a determination of significance. 10. Further Information; • Suggested plan r e v i s i o n s ; • Add names of neighboring property owners and location of existing buildings on adjacent properties (if Planning Board requests). • Provide simple drawing (to scale) of proposed buildings and neighboring buildings, as viewed from Chestnut Street and Depeyster Street. • Provide elevation drawing of the view of Hillside Court and the retaining wall from the properties to the east. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Nicholas A. Pouder, Associate/Environmental Planning cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark DiGennaro, Village Engineer Ronald Turnquist 500\not5-007.sjp:aj 4 �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: April 13, 1995 Subject: Review of Philipse Plaza Site Plan Plan: 1. Site Plan Prepared by Contadino Architects, 4/6/95 Plan Revisions: Building coverage reduced from 6,640 square feet (office space) to 6,440 square feet. Reduced number of loading spaces from two to one. Removed previously proposed sidewalk along site frontage. Reduced previously proposed landscaped area along site frontage. Widened entrance driveways to 26 feet from 22 feet. Reduced the width of the channelization previous proposal. island from Slightly revised layout of parking spaces. Zoning Compliance: Variance needed for rear yard setback. Variance needed for number of parking and loading spaces. Variance needed for requirement of buffer strip in addition to rear yard setback (Section 62.9C(2)). Parking and Circulation: Recommend switching locations of one of the handicap parking spaces and handicap loading aisles so that the ;onnecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning / Development / Environment /Transportation middle handicap space has a loading aisle on either side of it. Recommend increasing aisle width throughout parking area, wherever possible. Recommend cutting back the ends of parking isl ands to improve circulation and turning capability. Recommend Applicant discuss proposed design concept with the New York State Department of Transportation (J^YSDOT). 4. Landscaping and Suffers; needed. Landscaping and screening plan 5. Environmental Review: The Environmental Assessment Fo^n (EAF) will be circulated as soon as it has been received and reviewed. 6. Further Information: Location(s) and dimensions of any freestanding proposed. sign(s) Information regarding whether a restaurant use included in the new building. will be The majority of the above comments were discussed in greater detail in previous review memos. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Plar^ning cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, Village Engineer Louis Contadino, AIA John Hughes, Esq. 500\not5-033.sjp:aj 2 �Approved with respect to substance and form: ?//»/ fsT ViMage Attorne, Dared: Planning Board Approved Acting Chairman f Filed with Village Clerk Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: JLJ(n 1^ •IOtLtl^yl^ Date j£ Meeting / /f, /f?S^ h<<h? �REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK December 15, 1994 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on December 15, 1994 at 8:00 p.m. at the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Ellen Tsangaris Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ABSENT: James Donovan ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Susan J. Portman, Assoc. / Planning Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. 1. CONTINUATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVABLE APPLICATION RE: CHESTNUT RIDGE Mr. Laurentino Rodrigues and Mr. Turnquist came forward and passed out site plans for 76 Chestnut Ridge aqnd 83 Depeyster Street. Mr. Turnquist, the architect, gave an update on this site plan. There were problems with the parking lots, then the retaining wall. He said they were trying to combine both projects into one. Referring to the plans, he went on to explain the changes, the number of units and the parking spaces that this project will have. Discussion on the site plans followed, Mr. Turnquist stated that they will apply to the- Zoning Board of Appeals to seek the variances they need. He also said they will submit an EAF» Mr. Margotta pointed out that the EAF should be submitted to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Discussion on the number of units, office and parking spaces, and the out-look of the project from a distance ensued. Susan Portman commented that the Planning Board should declarethis a Type I Action. The applicant should submit an EAF as soon as possible. �PAGE # 2 Discussion as to when they could go before the Zoning Board of Appeals followed. Mr. Margotta advised them to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals on the following Wednesday for a preliminary review. Chairman Hritz ask for a motion to declare the Planning Board'^ intent to be Lead Agency. Ellen Tsangaris made the motion. Donald Caetano seconded. Motion carried unanimously. After reviewing the minutes of November 17, 1994, Chairman Hri-^z asked for a motion to approve them as amended. David Perlmutter moved to approve the minutes as amended. Edward McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to follow Mr. Perlmutter's recommendation on the Recreation Fees which was recorded in the minutes of November 17, 1994. Donald Caetano motioned. unanimously. Ellen Tsangaris seconded. Motion carried Chairman Hritz stated that there were 2 applicants that had applications to have their Recreation Fees reduced. The Board of Trustees will have to make the decision regarding any fees. The Planning Board can make a recommendation to the Trustees. 2. FINAL APPROVAL RE: APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION BY J A M S AND MARTHA BICK, 3 TERRACE CLOSE. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to approve the Bick application. Mr. David Perlmutter moved to make a negative declaration. Ellen Tsangaris seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Edward McCarthy motioned to approve the Bick application. Donald Caetano seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 3. