1 25 7 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2d76133a8f22d8aae7825f43d2b03d5f.pdf d84520559a1ae8eaa5f8341807f9fba0 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK February 16,1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on February 16,1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Ellen Tsangaris Joanne Becker James Donovan David Perlmutter ABSENT: Edward McCarthy ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Susan J. Portman, Assoc/Planning Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PHILIPSE MANOR RAILROAD STATION SUB-DIVISION Chairman Hritz stated that the Public Hearing was on the proposal relating to the Philipse Manor Railroad Station renovation on behalf of the Hudson Valley Writers Center. That it was really a re-drawing of the line to reflect the lease-hold situation and the new ownership of the property. He asked Mr. Stever to explain the new submission submitted. Mr. Stever addressed the Board and stated that the HVWC has a leasehold agreement and will be renovating the station. Chairman Hritz commented that the plan was approved by the Department of Health. The project did not require the project any variances. The Board had declared its intent to be Lead Agency and had received no objections from any other agencies. He asked for a motion to declare the Board Lead Agency. �Caetano made the motion to declare the Board Lead Agency. David Perlmutter seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ellen Tsangaris made a motion to make a Negative Declaration for SEQR. James Donovan seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Donald Caetano asked if they were going to have any kind of shrubs on the property. Mr. Stever answered that the property that was transfered to the Hudson Valley Writer Center was entirely paved. The grass adjacent to the Railroad Station was property of the Railroad. The building itself will be lovely to look at. Donald Caetano made a motion to approve the application for subdivision. Joanne Becker seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 2. L. RODRIGUES: CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING RE: CHESTNUT RIDGE Mark DeGennaro stated that he had problems with the retaining wall. He suggested they re-submit a revised design . Mr. Turnquist stated that they were aware of what was required. Chairman Hritz asked Mr. Turnquist if the applicant received the variances from the Zoning Board. Mr. Turnquist answered "Yes." He then introduced Mr. Rodrigues1 son, George. He explained the changes made in the plans. Chairman Hritz asked him to summarize for the Board the applicant's status. Mr. Turnquist, referring to the plans and the site model, explained the project as follows: 76 Chestnut Street is proposed to be a 3 story building. 83 Depeyster Street is proposed to be a 3 story building. Total of 18 dwelling units with parking in the garage. Access to the parking will be strictly from the Depeyster Street side. PAGE # 2 �He went into details regarding the parking garage. He addressed some of Susan Portman's comments from the Memorandum of Feb. 10,1995. He stated that they have met all of the requirements for handicapped parking. He explained about the handicap parking and passed out copies of Regulation 1986. Susan Portman read the Regulation ADA 1991. Discussion on the size of the handicapped parking spaces ensued. Mr. Turnquist pointed out that they had a handicapped lift and a clearance of 6* 8" in the garage. He explained how tenants will enter and exit the parking area. Discussion on dumpsters and how they will deal with it followed. Donald Caetano stated that they should have no problems. They will be better off with dumpsters than with cans. Mr. Turnquist said that they will use cans for 76 Chestnut and dumpsters for 83 Depeyster. Chairman Hritz asked if he had any problems with landscaping. Mr. Turnquist "What we had planned on doing was if there was a final decision on this, we wanted to accommodate the stores, the retaining wall and address the Landscaping as well. We would have a proper plan and detail of the whole thing." Mr. Turnquist stated that the owner was upset about paying twice for the design on the project. He was getting billed from the architect and the Planning Consultants for their participation for the same project. Chairman Hritz said that the Board will look into that and would like to see the bills. Discussion on the Landscaping continued. Mr. Turnquist mentioned that he would like to see a stockade fence. Donald Caetano commented that ivy grows through it. It was safe, looked beautiful, was a strong fence and it didn't have to be painted. Mr. Margotta stated that the fence had to get approval from the Architectural Review Board. Discussion followed. PAGE # 3 �Mr. Turnquist, continuing to go down the list on the Memorandum, expressed his surprise by the comment on page 4 part 7 about creating additional bedrooms. On the sub-division of the lots, Mr. Turnquist said that it was up to the owner to decide. Mr. Margotta commented that when the Assessor got it, it was going to be one lot. Donald Caetano made a motion to declare the Board Lead Agency. Ellen Tsangaris seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Turnquist explained how high are the neighboring buildings around Chestnut Street and Depeyster Street. Chairman Hritz asked him when will he be able to submit a landscaping plan. Mr. Turnquist answered "next meeting". Mark DeGennaro "I just want to make the Board aware that Mr. Turnquist is going to put together the drainage and the retaining wall. However, it is some concern of mine that with the wall you are proposing, this wonderful sub-division and development, you are looking at the wall as if you are going to be able to built it like this. At this point, I'm looking at certain possibilities of this wall actually changing, thereby developing in a smaller lot size which might change the project dramatically." Mr. Turnquist answered "your concern is the capacity of the soil". He explained the plans for the retaining wall. Discussion on the soil and the retaining wall followed. Mr. Margotta commented that he had all the variances he needed. His biggest hurdle was the Zoning Board. Now , he had the retaining wall, the drainage and the landscaping. David Perlmutter said "The mere fact that he says that he doesn't want to go along with this without the Board's approval doesn't compel us to grant him approval. They have been here so many times that it is incredible. Mr. Turnquist doesn't show up sometimes; he wants the approval tonight, he doesn't have the landscaping and he objects to their landscaping (Clark's), he doesn't have the proper foundation nor has he convinced the owner to do the boring but he wants our PAGE # 4 �approval." James Donovan agreed with Mr. Perlmutter. Discussion on the boring and the wall followed. Chairman Hritz suggested that they get the boring done in the next 30 days, and stated that they were not passing final approval that night. James Donovan commented that Mark DeGennaro had done his job very well. Mr. Turnquist suggested that the Board members walk around the project site. Date to meet with Mr. Turnquist was set for Saturday, February 25 at 10:30 a.m. at 83 Depeyster Street. Hearing to be continued. The Board voted to approve the following attached resolutions: Sub-division and Site Plan Approval Proposed Action: Re-subdivision to remove one building lot Owner: James and Martha Bick Applicant: James and Martha Bick Location: Terrace Close, Birch Close Tax Map Designations: 11/1 A/1,11/1S/2A, 11/1S,2B1,11/1S/8,11/1S/9 Zoning: R-2A Residential James Donovan moved to approve this resolution. David Perlmutter seconded. Carried unanimously. Sub-division 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 Donal Caetano moved to approve this resolution. James Donovan seconded. Carried unanimously. PAGE # 5 �Donald Caetano moved to approve the minutes of January 19,1995 as submitted. James Donovan seconded. Carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz welcomed the Board's new member, Joanne Becker to the Board. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Recording Secretary PAGE # 6 �Approved with r e s p e c t t o substance and form: Village/JAttorney Dated: U <7W? ? Approved by t h e Planning Board Chairman or Ac'tiijig Chairman Filed with Village Clerk Pi ark or.Deputy Clerk Dated: Skills /<, m^r 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-1995 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_1995-02-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/014437bead5bb2981efdf2f5f6d6beee.pdf a0e0231f46ac849fd182743d8d7485fb PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK December 21. 1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on December 21, 1995 at 8:00 p.m. in the Village hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, N e w York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Nick Cicchetti Betsy Sawyer Gaylin Joanne Becker ABSENT: Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT: Janet A. Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Chairman Hritz went over the memo of December 19, 1995 from Linda David on the subject of the Hudson Recyling final environmental statement. He said that the Board had been asked to look into it in a general way. Chairman Hritz introduced Betsy Sawyer Gaylin as the new Board member and went over her background. 1. Charles Pateman (Peck Property) Barnhart Avenue Informal meeting to discuss possible development of Barnhart property Chairman Hritz stated that this being an informal hearing the Board's engineers did not have to be present. Mr. Pateman came forward and said that this was an informal discussion regarding a proposed project on Barnhart Avenue. There were six existing units now and they were occupied. They were in a state of disrepair. The proposal was to demolish the six existing units. He showed pictures of the property and site plans of the proposed project. He stated that the property was in a R-5 zone. He said that they were here tonight to get the Board's comments as to whether this project was acceptable. Referring to the site plans, Mr. Pateman went over the project in detail. Ms. Gandolfo asked how was he calculating the parking spaces needed because it was one parking space per unit. Mr. Pateman said that there were going to be four families so it was going to be 2 spaces for each. Mr. Cicchetti asked where the other two spaces would be located. Referring to the plans, Mr. Pateman explained where and how many parking spaces will be available. �Mr. Caetano asked what type of materials were going to be used. Discussion on size, height, appearance of the building followed with Mr. Pateman explaining the site plans. Ms. Gandolfo asked about the ownership of the property. Mr. Pateman answered that it will be under one ownership. Mr. Caetano asked about sanitation provisions. Mr. Pateman stated that they had an area that had not been developed yet where a dumpster would be maintained for the garbage disposal. Chairman Hritz made a personal comment that he had visited the area and that most of the houses were owned by the people who lived in them. They were well kept and that it was a nice neighborhood. Mr. Pateman stated that they wanted to make the project as nice as possible with a reasonable return. Chairman asked him what the Board could do for him. Mr. Pateman answered that he wanted the Board's opinion as to whether to go forward or not. Ms. Gaylin asked if he owned the property. Mr. Pateman answered no, they had an option to buy. Ms. Gandolfo stated that they had seven different dwelling units on one lot and that was not allowed by the code. Discussion on the location and size of the lot ensued. Mr. Cicchetti asked if the houses there now were 2 family residences. Mr. Peck answered that they were 1 family residences and have been for 100 hundred years. Mr. Cicchetti stated that the 24 ft. entrance with 20 feet between the parking spaces bothered him. Discussion on the definition of the code and the project followed. Chairman Hritz commented that Dr. Sweet, the Board's liason to the Board of Trustees was present and asked if he had any feelings about whether or not the Trustees would like to look at this as a legislative matter, to give the Board any guidance on it. Chairman read a section from article 4 - application and regulation - section 627C to the Board. Dr. Sweet said that the Board of Trustees were trying to make the community aware of the LWRP. As part of a whole concept of the LWRP. There were zoning �changes and alterations of the existing codes due to G.M. leaving in the LWRP. Mr. Peck commented that the property did not join the G.M. property, it was not G.M. Mr. Sweet stated that the RR ran right along side of it. Mr. Caetano stated that the Board should have the right to accept this, bring it to the Zoning Board. Chairman commented that was his opinion. He stated that the Trustee liason had suggested that the developer look at the plans for the LWRP and see what the area covered and the developer was happy to do that. Mr. Margotta commented that rather then get too many boards involved, have him review the LWRP, then have him come back for a preliminary meeting. He may want to come back and change his concept. Mr. Pateman asked to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. 2. Mr. Peck - 38-40 Kendall Avenue - Sub-division Mathew Worner, R.E. attorney, came forward and stated that Mr. Peck had come before the Board before with regard to property on Kendall Avenue. Mr. Peck was executor of the estate that owns two houses on Kendall Avenue. Chairman commented that there was a letter from Mr. Peck to Mr. Margotta dated 9/22/95; Mr. Margotta's response dated 10/3/95; Mr. Peck's dated 10/7/95 and the Title Co. dated 11/7/95. The letter said that there were 2 lots on the County's map and one lot on the Village's map. Mr. Margotta stated that there was a mistake on his letter of 10/3/95. Instead of Irving Place it was Kendall Ave. Mr. Worner said that a sub-division was not required. In 1897 the property in question was listed as 2 lots, 9 & 10. Local maps merged them to lot 17. Ms. Gandolfo commented that the Village records are not always complete. A subsequent map showed one lot with 2 structures on it. The community had different lot numbers. "We don't go by those lot numbers. Furthermore, by the description it appears to be one lot. You only have one deed description." Discussion on the lot description followed. Ms. Gandolfo asked what was the fee for a single sub-division. Mr. Margotta answered $2,500.00 for the escrow account. Chairman Hritz asked if the Board could waive the fee. Mr. Margotta said he didn't want to start that practice. Mr. Caetano asked whose map was correct, the county or the Village's. �Discussion on the County and Village maps ensued. Mr. Margotta said that this had been done before for Mr. Peck. Chairman told Mr. Peck to fill out the long EAF and they will look at it. Mr. Caetano made a motion that Mr. Peck to come back to the next meeting at the full expense of Mr. Al Peck for any investication or anything that he does for this property to be approved and be sub-divided to the full satisfaction of Clark Associates. Mr. Cicchetti seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz made a motion to approve the October 19,1995 minutes as amended. Mr. Cicchetti seconded. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submited, ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ CARMEN G. MARIANO Recording Secretary' ^ - ^ �UJest Chester County ANDREW P. O'ROURKE County Executive DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MARK & RAPOPORT, M.D. M.P.H. Commissioner December 6 , 1994 Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board 28 Beekman Avenue No. Tarrytown, NY 10591 RE: Log #: 94S104 Bick Subdivision No. Tarrytown (T) Dear Ms. David: Reference is made to the lead agency designation notice dated November 18, 1994. We note that the Village of No. Tarrytown Planning Board has made a determination to act as lead agency for the proposed action. Please be advised that this Department does not wish to assume lead agency status for this project. If a determination has been made, or if a determination is made that an Environmental Impact Statement is required, we would appreciate a copy of the document for review and possible comment. Richard Paccione, P.E. ^-*-~ Associate Engineer Bureau of Environmental Quality RP:AA:ls cc: District Office chron file 19 Bradhurst Avenue • Hawthorne. N.Y 10532 �Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David Administrator Donal M. Walsh. Jr. Village Counsel Angela Everett Deputy Village Clerk Frank Anzovino Treasurer TRUSTEES Morris Alter Jose Blanco John T. Hayes, Jr. Scott P. Horecky Michael Hyland Richard C. Sweet HISTORIC PAST - GREAT FUTURE To: All Members of the Planning Board From: James Margotta Date: November 16,1995 The November 16, 1995 Planning Board meeting has been cancelled * 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrvtown, New York 10591 (914) 631-1440 �^ Approved with respect to substance and form (L^(k Village Attonne'y Dated: VI _/ t i . 