https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8899a57f62841938e7def5f1b8ce6783.pdf 60e08bbd0fd4d569e78cce93d5a95698 PDF Text Text A Regular Meeting of the Planning Board was held in Columbia Hose Fire House on Thursday, September 19, 1991 at 8:15 PM. Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. James Galgano, Chairman Steve Salman Steve Baderian Richard Ayers Roman Windas Ellen Tsangaris Also Present: Robert Spencer, Village Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Thomas Gissen, Consultant, Frederick P. Clark Joseph Gulino, Consultant, CAMCE IN THE MATTER OF THE AKIN SUB-DIVISION. 28 EVERGREEN WAY. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NY This is a recall of the Akin sub-division which was approved several months ago. Sam Watkins representing the applicant stated his client's strong objection to this matter being put back on the agenda for the Planning Board when final sub-division approval had been issued at the June 1991 meeting. He stated that reconsideration at this time is inappropriate and any change in the prior decision would be unlawful. Village Attorney commented that once a decision is made by the Board it should stand unless new and substantial evidence is brought before the Board. A copy of a letter from Thomas F. Moran, a member of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers Association written to Chairman Galgano which was submitted for the record supports the information that the Association presented to the Board with their request to open the hearing. A licensed architect and a member of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers Association stated that there is an appeal of Zoning Board's decision before the State Supreme Court by the Association and he asked the Board to consider reserving any judgment before the Supreme Court makes a decision. Different issues before the Zoning Board and Planning Board should be considered differently. Village Attorney stated that this Board is not deciding whether to approve the division of one lot into three lots; this Board must only decide whether or not to move a lot line. The Zoning Board had suggested that the Planning Board might want to retain jurisdiction over the trees and the driveway which is entirely up to this Board. Discussion removed. ensued over whether 1 or not the trees should be �Village Attorney stated there are two items to be considered in approving this sub-division; tree survey be commissioned in order to retain as many of the sight existing trees as possible and the Planning Board shall determine the location of the driveway in lot 1. Sam Watkins objected to any member of the Planning Board who is also a member of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers Association partaking in the vote. Roman Windas moved that the sub-division be granted as recorded on the Charles Riley survey and that in the event the Akin's sell the property, the buyer of the property be made aware of that and somehow meet with the Board to work this out.There was no second. A motion was made to adjourn this to the next meeting and that the applicant provide this Board with information with respect to the trees on the parcel involved as well as any information pertaining to the disposition of driveway with respect to said lots. There was no second to this motion. Ray Windas moved to approve the sub-division subject to the applicant providing them with a tree survey of all the trees located on the property that are twenty-five inches in circumference measured five feet from the ground. No trees are to be removed until after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the houses being built. Mr. Salman seconded the motion and motion carried. Chairman Galgano voted No. IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT MARGOTTA. 89-91 CORTLANDT STREET, NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK This is a continuation of the hearing from the last meeting. Discussion ensued on the parking lot, driveway, storm and water lines and the lighting. The interior of the building will be refurbished as far as bathrooms, kitchens, and the building will be made structurally sound; basically the building will be given a face-lift. James Margotta commented that they would have to come before the Architectural Review Board for windows, storefront, etc. Site Plan approval was unanimously given by the Planning Board on this matter. IN THE MATTER OF PETER CASTRO.(AMOCO) 339 N.Y.. BROADWAY. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK This was a continuation of the hearing for approval to erect a free standing canopy with dispensers and to replace the present underground tanks with two double wall underground tanks. 2 �The representative for Amoco Station stated that the concerns of the Planning Board which were addressed at the July meeting such as drainage, vegetation and lighting have been answered and application was made to Department of Transportation for their approval and DOT has come back to them with their comments and report. After further discussion, Steve Salman made a motion to approve the site plan, seconded by Richard Ayers and motion carried. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID ROCKEFELLER. WEBBER AVENUE AND BEDFORD ROAD. