https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2e2a0f18843a476725240cadf5305a6b.pdf 307c632ace9aa80c563b81c1d257721d PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. February 21st, 1991 REGULAR MEETING A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on the above date at Village Hall, North Tarrytown, N.Y. PRESENT: Ellen Tsangaris, Chairperson Roman Windas Richard Ayers Steve Baderian ABSENT: John O'Leary James Galgano Alan Kaplan ALSO PRESENT: John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairperson Tsangaris called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. 1. In the Matter of Vincent Margotta-89/91 Cortlandt StreetContinued. Chairperson Tsangaris stated that the request has been withdrawn. 2_. In the Matter of D. Kringas, Webber Avenue-Continued. Ron Turnquist, Architect for Mr. Kringas presented plans for the Webber Avenue Project. He stated that variances requested had been granted by the Zoning Board, and the project presented for Planning Board approval consists of two singlefamily dwelling units. A discussion was had regarding wetlands in the project area, and Mr. Turnquist stated he felt the ordinance did not apply to the project site. A memorandum was received from Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. regarding the Kringas Subdivision at 149 Webber Avenue, (Copy in Official Minutes). A memorandum was received from Charles A. Manganaro, Consulting Engineers for the Village regarding the proposed Kringas Subdivision. (Copy in Official Minutes). A discussion followed regarding the terrain of the property, rain runoff, culvert built by Mr. Kringas and a stream on the property. Mr. Turnquist stated that Mr. Kringas had a cubb built to prevent rain runoff coming down Webber Avenue onto his property. He also stated that the property in question is a well manicured lawn. �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development /Environment /Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, AICP Frederick E. Wiedle, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 FAX (914) 967-6615 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: February 14, 1991 Subject: Kringas Subdivision - 149 Webber Avenue I- INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Board with our analysis of the latest plans submitted in support of the above noted subdivision. These plans included the following: !) Subdivision Map Prepared For Dimitrios P. Kringasf prepared by Lawrence E. Willard, land surveyor, and Ward Carpenter Engineers, and dated December 11, 1991. 2) Kringas Subdivision Site Plan prepared by Turnquist Architects on September 12, 1990 and last revised on February 8, 1991. 3) Topographic Map Prepared For Dimitrios P. Kringas prepared by John J. Muldoon, licensed land surveyor, and prepared on November 9, 1990. The proposed subdivision would take an existing lot of 38,038 square feet (s.f.) that supports an existing five-unit residential structure and subdivide the lot into one lot of 27,941 s.f. and two lots of 5,049 s.f. each. The existing multi-family dwelling would remain on the largest lot and the two smaller lots would be developed with a single-family home on each. The site . is located within the R-3 Residence District. This district permits single-family homes on lots of 5,000 s.f. or more, parks on lots of 10,000 s.f. or more and schools on lots of 15,000 s.f. or more. The multi-family dwelling is an existing non-conforming structure. The applicant indicates on the Site Plan that he has received a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown (ZBA) to permit this existing non-conforming structure to continue on the smaller lot that is proposed as part of this subdivision. �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation II. ANALYSIS A. Applicability of Chapter 61, "Wetland/Watercourse Protection" of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown; The submitted Site Plan indicates what appears to be an intermittent stream on the property approximately five to ten feet to the west of the eastern lot lines of Parcel A and Parcel B. If this is an intermittent stream then there may be wetlands associated with its peripheral areas. As currently written, Chapter 61 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown (the Code) requires that proposals to disturb streams (even intermittent ones), wetlands (regardless of their size) or any area within 100 feet of such a stream or wetland constitute regulated activities. It should be noted that Parcels A and B are less than 100 feet deep. Consequently, if the site does contain an intermittent stream as shown on the plan and/or wetlands in this vicinity, than all proposed regrading, building, laying of utility lines and piping of watercourses within either Parcel A or Parcel B constitute regulated activities. Essentially, all proposed improvements on Parcel A and Parcel B associated with the proposed subdivision may be regulated activities. Consequently, it would appear that the proposed subdivision for the purpose of creating buildable lots is a regulated activity under Chapter 61 of the Code. As such, the applicant will be required to submit extensive technical documentation of the hydrologic, soil and vegetation conditions on the site, as per the requirements of Sections 61-13.B.