'V*'/'*^ A p p r o v e d b y t h e Planning Board ^ Chairman or(Acting^Chairman Dated: \ J \7~lz-Ujf' Filed with Village Clerk d o r k or Deputy Clerk Dated: f])rJ<ijL �• 1 • Approved with respect to substance and form: village attorney Dated? Approved by the Planning Board Chairman o Dated: Chairman ^ i l^G Filed with Village Clerk ?*Jl^ . -Glerk or fieputy Clerk Dated: C-^uuCtfa C/JZC/f£ <Cd^£U^U£: ui^^A^D*^ Date of Meeting r2/J9 </<? � 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-1995 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_1995-12-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9aab4ad0506891a8c8640ded46b131b5.pdf 50459106fba9489f4e70d295945b9028 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK January 19,1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on January 19,1995 at 8:00 P.M. in 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 Mark A. DiGennaro Susan J. Portman, Assoc./Planning Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. 1. CONTINUATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL, APPLICATION RE: CHESTNUT RIDGE Adjourned to February meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. PRELIMINARY HEARING - PHILIPSE MANOR RAILROAD STATION SUBDIVISION Chairman Hritz asked Mr. Stever, representing the applicant, to give the Board a summary of what the application was all about. Mr. Stever stated that he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Hudson Valley Writers Center, Inc., a non-profit Corporation. The majority of the members are residents of the Village. He explained their efforts to restore the Philipse Manor Station which had been technically abandoned by the M.T.A. 17 years ago. He stated that the building was now in ruins. That the Center has �PAGE secured grants & donations to rehabilitate the building. They had a 99 year lease from the railroad and a 25 year sub-lease from the M.T.A. "The Writers' Center is both the landloard and the sub-tenant of the M.T.A. The property still remain technically, railroad property, but since the Writers' Center has acquired a fee, it appears that there was a subdivision of the fee and requiring an approval for which we are here today, " Mr. Stever stated. Chairman Hritz asked him if he was referring to title fee when he used the word "fee". He said yes. Chairman Hritz explained to the Board that the Writers' Center is basically taking a hole in the middle of the Penn Central property and the Writers' Center owned it from the ground up. He told Mr. Stever that what they needed was the Board's approval of the subdivision. Discussion followed. Donald caetano made a motion to declare the Board as Lead Agency. Edward McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The application was put on the calender for a Public Hearing next month. 3. VINCENT SHROBA - SUB-DIVISION APPLICATION - CONTINUATION Chairman Hritz asked the applicant to give a general description of his application. Mr. Vincent Shroba,Sr. and his son, Steven came forward. Mr. Shroba stated that they wanted to subdivide the property. Ms. Janet Gandolfo stated that all they wanted to do was a simple subdivision across the property, and then if they ever decided to build they will have to deal with whatever problems they'll have with setbacks, etc. They are just looking for a simple subdivision. Chairman Hritz asked if anybody else had any comments. Discussion on the application followed. �Donald Caetano made a motion to declare the Planning Board Lead Agency. Edward McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Donald Caetano made a motion to make a negative declaration. Edward McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Donald Caetano made a motion to approve the application. Edward McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McCarthy move to approve the minutes of December 15,1994 as amended. Donald Caetano seconded. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted^ ^CARMEN G. MARIANO Recording Secretary �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 North Tarrytown P l a n n i n g Board, TO: DATE: 12/19/94 Mayor T r e a c y , Linda David, J a n e t Gandolfo, PROJECT: 5 2 0 . 0 3 6 / 5 2 0 . 0 4 1 James M a r g o t t a , Mark DiGennaro 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: ( ) ( ) ( ) Approval Review Distribution ( ) (x) ( ) File Information ( ) ( ) Use Comment THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies 1 Date Description 12/15/94 Negative Declaration - Bick Subdivision 12/19/94 Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency, EAF Part - Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court Site Plan REMARKS: We are currently preparing a resolution of approval for the Bick Subdivision and a review memo of the Chestnut Ridge Site Plan. John Hughes, Esq. (Bick) cc: Ron Turnquist (Chestnut Ridge) By Susan J. Portman, AICP Involved & Interested Agencies (Chestnut Ridge; NYSDEC Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review *t NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project N u m b e r Date: December 15, 1994 This n*.otice 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 Visuage of North Tarrytown Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action descriUbed below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will n a o t be prepared. Name of ActicK>n: Bick Subdivision SEQR Status: : Type 1 X Unlisted Conditioned ^Negative Declaration: 1 Yes X No Description a * f Action: This is an application to resubd'rvide property by breaking up an undeveloped lot and distributing the pieces to neighboring leasts. As a result, one building lot will be eliminated from the subdivision. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) '3 Terrace Closse, North Tarrytown, Westchester County, New York (See attached i area map - not to scale) �«. SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2 I T " leasons ' 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. 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 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 James and Martha Bick, c/o John Hughes, Jr., Esq., 49 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY 10591 *500\not4-O41.sJp �PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL t AREA MAP n-» �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-lot subdivision of a property approximately 0.477 acres in size. One lot will contain an existing house and detached garage. Location: (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 �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. 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 �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM Project Name or Description Chestnut R i d g e / H i l l s i d e Court Site Plan - Construction of two buildings on two combined l o t s . One b u i l d i n g would be three s t o r i e s and contain 12 dwelling u n i t s and an o f f i c e . and contain 8 dwelling u n i t s . Project Location The other b u i l d i n g would be three s t o r i e s Parking would be provided at grade and under the 76 Chestnut S t r e e t / 8 3 Depevster S t r e e t Name Of Applicant Laurent ino Rodrigues E n t e r p r i s e s , I n c . Village Agency Intending to Act as Lead Agency Address __ North Tarrvtown Planning Board Village H a l l , 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY 10591 Contact Person Linda E. David, Village Administrator Date Mailed December 19, 1994 Telephone Number (914) 631-1440 Type of Action (Check A or B) 13 A. TYPE I • UNLISTED B. Lead agency must be chosen within 30 days of above date. Deadline Reply Date II. January 19. 1994 Required Approvals and Reviews (Check all permits, waivers, or other actions which may be required) • Rezoning • Subdivision Approval * E Site Development Plan Approval • Special Permit 13 Variance • Wetlands Permit • Stream Discharge Permit - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [3 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: *May be required �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM - PAGE 2 III. IV. Environmental Significance of Action: Initial Review of Environmental Assessment Form indicates that: (Check A, B, or C - To be done by Initiating agency) D A. The proposed action appears likely to have a significant effect on the environment; a positive declaration is likely. D B. The proposed action appears not likely to have a significant effect on the environment; a negative declaration Is likely. 0 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 (Part 1) �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 and: (Check A or B) • A. D B. Doesjnot want to be Lead Agency. Wants to be Lead Agency for this action. Additional comments or concerns (Attach additional pages if necessary): Reviewed by: Signature Name Title Date PLEASE RETURN TO THE AGENCY INITIATING THIS PROCESS {LISTED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS FORM) BY THE DATE INDICATED. IF NO REPLY IS RECEIVED BY THE DATE INDICATED, THE VILLAGE AGENCY INDICATED WILL ASSUME THAT YOU CONCUR WITH ITS DESIGNATION AS LEAD AGENCY. 500/not3-030.Jd �LIST OF INVOLVED OR INTERESTED AGENCIES (only includes those marked with an "X") Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 13 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 Zoning Board of Appeals Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Q Westchester County Department of Health 19 Bradhurst Avenue Hawthorne, New York 10532 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 (Other Agencies) 500\not4-00fl.sjp �•DEC 18 '94 12:34PM TURNQUIST ARCHITECTS •• P.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 therange 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 potentially* large impact The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: if any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F S I G N I F I C A N C E - T y p e 1 a n d Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 D Part 2 OPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: D A. The project will not result in any large and important impacts) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. • 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.' O 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 Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court 76 Chestnut Street/83 Depeyster Street, 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 responsib'i officer) Date �• DEC 18 .'94 12:35PM TURNQUIST ARCHITECTS P.4 PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTTCE; This document is designed to assist in determining whether the 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. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Strut Addr»»«, Municipality and County) 76 Chestnut Street & 83 Depeyster Street, N.Tarrytown NY (We3tchester Cc NAME OP APPLICANT/SPONSOR Turnquist BUSINESS TELEPHONE Architects (914)631-9107 ADDRESS 95 Beekman Avenue STATE C1TY/PO North Tarrytown 2JPCO0E NY NAME OF OWNER (If <JllfBr«nt) 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises (914) 631-3336 ADDRESS 180 Valley Street STATE CITWPO ZIP CODE 10591 NY North Tarrytown DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Construction of 2 buildings including 20 dwelling units, office space, garage and on-site parking for 49 vehicles 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; EUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial DResidential (suburban) OForest QAgriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 0-43 APPROXIMATE ACREACE Meadow or Srushland (Non-agricultural) DOther 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) ~ Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 0 A3 . 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? DRural (non-farm) PRESENTLY acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres Brown s i l t w i t h t r a c e M-F sand % of site DWell drained ..jOO % of site OModerately weU drained DPoorly d rained _______ % of site b. If any agricultural land i$ involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the N* Land Classification System? W/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). a. Soil drainage: 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? QYes QNo (in feet) �-DEC 18 ' 9 4 12:36PM TURNQUIST ARCHITECTS P.5 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: Cf>10% % Dl5% or greater ClO-15% __ fin % % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain g building, site-, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? DYes ©No '"/. 1$ project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 8. What is the depth of the water table? " Q " e DYes [jjNo atfJ,3_fflet 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes fiDNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? CYes QtNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? • Yes £)No According to , Identify each species , ...., . __ 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) •Yes ENo Describe _____ , 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? •Yes CBNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include Scenic views known to be important to the community? •Yes QBNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: none* a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary ___ 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name n none b. Size {In acres) 7 . Is the site served by existing public utilities? SYes CNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? EYes b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? §Yej DNo DNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes fflNo 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? CBYes DNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes CBNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions a appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: _ 0*43 c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped fl acres initially; 0 - 43 acres. 0 • 43 acres ultimately. acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 49 8 ; proposed %• g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour t___________L_— (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure Condominium 2Q 2Q 40 height; 46 width; . ? 1 j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?90&46 ft. length. �• DEC 18 ' 9 4 12:36PM TURISQUIST ARCHITECTS p 2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed'from the site? N o n e 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? DYes DNo tons/cubic yards 85N/A ' a. If yes. for what intends purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes . DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for. reclamation? DYes DNo A. How many acres of vegetation {trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? none acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes BNo ' 6. If single phase project Anticipated period of construction 12 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated -. (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase year. month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes QYes DNo ENo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ° ; after project is complete _ 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project _I?pne. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes DYes ©No If yes, expla in 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? £)Yes DNo Type SftWaqfi 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? > 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ®Yes a. If yes, what is the amount per month Char1p.fi XlYes Point _ _ _ ; DNo location — P p p V f i V i 1 1 d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain , DYes QSNo __ 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? CYes SJNO 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? ___ tons b. If,yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? c. If yes, give name DYes ESNo . gNo DNo ll •* years. DYes ENo 19. Will project, routinely produce odors (more th3n one hour per day)? CYes 58No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? K'Yes DYes QONo DNo If yes , indicate tvpe<s) e l e c t r i c a l & gas f o r h e a t i n g , c o o l i n g & l i g h t i n g 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. N/A gallons/minute. Total anticipated water usage per day 24. Does project involve Local, State or Fede.al funding? If Yes, explain _ _ 6 DYes QjNo , �•DEC 18 '94 12:37PM TURNQUIST ARCHITECTS :&:i*&tf£3%£ :••;•/> #?^#*: 25. Approvals Required: Submittal Date Type 9 City, Town, Village Board BYes DNO > Jty, Town. Village Planning Soard BYes CNO City, Town Zoning Board DBYes DNO City. County Health Department DYes BfNo Other Local Agencies ®Yes CNo Other Regional Agencies DYes CSNo State Agencies DYes ENo Federal Agencies DYes ®No b n i 1rji nrj permit approval 12/15/94 12/21/94 vflT-i anr-o.ei ;,rp h i t o r ' t ' Lirftl r***"*™ board C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? DEVes DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: Ozoning amendment CBzoning variance Onew/revision of master plan Dspecial use permit Dresource management plan 2. What is the zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ^ the site? C*-2 G e n e r a l Dsubdivision Dother GSsite plan L„ Commercial 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 12 dwelling units \ frpp^X, 4 . What is the proposed zoning of the site? IQMQ J * CpiwcfincxLt j^.lcSiV, B- . H H r i r f r r p f r r J we 1 1 - i rrcjr—6—eemmc r a i a 1 Mo e k a ^ c 5. .What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? '-. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Q|Yes DNo ' 7 . What are the predominant land use{sfand Zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? commercial, institutional, public and residential c-i,L-Z. f*-3.R-JT.R~fo j i t / 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? J '" CSYes DNo CYes CSNo W/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? ___ 10. Will proposed -action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 1 1 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? SDYes DNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? EYes DNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present leveis? a, If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DYes K)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. \pp!icant/Spo£*pr r w * m ^ r •- - signature - — r yfjr ( - - - • ^«a«q Turnfluist-. A^rtXAX^I\XAUA^ dAlfiiriZ Architects . Title Date 12/15/94 Architect If (he action iJ in the CoaMaMfcrt, and you ire a stale agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. �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: January 13, 1995 Subject: Planning Board Meeting Agenda. January 19. 1995 1. Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court Site Plan Application: As requested, on December 23, 1994, we distributed a memo which contained our review of this application. At the January 19, 1995 meeting, the Planning Board may declare itself the Lead Agency in the review of this matter. We have not received any further materials since last December. 2. Philipse Manor Railroad Station Subdivision: We have not received any materials for review concerning this project. 3. Shroba Preliminary Subdivision: On September 16, 1994, we distributed a memo which contained our review of this application. This item was discussed at the September 22, 1994 meeting of the Planning Board. At the October 20, 1994 meeting, it was announced that the Applicant requested that the review of this application be temporarily discontinued. We have not received any new materials for review. 4. Other: As requested, enclosed is a draft resolution of approval for the Bick Subdivision. Due to the insufficient and inconsistent information included on the plat, the Applicant will need to confirm some of the information contained within the resolution, including the tax designations, sizes of parcels and that the description includes all of the involved tax lots. We have been working with the Applicant to resolve this issue. However, until the information is confirmed, the resolution should not be approved. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Enclosure cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David, V i l l a g e Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, E s q . , V i l l a g e Attorney James T. Margotta, Building I n s p e c t o r Mark A. DiGennaro, V i l l a g e Engineer Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �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, FLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: December 23, 1994 Subject: Review of Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the site plan application known as "Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court" for a property approximately 18,712 square feet in size located along the southern side of Chestnut Street at 7 6 Chestnut Street and the northerly side of Depeyster Street at 83 Depeyster Street, in the C-2 General Commercial District. The properties currently support two residences containing a total of approximately six dwelling units and associated parking. The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing residences and replace them with two three-story buildings containing a total of 2 0 dwelling units. The building at 76 Chestnut Street ("Chestnut Ridge") is proposed to contain 800 square feet of office space, four one-bedroom units and eight two-bedroom units. The building at 83 Depeyster Street ("Hillside Court") is proposed to contain eight two-bedroom units. A total of 49 parking spaces are proposed, including 12 spaces under Chestnut Ridge, 18 spaces under Hillside Court and three spaces off of Chestnut Street. Except for those three spaces, vehicular access to the site would be from Depeyster Street. The Applicant has submitted Turnquist Architects: the following plans prepared by 1. "SD1, Site Plan, Location Map, Legend and Notes, Proposed Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court, 7 6 Chestnut Street/83 Depeyster Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591," scale as noted, dated December 12, 1994; and 2. "1, Schematic Plan of First Floor (76 Chestnut Street), Proposed Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court, 76 Chestnut Street/83 Depeyster Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591," scale 1/4" = 1', dated December 12, 1994; and Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island -(516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 3. "2, Schematic Plan of Second Floor (76 Chestnut Street and 83 Depeyster Street), Proposed Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court, 76 Chestnut Street/83 Depeyster Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591," scale 1/4" = 1', dated May 28, 1994 and most recently revised December 12, 1994; and 4. "3, Schematic Plan of Third Floor (76 Chestnut Street and 83 Depeyster Street), Proposed Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court, 76 Chestnut Street/83 Depeyster Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591," scale 1/4" = 1 ' , dated May 28, 1994 and most recently revised December 12, 1994. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Zoning Compliance: The proposed principal office and residential uses and the proposed accessory garage use are all permitted in the C-2 District. The construction of two buildings on one property is considered a "planned development group." The minimum lot size for a residential use (multiple dwellings) is 5,000 square feet for the first three dwelling units and 1,500 square feet for each additional dwelling unit. Since the size of the property is only 18,712 square feet, the Zoning Code permits a maximum of 12 dwelling units on this site. In order to allow 20 dwelling units on this site, it would have to be 30,500 square feet in size. Either the site plan must be revised to comply with this requirement or a variance must be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). In the C-2 District, there is a 20-foot front yard setback requirement for a residential use. The merging of these two properties into one would result in the creation of a "through lot." The front yard of a through lot is determined by the street with the greater width (probably Depeyster Street). Assuming there would be two "front yards," only three feet is proposed from Chestnut Street and 5.5 feet from Depeyster Street. Not all of the existing buildings on neighboring properties appear to have been set back 20 feet. Section 6213.b(2) of the Zoning Code states the following: "Variance of Front Yard Requirements. When a vacant lot is situated between two improved lots, each having a principal building within twenty-five (25) feet of any side lot line of such unimproved lot, the front yard may be reduced to the greatest depth of the front yard of such adjoining improved lots, but 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation shall not be less than ten (10) feet, provided, however, that where any lot shall front on a right-of-way which is proposed on the Official Map of the Village of North Tarrytown to be widened, the front yard of such lot shall be as required in the district where such lot is located and shall be measured from such proposed future right-ofway . " As these are not currently vacant lots, the Building Inspector should state whether the Planning Board would be able to apply this regulation to this site plan. If it is determined that this regulation may be applied and the Planning Board -wants to apply it, the Applicant should demonstrate that the neighboring properties comply with this standard and then the Applicant must revise the site plan to comply with the 10-foot front yard setback. If the 10-foot setback standard is not followed or the 20-foot setback is not provided, the Applicant must obtain a variance from the ZBA. A three-foot minimum side yard setback is required for a residential use. Adequate single side yard setbacKs are provided for Hillside Court but a side yard of only two feet is proposed for Chestnut Ridge. The total setback of both side yards is required to be 12 feet for a residential use but only seven feet is provided for Chestnut Ridge and only 10 feet is provided for Hillside Court. Absent the granting of such setback variances by the ZBA, the plan must be revised to comply with the side yard setback requirement. A 25-foot rear yard setback is required for a residential use. This site plan only shows a rear yard of approximately four feet (or three feet from Chestnut Street, if that is considered the "rear yard" as mentioned above). The plan must either be revised to comply with this requirement or a variance obtained from the ZBA. The maximum building coverage for a residential use is 35%. The proposed building coverage is 47%. The plan must either be revised to comply with this requirement or a variance obtained from the ZBA. The minimum lot width is 50 feet for a residential use. site appears to comply with this standard. The The buildings are proposed to be 35 and 40 feet in height, within the maximum height of 45 feet permitted in this District. 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 2. Parking. Loading and Circulation: The previously approved Valley Plaza Site Plan Application received a number of variances froa the ZBA on January 19, 1994. The minutes of that ZBA meeting state: 11 . . . that the variances be granted as requested, with the express condition that the variances relating to the construction of the apartments are conditioned specifically on the acquisition of 7 6 Chestnut Street for off-street parking, and the approval of the off-street parking site by the Planning Board, and that eight parking spaces be dedicated for the express use of the apartments and the remaining ten spaces be dedicated to the village for its use." (emphasis added) According to the parking standards of the Zoning Code, three parking spaces would be required for the office use and 38 for the residential use. This is a total of 41 spaces required for the proposed buildings. The ZBA minutes approving the variances for Galley Plaza state that eight parking spaces are to be dedicated for the use of that site and 10 spaces to be dedicated to the Village for its use. It is not clear why the proposed site plan states that 7.5 spaces are required for Valley Plaza. A total of 49 spaces appear to be required (41 for the proposed buildings and 8 for Valley Plaza) , assuming that the "Village's use" of its 10 spaces can be considered included in the 41 for the proposed buildings and not in addition to t&em. A total of 49 parking spaces are proposed for the site, including 12 spaces under the building at 76 Chestnut Street, 18 spaces under the building at 83 Depeyster Street and three spaces off of Chestnut Street. Many of the parking spaces are smaller than the minimum nine feet by 18 feet size required. Section 62-14 allows for compact car parking (a maximum of 60% of the spaces, or 2 9 spaces in this case) if properly designated. If the Applicant does not want to designate compact car perking as allowed in that Section, the plan must either be revised to comply with the full size parking space requirements or a variance obtained from the ZBA. The one handicap parking space (#34) provided is irregular in shape and would not comply with the standards of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The handicap space should be redesigned to be eight feet in width with an eightfoot wide loading aisle. According to a representative of the State Codes Commission, the State Building Code requires two handicap parking spaces (one per building) . Each building is 4 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation required to have at least one accessible route. In addition, that representative stated that the handicapped adaptable units cannot be combined in one building and that 25% of the units in each building must be handicapped adaptable; i.e., three units in Chestnut Ridge and two in Hillside Court. The plans should be revised to comply with these requirements. We also suggest that parking space 34 be moved farther away from the nearby apartment window. We do not recommend approval of parking spaces 45 and 46 since they will be difficult to use. Spaces 39 and 40 will probably be forced to back out of the garage. Spaces 18 and 2 5 are not long enough to function as parallel parking spaces. Both of these spaces would encourage backing out onto Depeyster Street. The driver's door of a vehicle parking in spaces 20, 22 and 24 would be hindered by the location of the building columns. These should be moved, if possible. The columns located at the southern corners of spaces 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 should be moved back a few feet, if possible, because they would interfere with vehicles attempting to park. Spaces 47, 48 and 49 on Chestnut Street are also required to back out onto the street. Both driveways, the driveway off of Depeyster Street and the driveway to the three parking spaces off of Chestnut Street, do not comply with § 62-22.B, which requires that a driveway should be at least 15 feet from a side lot line at the street line. The location of the driveways should be revised to comply with the Zoning Code or a variance obtained from the ZBA. The entrance to the garage at Chestnut Ridge should be widened to a minimum of 22 feet. The driveway access to Depeyster Street should be widened to 22 feet. The portion of the parking aisle which is only shown as 18 feet should be widened to 21 feet. It may be possible to pick up a few feet from some of the spaces which are 19 feet in length. The Applicant should indicate the clearance height for the entrance to the proposed driveway from Depeyster Street. If trucks will not be able to enter the site, a sign should be provided indicating the clearance height. Chestnut Street is a narrow, two-way, local road with parking permitted along the south side. Depeyster Street is a two-way local road with parking permitted along both sides. A development of this type will add approximately 26 vehicle trips to area roads during peak hours. 5 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation One loading space is required for an office use less t^ian 20,000 square feet in size, A loading space has not been provided and should be shown or a variance obtained from -the ZBA. 3. Lighting. Signage and Dumpster: Lighting for the parking area is required in § 62-14.D(5). Information should be provided regarding the location of the proposed lighting fixtures. Fixtures should be positioned so as to minimize off-site li<ght spillage to the maximum extent possible. The location and size of any sign to be located on "this property should be provided. The Applicant should also indicate where a dumpster will be located. 4. Landscaping and Buffers: The eastern border of the property adjacent to the single-family house contains a large hec\ge. The Applicant should indicate whether the existing hedge i ^ on the subject property and whether it could be retained to s^rve as a screen for the neighboring one-story single-family residence. Consistent with § 62-30, the Planning Board may require landscaping and fences as described in § 62-9.C in ordexr to provide for the "harmonious relations" between the site and adjacent properties. The site plan currently only indicates a total of six proposed trees or shrubs. Five of the proposed plantings appear to be located partially within the toad right-of-way. The Applicant should describe the size and species proposed. We recommend landscaping along the side and rear property boundaries, particularly around the parking area, and in the area to the southeast of the driveway on Depeyster Street. A landscaping plan should be submitted to the Board which will include a plant list containing plant species, number and size and location. The Schedule of Regulations contains a requirement of 100 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit for multiple dwellings. (In this case, 2,000 square feet total would be required.) The plan must either be revised to comply with this requirement or a variance obtained from the ZBA. 5. Subdivision: The merging of these two lots would create a through lot. The Applicant should either prepare and file a subdivision plat showing a dissolved subdivision line or file restrictive covenants (at the office of the Westchester County 6 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Clerk) that state that for the life of this project, the two lots will not be sold separately. 