https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ac6eaa6b1e4cb1a3331b5e8736356822.pdf 00b30a06917e0e178a83bc5003e5bf9b PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK March 21. 1996 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on March 21,1996 at 8:00 p.m. in the Village hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Donald Caetano Nicholas Cicchetti Betsy Sawyer Gaylin Joanne Becker Edward McCarthy David Perlmutter ALSO PRESENT: Janet A. Gandolfo, Village Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Christian Miller, Frederick P. Clark, Assoc. Mark DiGennero, CAMCE Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Chairman Hritz commented that Trustee Sweet reminded him that a meeting was scheduled on Monday night before the Tarrytown Planning Board regarding the Hudson Recyling, Inc. final environmental impact statement. 1. Roger and Graciela Rodriguez. 23 Hudson Street - Application for retaining wall Applicants were not present. 2. Chestnut Ridge site plan application continuation - Laurentino Rodrigues Chairman Hritz read a memo from the engineers dated March 14,1996 and according to Mr. Cheverlier, the applicant's engineer, the project submittal should not be considered final at this time. Chairman Hritz confirmed this fact with Mr. Turnquist, architect for the applicant. Mr. Turnquist explained that some of the testing on the borrings werre not good and had to be done over. The applicant went back to the structural engineer to do several borrings again. Mr. Turnquist said that the Village engineer wanted a stamp or seal on the documents from the soil engineers but this was a problem because the engineer was in South Carolina. Mr. DiGennaro stated that there was a discrepancy between the two sets of borrings submitted by the application. He also insisted that the applicant's engineer stamp his seal on any submissions. This had not been done. Mr. Miller stated that he had two outstanding items with the parking area on the plans. The clearance height did not seem to be high enough to meet the 9'6" required by the State and the handicapped space did not appear to be big enough. Ms. Gandolfo asked whether the plans now submitted combined all of the earlier plans. Mr. Miller stated that this final submission was considered a complete plan and it �contained all the relevant information. Discussion on the plans followed. Mr. DiGennerao stated that he wasn't sure what the applicant planned for Wall B. Mr. Turnquist stated that the entire wall was going to be a crib wall. The applicant stated that he need approval for Wall A so that he could get started before the bad weather. Mr. DiGennaro stated that if he straightened out the issue of the seal with Wall A he would have no problem approving it. The Chairman stated that the Board could pass a resolution approving the project subject to the receipt of the seals by the applicant's engineer. Mr. DiGennaro stated that it was up to the board whether they wanted to allow a project to commence with that condition. Mr. Miller stated that if approval was granted, it should be granted for the whole project subject to the above conditions. A discussion on Walls A and B ensued. Mr. Caetano asked Mr. Turnquist how long it would take to submit the final stamped plans. Mr. Turnquist stated that could be submitted next week. Mr. Cicchetti stated that in November of 1995 the Board faced a similar situation with this application. The Board said then that Mr. Rodrigues could go ahead with one wall on conditional approval. Mr. Perlmutter stated that once the applicant submits all final plans to the Village consultants he can get started. Mr. Caetano made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Perlmutter seconded. Public Hearing closed. Chairman Hritz stated that the site plan approval was subject to the following: 1. Receipt of the plans for retaining Wall B by Frederick P. Clark, Assoc, and the Village Engineer and their approval of same. 2. Receipt of the final seals from the crib wall design engineer. 3. Corrections of the drawings to reflect the clearance height for handicapped parking and the tree change. 4. Receipt of the final seals for the soils. Mr. Caetano made a motion to approve the site plan application subject to the �conditions previously mentioned. Mr. Cicchetti seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Sunoco Service Station canopy application. 377 No. Broadway John Hughes, Esq., attorney for the applicant, stated the Nick Galbo has been operating the gas part of the business for the last 5 years and has a long term lease to continue to operate the business. The only new structure in this application would be for a canopy over the pumps. It involves taking the existing structure and remodeling the interior, so the garage bays are essentially removed and in their place a convenience style store would be built. Discussion on the existing and proposed lay-out ensued. Mr. Hughes stated that if the applicant were not allowed to maintain a large apron on the property, he would not continue with this application. Discussion followed as to whether the New York State DOT would allow the apron. The application was adjourned to the next Planning Board meeting. 4. Tim Cronin. 