(1)(a), 6113.B.(2)(a) and 61-13.B.(3)(a) of the Code, respectively. Furthermore, it should be noted at this time that there appears to be a very real possibility that the Planning Board will not be able to make the findings required by Section 6112 "Standards for permit decisions," that are necessary before a wetlands permit may be granted. Among the issues the Planning Board is required to examine under Section 6112.A.(7) of the Code is whether the proposed activity (i.e. the creation of two building lots) could be accomplished in any other area that would not impact any wetlands, watercourses or associated buffer areas, even if the applicant does not own or control these other areas. Clearly there are other areas where building lots can be created without impacting a wetlands, watercourse or associated buffer area. A final determination of whether a wetlands permit is necessary or can be granted for this application must await 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation the submission of the technical data required under Section 61-13.B. of the Code. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that if there is an intermittent stream or any wetlands on the site and if the Planning Board finds itself in a position whereby it can make the findings necessary to grant the wetlands permit, the applicant will still be required to implement a mitigation plan as specified in Section 61-13 of the Code. Part of this plan would include the replacement, at a 2:1 ratio, of all watercourses, wetlands and buffer areas that are proposed to be disturbed. This means the applicant will have to find an area to create approximately 20,000 square feet of new wetlands, watercourses and/or buffer areas to replace the almost 10,000 s.f. of proposed disturbance on Parcel A and Parcel B. As it does not appear that there is any area on the existing parcel where such a creation of mitigation wetlands could be created, this part of the Code would require the applicant to create these new wetlands/watercourse areas at another site. Lastly, it should be noted that, as presently written, Chapter 61 of the Code does not permit the Planning Board any discretion in modifying or waiving this required creation of new wetlands/watercourses areas as mitigation for disturbances to wetlands, watercourse or buffer areas. B. Zoning Issues; The two proposed new single-family homes are permitted uses in the R-3 district. According to the applicant, the non-conforming multi-family structure has received a variance from the ZBA. The applicant should submit the ZBA's resolution of approval granting the use variance as part of his application. As shown on the Site Plan, the existing and the proposed structures meet all of the required setbacks for the R-3 district. C. Grading and Vegetation; The applicant has previously indicated that he intends to maintain the significant trees on the site and the vegetative buffer that exists along the southern side of Parcel A, the northern side of Parcel B and the rear lot lines of both of these parcels. However, there is a significant Ash tree located on Parcel B approximately 35 feet west of Webber Avenue and approximately eight feet north of the lot line between Parcel A and Parcel B. Based upon the house location on Parcel B and the regrading shown in this area, the applicant should specify what steps will be taken to preserve the tree and its root system. 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation The original Site Plan, dated September 12, 1990, identified an area of "existing planting to remain - buffer" along the areas identified above. However, under the current site plan, as revised February 8, 1991, regrading is to occur in parts of this area. Also, the notation of the existing buffer area has been deleted from the revised site plan. The designation of this area should be reincorporated into the site plan and grading should be adjusted, where necessary, so as to preserve as much of this area as possible. III. CONCLUSION Pending submission of the additional information requested, this concludes our comments at this time. Thomas Gissen, AICP Planning Consultant cc: Mayor Janet Gondalfo William Regan John Hughes, Jr. James Margotta Joseph Gulino Ronald E. Turnquist 500\not1-001.tg 4 �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: November 5, 1990 Subject: Sleepy Hollow Cemetery Site Visit As requested, our