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING RE: PHILIPSE PLAZA BT ANTONIO RODRIGUES FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, NO. BROADWAY Public Hearing adjourned. General discussion followed among the Board members. Mr. James Margotta explained that it appeared that the State >ranted to make the project further from Route 9 and that it also appeared to their architect that 10 of the 11 parking spaces are going "to �PAGE #3 be eliminated when this goes into effect. Already, as it is, they require variances for 10 parking spaces, but with the State taking 10, that's going to be 20 parking spaces. Discussion followed on the parking spaces that the State wanted to eliminate and what can be done to help the applicant. Mr. Caetano suggested that the Board get the County involved. Chairman Hritz stated that the Board was willing to help and to offer advice, but it was not the Board's job to make the project work. Discussion followed as to what to do to help the applicant with the State. It was suggested that the applicant contact the State Dot. There being no further business before the Board, Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to adjourned the meeting. David Perlmutter motioned. Edward McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, CARMEN G. MARIANO Recording Secretary �STATE OF N E W YORK D E P A R T M E N T OF TRANSPORTATION 4 BURNETT BOULEVARD P O U G H K E E P S I E , N.Y. 1 2 6 0 3 A L B E R T j BAJMAN REGIONAL DIRECTOR J O H N C EGAN COMMISSIONER November 29, 1994 Michael A. Galante Vice President Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut RE: Philipse Plaza Old Broadway / Pocantico Street Intersection Improvement Village of North Tarrytown Westchester County Our Traffic Engineering and Safety group have completed the review of the referenced proposal and have the following comments to offer. a) We agree with the realignment of the east curbline of Route 9 in front of the proposed development, which will be helpful in reducing the size of the intersection area and better define traffic paths for motorists. However we can not approve of the geometries proposed in the sketch as submitted, because it would appear to increase the degree of curvature of Route 9 which we don't believe would be beneficial. We have prepared an acceptable alternative which we are returning herewith. b) The site plan does not appear to properly depict the right-of-way boundary along Route 9 according to this Department's record plans. c) The minimum depth of the channelization island should be \'2 the width of the widest driveway. d) We would suggest that the 30 foot maximum driveway width be used to make it easier for delivery and service vehicles entering/exiting the site. e) Surface runoff (drainage) have to be designed and included in the plan. f) There are currently no plans to upgrade the existing traffic signal. �The applicant should submit the necessary information to the Regional Traffic and Safety Group to initiate the highway work permit process. If you require additional information or want to discuss this proposal, we can be reached at (914) 431-7905. Very truly yours, Wai K. Cheung Civil Engineer II By: _$&__£. Akhter A. Shareef Civil Engineer I ��SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance o Project Number Date November 21. 1994 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: Type I Levy Estate Two-Lot Subdivision, Irving Place X Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: Two-lot subdivision of a property 6,515 square feet in size. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 21 and 23 Irving Place, Village of North Tarrytown, Westchester County. Tax Map Sheet 78, Block 15, Lot 21. �SEQR 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, ground or surface water quality or quantity, drainage patterns, air quality, plants and animals, agricultural land resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation, traffic and transportation systems, solid waste production, energy, public health, growth and character of the community, cause conflict with community plans or goals, or cause significant adverse noise and odor. For Further Information: Contact Person: Linda David, 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 Region 3, Department of Environmental Conservation, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, New York 12561 Mayor Sean Treacy, Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Levy Estate, c/o Albert Peck, 218 Altamont Avenue, Tarrytown, New York 10591 500\not4-0l4.sjp.ev �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 TO: Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown P l a n n i n g Board DATE: H / 2 1 / 9 4 Sean T r e a c y , Linda David, James M a r g o t t a , PROJECT: 5 2 0 . 0 4 0 / P e c k - I r v i n g P l a c e J a n e t Gandolfo, Mark DiGennaro FAX NO.: WE TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: (x) ( ) ( ) (*) ( ) ( ) 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: ( ) (x) ( ) Approval Review Distribution (*) File Information ( ) ( ) Use Comment THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies Description Date 1 11/21/94 Negative 1 11/17/94 Draft Declaration Resolution REMARKS: cc: Applicant, Involved and Interested Agencies, as appropriate Connecticut •(203) 255-3100 By Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning FAX • (914, 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �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 jjm Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: December 7, 1994 Subject: Philipse Plaza Site Plan Application As requested, we have compared the site plan drawing (dated November 7, 1994) for the application known as "Philipse Plaza" against the recently amended parking standards in the Village Zoning Code. While the size of the spaces conforms with the new regulations, the number of spaces shown on the plan is still deficient. The other day we distributed copies of a letter we received from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) regarding potential modifications to the curbline along Route 9. As requested by NYSDOT, the Applicant should submit information to begin the Highway Work Permit process. In addition, it may be helpful to set up a meeting between a representative of NYSDOT, our office and the Applicant. We still have not received a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) from the Applicant. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, Village Engineer Louis Contadino, AIA 500\notA-039.sjp.crc Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island -(516)364-4544 �14-16-2 (2/87)-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 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 K) Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [2 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 lead agency that: JS 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. gative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions TC^VL |^iMc.Ha ( . ' t< > " / r s Lg^H - EstKH, Ju.bdW»Ji'M - Ic-v.ttj f°Uc4 Name of Action A it t4arWy T 6 ^ r « f f o v u * Rcu/mtA.* gogcc) f Name of Lead Agenc OvAW'MtfLn Print or me of Responsible Officer \m I pfujAgency > ^ > trSj^nature opKesponsible Officer in Le •i Title of Responsible Officer y Signature jre of Preparer Preparei (If different from responsible officer) 'ha Date 1 �• r/.;.'i ', —fi\OJtCl IK'f uf.l.'.ATION > P M r-rrr;:' bv P. ; ]%t\ Sv:-r,:.ot r-.Ol ICC. 7N.: cJocu"-*. .: •* <.\.-, ^ •., • '.••'•• v ;•: ' '.T p r c p o c : n «^ f,«>v * J:J -..fsiir,: c f ! u : on the envurr " . r o t Please cor"-'t-<- » '.' <" ••- "Vi- <• • ' : . , ' ; '.