6. Off-Site Parking Area: Section 62-21.D contains the following requirement for an off-site parking area: "A site plan and map indicating the location of a proposed off-site parking area, its relationship to the principal use to which it is appurtenant and to public and quasi-public uses within three hundred (300) feet, and provisions for signs, for drainage and for access shall be submitted to the Planning Board as provided in § 62-29." As required, the Applicant should provide a drawing illustrating the dimensional relationship between the subject property, the Valley Plaza site and public and quasi-public uses within 300 feet of the subject property. The Applicant should also explain the route Valley Plaza residents will take to walk to this site and pick up their cars. 7. Environmental Review: According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the site plan and variances (if the plan is not revised to comply with the Zoning Code) for the subject property constitute 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), Part 1. Our comments on Part 1 include the following: Question A2: The Applicant should indicate the amount of landscaping on the site after completion of the project. A5: The Applicant should indicate the slope categories of the other 20% of the site. Big: The number of vehicular trips per peak hour is 26. B23: The approximate water usage is 5,400 gallons per day. B25: Planning Board approval of a subdivision plat may be required. County Health Department approval may also be required. 7 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation CI: Planning Board approval of a subdivision plat may be required. C3: The answer should be amended to note that a commercial building of approximately 10,000 square feet may be permitted under existing zoning. C4: The answer should be changed to "No change." C5: The answer should be changed to "NA." C7: The answer should be amended to note that the zoning districts include C-l, C-2, R-3, R-5 and R-6. A Type I action is required to undergo a "coordinated review" by the involved agencies, i.e., agencies with approval authority such as the ZBA. The Planning Board has declared its intent to be Lead Agency in the review of this action and a Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency was circulated to the involved and interested agencies on December 19, 1994. 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. The ZBA should defer its final decision until the SEQR process is completed. In anticipation of there being no objections to the Planning Board's intent to be the Lead Agency, we have prepared Part 2 of the EAF and enclosed it for your review. 8. Further Information: The plans should be revised to respond to the above comments. In addition, the plan should be revised to label the names of the neighboring property owners and to show the locations of the existing buildings on the properties adjacent to the subject property. Also, we note that there is no scale on the location map. As requested by the Planning Board, an elevation drawing of the proposed building and neighboring buildings from Chestnut Street should be provided. The Board may also want to request a similar drawing of the proposed view from Depeyster Street. In addition, the Board may request that the Applicant submit 8 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation information which would proposed retaining wall. describe the aesthetics of the 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 DiGennaro, Village Engineer Zoning Board of Appeals Ronald Turnquist 500\not4-003.sjp:ev �± CH6iTM0T RID6E Part 2—PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency Genera! I n f o r m a t i o n (Read Caretui'v) ' • In completing the form the reviewer s h o u l d be guided by the quest fen: H a \ e my responses 2nd d e t e r m i n a t i o n s been •reasonable? The reviewer is net expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact v. ill he p o t e n t i a l l y large (column 2) dees net mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large i m p a c t 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 simply asks that it be l o c k e d at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts zr.c wherever possible the threshold of magnitude 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 and for most situations. But. for any specific p r o j e c t or site other examples and/or lower thresholds m a y be a p p r o p r i a t e for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, en each site, in each locality, w i i l vary. Therefore, the examples are i l l u s t r a t i v e and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list cf impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number cf examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long t e r m , short term and c u m l a t i v e effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each cf the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there w i l l be any impact. b. Maybe answers shou-'d be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the p o t e n t i a l size of the 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 threshold is lower than example, check c o l u m n 1 . d. If reviewer has d o u b t about sire 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 to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in c o l u m n 2 can be mitigated by change<s) in the project t o a s m a l l 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 S'o response indicates that such a r e d u c t i o n is n o t possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON L A N D 1 . W i l l the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? CNO KYS5 Examples that w o u l d apply to c o l u m n . 2 • Any construction on slopes of "5z/o or greater, ("5 foot rise ptr 100 foe* of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1C%. 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Fotentia Large Impact 2) a D Y es UNo D DYes LNo DYes DYes CNO • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Can Impact 5e Mitigated 3y P r o j e c t Ch.ange • Construction cf paved pa-king area for 1,000 cr more vehicles. LJ • Construct.en on land > here bedrock is exposed or generally w i t h i n 3 feet of sxisti.-g ground surface. D D n • Construction ;hat will continue for more t h a n 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. D D DYes DNO a ' l_J>es CNO • Excavation for mining purposes that w o u l d remove mere than 1,000 tc.ns of natural' material (: e . rock or seii) per \zi: • Construction cr expansion ci a sanitary l a n c f i l l . D • Construction in a designated fiocc'way. i ' • Other impacus \ D ' v. LNo D D n DYes DYes CNO DYes C'Nc D DYes C'No DN'O W i l l there be an effect \<. ...<y un.que or u n u s u a l land forms found en the sue? (i e.. o'itfs, dunes, geological f o r m a t i o n s , etc.)|SNO C'YES i<?t n » r ; 4 it. • 5. �2 1 Small to Moderate Impact IMPACT ON WATE.R 3. Will proposed action affect any v»ater body designated as protected? (L'.-.c'er Artic'es 15. 2-i, 25 cf the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) &NO C^ES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change D D n C'Yes CNO D DYes DNo D D D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes CNo D D DYes DNo D D D I DYes DNo D I DYes DNo D D D D DYes DNo DYes DNo • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than -5 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 cr have inadequate capacity. D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo • Proposed Action would use water in excess cf 20,COO gallons oer day. D D C'Yes 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 C'Yes DNQ • Prepaid Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. D D G j C'Yes DNo 1 Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/cr sewer services. D D CYes DNo Proposed Action locates commercial and/cr industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. D D UYes C'No Other D D DYes DNo D D • Dredging mere than "00 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. • Extension cf utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. • Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any ncn-prctected existing or new body of water? gNO 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? K'NO Examples that would apply to column 2 DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. • Proposed Action requires use of a source cf water that does not have approval to ser.-e proposed (project) action. impacts: ; . Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? DNO JS'YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. . •• 7 DYes DNo �1 Srr.aM to Moderate Impact Fcter.tlal Large Impact fcj • P-repcsec Action may cause suestar.tiai erosion. • Proposed Action is incompatible wi;h exist.ng drainage patterns. L~Yes • • • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated flcodway. Car. Impact 5e M i t i g a t e d By Project Change C'No LJYes Cs'o LJYes C N O D D DYes CNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 ibs. per hour or a heat source producing more than "0 million 3TU's zer hour. D D DYes DNo • Proposed acticn will allow an increase in the amount cf 'and.committed to industrial use. D D DYes Ds'o • Proposed acticn will allow an increase in the density of industrial, development within existing industrial 2reas. D D DYes DNo • Other impacis: D D DYes DNo • Reduction of one cr mere species listed en the New York or Federal list, using the site, over cr near site cr found en the site. a D D'Yes DNo • Removal cf any pcrJ.cn D DYes DNo DYes DNo Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR £NO CYES 7. Will proposed acticn affect air quality? Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1.0CO cr mere vehicle trips in any given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ten of refuse per hour. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? K'NO Examples that would apply to column 2 CYES • Application c: pesticide or herbicide mere than twice a year, ether th2n for agricultural purposes. a D D • Other D D DYes C'No • Proposed Action would substantially interfere wi;h £.-.y resident or migrator/ fish, shellfish or wildlife species. D DYes DNo • Proposed Act : on requires the removal cf mere than "0 acres ci mature fcrest [ever "00 years cf age) cr ether locally impcr:ant vegetation.. D D'Yes C'No D DYes ' DK« of a critical cr significant wildlife habitat. impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect ncn-threatened cr non-e.ncange'ed species? (&NO Examples that v.culd acpiy to column 2 CYES IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Wiil the Prcccsed Action affect agricultural land resources? D5NO CYES Examples that would apply to column 2 'he proposed action would sever, cross cr limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 D �Construction ac: • c. or c 2 m " 2 c t i n s 5c: e^c: T h e p r o p o s e d a c t i o n w o u l d irreversibly c o n v e r t m o r e i h a n 10 acres cf agricultural land c r , if l o c a t e d t h a n 2.5 a c r e s c f a g r i c u l t u r a l • in a n A g r i c u l t u r a l District, more land. T h e p r o p o s e d a c t i o n w o u l d d i s r u p t cr p r e v e n t installation of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s ( e . g . , s u b s u r f a c e d r a i n lir.es, o u t l e t d i t c h e s , strip c r o p p i n g ) ; c r c r e a t e a n e e d f o r s u c h measures (e.g. cause a f a r m field to d r a i n p o c r l y d u e t o increased • Other runoff) imcacts: IMPACT O N AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . W i l l p r o p o s e d a c t i o n a f f e c t a e s t h e t i c r e s o u r c e s ? (if necessary, Appendix us* the Visual EA? A d d e n d u m JJ5NO DYES in S e c t i o n 617.21, 3.) Examples that w o u l d 2 p p l y t o column 2 • P r o p o s e d l a n d uses, c r p r o j e c t c o m p o n e n t s o b v i o u s l y d i f f e r e n t fro'm c r i n s h a r p c o n t r a s t t o c u r r e n t s u r r o u n d i n g l a n d use p a t t e r n s , w h e t h e r man-mace or natural. • Proposed aesthetic land -jses, cr project compcnenis visible to users r e s o u r c e s w h i c h w i l l e l i m i n a t e or significantly reduce of their • e n j o y m e n t c f t h e a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s ci t h a t r e s o u r c e . Project c o m p o n e n t s t h a : w i i l r e s u l t i n t h e e l i m i n a t i o n or s i g n i f i c a n t s c r e e n i n g c f s c e n i c v i e w s k n o w n t o be i m p o r t a n t to the area. • Other imcact-S: IMPACT O N HISTORIC A N D ARCHAEOLOGICAL 12. Wiil Proposed Action impact historic cr pa.'ecr.tclcg^cal RESOURCES a n y site c r s t r u c t u r e o f h i s t o r i c , &-sO impcr.ar.ee? pre- CYES Examples that w o u l d a p o l y to c o l u m n 2 • P r o p o s e d A c t i o n o c c u r r i n g w h o l l y cr p a r t i a l l y w i t h i n cr s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o n t i g u o u s t o a n y f a c i l i t y c r site listed on the State cr N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r ci • historic — •'r~ . ai- ' v-^ - w . r • places. A n y i m p a c t t o a n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l site z: f o s s i l b e d ' c c a t e d w i t h i n t h e c * a } • > _ . r-zzcad. .- c t . c n .s'i! occur in an area e'es'gnated as s e - s i t i v e for a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s.t = s c.n t h e N Y S Site '."•'. e n t o r y . • Other imocCts: IMPACT '/•.'] P r o o c s e d ON OPEN Action SPACE A N D RECREATION a f f e c t the quantity -ture c : e n <caces cr recreational ::^rr.pies t: "• e ^ e r m a. r ^ : A majcr r e c u c t i c n Other cu;c a o o i v t o c; cr q u a l i t y c f e x i s t i n g c r crccrtunities? A NO '.n J . c s u r e cr a ruture recreational ccen soace octant l—.VC: opocrtumtv. to tne community. i m o a c t s. 9 �IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 1-4. Will there be an effect to existing transportation $\$tems? gNO Examples that would apply to column 2 CYEi 1 2 3 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Chanc D D D D D D D DYes DNo D ' D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo ' D D D D" DYes DYes GNo DNo D D DYes GNo a • DYes DNo D D DYes GNo D D DYes UNo D D DYes GNo n D GYes JD.NO D D DYes GNo • Alteration of present patterns cf movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: ° \ rDYes GYes DYes " • rm DNo CNo DNo IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? (£NO GYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the vse of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension cf an energy transmission or supply system to ser*e more than SO single or two family residences or to sen'e a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? • 8N0 GYES 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 cay). • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outs ice of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ncise screen. • Other imoacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe:>? IS NO CYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a ris* of exoicsion or release cf hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the even: of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic lew level discharge cr emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million cr more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,CCO feet of a site used for the disposal cf solid or hazardous waste. ' Other impacts: 10 1 �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 grew by mere 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 cf this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ' D D DYes DNo D DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD n . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Examples th.2t would apply to cc'urr.n 2 a • Proposed Action wii! replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. D D D D • Development will create a demand fcr additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) D D DYes DNo • Proposed Action will set- an important precedent for future projects. D D D D D D DYes DYes DYes DNO • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. • Proposed Action wiil create or eliminate employment • Other impacts: - DNo DNO 1 9 . Is there, or is there likely to be, pubjic controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? (JSNO 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 fcr each impact identified in Column 2 cf Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe t h e impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) hew the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project changes). 3. Based on the information available, decide :f it is reasonable to conclude t h a t this impact is important. To answer the question cf importance, consider: • The probability cf the impact occurring — • The duration cf the impact • It_s irreversibility, including permanently lest resources cf value • W h e t h e r t h e impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • W h e t h e r knewn objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue e n a t t a c h m e n t s ] 1 1 �i— . C SEX' !.