https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/bd4c86e2bc1b2287d485cd4a0ddf5faa.pdf 0d3c332ce6d2376f910c9e1e76024f35 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING ~"~ NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK JANUARY 20th, 1994 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on January 20th, 1994 at 8:00 P.M. In the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George H r l t z , Chairman Steve Salman Ellen Tsangarls Donald Caetano James Donovan Roman Windas Edward McCarthy ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney Susan Portman, Clark Associates Joe Gulino, CAMCE James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. 1. Phelps Memorial Hospital Medical Office Building-Fence. Mr. Todd Jack, representing Phelps Memorial Hospital presented changes to draft resolution dated December 16th, 1993 asking for approval of the Board, in order to proceed with the installation of the fencing. (Copy in official minutes). Discussion followed regarding the height of the fence to be installed and it was determined that a six foot fence would need a variance from the Zoning Board. The matter was referred to the Zoning Board with the Planning Board urging the Zoning Board to grant a variance allowing a six foot fence to be installed. After a discussion it was agreed that Items 2.4 and 2.5 were agreeable to the Board. Due to the matter being referred to the Zoning Board Chairman Hritz stated that no action would be taken on the proposed amendments until the February meeting of the Board. 2. Route 9 Corridor (C-l District) Zone Changes. Chairman Hritz stated that the members of the Board had received correspondence regarding the zoning changes of Route 9. He stated the Board of Trustees has referred the matter to the Board to consider. Susan Portman outlined the proposed zoning text amendements as submitted in her memorandum to the Board of Trustees dated December 31st, 1993. (Copy in official minutes). Ms. Gandolfo stated that any present use that does not conform to the new code will be allowed to continue, unless it is abandoned for more than one year. �-2Mr. Hritz stated the. Board is interested in reviewing the zoning changes proposed and their job is to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Discussion followed regarding enforcement of the code, the defining the definition of "junked cars", complaints whether oral or written. It was also recommended that "Commercial" or "Highway Commercial" be changed to "Historic Preservation". Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that the Planning Board accede to the Board of Trustees and that the Board of Trustees be the Lead Agency. Carried. Chairman Hritz asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. Mr. Emil Frandsen, 162 Highland Avenue, stated he was the owner of property on Route 9 which houses an Animal Hospital, and Auto Body Repair Shop and a Meinke Muffler Shop. He would like to know if the new zoning would have any effect on this type of business. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the mentioned businesses would continue to be non-conforming. Mr. Donovan stated if the code was too restrictive businesses would not want to come into North Tarrytown. Mr. Eddie Keegan, 285 North Broadway informed the Board he has been in business in North Tarrytown for over fourteen years and prior to that in business in White Plains for over forty-two years. He feels that changing the zoning would not be in the best interest of the business people. Mr. Hritz stated he would draft a letter to be sent to the Board of Trustees urging them to take into consideration the issues raised and asking them to improve the appearances of the area to prepare for the increased tourism. 3. Gerald Bregman-185 Valley Street-Stores and Apartments. Mr. Ron Turnquist, Architect for the project presented plans and model of proposed project. Mr. Turnquist stated that there will be five retail st&res and five apartments facing Chestnut Street. He stated the project has received the various variances for sideyards, rear yards and parking. Mr. Turnquist stated that parking will be provided for the apartments on the property at 76 Chestnut Street. Mr. Turnquist stated that Mr. Rodrigues is in the process of purchasing 76 Chestnut Street and will create 18 parking spaces, of which 8 parking spaces will be for the project and 10 will be dedicated to the village for off-street parking. He stated that the Zoning Board oi Appeals did stipulate that the parking will have to be constructed �-3at the same time as the dwelling units, and before a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Mr. Turnquist stated that the roof area of the building was turned into a sitting area and will be landscaped and paved, with benches to be installed for resting. Susan Portman, Clark Associates presented memorandum dated January 13th, 1994 reviewing the Site Plan. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Joe Gulino, CAMCE Engineer stated they have reviewe the revised site plan dated December 10th, 1993 and offered a memorandum dated January 17th, 1994 outlining their comments regarding foundation of present building, located and design of proposed water supply, sewage disposal and drainage systems. (Copy in official minutes). Ms. Portman stated that Mr. Turnquist has submitted a long form EAF which will be reviewed. After a discussion, Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that this is a Type I Action and will have no significant effect on the environment and that the Board accept the plans as submitted and allow the applicant to proceed with the project. Carried. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan that the Planning Board be declared the lead Agency for this action. Carried. Mr. Caetano moved to approve the Site Plan in order to allow Mr. Rodrigues to proceed with the parking lot and that Mr. Rodrigues comply with the suggestions made by CAMCE and Clark Associates and that the Building Inspector review the final drawings on the parking lot prior to the issuance of a building permit. Seconded by Mr. Donovan. Carried. Mr. Rodrigues was informed that the Recreation fee would be approximately $9600. and must be paid before a building permit could be issued. Mr. Rodrigues stated that the building was an existing building and felt that the recreation fee should not have to be paid . Ms. Gandolfo stated the Planning Board did not have the power to waive the fee. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Gandolfo presented a list of Unpaid Fees for projects previously approved. (Copy in official minutes). �& .*+ -4Mr. Margotta stated that a fee of $2,500. was imposed when the application is submitted. The money is held in escrow and drawn upon as bills from consultants are received. When the money is exhausted the applicant must replenish the account. He stated if the account is not replenished the matter will not be put on the agenda. After a discussion it was decided that an attempt will be made to collect the long overdue accounts. MINUTES Mr. Windas moved seconded, by Mr. Caetano that the minutes of the September, 1993 and the October, 1993 minutes be approved as submitted. Carried. There being no further business to come before the meeting Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Salman that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, »—»- ;re>ie Amato Acting Clerk &d �D n ft P f RESOLUTION Adopted at the Jfctt • ? 6 , 1994 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MIXED USE BUILDING. PROPOSED: FIVE APARTMENTS, FIVE RETAIL SPACES AND ONE OFFICE IN TWO-STORY BUILDING (PLUS LOFT). OWNER: GERALD BREGMAN LOCATION: 185 VALLEY STREET TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 16, BLOCK 1, LOT 11 ZONING: C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for site plan approval pursuant to Article VIII of the Zoning Code of the Village of North Tarrytown for the redevelopment of an existing one-story building to create a two-story (plus third story loft) retail and residential apartment building with an office, and an outdoor sitting area on a property that is approximately 4,900 square feet in size and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Valley Street, as shown on the drawings prepared in the office of Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects, and further identified as follows: "1, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Lower Level Plan, Site Plan and Locations Map," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, and last revised December 10, 1993; and "2, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Upper Level and Loft Plans, Data and Symbols," scale 1/4" = 1 ' , dated November 30, 1993, and last revised December 10, 1993; and WHEREAS, the site plan proposes the redevelopment of an existing one-story building to create a two-story building plus a third story loft (33 feet in height) , with five retail spaces on the first level to be accessible from Valley Street, five onebedroom apartments on the second level to be accessible from Chestnut Street and an office on the second level and loft level, for a total addition of 2,980 square feet in floor area, and an outdoor sitting area with planters on the second level (approximately 500 square feet in size); and WHEREAS, the site has been visited by the Village's planning consultant and the Planning Board is thoroughly familiar with the site and all aspects of the proposed project; and �WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has determined that the Applicant has received all necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown for the proposed site plan, conditioned on the Applicant's agreement to provide, in perpetuity, at least eight (8) nearby, off-site, off-street parking spaces at 76 Chestnut Street; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has conditioned the approval of the variance regarding parking on the Planning Board's approval of a site plan for the parking area at 76 Chestnut Street; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held by the Planning Board at the Village Hall on January 20, 1994, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted, or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an application fee of $250; 2. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and of the surrounding areas; 3. Received and reviewed an elevations drawing of the proposed development, dated December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist; 4. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village planning consultant, the Village engineering consultant and the Building Inspector; 5. Acting as Lead Agency, requested, received and reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and 6. After review of the property, the EAF and public comments, as well as other items noted above, the Planning Board declared itself the Lead Agency and issued a "Negative Declaration," dated January 20, 1994, in which the Planning Board stated its determination of non-significance of environmental impact for this Type I action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said site plan application and plan noted above be and hereby are granted site plan approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator, on a copy of this site plan resolution and upon the final mylar copy of the site plan drawing revised as 2 �necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permit filing in the offices of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, provided, however, that this approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and/or the Applicant has not obtained a building permit: 1. 2. Fees - The Applicant shall pay to the Village of North Tarrytown: 1.1 An inspection fee for construction inspection of the property for compliance with the approved site plan in accordance with the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code. 1.2 The required recreation fees in the amount of jtoQQ approved by the Village Attorney. 1.3 The reimbursement of all remaining application review costs as noted and required in Section 62-30 (f) of the Village Zoning Code, as approved by the Village Attorney. as Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the planning and engineering consultants, to demonstrate the following: 2.1 Additional information shall be provided on the plan regarding landscaping, including the sizes and species of plantings. 2.2 The plan drawing shall be revised and titled, "Final Site Plan." 2.3 A signature block should be added to the site plan for the signature of the Planning Board Chairman or, as an alternate, the Village Administrator. 3. The structure and foundation shall be investigated by a structural engineer to determine its adequacy in supporting the proposed additional floors, to the satisfaction of the Village engineering consultant. 4. The location of the nearest fire hydrants and the location and design of the proposed water supply, sewage disposal and stormwater drainage systems, including the locations, sizes, invert and rim elevations to the existing systems, shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Village engineering consultant. 3 �5. All exterior light fixtures shall be positioned so as to prevent glare upon adjacent properties. 6. The Applicant shall submit an application to the Planning Board for site plan approval and receive site plan approval for the proposed parking lot at 76 Chestnut Street. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Building Inspector a mylar reproduction of the site plan complete with the certification of a professional architect and/or a professional engineer attesting to the construction of the site plan and its improvements as shown thereon. 8. All elements of this approved site plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the issuance of the building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Board may issue an extension of this time limit, or may modify any of the above condition's with respect thereto for a good cause. 9. The Planning Board reserves the right to make a final field inspection of the project after construction of the facilities, upon notice of the Building Inspector, and before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The purpose of this final inspection is to review the development and to require any modifications to site plan details, which do not comply with the approved plan in the interest of safety, convenience, aesthetics and the enjoyment and peace and quiet of adjacent neighbors. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN 500\not4-OK.sjp:ev 4 �FREDERICK P. CLARK A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H, Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: January 13, 1994 Subject: Review of Valley Plaza Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the revised site plan and full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) which have been submitted for the Valley Plaza property, located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Valley Street in the C-2 General Commercial District. The proposed building will have an additional 2,980 square feet of floor area. The Applicant has submitted the following plans and documents: 1. "1, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Lower Level Plan, Site Plan and Location Map," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, and most recently revised December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects; 2. " 2 , Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Upper Level and Loft Plans, Data and Symbols," scale: 1/4" = 1', dated November 30, 1993 and most recently revised December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects; 3. "3, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Elevations," scale 1/4" = l 1 , dated December 10, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects; and 4. Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated December 24, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist, Architects. Connecticut -(203)255-3100 FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island -(516)364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Open Space Requirement: In the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, Part I, multiple dwellings are identified as a permitted use in the C-2 District by reference to all permitted uses in the R-5 District. However, under the R-5 District standards, there is a requirement that 100 square feet of "usable open space" be provided for each multiple dwelling unit. The revised site plan shows a proposed outdoor sitting area, approximately 500 square feet in size. This sitting area would be an attractive addition to the proposed building and, although the term "open space" may be argued, this is more usable passive recreation space than currently exists on the property. The Building Inspector, and if necessary the Zoning Board of Appeals, should determine whether this satisfies the usable open space requirement (and whether the requirement applies to R-5 District uses in the C-2 District). The sitting area includes four benches, three lamp posts and six trees in planters (see elevation drawings). In a rooftop setting, the main concerns for planting involve the weight and water issues. The plantings should be irrigated. The Applicant's architect and/or engineer should be certain that the planters will drain property. The Applicant's architect should also be certain to select a tree species which is suitable for planting in a container and which will not be exceedingly heavy. As well, a "soil-less" soil mixture is recommended for planting. In addition, care should be taken in the lighting of the sitting area so as not to direct light or glare onto neighboring properties and into the proposed dwelling units. 2. Environmental Assessment Form: We have revised a few of the answers provided on the EAF (see enclosed). 3. Environmental Review Status: According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) , this is a Type I action because the property is located within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area (CEA). At this time, the Planning Board may declare its intent to be the Lead Agency. The notice of intent to be Lead Agency and the EAF should then be circulated to the involved and interested agencies. We have prepared a draft notice for circulation (see enclosed). After 30 days or receipt of responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation may declare itself Lead Agency, provided no other involved agency objects, and the Planning Board may then make a determination of significance. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning Enclosures cc: Linda David, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer Gerald Bregman Ronald E. Turnquist 500\not4-000.sjp:ev 3 �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM Project Name or Description V a l l e y Plaza Proposed second s t o r y and loft addition t o e x i s t i n g 1-story building t o contain five r e t a i l spaces, five dwelling u n i t s and one o f f i c e . Project Location 185 V a l l e y Street Name of Applicant Gerald Bregman Village Agency Intending to Act as Lead Agency Address 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Contact Person Date Mailed I. Planning Board Linda David, V i l l a g e A d m i n i s t r a t o r Telephone Number (914) 631-0533 Type of Action (Check A or B) M A. • B. TYPE I UNUSTED Lead agency must be chosen within 30 days of above date. Deadline Reply Date II. Required Approvals and Reviews (Check all permits, waivers, or other actions which may be required) • Rezoning a Subdivision Approval XX Site Development Plan Approval • Special Permit XX Variance • Wetlands Permit • Stream Discharge Permit - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation X£ Area Sewage Disposal/Water Supply Approval - Westchester County Health Department Review • Review by Westchester County Department of Planning • Curb Cut Approval - New York State Department of Transportation/Westchester County Department of Public Works • Other. Specify: �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION FORM - PAGE 2 III. Environmental Significance of Action: Initial Review of Environmental Assessment Form indicates that: (Check A, B, or C - To be done by Initiating agency) • A. The proposed action appears likely to have a significant effect on the environment; a positive declaration is likely. ^ B. The proposed action appears not likely to have a significant effect on the environment; a negative declaration is likely. • C. No opinion has been made yet as to whether a positive or negative declaration is likely