• •.••'. :i t o tl.oc quc.^tior.s vs.!i be corijidcrt J as pari of the application for approval aiiu n.cv b t >ub;i ct lo furiher verification and public review" Provide an> additional information you be lit vc 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 (. 5<r.c-.s stuo.o. rt scorer, c if-viM.^... ..:•. n if.:<:•;. . • . •• _.. Cc v ! . i n ; ! , • :i KAMi G-" A l 4ufi- oM&l^ - ^ 1 LOCATION OF ACTION (Include St/ett Address. Municipality «wJ County) /7 •I NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR lKVlM<sr g ^ e FtA-V^ BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS ZIP CODE STATE CITY/PO NJ, T ^ i g j e . v - r p w M K/,Y. NAME OF OWNER (If diMerenl) ho^i BUSINESS TELEPHONE ep ^ l^L\/| ADDRESS CITY/PO '. I"_ I STATE I^:e£tsw M -. M )i f ZIP CODE SCRIPT ION Cf ACTIOS % Please Complete Each Question —Indicate NA. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial Efeesidential (suburban) CFore>l 2. Total acreage of project area: DAgricuIture , * J*^ DOther acres. APPROXIMATE ACREACE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) PRESENTLY acres AFTER COMPLETION acres , acres , acres acres acres acres acres acres . acres . acres : acres acres acres acres acres Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) ,1*7 Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate typejL DRural (non-farm) '. r/3T 3. What is predominant soil type{s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: d W e l l drained \ Q Q % of site DPoorly drained _______ % of site DModerately 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 NYS Land Classification System? __________ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? DYes 0No (in feet) „ v �» __ I i j p - ,- • ; ;•. '• : . " • ' , c " * , . ; . HcgiJ'c;: «/ M " * ' ' • ''..-.•' ,; • '• . c cc":r! • ."* b " •. .:.*•( $••:• o - , •<:*'>• r>« c . t • "• !•«•.«.<.' <•• : ' < f ' ta r -r!r . •'• :. J. IJ project s u b i - l ^ n t ^ i ^ coiu^,..; _•: :_• , site .I>ICW o:. li',t i.v^ :tc: c:' KK.\:or.;.' \i\nu 8. What is the depth of the v.a:er tsh't 5 , ; V PVr« Z^^io - j r "v V><< hunting fish.*.. •:: shc-i! : •• •. c: re • t f ' it" : :•••' f«tl> evu* m th-* r ''\' -''t area' L'<X; }.•:./.. *.'.t DYes Cc '. - Z&o ^ (in feet) 9 l.« site l o o t e d c-v. • .•• r-'- -•, y ' - - - • ! r r se'< soi-rcf r:: "i i c t!. s t < / • >• According to • • r^ c i " ____ Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) •Yes 25No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? •Yes D$No If yes. explain ___ 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? •Yes 0^0 $£ 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 1t>. Lakes, ponds, v. etiand areas wi;\i-i or cont.g'jC'-s to project e:c-e b. Size (In acres) a. Name • 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? JS&es DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? fJQ'es b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? • DYes DNo DNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Lav., Article 25;AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes Dlfco 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? 0Ves DNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes EKo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor. b. Project acreage to be developed: 'i*? acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped d. Length o f project, in miles: ' . acres. ^A-7 (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing " g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ; proposed A//ft h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially Ultimately __ acres ultimately. acres. ' ' %; """* (upon completion of project)? Multiple Family Condominium - J__ i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? L_3_____. ft. 7 3 . length �2. How much natural material (i e l -cck, earth, etc ) vsill be removed from the site' 3. Will'dtsturbed areas be recla.med? DYes ^No ft^O ton$/cubic yards DN/A a. If yes, for what i n t e n d . , purpose is the site being reclaimed? D. W i l l topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes ffiNo c. W i l l upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? • DYes jlQNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? __ acres 5. Will any mature forest (over 10X3 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes tfNo / 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: tj a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A| months, (including demolition). __ /n (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? DYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project DYes DNo l^o rW/f ; after project is complete ___ " 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes DYes B^o If yes. explain E^No 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 ©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? DYes DYes DYes _3>lo £rN< £3No 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. W i l l any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes e. If Yes. explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes [HNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. W i l l project use herbicides or pesticides? years. DYes £_lNo 19. W i l l project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes _5No 20. W i l l project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21.-Will project result in an increase in energy use? DYes DYes _§No If yes , indicate typefsj 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 24. Does project involve Local. State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain ; gallons/minute. gallons/day. DYes .J_9No ' Cftlo DNo �25. Approvals Required: Submittal Date Type • City. Town. Village Board DYes DNo CttyHTeww. Village Planning Board fiYes DNo Gity, Toww Zoning Board Efres DNO €tty. County Health Department JBYes DNo Other Local Agencies DYes DNo Other Regional Agencies GYes DNo State Agencies DYes DNo Federal Agencies DYes DNo C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? efves DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment t&zoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan Ospecial use permit Dresource management plan What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ^subdivision Dsite plan Dother j£-"?5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? One 4-fbmjit* DweiM <&»•- u^rc r What is the proposed zoning of the site? —iuo& tfr*ni/tfcun4- £&&tflg. n j T U U - (**& QI**$L} __ What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? g ^ flP l^r- S u a - Q U A S I D / ^ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? yla^Yes DNo 7. What are the predominant use{5) ana and zoning zoning ciassmcauons classifications wunin within a a V* mile raoius radius o ofi proposed proposed action? action? ,ni land iana use\sj •/« miie 8. Is the proposed action compatible w i t h adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? •*— 0^£es DNo DYes ISNo a. W h a t is the minimum lot size proposed? __ 10. W i l l proposed action require any authorizations) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 1 1 . W i l l the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes 0No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? GYes DNo 12. 