office conducted site visits of the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery on Friday, October 26th and Monday, October 29th in an effort to evaluate the area of proposed disturbance within the context of the recently adopted North Tarrytown Wetland/Watercourse Protection Ordinance. As a result of these site walks, it was determined that portions of the project site meet the criteria for wetlands as described in the Ordinance. In the recently adopted North Tarrytown Wetland/Watercourse Protection Ordinance, wetland/freshwater wetlands are defined to include "all areas that comprise hydric soils and/or are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation." According to this definition, the observed presence of hydric soils on the site is sufficient to categorize at least portions of the site as wetland. The observed presence of hydrophytic vegetation hydrology also satisfies the definition of wetland and wetland areas. tentative wetland boundary is indicated on the attached plan. A �Hvdric-Soils A hydric soils is Refined as "a soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part..." During the site visit of Monday, October 29th a secies of shallow test holes were dug with a hand shovel to determine the presence of hydric soils (see accompanying plan for test hole locations) . As specified in the Ordinance, Munsel Soil Color Charts were used to record the various soil colors, and observations were made of the depth of mottling and soil texture (see attached soil Test Hole Observations). It was determined from this analysis that soils in test holes #1, #2 and #4 met the criteria for hydric soils as described in the North Tarrytown Wetland ordinance. The soil located beneath the existing stream presumably meets these criteria also. Hydrophytic Vegetajdon Vegetation observed during the site walks was recorded and is presented on the Vegetation). Wetland Plant attached list (see attached List of Observed Of the species observed, six are listed in the 1986 List for the northeast region and are either facultative-uplancl, facultative, or facultative-wetland (see definitions of these terms in the species Wetland/Watercourse Protection Ordinance). No obligate wetland or obligate upland species were obser-ved. The observed plants satisfy the criteria 2 �for hydrophytic [Wetland/Freshwater vegetation presented Wetlands]B.(1)(c) of in the Section North 61-5 Tarrytown Wetland Ordinance. Wetland Hydrology No hydrologic indicators were clearly evident at test holes #1 and #2. It is possible that the mottled and gleyed soils observed at these test holes are the result of fluctuating ground water levels rather than prolonged flooding by surface water. The presence of a number of springs and seeps on the site also suggests high ground water levels. We believe that careful observation of the site over time would confirm the presence of high ground water levels at test holes #1 and #2 thereby establishing the presence of wetland hydrology at these test holes. Test hole #4 was located within a portion of the site which was inundated by shallow surface water. Inundation is a primary indication of wetland hydrology. General Permit Requirements Relevant to the Proposed Project The presence of wetlands on the site automatically establishes a regulated wetland buffer extending 100 feet horizontally away from and paralleling the wetland boundary. According to Section 61-6 of the North Tarrytown Wetland/Watercourse protection Ordinance, "no regulated activity shall be conducted in a wetland/watercourse or 3 �wetland/watercourse buffer without a written permit from the North Tarrytown Planning Board..." As we have outlined in earlier correspondence for this application, the permit requirements outlined in Section 61-12 and Section 61-13 of the North Tarrytown Wetland/Watercourse Protection Ordinance are extremely detailed and comprehensive. In order to obtain a permit for the disturbance of a wetland or wetland buffer, an applicant must first adequately establish that "losses or impacts to the wetland/watercourse buffer are necessary and unavoidable and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable" (see Section 6112.D). For the purposes of the Ordinance, wetland/watercourse impacts are necessary and unavoidable only if all of the following criteria are satisfied: "1. The proposed activity is compatible with the public health and welfare? 