>••. : .i;or.r.,£-,li! CLT',*.)' Rc\itv. FULL LKVIF.ONWENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The f u l l EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in a n o r d e r l y manner, whether a p r r v p r t . , . - . . _ • . n . a s L-. K . • . . ' " • ' c'.;- '. S"> I r . a c j ; * K ' ;:•*-'.»••' ' r < = C t , C : . r. . . •' - • • • . • - pa?". •<• >- • • ...:.; l i r e t a-c s i l -_cv-.t i - . p T : f a r . •-. . : • t!,e:r- are a s r i : : - of r r ' c - - • ..'•-,- :• •: .•>!•.- ^-.cV • •. ; - • ' ••• i ^ i ' i CI '. ••. i : - > ' ' .... ; t w . . • - r • cr\f-r~. -- -- .« •: „'•...'.• • . 4 the q u e s t i o n of significance The f u l l EAF is intended to provide a m e t h o d whereby applicants and agencies can be assured t h a t the d e t e r m i n a t i o n process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to a l l o w introduction of i n f o r m a t i o n t o f i t a project or action Full EAF Components: The f u l l EAF is c o m p r i s e d of three parts: Part 1 : Provides objective data and i n f o r m a t i o n about a given project and its site. By i d e n t i f y i n g 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 f r o m a p r o j e c t o r action It provides guidance as t o whether an i m p a c t is likely t o be considered small to m o d e r a t e or w h e t h e r it is a potentiallylarge impact. The f o r m also identifies whether an impact can be m i t i g a t e d c r r e d u c e d . Part 3: If any i m p a c t in Part 2 is i d e n t i f i e d as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used t o e v a l u a t e whether o r 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 I d e n t i f y the Portions of EAF completed f o r this p r o j e e l : ^ Part 1 } g f Part 2 DPart 3 U p o n review o f the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), a n d any other s u r p o r t i n p i n f o r m a t i o n , and consic'c rir,£ b e / . *.r.c m a f t u e ' e and importar.ee of each impact, it is reasonably c!c;e-;rr.ined b , the lead agency that: A. The project w i l l net result in any large and i m p o r t a n t i m p a c t s ) a n d , t h e r e f o r e , is o n e w h i c h w i l l not have a significant impact o n the e n v i r o n m e n t , therefore a negative d e c l a r a t i o n w i l l be prepared. D B. A l t h o u g h the project c o u l d have a significant effect o n the e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e r e w i l l n o t be a significant effect for this Unlisted A c t i o n because the m i t i g a t i o n measures described i n PART 3 h a v e been required, therefore a C O N D I T I O N E D negative d e c l a r a t i o n w i l l be prepared.* • C. The project m a y result in one o r m o r e large a n d i m p o r t a n t impacts t h a t m a y h a v e a significant i m p a c t o n the environment, therefore a positive d e c l a r a t i o n w i l l be p r e p a r e d . * A C o n d i t i o n e d Negative Declaration is o n l y v a l i d f o r Unlisted Actions Shrobfr TViQ-lO'f J k & c i / ' J »'*!/* Name of Action N a m e o f Lead A c e n c v Stent ^ . H^'f-g- ^-J fAa\fvw\ Print or Type/K8|ne of Responsibl| O f f i c e r ^ Lead Agency Title of Responsible O f f i c e r Agency Signature of P r e p a r e ^ ! d i f f e r e n t f r o m responsible officer) Date 1 �[,-. . j -,--» » \ 0 J L L : " I IK? Gr.i-.'.ATiON ••011Ci ~i •' -.•«.-'••. : •> <. . ; •'• • ' . • r• p - r- w - ~ •" '" • • * *' *• " / ' ' v c-'t C'.'.K c: en the e m irr - •• • r: r i t - . n f - c c f ; • .> < ... .'. - , ,• ' • ••:: t o thf>i put <.c r.«- * . , :.c co.-.Mfc n . as part of the r.pplicatior, for a p ^ r c » ; ; f.-.c i n i . :•(. sji';« •:: to fur'J.cf veriticat.cn and public review Piu\ idc ar.) additional i n f o r m a t i o n \ c u be n< \ c '»ill b i ru-<:.'<. >:' t o c o ' ^ p ' t i c P.irts 2 and 3 It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve re .•• s: •„;•'.•. i. u .,.-.:,.'. c- ; . <. >: t . ii i-.-. •• . • .. : > . . . . 7: ' < < - • . - . • • . t K/ »• t c - A : \f jrJoe^t SUM 6ft LOCATION OF ACTION (Include S t r ^ Add-ess. Municipality and Couniy) *i i ^W^| ^ HflU^ fU.} A, T f A m t o ^ ^ , fV/ - W£VT(ftfcfrf£ft BUSINESS TELEPHONE SPONSOR NAME OF APPLICANT/S>Oj*SpR \o. f-o f . i n A A JfL ADDRESS ^ _ _ A v * oAinA STATE CITY/PO NAME OF OWNER (H dillereni) ADDRESS ZIP CODE BUSINESS TELEPHONE w ( ) STA1 CITY/PO L'tSCr.,"' iC Z;P CODE tferp^ - / U A * ^ ^ A A A ; fiA'NTVM,c^ Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable ^» ' ^ JL A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: Durban Dlndustrial DCommercial ^ R e s i d e n t i a l (suburban) CForer.l DAgricuIture 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) DRural (non-farm) COther acres. acres AFTER COMPLETION acres acres i acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres _ acres PRESENTLY 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) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) < & £ \ C L ^ < V fl I _ A O ^ _ i i _ L _ acres 3& *00 3. What is predominant soil type^s) on project site? % of site II drained \ ^ > ^ % of site DModerately well drained DPoorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY. Land Classification System? V*S_. acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). a. boil drainage: 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? DYes / _ 4 ^ o (in feet) 2 �n r ^ o w -•• • ".. . - • / \ Is project SLit>i!^ri'..».•••> ttn.;: 6 ^;*.. ic- ^ iiic .i/.cJ o-. ?;.<. ;.-. t. . U : c'', *\. '.'•:••.;' *>: # What is the depth of the water tab-t ? !.• site io'f.'.td ov, • .- — --, r (m fcell - • - - ! or <"'' f r - . ' c f : : - V ;; M ['•(•' Hunting tish.'.i •:: she : ' •. c: ; : ".U •r M?< PVr « " A> K. '.') ev:«.' in V CYes yS&<o 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 p^p Describe . 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes /&&o If yes. explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes Jg$io 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary lb Lakes, ponds. v.cJ-nd areas v. ;;•..:. or cor.*..gj'.„; to p:c;cct £:c-c a. Name • ^ b. Size (In acres) ^ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Jo^Yes DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? /E^es b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? DYes DNo JjQ^'o 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Market* Lav., Article 2S-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes JEWo 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? DYes y^'o 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes /DNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) QK QN\ ^ Q a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: ^ * *v*\ c. acreage to to remain remain undeveloped c. Project r r o j e c i acreage unaeveiop d. Length of project, in miles: U\& acres ultimately. acres. (If appropriate) \ e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing }£ C-fiftS; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour * *& Initially V^~ ^ w^-fi %; - (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Ultimately .MUGS. acres initially; V*rft K ^ Multiple Family Condominium - _ __j ... i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ' ^S height; j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 3 width; IftO length ft. �.1 2 Hov. much natural material li e -cck. earth, etc J will be removed from the $ite> i3, Will disturbed areas be reclaimed' DYes _^>^^o ^/K3N/A DYes N I »"* DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? » tons/cubic >ards j a. If yes, for what i n t e n d . , purpose is the site being reclaimed' b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? N {"U DYes DNo iJIfl 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. 5 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes ^ . o 1 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: N 1 ]\ months, (including demolition). \ a. Total number of phases anticipated . . (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase m month year, (including demolition) month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes . 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project DYes DNo ^JuNo .y^yft ; after project is complete vMfl 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes DYes jQ$*0 'f Y es . explain __ Q^Jo 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 HZJ&o Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? }QPo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? DYes DYes a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons 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? 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? ^JS$4O tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ___________ years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes yaSfJo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes J_tNo 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 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes. explain DYes T3-No 22. If water supply is f r o m wells, indicate pumping capacity |jjj 23. '. No ^J_|No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? , X V yft gallons/minute. gallons/day. DYes . J - 3 No DYes DNo �25. Approvals Required: Submittal Date T>pc C.ty. Town. Village Board ^ 7 \ A e s City. Town, Village Planning B o a r d - / ^ DYes City. Town Zoning Board DYes / D N o City. County Health Department V GNo "SNo J§Ves DYes /§^o Other Regional Agencies GYes jQNo State Agencies DYes jCWo Federal Agencies DYes tStio (S 1 * " ^ p n Y , DNo Other Local Agencies S U'J>W -V* 6 0 I¥f5 I W C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? yON< CYes If Yes. indicate decision required: Dzoning amendment Ozoning variance Dnew/revision of master plan Dspecial use permit Dresource management plan 2 . What is the zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ^ the site? \ ^subdivision Dsite plan Dother jffrrllVW &4.S / P E r t f 1 flL 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? i4 . What is the proposed zoning of the site? ^ n D c 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? )Q{ei 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? DNo 7. What are the predominant land use{s) and zoning classifications within a V* mile radius of proposed action? S ft HE 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V* mile? /S^es DNo DYes P^° 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? o ^ QVJVJ ~V^ - r »• 10. Will proposed action require any authorization^) for the formation of sewer or water districts? 1 1 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? DYes JS^o a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? CYes 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 Xjfo 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. I . Applicant/Sponsor Name ___ nx^/ci/ / > AMrfrK ™ie. . frying signature If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessr.unt Form before proceedin with this assessment. 5 �Part 2—PROJECT IMPACTS A N D 1 HEiR Responsibility of Lrad Agenc> N'.AGNuUuL General Information (Read Carefull>) • 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 changes) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. i coa&etTM^\A&& •oiu-tffr ai*^<m IMPACT ON LAND 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? yQNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change • • DYes DNo • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. • •Yes DNo • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that w i l l continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1.000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. • C o n s t r u c t i o n in a designated floodway. • Other impacts LJYes • NO •Yes • No •Yes • NO •Yes • NO •Yes. • NO •Yes • NO •Yes • NO •Yes DNo h.2 W i l l there be an effect V. ...iy un.que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, geological formations. etc.jfoNO DYES • Specific land forms: �IMPACT ON WATER . Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected' (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. PCD /S^O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. 1 Small t o Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D D D D D D D Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. • Other impacts: W i l l proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body DYES of water? /ty>° Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 1 0 % increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change •Yes DNO • Yes CNo DYes DNo •Yes DNo DYes DNo •Yes DNo 4 D D • •Yes DNo D •Yes DNO D D D D •Yes DNo •Yes DNo • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. D • • Yes DNo • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. D D •Yes DNo • Proposed Action will adverseK 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 •Yes •Yes DNo DNo • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day D D •Yes DNo • Proposed Action will like'v ca .-.-- siltation or other discharge into an ..existing body of water to \\i ex;*-';: that there will be an obvious visual .contrast to natural conditions. D D -Nes J No • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1.100 gallons. D D •Yes ' DNo • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. D • •Yes 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 •Yes DNo • D •Yes DNo G D •Yes CNo • 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? Examples that would apply to column 2 !^° DYES • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. P • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Other impacts: 6 . W i l l proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface DYES water runoff? / ^ ° Examples that would apply to column 2 * Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 £ *"*•" « D �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. Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion • • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYes DNO DYes DNo DYes DNo DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DNO • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. D D DYes DNO • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. D D DYes DNO • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. D D DYes DNO • Other impacts: D D DYes DNO • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. D D DY es DN( • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. D D • DYes DNo D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo • D DYes DNo D • DYes DNo • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? j_£MO 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? ) ^ ° Examples that would apply to column 2 GYES • 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? fc^JHO 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? fc^O DYES Examples that would apply to column _ / :• The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields. pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 �• Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an 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 (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? yoSNO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B ) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts. 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D •Yes DNo D D DYes DNO D D •Yes DNo D • •Yes DNo D D • Yes DNo D D •Yes DNo D • •Yes DNo D D • Yes QNo D • •Yes DNo D D •Yes DNn Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change IMPACT ON HISTORIC A N D ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? /f__^IO 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 imparts: D D •Yes DNo D D •Yes DNo IMPACT O N OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? y Examples that would apply to column 2 /GJNO DYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational'opportunitY. • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. • Other impacts: D D D D D •Yes •Yes •Yes DNo DNo ' DNo 13 • �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact D D D D D D 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 DNO • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNO • Other D D DYes DNO • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil. pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. D D DYes . DNo • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any f o r m (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) D D DYes DNo • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. D D DYes DNo • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. D D DYes DNO • Other impacts: D D DYes DNo TMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION • 14. W i l l there be an effect to existing transportation systems' J^NO 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: 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYes DNO DYes D N O DYes DNo IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. W i l l proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or DYES energy supply? / ^ S ° 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. W i l l there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? J-^O 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. impacts: ,, , IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and saffeAy? yS^O Examples that would apply to column 2 / 10 DYES �• 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 D D D DDD DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes DNo DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community 7 ^ ' O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 / v • 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: 19 DDD 2 Potential Large Impact 18 • • DDD • ~ 1 Small to Moderate Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Is there, or is there likely to be. public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? >0NO 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 irnpacl(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). 