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 £§No 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 w i t h your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. « ;, E. Verification Ii cenuy certify u that the information proviaea provided aoove above is is true true to to tne the oesi best o ofi my my Know knowledge. iai m e iniurmauun Applicant/Sponsor Name „ Sl.nM.,r» 0(kj£-*MM7~~ 4&>fl(gggr" t3A4g^Tt>JA^ Title , Date ifa/rf _M&kKTTgT U 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 A N D THEIR Responsibility of Lead Agency MAGNITUDE. General 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 thejmportance 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 change(s) 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. <a 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D • DYes DNo D D DYes DNo n D • D GYes DYes • No • No • 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.. DNo DYes DNo DYes D N O D • DYes IMPACT ON LAND 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? 0NO 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 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. • C o n s t r u c t i o n in a "designated floodway. • Other impacts Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change 2 , Will there be an effect V. ...iy un.que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations. etc.)£_&SO DYES • Specific land forms: ____________ DNo �1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact D D D D D D D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D • DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo 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 conveved off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. D D D D DYes DYes DNO DNO • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day D D DYes DNO • Proposed Action will like'v c a . : - ' siltation or other discharge into an ..existing body of water to ti."?ex»*-*i; that there will be an obvious visual "contrast to natural conditions. D D IZ^es • NO • 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 •NO" • 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 •NO • Other D D • Y es •N< D D •Yes CNo IMPACT ON WATER 3 W i l l proposed action affect any water body designated as protected' (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECU <g[NO 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: Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? JBfNO CYES 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 DYes DNo DYes DNo 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? E$NO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. V • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. impacts: 6 . W i l l proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? B&O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 I �"i Small to Moderate Impact D D D D 2 Potential Large Impact D " 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D D DYes DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO DNO DNO • D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • D DYes DNo • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. D G DYes DNo • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. D D DYes DNo • • 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 D D DYes DNo • 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 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 0NO DYES 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? 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. • Other impacts: i IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? £*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? >B&0 Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES I M P A C T ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? #NO 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 �2 • 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 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, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (eg. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts. _ . # . IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1 1 . W i l l proposed action affect aesthetic resources? G8&0 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. W i l l Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? IZnMO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to an\ tacilit\ 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: 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 DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DY es DNo D D Dy.es DNr. D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change .f IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE A N D RECREATION 13 W i l l Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would a^ply to ccdumn 2 ^ ^ . - ^ ^ J f i M Q ^ DYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreationa^pponimr • A major reduction of an open space important to the coounuoiliit ••' • Other impacts: 9 <r I . D d D D' D DYes DNo DYes D N O DYes ' D N O �1 rMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION ^ Small t o Moderate Impact 14. W i l l there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: • D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• • D • Yes G No •Yes GNO • Yes GNO IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. W i l l proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? 0NO 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. •Yes GNO •Yes GNo •Yes GNo •Yes DNo •Yes • Yes GNO GYes GNo a •Yes • No D D GYes . GNo • D GYes GNO • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D D GYes GNO • 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 a GYes GNO • Other impacts: D' D GYes GNO • 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 AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. W i l l there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ,©NO 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. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. • Other impacts: D D GNo IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. W i l l Proposed Action affect public health and safety? |E_NO 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 " I I �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential 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%. 