for this action. Valley Plaza Site Plan and Variance Applications IV. A Copy of this Form and the Environmental Assessment Form Has Been Sent to the Agencies Indicated on the Attached Ust. Attachments: Lead Agency Selection Reply Form List of Involved or Interested Agencies Environmental Assessment Form �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY SELECTION REPLY FORM Reply Form to be Filled Out by Involved Agencies The _____ (list agency) has examined this form and accompanying documentation for the application known as Vallev Plaza S i t e Plan and Variance Applications and: (Check A or B) D A. Does not want to be Lead Agency. EK B. Wants to b e Lead Agency for this action. Additional comments or concerns (Attach additional pages if necessary): Reviewed by: Signature Name Title Date PLEASE RETURN TO THE AGENCY INITIATING THIS PROCESS (USTED ON THE FIRST PAGE O F THIS FORM) BY THE DATE INDICATED. IF NO REPLY IS RECEIVED BY THE DATE INDICATED, THE VILLAGE AGENCY INDICATED WILL ASSUME THAT YOU CONCUR WITH ITS DESIGNATION AS LEAD AGENCY. 800/not3-030,Jd �LIST OF INVOLVED OR INTERESTED AGENCIES BPC Planning Board Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 D Westchester County Department of Planning 432 County Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 EK Zoning Board of Appeals Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 0X Westchester County Department of Health 112 East Post Road White Plains, New York 10601 EK New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561 • New York State Department of transportation 4 Burnett Boulevard, Region 8 Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 D New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 D New York State Department of Transportation Saw Mill River Road Valhalla, New York 10595 (Other Agencies) 5O0\noO43O.Jd �i4-ie*2 (2'67)~7c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review SEQF4 FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Ipose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine. In an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent* \y, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or n<> formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert In environmental analysis. In addition, many who hrve knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to p ovide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full I \ F is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and Information about a given project and Its site. By Identifying basic project data, it assists a n.viewer in the analysis that takes place In Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to writ iher an impact is likely to be considered small t o moderate or whether It is a potentiallylarge impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Prrt 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF cc mpleled for this project: D Part 1 D Part 2 DPart 3 pon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting formation, and considering bcth the magitude and Importance of each impact, It is reasonably determined by the ead agency that: 4 D A. The project will net result in any large and Important impact(s) and, therefore, Is one which w i l l not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. D B, Although the projec t could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant e'ffect f o r this Unlisled Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration w i l l be prepared.* D C. The project may result In one or-more large and important impacts that may have a significant Impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared, * A Conditioned Negative Declaration Is only valid for Unlisted Actions V a l l e y Plaza (185 Valley S t r e e t , North Tarrytown, NY) Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date �PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE; this document is d c gnrd to assist In determining \shether the action proposed may have a significant effect] ect. on the environment Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be conside ^js part of the application for approval and maybe subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition rnfoimation you believe will b>* needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on Information currently available and will not Involve new studies, research or investigation If Information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. 5 NAME OF ACTION _______ V a l l e y Plaz• t LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Stfoet redress, Municipality wid County) 185 V a l l e y : ' t r e e t , North T a r r y t o w n , KY 10591 (Westchester Co.) NAME OF ArruCANTJSPONSOR Turnquist | BUSINESS TELEPHONE (914) 631-9107 Architects ADDRESS 95 BeeJqnan .'