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 - �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 Code 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 Tinal 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: V1<£\ Date: frfr * * ] Chairman ( ^ ^ Q George F. Hri Tarrytown PJIaTrning Board forth Tarrytown PiaHTTing Board 500\not5-004.sjp:ev 3 W �C H A R L E S A. CONSULTING MANCANARO ENGINEERS July 24, 1995 Mr. James T. Margotta, Bldg. Inspector Village of North Tarrytown Village Hall 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, NY 10591 RE: Margaret M. and Vincent S. Shroba 81 Sleepy Hollow Road Section 17, Block 6, Lot 14 CAMCE NO. 800-26 Dear Mr. Margotta: In connection with the available utility services for the above referenced project please be advised that based on the available information reviewed, there currently are sufficient system capacities to handle the proposed subdivisions potable water demand and sanitary sewer flows. If there are any questions or additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, CHARLES A. MANGANARO CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C. Court Plaza North, 25 Main Street Hackensack, NJ07601-7032 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 689 Little Britain Road PO. Box 10924 Newburgh, NY 12552 914.567 9400 fax 914.567.9406 Arshad Jalil, P.E. Project Manager AJ/jr cc: Ms. Linda David, Village Administrator F:\AWNT\800-26\AJ07245LJR 1 �D R A F T 1/13/95 RESOLUTION Adopted at the December 15, 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION 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/6, 11/1S/8 ZONING: R-2A RESIDENTIAL Prior to approval of this resolution by the Planning- Board, the Applicant shall confirm that the tax designations and sizes of parcels indicated on page 1 are correct and t^liat the description includes all of the involved tax lots. �* Approved with/)respect Jto substance and form: Villagfe A t t b r n e y Datedtf lUqiqf ' Approved by t h e Planning Board Chair Dated' Filed with Village Clerk a ^ejbork o r Deputy Dated:: mftfzojW i*^ Clerk tJUecam^ /f}t??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-1995 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_1995-01-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1100322bd66b7781228baa8ae2e04943.pdf 875648bd60e13062f80a608adaa63173 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK June 15, 1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on June 15, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekmav> Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Joanne Becker Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT: Janet A. Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Susan J. Portman, Assoc./Planning Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Chairman Hritz stated that Ms. Ellen Tsangaris had resigned and that he had sent a letter to the Mayor requesting appointments for the two vacancies. PETER and COLLETTE WEINSTEIN - 41 Amos Street. Mrs. Weinstein came forward and distributed maps to the Board of the property. She stated that the next day was the closing on the house. She indicated that there wasn't much of a yard in the fcont or in the back of the house. Chairman Hritz explained that the problem before was that someone wanted to put a driveway in the back. The idea of putting it along the side way never raised. Ms. Portman commented that they had suggested a common driveway before. Mrs. Weinstein commented that in any event they wanted to create another path from the back to the front of the house and that would be another 45 feet. They figured it would be much more concrete in keeping the integrity of the house. The driveway would be addressed and also thece is a side door on the right. Chairman Hritz asked Mrs. Weinstein to draw a picture and also asked if they had any plans to do landscaping around the house. She answered that perhaps some shrubbery, hedges. Chairman Hritz asked if they were willing to put shrubbery along the driveway. Mrs. Weinstein said absolutely. Mr. Perlmutter moved to accept this application. �Ms. Becker seconded. Ms. Gandolfo pointed out that the driveway was going to be 1 1/2 feet from the sideline. Mr. Margotta stated that he had no problea with that. Chairman Hritz asked the Board the application. to vote on the motion to approve Motion to approve the application carried unanimously. Ms. Portman stated that they had original resolution and that they could possibly -^rnend certain items on that. Ms. Gandolfo commented that first they should put on the record that the original resolution read that the driveway and the parking space on lot 1 should be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, "that the original sub-division resolution was to delete the condition that the driveway should come off Webber Avenue and instead should be replaced with shrubbery. Mr. DiGennaro pointed out that the Village ssiaintained a zero-net increase policy for storm water runoff on all sub-divisions and/or improvement, "which basically means that when you do something like this you are changing the existing character of the torain and you are putting in pervoris layers down which generally increases the speed of the runoff which increases the volume". Mr. DiGennaro asked if they were going to be able to put the driveway in without touching the basin. Mrs. Weinstein answered that there shouldn't be a problem. Chairman Hritz stated that Mr. Margott:i knew about the policy. The driveway for lot 2 should be graded so as to slope towards the south, away from the neighboring property to the north Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to amend the resolution. Mr. Perlmutter made the motion. Ms. Becker seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz gave a brief summary on the Hudson Recycling site hearing at the Tarrytown Planning Board meeting. He commented that everybody at the meeting spoke against it and said it was a real threat to our water front. Ms. Portman stated that she got a call from the Westchester County Planning Department about the project and that she sent them a copy of the Memo that they had prepared. -2- �Mr.McCarthy moved to approve the minutes of May 18, 1995. Ms. Becker seconded. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, CARMEN G. MARIANO Recording Secretary �* C H A R L E S A. MANGANARO . CONSULTING ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Mark A. DiGennaro DATE: June 15, 1995 RE: /; 6 A1 <" ^ ' A S 41 Amos Street Driveway\Parking Village of North Tarrytown CAMCE No. 800-22B As requested, we have reviewed this proposed Driveway plan and offer the following recommendations: 1. The Village maintains a zero-net increase policy for storm water runoff on all subdivisions and/or improvements, therefore, it is required that the applicant evaluate the hydrologic impact of the site and comply with the Village's policy. 2. Landscaping and grading should pitch away from adjacent property lines. Storm water runoff should not be permitted to flow onto neighboring properties. FAAWNTy80O.22ByHDO6155M.VLS ,* �1< l6i4»(2/57)-:T«xt A2 SEQR 617.21 PROJECT I 0. NUMBER Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME 5 2 0 . 0 3 4 D e C a r l o S u b d i v i s i o n D r i v e w a y & p a r k i n g - 41 Amnc <z+rao+ Peter and Collette Weinstein 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality V i l l a g e o f North Tarrytown County Westchester 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Strut address and road Interactions, prominent landmark*, ale, or provlda map) 41 Amos Street, North Tarrytown, New York 5. IS PROPOSE0 ACTION: ONew Q Expansion CSMsdmeallon/eiteraiion 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Change of location of proposed driveway and parking to be built on lot #1 of Subdivision of lands of the Estate of Anna DeCarlo to side of house as shown on survey attached. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially * 150 acres Ultimately .Tin acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OThER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? jpYi! D No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? C^ResldtfltlaJ Dascrlb*: O Industrial Dcommerclat LJ Agriculture LJ Park/Fcest/Open space U Other 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? (23 Yes LJNo It yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals Village of North Tarrytown Building Department Building permit to construct driveway and parking space 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTlCN HAVE A CUHRENTU VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? C&Yas O No U yea, list agency nam* and permlUapproval Village of North Tarrytown Building Permit #3682 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSEO ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REOUIRE MODIFICATION? QY.J CNO I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ASOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST CF MY KNOWLEDGE Appiica^sponsor «>™/£ollette Weinstein 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 �PART ll-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.12? * QYe's It yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAR. K)NO B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617 6? may be supersedeo by another involved agency. • Yes If No, a negative decl»r>|lon jS No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten. If legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic palterns. solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: . , ; ^ J . ^dv-.^e^ u-.il W e access iff ct ^ / c c ^ l ^ e 4 - C*m°t'+*£*> " - J ^ ^ c£ *- L\J&>tr ^cu.iifu% read {^Bbkx^ AwCwt/C-3 C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain brl«'hK »-i'i •^«3+- «c*»«^ef-, KJD- 1^e reioccLtic* cf- *UL apposed dnJZi*j*<* tl+-f>*u-K*^ t£i+jL o^cve C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: Wo 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 NO 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. do D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? D Yes E No If Yes, explain briefly P A R T l l l - D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F S I G N I F I C A N C E (To be c o m p l e t e d 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 (f) magnitude. If necessary, aod attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient oetail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately aodressed. C h e c k this box >f you r.sve identified o n e or more p o t e n t i a l l y large or significant adverse i m p a c t s w h i c h occur. T h e n proceed directly to the F U L L E A F and-'or p r e p a r e a positive d e c l a r a t i o n . MAY Check this box if you have d e t e r m i n e d , b a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and analysis above and any s u p p o r t i n g a o c u m e n t a ' J o n , that the proposed a c t i o n W I L L N O T result in any s i g n i f i c a n t a v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s A N D provide on a t t a c h m e n t s as n e c e s s a r y , the r e a s o n s s u o p o n i n g this d e t e r m i n a t i o n : l:,U >.:..- , * r\k-.-H-> Pi* Hl<y, S i n e o: lead *»pc>c>i 6tX r-:<? f *-ir.f-gr f^d ] C ilC ' '~*ni ,-v "•• t ct R t < • : • : ' ' :••«• /(•f^tC4^K U - ic^ 5 i'f- Ts-«* I''*'1*' '•*, 2 e C- p -'jt«-c " C ••<r-cr: v > ••,.«•!• ^- 'rpr- - f s ^ r - s b''t 0! ' . - f �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" = 2 0 ' , 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" = 2 0 ' , 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 ^ ~^ A H^V Date= Hritz, Chairman j Village of North Tarrytown-'Planning Board 500\not4-012.sjp.crc 4 /«//f/?r * " �1)3.IS 230U1 FAX 7 1 S 2 2 7 U 2 2 6 "^2vl* i f 1^ £. + y ^ p 1 3? 1 ^ CI > ^ V 1 rtW v! Y */a • J ft * 5, * " " "I \ /s. 1 SJ-4 + ' * * ^F¥ * d&l ***-&'-M-ML /4MOS &*' *S'0£S> M A P O F PROPERTY srrvATEAT J O H N J. MULDOON WORTH T A R R Y T O W N PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK 77 TAP*AN LANDING ROAD SUKVEYED: MAY 25, 1995 TrtrmvmrfhT TrrwYnnr UWiKA T> /J AS IXJT I ON JUX* Oh SLIBUMSION OF LANDS Oh THE ESTATE OFASVA DECAKJO <~ *******+* *. r*r*+ 3*3. i * - - - • • - • . * — . +~>~^** w^w **-+^~-*» ***-*•*• -«—^-—^ �Approved with respect to substance and form: Wl h V i l l a g e Attorney Dated: i/tSU^ ' Approved by the Planning Board ^. I Cha/rman or, Acjting Chairman DateNsL:&/^i Filed with Village Clerk Clork or- Deputy Clerk Dated: ^/^yI 1S^ � 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-1995 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_1995-06-15 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/3029177b7a88da4129dd8dc419234507.pdf 0f11d2e5a2a7ff5404b37a9d20a875f8 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK May 18,1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on May 18, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Joanne Becker Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ABSENT: Ellen Tsangaris ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Susan J. Portman, Assoc/Planning Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Hritz opened the meeting by stating that Mr. James Donovan who had served the Board ablely and well would not be able to continue. He asked to pass a resolution thanking him for his services. Mr. Perlmutter moved. Ms. Becker seconded. Carried unanimously. Chairman Hritz introduced Dr. Richard Sweet, new member of the Board of Trustees and stated that he had been appointed by the Mayor as the liaison of the Board. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PHBLIPSE PLAZA, NO. BROADWAY continuation of a site plan - review of a proposed MiniMall containing stores and offices. Mr. Hughes came forward and stated that this was his first appearance in the Philipse matter and that Louis Contadino was the architect who had to revised �s the plans to reconvene the piece of property on Broadway. As it turned out after research, the applicant does not own the property. Therefore, they had to reconfigure the building. Chairman Hritz asked who owned the property. Mr. Hughes answered the State of New York, County of Westchester. Louis Contadino, referring to the site plans explained the triangle portion of the present building and the proposed building. He said "Because of that what happened was that the site is squeezed in quite a bit, possibly 20-24 feet in that area. What that meant was that some of the land I was counting on for parking was no longer available to me and I had to push the building further up." He went on to say that several things happened because of that. In order to maximize the number of cars to make the building economically feasible for his client he had to do away with one of the loading docks that was provided for in the existing buildings. He relocated the loading dock from between the two buildings to against the northern site, the northern portion of the building. Now the loading dock and the dumpsters are not as noticeable as they were previously. Because of land not being available there was a reduction of cars. Chairman Hritz asked if the deletion of any work done on the road changed any way the Landscaping plan. Mr. Contadino answered "We will prepare, we are in the process of preparing a Landscaping plan now. We held off because of the issue of whether we owned it or didn't owned it". Chairman Hritz asked the attorney if the Board had invested their intent to be Lead Agency. Ms. Gandolfo answered "I have asked John to resubmit an EAF and he will do that and then you can make a motion to declare your intent to be Lead Agency at the next meeting". Ms. Portman stated that the Board had already declared their intent back in December. Chairman Hritz asked Ms. Portman for a summary of her memorandums of April 13 and May 12. Ms. Portman stated that the April memo had to do with the earlier plans. She then went over the plan revisions of the memo of May 12,1995. Chairman Hritz asked whether there was anything to prevent in the future a fast �^ food restaurant from going in. Ms. Gandolfo answered that they will need a zoning variance because they will be within 200 ft. of Uncle Jerry's. Chairman Hritz asked "What if that changes?" Ms. Gandolfo answered that there will be