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK This is a request for subdivision 1 and subdivision 2. There was to be a preliminary hearing at the last meeting but there was no quorum. The representative for Greenrock stated that the only variances that should be required are those variances which arise from the imposition of new lot lines and therefore the variances should not be required on these applications. He asked that the topographical survey requirement be waived since there is no intent to build on the remaining lot. In respect to lot on Route 448, since it is a state highway, he did not believe this was in the Village's jurisdiction. Discussion ensued on these sub-divisions and plans and drawings were reviewed. It was decided that a public hearing will be held on this sub-division at the next Planning Board meeting in October. IN THE MATTER OF SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY This is a continuation of a preliminary hearing for a request from the cemetery to fill in an area behind Fremont fountain to provide space for more graves. The Village's consultants have reviewed the plans and are satisfied with the drainage work. Details were presented regarding plans for landfill, erosion control, underdrainage and encasing it in a filter fabric. The changes in the wetlands ordinance gives the Planning Board the option to act when the amount of wetland is negligible. Village consultants have written a letter stating Planning Board can take mitigation as they see it. that the The cemetery had proposed tree planting as mitigating measures. Two things that must occur before they could continue to go ahead to obtain a building permit even if the Planning Board did approve this. One would be to get a stream disturbance permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation, second tree mitigation plan permit must be obtained from the Department of Transportation. 3 �Discussion ensued. Mr. Baderian commented that a letter had been sent to the Village Attorney with respect to the cemetery proposal stating that the amendment to the wetlands ordinance is in violation of the SEQRA and an Article 78 action may be taken against the Board of Trustees unless they rescind the amendment to the wetlands/watercourse ordinance. Therefore, the Planning Board cannot really vote on this matter since it is still in contention. A motion was made to go to Public Hearing at the next meeting, motion was seconded and carried. IN THE MATTER QF PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, NORTH BROADWAY. NORTH TARRYTOWN. NEW YORK John Hughes, Jr. representing Phelps Memorial stated that this is a proposal for a medical office building south of the emergency room on the hospital grounds. Victoria Miller gave a brief overview of the project. She commented that this would be good for both doctors and patients having the medical building next to the hospital. The building inspector's concern was whether or not a variance was needed because of the height of the building. Mr. Hughes will discuss this with our Village Attorney to arrive at an interpretation of the zoning code as to whether a variance is needed. The question of whether or not this would be put on the tax rolls was discussed. A motion was made to call for a Public Hearing for the next Planning Board meeting in October and motion was seconded and carried. A motion to adjourn was moved and seconded adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Francesca Lorenz, Recording Secretary Transcribed by Angela Everett 4 and meeting was �-.15-91 10:32AM SIDLEY&AUS. 212 4182165 SlDJLKY P05/05 6C AUSTIJM A I'AHTKEMMIIIJ* IHCLUDIWI rHOrEKHIOKAL COHI»OHATIONM 0 7 5 THJKU AVKMUJi N E W YORK. NEW YOIHT 10022 sxvoAronz CHICAGO . LO» AHOELZS WASHINOTON. B.C. I.ONTXJN TELEPHONE 21 S: WOO* 2000 TKT.KX 0 7 - 1 0 U 0 KACSIMTUB 3 1 S : ttOO-2021 TOKYO September 1 8 , Id91 Robert Panzirti, Esq. village Attorney village of North Tarrytown Beekman Avenue North Tarry town, NY 10591 Re: Amendment to Wetland/Watercourse Protection Lav Dear Bob: The purpose of this letter is to formally advise you that the action of the Village Law in enacting 561-12 £ as an amendment to the North Tarrytovn Wetland/Watercourse Lav violated the state Environmental Quality Act ("SEQRA") • This amendment has the effect of lessening the degree of protection afforded to areas protected by tne ordinance, and is in the nature of an amendment to a zoning' ordinance or other similar local health, safety and environmental protection lav. The Village Board's action was accordingly a Type I action requiring full compliance with SEQRX. Even if it were not a Type I action* it was at least an unclassified action, requiring consideration of the environmental impact by preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form and serious, public consideration of preparation of an environmental impact statement, followed by a formal Finding of No Significant Impact if no EXS is to be prepared prior to adoption of the amendment* The village Board did not even take a rudimentary step toward SEQRA compliance, end accordingly its action adopting the amendment must be considered to be null and void. I am placing the Village on notice that it is likely that an Article 78 action vill be commenced against the village in vhich nullification of this action vill be sought unless, no later than its first meeting in October, the Village Board formally nullifies its adoption of this amendment, and proceeds to consider it, if at all, following compliance with SEQRA, cci S. Baderian �g- 1 9 - 9 1 10:31AM S I DLEY&cAUS. 2 1 2 4 1 8 2 1 6 5 P02/05 MBMOttAMDPM TO I Steve Baderian (by fax) FROKt Donald W. Stever BXS glftcpy Hollow cemetary DATE I September 19, 1901 BacauBo I am out of town, unavoidably, I will not bo able to attend tonight *s Planning Board meeting, at which the cemetary*s request to fill in the Fremont Gorge is apparently on the agenda. This memorandum vill provide you with ray thoughts on the subject. I request that it be read or otherwise inserted into the official record of the proceedings. 