15 Bedford Road - Sleepy Hollow Road Mr. Cronin said that the ARB referred them to the Planning Board because they fell under the new ordiance in reference to changing the slopes. They had a back yard that the slopes are appoximately 33%. When we built a retaining wall, an 8" high retaining wall, it created a 40%. There was a vacant lot behind and south of that was a new sub-division owned by Mr. Barstow. We promised to put trees on top of the wall. Chairman Hritz asked if all he needed was a specific approval for the wall. Mr. Cronin said that was it. He passed pictures of the property and wall around to the Board members and explained them to the Board. He said that the ARB did not opposed the 3 level wall. He submitted a drainage analysis to the engineer. They will not increase the run-off to the neighbors. Discussion followed on the wall. Mr. Caetano asked about landscaping. Mr. DiGennaro said that his only comment was that he was asked to look at the wall. It seemed to satisfy the requirements. The only thing was that on the plans there weren't any calculations for the wall. Chairman Hritz asked for a motion to approve the application subject to Mr. DiGennaro receiving satisfaction with the wall calculations. Mr. Caetano made the motion to approve subject to Mr. DiGennaro receiving the wall calculations. Ms. Becker seconded. Motion carried unanimously. �Mr. Perlmutter moved to approve the February 15, 1996 minutes as amended. Mr. McCarthy seconded. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submited, ^ 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 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: March 15, 1996 Subject: 377 North Broadway Site Plan Application As requested, we have inspected the subject premises and reviewed the application for site plan approval to alter and convert an existing gasoline station and repair shop to a convenience store. The proposed development also includes the relocation of existing gas pumps and the construction of a 24' x 40' canopy over the relocated pumps. The property is located at the intersection of North Broadway and Pocantico Street immediately south of Philipsburg Manor and is situated in the C-l Highway Commercial District. We offer the following comments for your review and consideration: 1. Required Variances The Applicant should provide a zoning compliance table which identifies the proposed development's conformance with the standards of the C-l Zoning District. This information is required to ascertain those variances that will be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Preliminarily, it appears that the subject property will require a variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement of the C-l District, loading space requirements and the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement for gasoline service stations located on corner lots. The Applicant will need to provide, however, further information regarding the size of the property and the gross square footage of the proposed convenience store to establish whether additional variances are required. 2. Placement of Underground Storage Tanks The Applicant should indicate whether the existing underground fuel storage tanks will be replaced as a part of the proposed development. If such a relocation is proposed, the location of the tanks should conform to the street and yard setback requirements of § 62-19(b) in the Village's Zoning Code. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 3. Drainage Under the provisions § 62-19(c) of the Village's Zoning Code, surface drainage contaminated with petroleum products shall not be permitted to drain into any natural watercourse in the Village. To assist the Planning Board in this determination, the Applicant should provide a drainage plan for the proposed development. The plan should include the location of existing and proposed stormwater catch-basins. 4. Curbing and Circulation The site currently has very little curbing separating it from North Broadway and Pocantico Street. We recommend that the plan be revised in accordance with § 62-22 of the Village's Zoning Code regarding vehicular access to commercial uses. Issues of access are important given the amount and type of traffic the proposed use is expected to generate. Poorly designed access could impact traffic flow at the adjacent intersection of North Broadway and Pocantico. The applicant should also provide on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan indicating the location of all curb-cuts on the property. The plan should be revised to include the right-of-way for North Broadway. 5. Architectural Review Board Because of the visual prominence of this corner (directly across from the Philipsburg Manor) and the fact that this is among the first commercial properties one encounters when approaching the Central Business District from the north, the Planning Board should refer this application to the Architectural Review Board with regard to the design and details of the proposed canopy and convenience store. This will help to ensure that issues of community appearance are properly addressed. 6. Landscape Plan The applicant should submit a landscape and screening plan indicating the type and quantity of plant material. It appears that there maybe opportunities for additional landscaping at the southwest corner of the property. 2 �I f FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 7. Lighting Plan The applicant should provide a lighting plan that includes the proposed hours of operation. 