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 D.No DNo DNo DNo DNo DDD DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? tiJUo 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYES DDD DDD Examples that would apply to column 2 DYes DYes DYes • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) D D DYes • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. DDD • 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? JES&O DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is identified as a Potential Large impact or if You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of impact, Pmceed to Part 3 I 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 chahgefs). 3 . Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. 'V • . 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 trie project relate to this impact. (Continue on-attachments) 11 • . .' .. .. . . ' '*.'« �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 JO; Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA V i l l a g e of North Tarrytown Planning Board DATE: 1 1 / 1 8 / 9 4 Sean Treacy, Linda David, James Margotta, PROJECT: 520 - 039 » Janet Gandolfo, Mark DiGennaro 520.041 FAX NO.: WE TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) 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: ( ) (x) ( ) Approval Review Distribution ( ) (x) ( ) File Information Use Comment Date Description THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies 1 11/18/94 Bick - Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency, Circulation List, EAF 1 11/17/94 Peck - Sleepy Hollow Road - N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n , EAF, Draft Resolution REMARKS: cc: Applicants, Involved and Interested Agencies, as appropriate Connecticut -(203)255-3100 By Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM Project Name or Description Bick S u b d i v i s i o n , Terrace Close This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n to resubdivide p r o p e r t y by breaking up an undeveloped l o t and d i s t r i b u t i n g the pieces t o neighboring l o t s . As a r e s u l t , one b u i l d i n g l o t T.7-M1 hP Pliminated from the s u b d i v i s i o n . Project Location Terrace Close, North Tarry town, NY 10591 Name of Applicant James and Martha Bick Village Agency Intencfoig to Act as Lead Agency Address Planning Board 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY 10591 Contact Person Date Mailed Linda David, Village Administrator 11/18/94 Telephone Number (914) 631-1440 ^ Type of Action (Check A or B) 69 A. • TYPE I B. UNLISTED Lead agency must be chosen within 30 days of above date. Deadline Reply Date II. December 19, 1994 ( p r e f e r a b l y by Planning Board meeting 12/15/94) Required Approvals and Reviews (Check all permits, waivers, or other actions which may be required) D Rezoning 13 Subdivision Approval • Site Development Plan Approval • Special Permit • Variance • Wetlands Permit • Stream Discharge Permit - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation H 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) • 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. D 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 Bick Subdivision, Terrace Close • A. Does not want to be Lead Agency. • B. Wants to be Lead Agency for this action. and; |Check A o r B) 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'noi3-03C jo �LIST OF INVOLVED OR INTERESTED AGENCIES C2 Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 • Westchester County Department of Planning 432 County Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 • Zoning Board of Appeals Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 df Westchester County Department of Health 19 Brad hurst Avenue Hawthorne, New York 10532 CS3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561 • New York State Department of Transportation 4 Burnett Boulevard, Region 8 Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 G9 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 (Other Agencies) 500\not3-030.jd �14-16-2 (2/87)-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 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 f i t 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. D E T E R M I N A T I O N OF S!GN1F1CANCE-Type 1 a n d Unlisted Actions . Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: D Part 1 D Part 2 DPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Paris 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude 2nd importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: $ A. The project will not result in any large 2nd 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 one or more large 2nd 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 D James Bick and Martha B i c k ( £ V - ^ ( Planning Board - Village of North - Q^jt^bdio. jiiv\ Name of Action Tarrytown Name of Lead Agency * Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title o f Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency f / / " ' J* >nsf»l officer) Signatured Preparer (If different from responsrole 9fS October 3, 1994 _ * Date �PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor (.NOTICE: This d o c u m e n t is designed to assist in determining whether jhe action proposed may have a significant effert on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considei 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, (f information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION JAMES BICK a n d MARTHA BICK LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and Coijnty) 3 T e r r a c e C l o s e , North Ta r r y t w o n , New YOrk NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( 914, James Bick and Martha Bick ADDRESS 3 T e r r a c e 631-8855 c l o s £ j STATE North Tarrytown ZIP CODE NY 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF OWNER (If dliierent) same ( ) ADDRESS same STATE CITTVPO ZJPCODE -— same DESCRIPTION CF ACTION Cre>a*rT5n of one b u i l d i n g lot 6.\A& r-e;^ • v t o d ' V ; j>>-> °*~ r.<*y*v c«?^ +- >©*-£ . 1 Please Complete Each Question—Indicate S'.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: GUrban Glndustrial GCommercial C&'Residential (suburban) CFcrest GAgriculture QOther 2. Total acreage c: project area: ^ • -3 APPROXIMATE ACREACE Meadow cr Srushland (Non-agricultural) forested CRural (non-farm) acres. PRESENTLY acres i • Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as ^er Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and ether paved surfaces Residential Other (Indicate type). 1+ C. acres acres acres acres acres acres acres AFTER COMPLETION acres I- c 14- acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type{s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: ©Well drained J Q Q % of sJte OModerately well drained % of site GPoorly 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 N Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? 