.venue STATE CITY/PO NY- : .:: North Tarry'.own NAME OF OWNER (H different) Gerald 2IP CODE 10591 BUSINESS TELEPHONE Bregrran (914) 631-0287 r ADDRESS 17 7 C r e s t D r i v e CITY/PO STATE Tarrytown NY: ZIP CODE 10591 DESCniPTfOf. OF ACTION R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of; 1 s t o r y r e t a i l s p a c e and a d d i t i o n of 5 second f l o o r d w e l l i n g u n i t s , ¥ Please Complete Each Question-* Indicate N,A. If not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1, Present land use: EDUrban Dlndustrlal DComrnerclal DResldential (suburban) DForest DAgriculture DOthct ; _ 0*11 , acrp<; 2, Tot.il acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) . Forested Agricultural (Includes orcftaid$. cropland, pasture, etc) Wetland (freshwater or tlda! as per Articles 24, 25 of fci I Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Ro?ds, buildings and other { aved surfaces Other i n d i c a t e type) ..,,..., PRESENTLY acres acres acres ..,.v, acres ~+ , acres »,^^- r . acres Li„ acres acres • Rural (non«farm] AFTER COMPLETION , , acres —«—> acres ' acres , acres . acres acres " acres acres • , What Is predominant soil type 0 on project site? ^ . J j l / . / i L « . % of site' a Soil drainage! DVVell < rained w % of site DModeratoly well difllned _ • Poo»l> drained , ^ % of site .b. II any .^rlcultural land Is I volved, hqw many acres of sHLare classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY!' land Classification Syston » , _ acres (Sao 1 Nyc.RR 3?'0), ' , • s Are there M f o c k outcropping on project site? OY.eV/- OHo a, What i< depth to bedrocM Ij/ft,, „„(tiH<'"0 ;:v,i , �5. Appro* "•••ale percentage of " o p c w d project site with slept s 6 DO-10^ N/A D 1 5 % or Rreater *; • fhrvi59» ','•** , ^ Is pro/r't substantially co li^uous t o , 01 contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Register* of Historic Places * DVes ©No 7. Is projer t substantially con' guouv'lo a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? N / 'e. What is the depth of the water i,-»Me? DYes J&No ^ . (in'feetl 9. Is site lecnted over a ' p r i m r r y , principal, or sole sourer r<cit.'ifer? DYes CSNo 10. Ho hunting, fishing o r shc'l fishing opportunities presently exist i n the project area? DYes ©No 11. Does project site c o n t a i n a n y species of plant or animnl life'' that is identified as threatened or endangered? IJYes D3No According to -j. ; » , Identify each spores ', '"";• • ' 12. Are thrrr. a n y unique or c uisual l a n d forms' on t h e project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes; other geological formations) : DYes CSNo Describe „ •• ' -' '' • ' ' • > : . \ ' • 13. Is the project site present y used b y the c o m m u n i t y or neighborhood as an open space o r recreation area? DVes CSNo f yes, explain „ _ ..,_ . _ - _ _ u • _»__«_--. 14. Does tlrf? present site i n c l ' d e scenic views known t o be i m p o r t a n t to the community? I !Yes SNo '; 15. Streams within o r c o n t i g u o . s t o project area: Nona ., f . Name of Stream i n d name o f River to w h i c h it is tributary 16, Lakes, p-nds, wetland area; within or contiguous to projoi. t area: p Name None „ _ ^ L _ • h Size (In acres) — _ 17, Is the s i " served by existing public utilities? KJYes UNo a) If Yes. does sufficient cavacity f»lst tO'allp'w c o n n r , c i i " ' , ; ' CSYes DNo b) If Ye< '••••ill I m p r o v e m e n t 1 b r necessary to allow c o n n f ion? DYes ENo 18, Is the s»" located in a n jig-ici/lli'ial district certified p u n u a n t t o Agriculture a n d Markets L a w , Article 25<AA, Section .•.'<* and 304?' Hies IS N o 19, Is the sit-:- located In or s u f ^ ' a n t i a l l v contiguous to a O i l 1 ' •' Environmental Area designated pursuant t o Article 8 of the EC I , and 6 NYCRR M,7 j^Yes ^ ^ 20, Has the '.ite ever been used for the disposal o f solid or h.vardous wastes? DNes KINo '' ' * * l' ' B. Projecl Description 1 . Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill In dimensions /«< appropriate) a. Total " w i t l g u o u s acreage o w n e d or c o n t r o l l e d b y ' p r o j f i sponsor Q..-..A.1 b. P r o j e u acreage t o be deselopedN / A , 0 < l ( , acres l u i i i a l l y ; QA\.~ -, acres, , acres ultimately. c. ProjerM acreage t o remain u n d e v e l o p e d „ D _ . J i Z A — . . «i' "vs. d. Length " f project, In m i l e - : „ M/A , (I( approprlat'') ,• e. If the project Is an expaiHon, Indicate percent of e>.p^ , " | on proposed (. Numb- of ofr-t,... p . , H , „ , , , „ .xblin, ^ g M a x i m u m vehicular t r i p * i eneraled per hour ,*T&S9t..> ,—„„.. . •^Ultimately ^P, , %i .^ p o s e d ^ ^ h. If residential; Number anr" t y p * of housing units: One Fam ly Two Family Initially 7-0 _,.. „ „ . . , Dlmensi-'iij (in feet) of Inn \<i proposed structure? J L L , ^ ( ^h^r\y (upon c o m p l e t i o n o f project)? „ u_ , § '„ "„i /> '" • ( .. ''Condominium Multiple Fflmlly, , ,Q„„,,,.. ' , • !, ,,,> ,• ', „, L ,,,«. : „„ „ * height; _JLP. . , „ width; „ 1 & C U , length, "'' ••i-j, I inear f ' " I of frontarje ai<- g fl public thoroughfare pfV«|< < will occupy is? J & P 3 ••''|- , ft ' M1",,,:, ' . ' . , . » ' '• <W,' w 1 ( • • • • • ; > ! ' ' ' ' • • ' • ! • ' i ' ' ; ' f " ' : ' " ' ' ' ' i k ' " ' ' " ' ' ' ' " " ' i / ' w ' ' ^ i! " ^ ' »•' ' ' : ^ ' 1 ' ' 1 — �2. How much natural n.atpfiJ (t »• 'uck, earth, cr11 j .,dl U removed from the sn •' N/A xoni/cutic ydrd> 3. Will disturbed areav he reclaimf*i> DYes -l"J.No fcDN/A a. K yes, for vshai intend . purpose Is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled lor reclamation' DYes DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled (or reclamation? DYes Of Jo ' 4. How many acres of vegetaiion (trees, shrubs, gruund covers) will be removed fr.Jin site? N/Af acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetatio . be removed by this project? r DYes BNo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 6 _ month-, (including demolition)., 7. If multi-phased: a, Total number of phases anticipated __J1L!