8. Parking • 9. Refuse • 10. The plan should be revised to increase the handicapped access isle width to 8 feet. No provisions for garbage disposal have been included on the plan. The plan should be revised to show the location of any dumpsters on the property and their appropriate screening. New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) • The construction of the proposed canopy is considered a Type I Action under SEQRA since the proposed action is "substantially contiguous to" Philipsburg Manor, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National Historic Landmark. This Type I Action will require a "coordinated review" since it involves approval from other involved agencies. At its next meeting, the Planning Board should declare its intent to be Lead Agency. Christian K. Miller Associate/Planning cc: • Mayor Sean Treacy Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Dr. Richard Sweet, Village Trustee Mark A DiGennaro, Village Engineer David Arus, Applicant 5oo\not6-oi3.cicm:ev �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 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tanytown Planning Board Date: March 14, 1996 Subject: Review of Proposed Retaining Wall For 23 Hudson Street As requested, we have inspected the property and reviewed the application of Mr. Roger Rodriguez for site plan approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a retaining wall along the rear perimeter of the lot, regrade the property and construct an asphalt parking area. The property is located at 23 Hudson Street and is situated in the M-Manufacturing District. The property currently contains a 2 1/2 story frame building containing four dwelling units and is a nonconforming use in the M-Manufacturing District. We provide the following comments for your review and consideration: 1. Regulation of Walls Under the provisions of Section 62-13.F(3) no wall shall be permitted in excess of six feet in an M Manufacturing District. Significant portions of the proposed wall exceed this six-foot limitation and in portions are between 15 and 18 feet above the existing grade. Variances from this provision will be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. Location of Proposed Wall The applicant has located the proposed wall along the outer-most edge of the rear property line. Given the size of the wall and its proximity to existing buildings and structures, it could have an impact on adjacent properties. The applicant should revise the plan to include all structures and buildings located on adjacent properties. In particular, the plan should clearly show the location of the building owned by the Village of North Tanytown immediately west of the site, the Village of North Tanytown parking lot to the north and the dwelling and retaining wall located on the adjacent property to the south. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Proposed Use of Property The Applicant should clarify for the Planning Board the intended use of the site after the proposed wall is constructed. Given the considerable expense of constructing the wall, it is logical to speculate that the applicant intends to make additional improvements to the site or use the property for additional purposes, such as off-street parking. If future improvements are anticipated for the property, such as an expansion of the existing residential building, the applicant should include such improvements as a part of this application. If not, the filing of two separate applications for development on this property would constitute "segmentation" under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not permitted. Safety Considerations The height of the wall, combined with the slope of the adjacent grade, pose a potential safety hazard to people, particularly children, and objects falling from the top of the proposed wall. Given the property's location within a residential area a fence should be required around the top perimeter of the proposed wall. Parking and Circulation The plans should be revised to show the exact extent of the proposed asphalt paving area and all pavement markings. Visual Impact The proposed height of the wall is considerable and could result in significant visual impacts on adjacent properties or views from the west. The applicant should identify the materials to be used for the proposed wall and how impact on views will be mitigated. New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Under the provisions of SEQR the construction of the proposed wall constitutes an Unlisted action. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 8. Additional Information The plan should be modified to reflect the removal of the frame shed located in the northeast corner of the property and the dilapidated shed on the rear of the site. The plan should indicate the size of the parcel. The plan should show all proposed grading and quantify the amount of filling that is proposed on the property. Christian K. Miller Associate/Planning cc: Mayor Sean Treacy Linda E. David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Dr. Richard Sweet, Village Trustee Mark A. DiGennaro, Village Engineer Roger Rodriguez, Applicant 500\not6-010.ckm.crc 3 �< « Approved w i t h > r e s p e c t t o s u b s t a n c e and form: illageftAtxto: Villag Dated: ^\\% Approved by the Planning Board > Chair Dated: ' Chairman Filed with Village Clerk 03T TX "D-eguty Clerk (JleikT or Dated: <* JJZJ* J f^ \S\<L\.cL 3U?76 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-1996 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_1996-03-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1996 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1996