10-15+ CXYes ONo (in feet) �5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site w i t h slopes: CO-10% % DlO-15% E l 5% or greater __% _• % ). Is project substantially c o n t i g u o u s t o , or c o n t a i n a building, site-,'or district, listed on the St'ate or the N a t i o n a l Registers of Historic Places? CYes QSs'o 7. Is project substantially c o n t i g u o u s to a site listed on the Register of National N a t u r a l Landmarks? S. W h a t is the d e p t h of the w a t e r table? 2 0 + DYes d$No (in feet) 9. Is site located over a p r i m a r y , p r i n c i p a l , or sole source aquifer? CYes KJNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes DNo 1 1 . Does project site c o n t a i n any species of plant or animal life that is i d e n t i f i e d as t h r e a t e n e d or endangered? DYes C_No According to Identify each species —_—.—__—— 12. Are there 2ny u n i q u e or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other g e o l o g i c a l f o r m a t i o n s ) CYes _>No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the c o m m u n i t y or neighborhood as an open space or r e c r e a t i o n CYes C?N'o If yes, explain 14. area? . Does the present site i n c l u d e scenic views k n o w n to be important to the c o m m u n i t y ? DYes (3No 15. Streams w i t h i n or c o n t i g u o u s t o project area: None a. Name of Stream a n d name of River t o w h i c h it is tributary ' 16. Lakes, ponds, w e t l a n d areas w i t h i n or contiguous to project area: a. Name y/A 7 ~ . !s the site served ^>- Size (In acres) by existing public utilities? iSYes C'N'o a) If Yes, does s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y exist to a l l o w connection? EYes b) If Yes. w i i l i m p r o v e m e n t s be necessary to allow connection? GNo C?Ves GNo ' 3 . is the site l o c a t e d in an a g r i c u l t u r a l district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, A r t i c l e 25-AA, Section 203 and 304? DYes ENo 19. Is the site located in or s u b s t a n t i a l l y contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant t o A r t i c l e 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ^<Yes CNo :0. Has the site ever been used f o r the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes LJNo 3. Project Description '. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or c o n t r o l l e d by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be d e v e l o p e d : 1+ acres. 1 acres initially; c. Project acreage to r e m a i n u n d e v e l o p e d d. Length of project, in miles: N/A 1 • 5+ l" " acres u l t i m a t e l y . acres. (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A f. Number of off-street p a r k i n g spaces existing }]/A ; proposed g. M a x i m u m v e h i c u l a r trips generated per hour %; (upon c o m p l e t i o n of project)? n. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Initially i Ultimately J_ T w o Family i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure N/A / M u l t i p l e Family . height; j . Linear feet of f r o n t a g e along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 3 Condominium width; length. ft. �2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removecTfrom the site? JllA 3. Will disturbed areas b e reclaimed? GYes ENo C'N/A a. If yes. for what intend^J purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? tons/cubic yards DYes llL2 __ CX.S'o c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? GYes 0No A. 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 C&lo 6. If single phase p r o j e c t Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase (numDer). N/A month N/A month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting o c c u r during construction? DYes DYes UNo ENo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is complete TO. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A N/A 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? year, (including demolition). year. DYes DYes (25NO If yes, explain ENo a. If yes, indicate t y p e of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount —EL/A. N/A b. Name cf water b o d y into which effluent will be discharged 1— 13. Is subsurface liquid w a s t e disposal involved? DYes C?No Type i-4. 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? EYes a. If yes, what is the a m o u n t per month DYes N/A -ENo tons : EYes DNo ; location ; d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain (^Yes L'No DNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated r2te cf disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? years. DYes ENo 19. Will prcjec: routinely produce odors (mere than one hour per cay)? GYes 20. Will project p r o d u c e operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? GYes ENo DYes 2§No if yes , indicate typeCs) 122. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity Total anticipated w a t e r usage per day ' 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain DYes . 17. Will the project involve the disposal cf solid waste? 23. LENo CNo b. If,yes, will an existing solid waste facility be usee? c. If yes, give name DYes W/A "' gallons/minute. gallons/day. DYes SNo ENo �25. Approvals R e q u i r e d : Submittal Type City. T o w n . V i l l a g e Board DYes j t y . T o w n . V i l l a g e Planning Board fcjYes CNo Date •' CNo Subdivision City, T o w n Z o n i n g Board DYes CNo •City. C o u n t y H e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t EYes CNo £**><** V * J '* CVN O t h e r L0C2I Agencies CYes CNo « O t h e r Regional Agencies DYes CNo State Agencies DYes CNo Federal Agencies DYes CNo 10-3-1994 C. Zoning and Planning Information '1. Does proposed a c t i o n involve a planning or zoning decision? CYes CNo If Yes, i n d i c a t e decision required: Droning amendment C z o n i n g variance D n e w / r e v i s i o n o f master plan C s p e c i a l use p e r m i t Dresource management plan 2 . W h a t is the z o n i n g classification(s)of the site? R^fr5^ r" ^subdivision Dsite plan Dother ** 1 3 . W h a t is the m a x i m u m poten* ?! development of the site if d e v e l o p e d as p e r m i t t e d by the present zoning? I- b u i l d i n g l o t • 2. di&ttiti^S 4 . W h a t is the p r o p o s e d zoning of the site? (c*e c/\ tt\Lh, a^de^tlcped R~T>> /c4-^) J. 5. W h a t is the m a x i m u m potential development of the site if d e v e l o p e d as p e r m i t t e d by the proposed zoning? 1 ImMilii.y lofr N A •. Is the proposed a c t i o n consistent with the recommended uses in a d o p t e d local land use plans? CSYes DNo 7. W h a t are the p r e d o m i n a n t land use{s) and zoning classifications w i t h i n a V* mile radius of proposed action? Residential single family t iajfiiuhc f\ml ', Q-~\ , tL-2Af H* 8. Is t h e proposed a c t i o n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h adjoining/surrounding 9. If the proposed a c t i o n is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? - 1 (£zS"bAiv-'i;cs\ a. W h a t is t h e m i n i m u m lot size proposed? 