2. There is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activity, including reduction in density, change in use, revision of road and lot layout and/or related site plan consideration that could objectives; and 4 accomplish the applicant's �I 3. There is no feasible alternative to the proposed activity on any other site that is not a wetland/watercourse buffer." (see Section 61-12.D) It should be noted that the interpretation of the word "feasible" is of key importance in the application of the above criteria. When and if the Planning Board is satisfied that the above three criteria have been met, the applicant must prepare and submit a mitigation plan described in Section 61-13 as follows: "the applicant shall develop a mitigation plan which shall specify mitigation measures that provide for replacement wetland/watercourses that recreate as nearly as possible the original wetland/watercourses in terms of type, functions, geographic location and setting and that are larger than, by a ratio of two to one (2:1), the original wetlands/watercourses. For the purposes of mitigation, losses of wetland/watercourse buffers will be viewed as losses of wetland. On-site mitigation shall be the preferred approach. Off-site mitigation shall be permitted only in cases where an \, • on-site alternative is not possible." y • . ("K$ c)v . V . . . . to^Vpreparation of mitigation plans. w^J" . . . . . Section 61-13 continues by providing detailed instruction on the . . Once the mitigation plan is ^accepted by the Planning Board, it becomes part of the permit for �the application. Section 61-12 addresses the standard for permit decisions as follows: "In granting, denying or conditioning any permit the Planning Board shall evaluate wetland/watercourse functions and the role of the wetland/watercourse and hydrologic and ecological systems and shall determine the impact of the proposed activity upon health, safety, rare and endangered species, water quality and additional wetland/watercourse functions listed in Section 61-1 of this local law." Section 61-12 continues by listing a number of factors which must be considered in written findings by the Planning Board as part of its determination in granting, denying or conditioning any permit. Status of the Proposed Project The applicant has already submitted the information required by Section 61-10 of the North Tarrytown Wetland/Watercourse Protection Ordinance. However, it seem unlikely that the proposed project will be able to satisfy all of the technical and procedural criteria mandated by the recently adopted law. Even if the Planning Board were to establish that the proposed losses and impacts to the wetland are necessary and unavoidable and have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable, the Applicant would still be responsible for preparing a mitigation plan which would 6 �mitigate any loss or disturbance of wetland or wetland buffer on a two to one basis. would require For the proposed project, the mitigation plan the creation replacement wetland. of approximately 0.94 acres of The detailed and comprehensive technical information which must be provided for the mitigation plan and for the preparation of the Planning Board findings are additional impediments to the progress of the proposed project. The decision of whether or not to proceed with the application, of course, rests with the Applicant. The North Tarrytown Wetland/Watercourse Protection Ordinance is by far the most restrictive wetland ordinance yet encountered by our office in Westchester County. Of particular concern is the lack of flexibility allowed the Planning Board is adjusting the technical requirements of an application or in exploring possible alternative mitigation strategies. It should also be noted that the use of hydric soils as a sole criterion in the delineation of wetland boundaries is a significant departure from wetland delineation criteria used at the New York State and Federal levels. Ross Povenmire, SAF Associate ASLA 500\not0-003.rp:cs 7 �Soil Test Hole Observations Sleepy Hollow Cemetery Test Hole #1 0"-3" depth Silty loam, no mottles color: 7.5 YR 3/2 3»-9" Silty loam, with mottles matrix color: 5Y 4/1 (gleyed) mottle color: 7.5 YR 4/3 depth Test Hole #2 0"-4" depth 4"-8" depth 8"-12" depth Numerous roots to 4" silty loam, no mottles color: 7.5 YR 3/2 few roots, silty loan, mottled matrix color: 2.5 Y 3/2 mottle color: 10 YR 4/3 silty loam, mottled matrix color: 5 Y 4/1 (gleyed) mottle color: 7.5 YR 4/6 Test Hole #3 0"-18" Friable sandy loam, no mottles Test Hole #5 0"-6" Mottled sandy loam with 30% gravel or stones matrix color: 10 YR 2.2 mottle color: 2.5 YR 3/4 6"-12" Mottled sandy loam with 10% gravel or stones matrix color 5 Y 5/1 (gleyed) 500\not0-0Q1.rp:cs �73 C id st) J A ^* w a o •H «~» :* 0) •H > 0) u •P id a t* •H D> G •H (0 <0 Q 73 n a) -P w •H -P a) > + •p 0 55 >i a a) a) -P W rH •H •J u id s o id <H «M •P 0 2 o O id 0 id <u <w < 55 •H >-. o § 2 QJ Si c 3 xJ •P iH id o c id •H •P o n T3 0) W •H <w I 3 . o 0) rH id •P W 3 •H 3 o a) c 3 u c a> id CQ « SH 43 c 0) rH id rH 3 •P 0) CQ (A C id 0 •H 73 id u w 3 § X •H rH 0) <M •P 73 C Q) 0 a) •p a) fc ^^ o 2 g 3 •H ?H •P c a) 73 0) SB G O rt g O O >- 6 3 c rH jd •P 3 A •H < > >i •P -P > V4 u 0) JQ J-i id CQ 3 PQ X5 U U -H CQ 73 0) M O O *U ac CQ id rH >1 > H c in 0) id 73 rH id A •H rH id Q 73 0) id j j c 0 in •H 0 A fe > TJ «d J & o u 73 £ 0) a £ * W •H rH U) •H H •P 0 55 +J 0 2 rH 0) > u id 4-1 > u id <w <d •H • c •H a (A <a tP 5H c •H id •H > > •H .G g id •P> i 3 u •H id m rH u > 0 H 0 < E-« b 6 3 ^ S? S - S ^W- P C •p rH VO o a. 0 (/) (0 Q) vo i id M ft W > i O - H 4J Id +J O r H c ^ X O 5*W ^ O XJ-H € rH id xx 0 u id 10 u 0) o < o 73 H a) •H b c « ^•otj w c id 0) JC c 0) rH id o rz: c o •H 0 N A id JH 0 T3 •p c -H •H •J u id rH P. c <d a) 3 73 Q^rH T3 O rH <T> <d C Q) id U MH q id o id 0) * CQ •P c Q) H 0 0 •H H ?H id •0 0 0 :* i ^ 0 u u < in g 3 •H 3 JJ «W ^> a i d id rH 73 * r id j» c -P *2 >i* H O •P <W ^ »M f"' rH -P H id S r-l e w c 0) a 0) H-H 73 d^ 0) 3 •p id o>c rH g g O 0 r ,^| c § 0 id X~) O 0 O n Ci) •H ercup MH O w U W XI K O 10 •H rH /•% (\J s o 73 Q) 73 73 id c o 73 o 0) rH > Q) •P id XJ-rH 0) <U 43 r 2 r3 rH • 0 ^ 0) Q) ^ X> X! -P W >i CT» id 73 4J ^-H O C • i -p XJ 0 -p otweed •P u a> -P a) 73 0 rvatus -p 6 id rH (U H 0 •H rH <H C 0 emina c o 03 •H rH <M 4-> rH ( 0 H yj jC - H Id •P^C-PllOrHrrJ,,. 73rH •H •P •P •H •q in •P 73 I 4 J < M U) XJ C >ii5 OT3 U» id +i G> - H rH a) - H Id -P c id >^rH i ) rH U 0) • H >H w id •P ~ w id J9 w go-go id w 0) g rH 0) U lsj J l D ^ ^ r-l 0) - H <D rH Q) o en a) i " -P id H S < >i.? , 2 u w 73 Q) ,2 XJ •p ^ > ^ +J (0 •HT, 0) ij o 3 0 IJ'O u) id u * <d JC •H ft«, C - H 3 > / 1 \ «J 0) o tr> a) ^ r H - a) o 0) 0 2 # n M ( l o id ** w <P * ««* id ^ T3 xi +J 0) CO (4-| s - ' C 3 w S (d C.XJ W P "T, i® T3 a) a id 2 rH id •H id •H J3 c •P •H D" U •H > (0 u 0 > b U id & ^ w id a) rH O 4J - H 0) 43 W 3 £ s^a) XJ -p > -H 0) 0 -H CO U a> 4 J = a w vo in a> a> S73 O rH JH-H Q) rH (0 3 4J &S!3s..S5§ a a id-p u w c >,o > 1 a) u 3 T 3 (1) O C > !5 xs J m-P«MldQ)C + S i d i o S i d i r H w o 0 ro 1 +JQ)°H44J>iO<|-H«l-lD • p 3 5HU1 a) O 0) 3 ^1 •P id >H 3 Q ) C O - H T 3 X U 7 3 * w 0) O c js id a - H id 43 c - H o) id EH<TI U) C * M - P (0 <0 OJ �•i * > LIMIT OF WETLAND BUFFER LIMIT OF WETLAND LIMIT OF PROPOSED DISTURBANCE I ""'"-irH AREA OF WETLAND BUFFER TO BE DISTURBED ,„ u.«* r«."t«- ( ROUTE 0 SOIL TEST HOLE LOCATION & SPRING 9 ) ADAPTED FROM •PROPOSED GRADING PLAN" PREPARED BY LARRY J. NARDECCHIA JR.. P.E. FOR SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, DATED APRIL 10. 1990. LAST REVISED JULY 23, 1990. REGULATED WETLAND AND PROPOSED DISTURBANCE SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY Village of North Tarrytown, New York FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Scale: 1* = 30'IApprox.l N �UA§E CHARLES A. MANGANARO CONSULTING ENGINEERS M E M O R A N D U M TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers DATE: February 19, 1991 RE: Proposed Kringas Subdivision - 149 Webber Avenue Village of North Tarrytown, NY CAMCE #1378R Per our review of the site plan, last revised February 8, 1991, submitted to us by the North Tarrytown Building Department for the above referenced project, our recommendations concerning potable water, sewage, and storm water drainage only, are as follows: A. The calculations of the proposed water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage system including the sizes, invert, and rim elevations to the existing water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems should be shown or submitted. In addition, the Village's water and sewer, and public works departments have standards, specifically typical detail sheets on the above mentioned systems. The developer should conform to these standards. B. The widths of streets and avenues encompassing the sites should be shown. C. Fire sprinklers, if required, should be shown or indicated by note on the drawing. Final recommendations will be made to the Planning Board once the above mentioned items have been addressed. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please let us know. JAG:dt:0253 cc: Mr. William T. Regan, Village Administrator John J. Hughes, Village Attorney Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. Thomas Gissen, Assoc. Cons. - Frederick P. Clark Assoc. (via Facsimile) Mr. Ronald Turnquist, Turnquist Architects 25 Main St., Court Plaza North, Hackensack, NJ 07601-7032 201-3424200 Fax: 201-342-0790 120 East 75th St., Suite 8 c, New York, NY 10021 212-683-7712 �Janet Gandolfo, Mayor William T.Regan TRUSTEES SeanTreacy Morris Alter Nicholas acchetti Michael Hyiand Seane D. Marren Frank Rey John Hughes, Jr. VtibagB Oouniel Angela Bverett Zfegra^fVUbtfe Clark Frank Anzovftao HISTORIC PAST - GREAT FUTURE 14 March 1991 To: From: PLANNING BOARD James T. Margotta^X //*4 There w i l l be no Planning Board meeting for the month of March. 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tanytown, New York 10591 (914) 631-0113 � 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_1991-02-21 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