nothing in the Code to prevent it except parking restrictions. Mr. Margotta stated that one (1) parking space for each four (4) chairs. Discussion continued on the possibility of a future restaurant. Mr. Margotta "restaurant parking is one (1) for each five (5) seats, I was wrong. Now, retail shops and stores are one (1) for each 200 sq. ft. offloorspace". Chairman Hritz asked Mr. Hughes if he had a reversed reaction of approval contioned on coming back. Mr. Hughes answered that he will talk to Mr. Rodriguez about it. Ms. Gandolfo asked Mr. Hughes "if you go to the State and they don't approve the removal of the sidewalk from the entire plan, do you have a contingent plan" Discussion ensued on the sidewalk. Chairman Hritz asked if there were any other comments or questions. Mr. Caetano made a motion that they be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Perlmutter seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Trustee Sweet gave a summary to the Planning Board members of the application of the Hudson Recycling Plant which is before the Tarrytown Planning Board. Trustee Sweet described their application in detail and gave the Planning Board a list of objections North Tarrytown would be making to the application. The Planning Board agreed that the use of a concrete recycling plant would not be an appropriate use for the riverfront and would have a negative impact on North Tarrytown. �Mr. Perlmutter moved to approve the minutes of February 16,1995 as submitted. Mr. McCarthy seconded. Carried unanimously. There being no further business, Mr. McCarthy move to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Caetano seconded. Carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, CARMEN G. MARIANO Recording Secretary �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 I 914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: May 12, 1995 Subject: Review of Philipse Plaza Site Plan Plan: 1. Site Plan Prepared by Contadino Architects, 5/8/95 Plan Revisions (compared to 4/6/95 Plan): Building reduced in width and increased in length in order to provide wider aisle in parking area in front of building (aisle varies from 21 to 24 feet in width). Building expanded 25 feet to the north and now located within 36 feet of northerly property boundary with residence on Old Broadway. Entrance driveways increased in width from 26 to 27 feet. Proposed building coverage is 6,440 square feet, with 4,820 square feet of retail space and 7,080 square feet of office space. • Required parking spaces increased from 55 to 57. Slightly revised layout of parking spaces. Parking in southern portion of site shifted to keep those spaces out of the triangular-shaped area along North Broadway. Parking spaces to be provided reduced from 48 to 44. Dumpster and loading space moved to northern end of site. Provided location of freestanding sign near southern entrance. 2. Zoning Compliance: Variances needed for rear yard setback, number of parking and loading spaces, and for requirement of buffer strip in addition to rear yard setback (Section 62.9C(2)). Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 3. Parking and Circulation: v» Recommend redesign of two spaces next to Cabinetry building (marked with numbers "4" and "10"). Space "10" may work if the walkway area next to that building is not raised. • Since loading space was moved, can now locate two or three handicap spaces in the area to the south of the building (ramp would need to be moved). Could provide one handicap space near the Cabinetry building, utilizing space "4" as its loading aisle. Recommend cutting back the ends of parking islands to improve circulation and turning capability. Recommend Applicant discuss proposed design concept with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) . 4. Landscaping and Buffers: 9 Landscaping and screening plan needed. Recommend Planning Board ask Applicant to show extension of sidewalk along site frontage. 5. Environmental Review: The Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) will be circulated as soon as it has been received and reviewed. 6. Other: The Applicant should provide information regarding whether a restaurant use will be included in the new building. Susan J. Fortman, 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 John Hughes, Esq. 500\not5-016.sjp:aj 2 �Sean Treacy, Mayor Linda E. David Administrator Donal M. Walsh. Jr. Village Counsel Angela Everett Deputy Village Clerk Frank Anzovino Treasurer TRUSTEES Morris Alter Jose Blanco John T. Hayes, Jr. Scott P. Horecky Michael Hyland Greg T. Jeffers HISTORIC PAST - GREAT FUTURE April 18, 1995 Mr. James Bick 3 Terrace close North Tarrytown, New York Re: 3 Terrace Close 10591 Dear Mr. Bick: As per your agreement with the Village of North Tarrytown, you agreed to reimburse the village for Planning Board fees. To date the Village has been billed $1,213.65 on your project. This amount represents bills and payments through April 18, 1995. Please remit to the Village upon receipt of this invoice. Appropriate backup has been attached for your review. Thank you for your help as your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Yours truly, a^h- rames^J. Hart Treasurers Office cc: L. David J. Gandolfo J. Margott : / 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 (914) 631-1440 �18 April 1995 To: Planning Board n trom: James Margotta There will be no Planning Board meeting this month. �2 March 1995 To: Planning Boa^d from: James Margotta There will be no Planning Board meeting for the month of March. � 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-1995 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_1995-05-18 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/5cdef7ad55f6e36d1163755df49b6bde.pdf baa0535293d8f6d0893b866b59a53ec3 PDF Text Text t REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK October 19,1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on October 19,1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Joanne Becker Edward McCarthy Nick Cicchetti ABSENT: David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT: Janet A. Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Susan J. Portman, Assoc./Planning Christian K. Miller, Assoc./Planning Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Chairman Hritz welcomed Mr. Nick Cicchetti to the Planning Board. 1. ALBERT PECK - 38-40 Kendall Avenue Chairman Hritz went over a letter for the record from Mr. Peck's surveyor regarding his two houses on 38-40 Kendall Avenue. His surveyor had researched the tax maps and wrote a letter stating that they believed that the two houses were on two lots. The Village records show them as a single lot even though the Westchester County records show them as two lots. Mr. Peck commented that Mr. Margotta said that he had to file for a sub-division because the two houses were on one lot. His surveyor said that the Westchester County maps showed them as two lots. He submitted a map dated 1897. Chairman Hritz asked him if he had made a title search. Mr. Peck answered yes. Ms. Gandolfo commented that it was just a description of the property. Discussion on the title followed. �Ms. Gandolfo explained that his property descriptions were on lot 17 on the County Title search and we had lots 9 & 10 on the Village maps. His map dated back to 1897. We didn't know if there had been any intervening changes. Mr. Margotta said that Mr. Peck had a title search done on his own. Discussion on whether Mr. Peck's documents proved that lots 9 & 10 in the County's maps were the same as lot 17 on the Village maps. Chairman asked Ms. Gandolfo if she believed that a full title search would answer this question. Ms. Gandolfo answered that she thought it would if they traced back the parcel. Chairman Hritz told Mr. Peck that if he got a title search done now and asked them to get the kind of search that can be updated by his purchaser maybe he will be able to negotiate and get credit on the sale for what they have saved on the fact that he had done the title search and all they have to do is an update. Mr. Margotta recommended that he go through a title search. Discussion on the Title search continued. Ms. Gandolfo told Mr. Peck that he could adjourn to next meeting and if it was two parcels then the Board could take it off the agenda. Mr. Caetano made a motion to adjourn the matter until next meeting. Mr. Cicchetti seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 2. CHESTNUT RIDGE - Continuation Mr. Ron Turnquist, the Architect came forward and introduced Mr. Rodrigues, the owner, Mr. Michael Sterlacci, Engineer and Mr. Hugh Campbell, manufacturer of the brick wall (retaining wall). Mr. Turnquist, by referring to the model and the blueprints explained the retaining wall. He also went over Susan Portman's July comments. Mr. Sterlacci commented that since the building on Chestnut Street had a low carpet a pump would be needed to get the sewers from that apartment up to Chestnut Street. So instead of doing that they could go by gravity by putting a 6" front line to the sewer on Depeyster Street through the parking lot and service the building that way. Mr. DiGennaro said that he didn't have the originals for the storm drainage and asked if it had changed. He commented that numerous drawings had been submitted. He expressed his concerns on the man-holes on the street. -2- �Mr. Sterlacci stated that both buildings were tied up to the sanitary on Depeyster Street. Mr. DiGennaro asked Mr. Margotta if they had to coordinate with the Fire Department. Mr. Margotta answered that if they were going to put fire sprinklers in that it was a requirement. Chairman Hritz stated that this project had been on the calendar a long time and the delay was the applicant's own fault. The Board had always been present and they had shown up, but the applicant did not. Their latest submission was made 3 business days before the meeting despite the requirements that they be submitted more than that in advance to give the Board sufficient time to look at them. This was not conducive to speedy approval. "If you can get the people who work with you, Mr. Rodrigues, to get their acts together to get the materials in to us in sufficient time for us to do our job, we can get it done on time. If everything is thrown at us at the last possible minute, its in violation of the rules". Mr. Turnquist commented that the procedures in the past were to file for Building permit and provide all the calculations for the sanitary, water and septic to the Building Inspector at that time. They had prepare those for the Board and normally it was not done. Mr. DiGennaro answered that normally, you have a standard for a one family house. You figure per capita volume in a household. This was a multi-family use. Mr. Turnquist stated that Mr. Rodrigues had done other projects, be it one family or two family and had not made any presentation to the Planning Board on these items. Mr. Margotta commented that if Mr. DiGennaro wanted the information, he should get the information. Mr. Hugh Campbell explained the retaining wall. He stated that he had built this kind of wall everywhere, in the Hudson Valley, Nyack, Consumer University Inst, in Yonkers. Mr. DiGennaro asked him where he was proposing to put the wall. Mr. Campbell, by referring to the model showed where the retaining wall was going to be built Mr. DiGennaro said that he would like to see a complete set of drawing re-submitted on one sheet. Mr. Turnquist explained why there are so many different drawings. -3- �Mr. Caetano said that if DiGennaro was an Engineer and he knew what he was doing he should be able to take one drawing from the other and put it together as a whole. There has been money spent on this project at the cost of Mr. Rodrigues. Mr. Rodrigues has been doing a lot of building in this community and he did not see why Mr. Rodrigues had to re-submit drawings and he didn't think for one minute that it was fair. Mr. DiGennaro commented that it took time to look through all the drawings. He said that time was money and his point was to protect the interests of the Village. Chairman Hritz asked Mr. Margotta if he needed a new set of drawings. Mr. Margotta said he needed one complete set of drawings. Discussion on the drawings followed. Mr. Cicchetti asked if what was already submitted was acceptable. Mr. Margotta asked Mr. DiGennaro if he had enough information on the retaining wall. Mr. DiGennaro answered that Wall A appeared to be satisfactory. He hesitated to approve Wall B. He hadn't had enough time to look at it. He needed another week. Ms. Gandolfo commented that before they started on any walls, we had to have a final set of drawings so that they could get approved. We can't be bouncing back and forth. We will not be able to clearly state exactly what this Board has approved without one complete set of drawings. So you really need to get the Board a final set of drawings. Discussion as to whether to re-draw or accept the drawings as submitted followed. Mr. Cicchetti commented that the issue was to have something that would reflect everything that was going on. For example, right now we were asking for them to be able to go ahead with the wall. He needs 3 days to check out the wall. If Mr. Margotta gives the O.K., he could start on the wall. We are not holding up anybody. As far as having something for the record he agreed with Ms. Gandolfo. Mr. Margotta stated that too many changes had been made. The final changes should be on one drawing. A request was made for them to get started. Mr. Cicchetti said if the wall can be approved and the construction could get started on that, could it be so worded that part be subject to approval. Ms. Gandolfo said that it was O.K. as long as the Engineers signed the approval. Just the wall part. As long as we have an approval in writing for the retaining wall, the applicant could start �Mr. Cicchetti made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. McCarthy seconded. Public Hearing closed. Ms. Becker made a motion to make a Negative Declaration for SEQR, that this will not have a sufficient negative impact on the environment. Mr. McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Cicchetti made a motion that the drawings be revised as recommended by the Building Inspector, Planning Board and the Engineer and our Counsel. The Resolution being that a single set of corrected drawings to reflect the proposed project. Ms. Becker seconded. Mr. Caetano substained Motion carried. Mr. McCarthy moved to approve the minutes of June 15, 1995 as submitted. Ms. Becker seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McCarthy moved to approve the minutes of August 17, 1995 as submitted. Ms. Becker seconded. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, CARMEN G MARIANO Recording Secretary Next Planning Board meeting is on December 21, 1995 y �I * '' x / f FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: October 19, 1995 Subject: Review of Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court Site Plan Plan: "Part Site Plan," sheet SD3 Architects, dated 10/3/95. prepared by Turnquist 1. Project Description: Two 3-story buildings containing a total of 18 dwelling units (32 bedrooms). 2. Plan Revisions: The width and slope of the retaining walls have been changed. Handicap parking spaces of the appropriate size have been provided. Compact parking now includes parking spaces #9 to 11 and #27 to 31. Aisle width was reduced from approximately 22 feet to approximately 21 feet. Sitting areas A and C have been modified due to changes to the retaining walls. The parking area under the Hillside Court building does not appear to have been altered. Outstanding Comments from 7/13/95 Memo: Clearance height for the parking garage off of Depeyster Street is only proposed to be 6 feet 8 inches and the State Code requires a minimum of 9 feet 6 inches for access to handicap parking spaces. The curb radius for the driveway onto Depeyster Street should be increased. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation A shade tree should be added to the parking island between spaces #20 and 21. Item E on the planting schedule, Pink Flowering Dogwood, should be changed. The surrounding pavement will make the area too hot for that species. Honey locust or other similar species may be substituted. 4. Environmental Review: The Planning Board is the Lead Agency. The Board may either ask for additional information or make a determination of significance (negative or positive declaration). Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Richard Sweet, Trustee Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark DiGennaro, Village Engineer Ronald Turnguist 500\not5-007.sjp:aj 2 r �^ " SEQR ** * 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number Date: October 19, 1995 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) off the Environmental Conservation Law. The VHIage off 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: Chestnut Ridge / Hillside Court Site Plan SEQR Status: Type I X Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: Removal of two existing dwellings and construction of two new buildings on two combined lots. One building will be three stories and contain 12 dwelling units and an office. The other building will be three stories and contain 6 dwelling units. Parking will be provided at grade and under the buildings. The application also required several variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 76 Chestnut Street and 83 Depeyster Street, North Tarrytown, Westchester County, New York �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 wHI 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. The proposed landscaping will mitigate any potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed retaining walls. 