1+ land uses w i t h i n a V* mile? a i i e - oft*A. -«uf-cu< DNo - r&mc W c &AZ b * : > ' < i > ^ 1 0 . W i l l proposed a c t i o n require any a u t h o r i z a t i o n ^ ) for the f o r m a t i o n of sewer or water districts? 11. £]Yes DYes K ^ CNo W i l l t h e proposed a c t i o n create a demand f o r any c o m m u n i t y p r o v i d e d services (recreation, e d u c a t i o n , p o l i c e , fire protection}? DYes £s'o a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? N^" C^Yes CNo 12. W i l l the proposed a c t i o n result in the generation of traffic s i g n i f i c a n t l y above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing read network adequate to handle the a d d i t i o n a l traffic? DYes DYes fcs'o DNo D. Informational Details A t t a c h any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n as may be needed to c l a r i f y your project. If there are or. may be any adverse impacts associated w i t h y o u r proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures w h i c h you propose t o m i t i g a t e or avoid t h e m . E. Verification I certify that t h e i n f o r m a t i o n provided above is true to the best of m y k n o w l e d g e . Ipplicant/Sponsor Name JAMES BICK AND MARTHA BICK Date October 3 , 1994 Title A t t o r n e y If the a c t i o n \% in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, c o m p l e t e the Coastal Assessment Form before p r o c e e d i n g w i t h this assessment. �Part 2—PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency [eneral Information (Read Carefully) f 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 bcx in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potentia Large Impact D D D Y es DN< D D D Y es DN< D D D n DYes DYes DNo DNO • Construction that w i l l c o n t i n u e for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. D D DYes DNO • Excavation for mining purposes t h a t w o u l d remove more than 1,030 tens of natural m a t e r i a l (i.e., rock or soil) per year. D D DYes DNO • Construction or expansion of a sanitary l a n d f i l l . D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO D D D Y es DNo IMPACT ON LAND 1 . W i l l the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? f£NO DYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y to c o l u m n - 2 • Any construction on slopes of 1 5 % or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project 2!ea exceed ',0%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less th.2n 3 feet. • Construction of paved p a r k i n g area for 1,000 or more vehicles. • Construction en land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction in a designated f l o o d w a y . • Other impacts C a n I m p a c t Be M i t i g a t e d By Project C h a n g e DNO W i l l there be an e f f e c t f.. _.iy unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological f o r m a t i o n s , etc)JJ^NO DYES • Specific land forms: 6 �I M P A C T O N WATER |. W i l l proposed a c t i o n a f f e c t any water body designated as protectee? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 o f the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) SNO 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change GYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y to column 2 • D e v e l o p a b l e area of site contains a protected water body. • Dredging more t h a n 100 c u b i c yards of material f r o m channel of a p r o t e c t e d stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal w e t l a n d . • O t h e r impacts: 4 . W i l l proposed a c t i o n a f f e c t any non-protected existing or new body of water? DNO DYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y 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 b o d y o f water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: D • DYes DNo • • • • D DYes DNo • • DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DN< D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNO • • • • D D DYe5 DNo DYes DNo D DYes D'No D DYes DNo D D D D D'Yes DYes DNo D'No • • D DYes CNo D DYe5 CNo n G DYes CNO D D DYes DNo • n UYes GNO • D DYe< DNo • D DYes 5. W i l l Proposed A c t i o n a f f e c t surface or groundwater q u a l i t y or quantity? Examples that w o u l d a p p l y to column 2 !^NO DYES Proposed A c t i o n w i l l require a discharge permit. • Proposed A c t i o n requires use of a source of water that does no_t have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed A c t i o n requires w a t e r supply f r c m wells w i t h greater than 45 gallons per m i n u t e p u m p i n g capacity. • Construction or o p e r a t i o n causing any contamination of a water supply system. • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l adversely affect groundwater. u Liquid effluent w i l l be c o n v e y e d off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have i n a d e q u a t e capacity. • Proposed A c t i o n w o u l d use water in excess of 20.030 gallons per day. • Proposed A c t i o n w'ill l i k e l y cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there w i l l be an obvious visual contrast to n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s . • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed A c t i o n w i l l a l l o w residential uses in are25 w i t h o u t water and/or sewer services. • Proposed A c t i o n locates c o m m e r c i a l and/or industrial uses w h i c h .may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: . W i l l proposed a c t i o n a l t e r drainage f l o w or patterns, or surface water runoff? QNO DYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y to column 2 • Proposed A c t i o n w o u l d change flood water flows. - .. 7 ON, �Small to Moderate Impact Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO DNO D.No D D (_Yes GNo • • • DYes DNo DYes DNo • 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: 2 Potential Large - IMPACT ON AIR CNO DYES 7 . Will proposed action affect air quality? Examples t h a t would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action wiil 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 c o n t a m i n a n t s will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than TO million 3TU's per hour. D • • D DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • Reduction c; one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site ct found on the site. • D C'Yes DNo • Removal cf any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. n • D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D DYes GNo • Proposed Action wouid substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. n D L-Yes !