*. .1 (number), b, Anticipated date of commencement phase I month c, Approximate completion date of final phase month d, Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? DYes 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYo ,. . _ year, (Including demolition). year. Dl v.> K)No 9. Number of jobs generated during construction .. >u'i -, ; after project is c .mplete 15+ 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ft 11. Will project require relocation ot any projects wi lacilities? DYes (}3Nv If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Du*> K3No a, If yes, Indicate type of waste (sewage, indu:tiial, etc.) and amount b, Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged ' 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? il-DYes DNo Type Sewage 14. Will surface area of an existing \w,ter body Include or decrease by proposal? Explain 15. Is project or any poition of project located in a mO year flood plain? DYi-. DYes 18, Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes IS)No 20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding (he lucal ambient noise levels? if vat . inHir.atft tvnt.M PeeUt<l\ DYes $No GDNo tons/month 19, Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes 21, Will project result In an Increase In energy use? _ : C3No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? EDYes DNo a. If yes, what Is the amount per month Z.i0 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid \saste facility be UM/<J? KlYes , DNo c. If yes, give name « J ^ C S n 2 m z n 3 £ = 8 t o « ^ -f.^aafc d Will any wastes not go Into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary Luinll? e. If Yes, explain 17, Will the project Involve the disposal of solid wasiu? , DYes a, If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal' b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? _ . years, JflNo tSIYus LjNo DYes 1S3N*. DNo a l e c t r i a a l & Qvui £or ho.abincr and ) ah tine? 22, If water supply Is from wells, Indicate pumping < ap.icily 23, Total anticipated water usage pel day MQ±^ lllh , (jallons/i iriute, < ,.. ^lions/day, a p p r o * , f &O0 ^ f>6 24, Does project Involve local, State or federal furulinu? DYes $No ' - •r* �y 2*>. A p p r o \ a l i Required: \ . Ciiv, Town, Village Board CS.Ye$ DNo building permit City, Town, Village Plannhi Board ESYes DNo p i qtl.P ^ nrJf b)nnr<^ City, Town Zoning Board KJYes PNC zrmipg City, County Health Department DYes CvJNo Of dor Local Agencies IS Yes DNo Other Regional Agencies DYes K-No , DYes $No DYes ©No • » m WF Submittal Date Type Stflio Agencies Federal Agencies hoard flpp^nyq 1 variannp arnfr-i f f t n t - n r n l rpvipw hnard C. Zoning and Plannltg Information 1 . Hoes proposed action i n o h e a planning or zoning decision? DNo RYes. If Yes, Indicate decision requiredDzonlng amendment Rzdnln'g variance Dnew/revlsion of m.-" or p h n Dspc-clal use permit '.DreKui'co mnnnR'-ment plan..; 2. What Is the zoning class* -r.ationf.0of the site? J ^ L i H l ^ n f e i l q Dsubdivislon Klsite plan Dother .______»___«««»«»«__«___»___. 6&\€Vftl G M J A ^ C . V J What Is the maximum po Mitlnl development of the* she if developed 'as permitted by the present zoning? ..presently .noiir uiiXcumi ng„.r Laxil -J*...;J•:irking,f p.t;a-—r'.na .expansion pprm.ittei%. 4. What is the proposed zo- ng of the site? — e x i s t i n g . . & m u l t i p l e dw»I3.i.ng. 5. What is the maximum po ntlal development of the site if developed as permitted by the,proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action c c Ustent vs 1th the recommend*-'! uses In adopted local land use plans? , •' KJYes DNo |7, What are the predominate land use(s) and zoning cl.i.'f-ifc ntlons within a V* mile radius of proposed action? 8, l< the proposed action compatible with ad|olnlnB ; s'Mfn'indlng land uses within a V< mile? KJYes 9. If the proposed action is 'he subdivision of land, boss tunny lots are proposed?' , lil& DNo , a. What is the mlnmum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action reqi1 -e any authorlzatlon(s) for the formation of sewer or water, districts? Kpr^s iONo 11, Will the proposed action -rcntr? a demand.for rny community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? B3Yc' DNo a. If yes, is existing < -pacify sufficient to handle* piojected demand? Ds)Yes DNo 12 AS ill the proposed action i suit In the generation of tialfic significantly above present levels? a, If yes, is the exist' t\ road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DYes GJN'o DNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional Inf^matlon as may be r w d r d \o < larlfy your pio|c<t. If thete are or may be any adverse Impact.', associated with your p iposnl, piease discuss such impacts and the Measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification l certify that the Informal! n provided above Is true Vi I ho best of my knowledge, Date App!lr*MtKfoj nature lltM* Wv^IIZl ' • lthe *> Hon Isjln the CoaiFal An'.rJ and )tm m with till* assessment, •. 