1. I have written to Bob Ponzini informing him that the Village Board's amendment of the "Waiver" provision (|61~2 S of the Wetland and Watercourse Protection Law) is in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ["SEQRA"]. A copy of that letter is attached to this fax, as is a copy of the text of the Waiver provision* Violation of SEQRA will result in this action being nullified. Litigation has been threatened, and will occur unless the village Board nullifies its prior action* The Planning Board ehould net aet pursuant to this amendment given the illegality of the method of its adoption. 2. The amendment does nojfc deprive the Planning Board of permit jurisdiction, it does not require the Planning Board to g m n t the cemetary's application to fill this area, and it does n & £ require the Planning Board to grant a waiver. It merely empower* be planning Board upon such conditions Qff It may deem appropriate, to waive anv of the provisions of Section 61-12 and 61-13 in issuing a permit which involves an area for which there has been an application for a permit covering an area one-tenth of an acre or leg> In slae* 3* The Planning Board oan not even consider a waiver unless it is satisfied, on the basis of clear objective evidence, that the area involved is less than l/io aore in else. The Planning Board must have the Village's environmental consultant verify the size of any area alleged by a claimant to be small enough to qualify for consideration of a waiver* Z believe, having investigated this area recently, that the else of the eree the cemetery seek to fill (which includes buffer areas) exceeds i/lft acre, and thus the cemetery eaa not meet the eiee threshold for en exemption. 4. The Planning Board muot carefully weigh the claims made for a waiver and the specific requirements sought to be waived, and �09-19-91 10:31AM S I DLEY&AUS. 2 1 2 4182165 find that a valvar is appropriate under the circumstances. In order to do this it must have before it sufficient facts concerning the nature of the area and its importance to the community in order to make a rational judgment that by not holding the applicant to the stringent criteria sought to be waived The Planning Board requires a full, objective report from the Village's environmental consultant, or the Conservation Advisory Committee, before any such findings can be made. 5. On the basis of the record to date, the following facto compel rejection of a waiver of any of the criteria, even if the Cemetary's proposal were to be limited to 1/10 acre: (a) The Planning Board's own record demonstrates that the area Is "unique". (b) The area includes active wildlife habitat. Z have taken a videotape of the area which the Planning Board should see. I can have it for viewing at a future Board meeting* (c) The area contains a year-round stream that forms the sole source of water for Fremont Pond, which is a significant amenity of Sleepy Hollow Manor, ay filling the ravine and destroying the wetland and stream, and placing more than IUO graves over top the stream, the Cemetery will create a situation of potential pollution of Fremont Pond by lead and other pollutants. The impact of cemeteries on ground water and surface water has been the subject of ongoing concern by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (d) The area is lovely. It contains some extremely large traaa, vhich will inevitably be destroyed. The cemetery"v claim that there are no good trees in this area Is simply untrue. 6. The Cemetary is required to secure a permit from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation in order to enclose the stream in a pipe. It initially claimed it needed no such permit, and only grudgingly agreed after the DEC wrote a letter to the Planning Board confirming what we had informed the Board at an earlier meeting. 7. There are planning and sound land uss reasons ror denying a permit to destroy the area, which also would support denial of site plan approval. (a) The ravine and its tree canopy act as a natural visual buffer, preventing what would otherwise be an unrelenting view of gravestones along Route 9* This is a scenic highway, and the village residents fought the New York D O T ' S attempt to cut the sycamore trees and widen the road. Ths northern end of the cemetery is ugly by any standards. The • P03/05 �.19-91 10:32AM SIDLEY&AUS. 212 4182165 P04/05 troo canopy which tno oomotary wante «o replace with additional gravestones obstructs tht view from all local angles, effectively obscuring the graves from full viaw, sna videotape clearly demonstrates this. (b) The cametary la essentially at the and of its activa Ufa. it apparently want* to squeeze a fev laat graves into tha hillside to keep its employees working for a few more years, rogardleee of the •nvironmental ooet to the community. All cemeteries eventually run out of apace, and this one is not exception. Apparently the cemetery is funding its operations out of grave site sales. This is not a situation that will last very long even if it nanagee to bury sore bodies in tha Fremont Gorge* If it truly has no alternative land area for expansion* then now is tha tine to abut it down. The cametary trustee*, and/or the village can apply to the state for maintenance funds to manage it as a park. oot Richard svoot Sean Duggan (by fax) David Perlautter (by fax) Nicholas Robinson (by fax) � 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-1991 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_1991-09-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1991 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991