_No • Proposed Action requires the removal cf more than TO acres cf mature forest (ever TOO years of age) or ether locally important vegetation. D D DYes D'No D D DYes • Proposed action will allow an increase in the a m o u n t of Jand.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 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? _NO Examples t h a t would apply to column 2 GYE5 • Application cf pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other imoacVs: . 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened ex non-endangered species? _NO Examples that wouid apply to column 2 C>5S IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES TO. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? _NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 'he proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 DN< �1 Small to • Proposed Action may C2use substantial erosion. • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. • proposed Action will allow development in a designated iloodway. Moderate Potential Large Impact Impact D D D D D D D D DYes QYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D • DYes DNo • Other impacts: __ Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? Examples that would apply to column 2 JCSO DYES • 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 3TU'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 D D D Y es •N« D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D DYes DNo DYes ONo IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? £JNO GYES Examples t h a t would apply to column 2 Reduction of o n e or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, ever 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: . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? £SsO Examples that would appiv to column 2 CYES Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. D proposed Action requires tne removal cf more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vesetat.cn. D D DYes DNo D a DYes DNo IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES • O. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? £JNO CYES Examples t h a t would apply to column 2 he proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 �2 Small to Moderate Impact Potentfal Large Impact Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. D D DYes G N O • 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. D D DYes DNo • 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) D D DYes DNo • Other impacts: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. D D DYes DNo Other impacts: D D DYes DNo • Proposed A c t i o n o c c u r r i n g w h o l l y cr partially w i t h i n or substantially" contiguous to any f a c i l i t y or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. D D DYes DNo • Any i m p a c t to an a r c h a e o l o g i c a l site or fossil bed located w i t h i n the project site. • Proposed Action w i l l o c c u r in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites en the NYS Site Inventory. D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES - | 1 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? CNO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAr Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to coiumn 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different fro'm 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. Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change I M P A C T ON H I S T O R I C A N D A R C H A E O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S 12. W i l l Proposed A c t i o n i m p a c t any site or slructure of historic, p r e historic or p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l importance? SJNO DYES Examples that w o u l d a p p l y t o c o l u m n 2 • Other impacts: IMPACT ON O P E N SPACE A N D RECREATION 13. W i l l Proposed A c t i o n a f f e c t the q u a n t i t y or quality of existing cr f u t u r e open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 CNO DYES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts; I �Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large . Impact D G D D D 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. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION \4. W i l l there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ENO Examples that would apply to column 2 •' CYES • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Chanc DYes DNO GYes CNo DYes Ds'o D DYes CNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • Blasting within 1.500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. D D DYes DNo • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNo • Other D D GYes CNo • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion cr release of hazardous substances (i.e. c;I. pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident cr ucset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge cr emission. D D UYes GSo • Proposed Act:cn may resuit in the buriai ti "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) D a GYes CNo • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D D GYes GNo • 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 GYes CNO • D GYes GNo • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: . IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? 6&NO GYES 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? • ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise ieveis for noise outside of structures. impacts: IMPACT ON PU3L1C HEALTH 17. Will rrcoaed Action affect public heaith and safety? £NO Examples that would apply to column 2 • Other impacts: 10 DYES �IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD r# *. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? EJNO 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large impact D D DYes DNO D D DYes DNO D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO CNO D D DY es DNO D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO DNO DNO DYES Can Impact Be Mitigated 3y Project Change Examples that would 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 wiil 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 iet an important precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment • Other imparts- • 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ^ J N O 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 O F 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 . 5rief!y 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 it 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 • lis 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 respect to substance and form: Approved by the Planning Board Filed with Village Clerk •Cleric cif Deputy Clerk Dated: il/fc fy • *//(.{ fOoOe/tili&L 17. m</ a4-Q / ~>-P M o o 4 - i «rf 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-1994 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_1994-12-15 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994