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 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 Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals, Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Westchester County Department of Health, 19 Bradhurst Avenue, Hawthorne, New York 10532 Ronald Turnquist Business Environmental Publications, Inc.. 6 Sevilla Drive, Clifton Park, New York 12065-5031 (Separate form was sent which is used for the purpose of publication of negative declaration.] �~ October 19,1995 FORM FOR TOE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF: POSITIVE DECLARATION, SCOPING SESSION, NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Scoping session can be combined with Positive Declaration. Negative Declaration may be Conditioned. Draft or Rnat Please indicate which of these, i aooicabte. PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN DELAY OF NOTICE PUBLICATION. Items Received By Mail By Close Of Business Wednesday Or By Fax By 11-39 PM. Wednesday WW be Published In The Following Weeks Issue Qf The ENB. There WM Be No Exceptions To These Deadlines. Type of Notice: Negative Declaration Project Title: Chestnut Ridge / Hillside Court Site Plan Project Address: 76 Chestnut Street and 83 Depeyster Street. North Tarrytown, Westchester County Lead Agency: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Address: Village Had, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Project Description: The action involves the removal of two existing oweings and construction of two new buildings on two combined lots. One buiolng w * be three stories and contain 12 dwelling units and an office. The other buiolng wfl be three stories and contain 6 dwelling units. Parking w * be provided at grade and under the buildings. The application also required several variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Contact Person: Linda David, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Phone Number: (914) 631-1440 For Conditioned Negative Declaration, indicate the following: Conditions: NA Final Date of Comment Period (minimum 30 days): NA For Draft Negative Declaration, indicate the following: Final Date of Public Comment Period: NA For Scoping Session, indicate the following: Location(s) where Draft Scope is available for review: NA Final Date for Receipt of Written Comments: NA Scoping Meeting information (if scheduled): NA Date and Time: NA Location: NA 500\not5-029 sjp • �19 September 1995 To-. Planning Board hrom: James MargottaA ^ v / Due to a lack ot agenda items, there will be no Planning Board meeting on September 21, 1995. �« Approved with respect to substance and form: ViltL&ge Attorney DatK: 4i}r Approved by the Planning Cha Dated: Acting Chairman ( Filed with Village Clerk Q^ Glcrk «r Deputy Clerk Dated: / i / ^ - / ? J ^ Date of ^xT /?J?K fleeting � 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-1995 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_1995-10-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ffca824e74e4c8949e6c3345caf86109.pdf 546fc14eb6cc5a3f99d186747fd4ebc6 PDF Text Text r REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTCWN, NEW YORK August 1 7 , 1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on August 17, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chrairman Joanne Becker Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ABSENT: Donald Caetano ALSO PRESENT: Janet A. Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, CAMCE Susan J. Portman, Assoc.Planning Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. PRELIMINARY HEARING - COLABELLA WETLANDS This item was not a scheduled agenda item. Mr. John Hughes came forward and stated that this application had to do with a permit application for the wetlands. He said that he wasn't sure what was required to be done or how the Planning Board reacts under this local law. He asked for help from the Board. Chairman Hritz stated that this was a project that required at least a short EAF form. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the Code reads that the buffer is supposed to be 100 ft. from the wetlands. The architect or engineer includes as part of the property the buffer area. The question to the Board was to look at the wording as to where the buffer was permitted to start. Ms. Gandolfo said that the question was if the buffer was part of the property. Mr. David Christmas, the architect didn't know how far it extended. Chairman Hritz pointed out the following observations: 1. looks like the 100 ft. buffer is drawn in such a way that it doesn't follow the line of the river. 2. How many of the homes in the area will be 2 family homes. 3. There are a number of questions regarding the EAF, page 3, paragraph 13 and 14. 4. There are several items missing from the application which must be included. The architect stated that the site itself was not going to be used by the community. �f Chairman Hritz told the architect that he needed to go through the EAF. Mr. Hughes commented that they will revise the EAF. Ms. Gandolfo suggested that he should look at £ 61-8 and see if any of those activities should be marked on the plans. Chairman Hritz asked if there were any further questions. Mr. DiGennaro said that he would like to look at the criteria of dry wells, 2 to 5 years and 10 years. 10 to 25 years. He explained to the applicant what he wants to see on the plans. L. RODRIGUES, CHESTNUT RIDGE - Continuation. Re-Review of site plans for 2 apartment houses Chairman Hritz noted for the record that the Chestnut Ridge applicant has asked to be removed from the agenda on numerous times. He noted that this was the 4th or 5th time that this applicant has taken himself off the agenda. He stated that it wasn't fair for the Board members to attend when this was the only agenda item and not have Mr. Rodrigues attend. Mr. Perlmutter suggested that Mr. Rodrigues should let the Board know in time if he was not going to attend. Ms. Portman read the Wetland regulations. There being no further business, Mr. Perlmutter moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Becker seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, CARMEN G. MARIAMD Recording Secretary -2- �f ? 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 F . Meder> AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA Joanne MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: July 13, 1995 Subject: Review of Chestnut Ridae/Hillside Court Site Plan Plans: Site plan sheets SD1 and SD2 prepared by Turnquist Architects, revised 6/8/95. 1. Project Description: Two 3-story buildings containing a total of 18 dwelling units (32 bedrooms). 2. Plan Revisions: Additional planting details (not to scale) were shown on the plan. Evergreens added at a few locations along new retaining wall on easterly side of site. 3. Parking and Circulation: Two handicap parking spaces are shown. According to the Department of State, «each of the spaces should have a loading aisle of eight feet in width. Clearance height for the parking garage off of Depeyster Street is only proposed to be 6 feet 8 inches and the State Code requires a minimum of 9 feet 6 inches for access to handicap parking spaces (see enclosure). The curb radius for the driveway onto Depeyster Street should be increased. 4. Landscaping and Buffers: A shade tree should be added to the parking between spaces #2 0 and 21. island Item E on the planting schedule, Pink Flowering Dogwood, should be changed. The surrounding pavement will make Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation the area too hot for that species. Honey locust or other similar species may be substituted. 5. Environmental Review; The Planning Board may either ask for additional information or make a determination of significance. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning Enclosure cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Richard Sweet, Trustee 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 2 �§ 1101.1 SUBTITLE S HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL PART 1101 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Statutory authority: Executive Law, §§ 375, 377) Sec. 1101.1 Sites, exterior facilities and parking 1101.2 Entrances 1101.3 Interior accessible routes Sec. 1101.4 Interior accessible facilities and elements 1101.5 Means of egress 1101.6 Assembly spaces Historical Note Part (§§ 1101.1-1101.6) filed Aug. 7, 1973; amd. filed Nov. 12, 1973; repealed by L. 1981, ch. 707, § 12. eff. Dec. 31.1983; new (§§ 1101.1-1101.7) filed Dec. 13,1983; repealed, new (§§ 1101.1-1101.6) filed April 1.1994 eff. April 20, 1994. S e c t i o n 1101.1 Sites, exterior facilities and parking, (a) At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site boundaries from public transportation stops, accessible parking spaces, passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks, to entrances of each accessible building a s required in section 1101.2 of this Part. (b) Where toilet facilities or bathing facilities are provided, each shall be accessible. (c) Where drinking fountains are provided, not less than 50 percent, but at least one, shall be accessible. (d) Parking areas or garages. Where parking a r e a s or garages are provided, accessible parking spaces shall be provided a s follows: (1) in group B l and B3 occupancies; in an amount equal to not less than five percent of the number of dwelling units but at least one; (2) in group B4 occupancies; not less than five percent of the total number of parking spaces but at least one; (3) in group B2, Cl, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 occupancies; accessible parking spaces shall be provided in conformity with table 1-1101 and shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances; (4) accessible parking spaces shall conform to reference standard RS 72, except that access aisles shall be at least 8'0" in width, and minimum vertical clearances at accessible spaces and vehicular access routes to and from such spaces in parking garages and open parking structures exceeding 1,000 square feet in area, shall be 9'6" on the entry level and 8'2" on other levels; and (5) passenger loading zones serving accessible entrances shall be accessible in conformity with reference standard RS 72. Such accessible loading zones shall be located in proximity to accessible building entrances. TABLE 1-1101 REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES Total parking spaces in lot or garage 1 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 ?6 to 100 101 to 150 Number '•2- 3 1 2 3 4 5 638.243 EX 4-30-94 �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: August 14, 1995 Subject: Colabella Wetlands Permit This is a supplement to the memorandum dated August 11, 1995. It is indicated on the wetlands permit application that a portion of the wetlands/watercourse buffer area (of the Pocantico River) will be disturbed in order to construct a two-family dwelling. The dwelling is shown on the plan as being located within a few feet of the wetlands/watercourse buffer area. The buffer area will be disturbed during construction of this dwelling. The amount of disturbance is not yet clear. In the previous memorandum we requested that the drawing be revised to specifically annotate the limit of the wetlands area and to note the date of the wetlands delineation and the name of the individual or firm who performed it. The delineation will clarify the location of the boundary of the buffer area and determine whether the dwelling itself is actually proposed to be located within the buffer area. Susan J. Portman, AICP, Associate/Planning cc: Sean Treacy, Mayor Richard Sweet, Trustee Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mark A. DiGennaro, Village Engineer David I. Christmas, RA 500\not5-022.sjp Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �R E V I S E D D R A F T RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19, 1994 and Revised at the June 15, 1995 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; PETER AND COLLETTE WEINSTEIN LOCATION: 41 AMOS STREET AND THE EASTERN SIDE OF WEBBER AVENUE TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 17, BLOCK 7, LOT 18 ZONING: R-3 RESIDENTIAL �RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19, 1994 and Revised at the June 15, 1995 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; PETER AND COLLETTE WEINSTEIN 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" = 2 0 ' , 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; and WHEREAS, as per Section 12B(2)(b) of the Subdivision Regulations, the Applicant has agreed to show 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 cl^rk, provided, however, that this subdivision approval shall empire 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. A l l references to the "Applicant" Applicant's successor and assigns. shall include the 2. The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown: 2.3. 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 3. 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. i The plat shall be revised and titled "Final Subdivision Plat;" 3.2 A line shall be provided for the endorsement of the Westchester County Department of Health; 3.3 The date of this resolution shall be noted on the final subdivision plat. 4. Th.e Applicant shall comply with the requests of the Village Engineering Consultant as described in his memoranda to the North Tarrytown Planning Board dated April 28, 1994 and June I S , 1995. 5. Trie owners of the adjacent property shall be permitted to svabmit a report prepared by their consultant for review by the Village Engineering Consultant. 6. Trie driveway .and parking space on Lot 1 and any future improvements on Lot 2 shall be constructed so as to yield no n^t 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 b<s prepared to the satisfaction of the Village Engineering Consultant. The driveway for Lot 2 shall be graded so as to sXope towards the south, away from the neighboring property to trie north. 3 �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 reproduction of the construction drawing complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or professional engineer attesting to construction of the site improvements as shown thereon. 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. 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 2L. ^ . /, i t z , Chairma o r t h Tarryto Date: lanning Board 500\not4-012.sjp.crc 4 10 idfiS �C H A R L E S A. CONSULTING MANGANARO ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM TO: Village of North Tarrytown FROM: Mark A. DiGennaro Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers, P.C. DATE: October 19, 1995 RE: Chestnut Ridge/Hillside Court Village of North Tarrytown, NY CAMCE No. 800-24 We have received some structural information from the applicant's engineer in response to our memorandum of September 18, 1995, on October 11. This information consisted of structural retaining wall calculations transmitted for review via fax without any plan indicating the revisions. We attempted to contact the applicant with regard to the submittal on October 13, 1995 to discuss the submittal but were unsuccessful. Regretfully, we were unable to perform a review of the submittal due to the following reasons: • The submittal was received 3 business days before the Planning Board Meeting. • The submittal was incomplete and did not address all of the comments in our September 18, 1995 memorandum. • The Plan which was received on October 13, 1995, is not complete and does not clearly indicate any revisions. • From a review perspective, the project direction is unclear with respect to the retaining wall design and the fact that the Applicant has changed his structural engineer adds to the ambiguity. Based on the above, we recommend that the applicant clarify all of the relevant submittals and^ resubmit to the Village, three complete sets of plans and details clearly indicating any revisions. Once we receive a clarification from the Applicant and have a clear understanding of the proposed project improvements, we will advise the Planning Board accordingly. cc: Jim Margotta Ron Turnquist Susan Portman Janet Gandolfo F \AWN-ngOO-2-4\MDIOI95MJRi �« Approved with respect to substance and form: Village Dc/ted: Approved by the Planning Board ^r. I Acting Chairman Filed with Village Clerk a. a, Clerk or"'Deputy Clerk Dated: frfKJjf U^JZ /<rsi?<?<r DatsLtff 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-1995 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_1995-08-17 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995