12/24/93 lie .J&flW t-ejai a Male w w v , n»mplet« th<? C o i t a l AMeiimenl Form before proceeding ' ..'•^....i:. MMatia^IMIM, �Part ' - P R O J E C T IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE f Reipomibllii) nl lead Agency ( Genrt*! Information (Read C*1 lully) • In ' "mpleting the form the ' vi^vct .should be guided b\ the question- Have my responses and determinations been ' ro'^nableT The reviewer is -M expected to be an expert onvironrnentalanalyst, £ / Identifying that an impact v 'I br potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. [* An\ large impact must be c> Muatcd in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an Impact In column 2$lmply p asH that it be looked at fur' >or • Thf rxamples provided are t< asMst the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of nvriitude that would trigger a response in column 2Thr examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for mo$t situations. But, for my spc'cific project or site otlinr examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for ^ Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. ', • J V impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality,-will vary. Therefore) the examples are Illustrative and. ha\r been offered as guidance. 1lt?> do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question, ' • Tlv "umber of examples per n a t i o n does not indicate the importance of each question, » • In identifying impacts, cons'ir' T ionp, term, short term and cumlative effects, ' I Jnstrn< "ons (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 quesi -ms in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. M*>he answers should be cc 'sidered as Yes answers, c. If answering Yes to a questio \ then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate; the potential size of the, Impact. If Impact threshold c -als or exceeds any example provided, check column 2, If Impact will occur but threshold is lover than example, cheel column 1,., d. If maower has doubt about s r.e of the Impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large Impact < >eck<?d in column 2 can be mlt'nated by changr(s) In the project to a small to moderate Imp^t, also check the Yes Ivx in column 3, A No response indicates that,such a reduction is not possible, This must be explained in Part 3 IMPACT ON LAND 1 , Will 'he proposed action resul in a ph\ «lcal change to llm ptf-cct site? KINO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 * Any < wislruction on slopes of ''5% oi greater, (15 foot ri.'f p'<r 100 foot of length), or where the gf.eral slopes in the project a m exceed 10?(< * Conjunction on land where th;- depth tathe water table is less than 3 feet « Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles * Construction on land where bedrock Is exposed or generally within 3 feet r'i existing ground surfm*. * Connection that will continue for more than 1 year or Involve more, than "lift phase or stage, * Exc»v.*Mon for mining purpose that would remove more tli.m 1,000 tons " ' natural material (I e., ff.ik or soil) per year, * Con.s'"".tlon or expansion of n unitary landfill, % Construction In a designated 11 odway * Other impacts , _-—...*... * 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact a D DVes DNo a a DYes DNo D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo' • a a a a DYes DNo DVes DNo DYes • Yes DYes DNO i.i Can Impaot Be Mitigated By Projeot Change r r. N DNo DNO L |( j ^ W I I I i «?fe be an effect <-'• „.i\ " .«<i«»n n» unusual land fomx found on ..^fciesh'MI.e., cliffs, dune?., 8c«-«i rjlt al formations, ctc.JW'N'^ OYES '^?peclfi- land forms: _ ... „..„„,J^^,.^ «.* n 13 DYes DNo �IMPACT O N WATER V> ill proposed action affec« any %s ater body designated as protected' (l'">der Articles 15, 24, 25 of he f nvirpnmental Conservation Law, ECU E3NO DYES f »»rnpl(»» that would appl*. <o column 2 T> .olopable area of site cc t?ins a protected water body 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential LarQe Impact D • D i g g i n g more than 100 c u ' i c Nards of material from 1 channel of a protected stream. • D t e n s i o n of utility distribute • facilities through a protected svater body. D D D D D • • O»»'truction in a designate < f t ^ l m a t e r or tidal wetland O0''-r impacts: L . 4 . Will proposed action affec' any non-protected existing or new body of water? ' . GO NO DYES Samples that would apply 'o column 2 • A V i % increase or decrease, -u the surface area of any body of water or n ore than a 10 acre Increase or decrease. • Coivtructlon of a body of wa*er that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • O i l " r Impacts: . ; . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundsvater quality or quantity? K)NO E^'Mples that would apply o column 2' •Yes DYes DNo DNo •Yes •Yes •Yes DNo ONo DNo D •Yes ONo Q D D •Yes •Yes DNo DNo D D D D •Yes •Yes ONo DNo D D • Yes DNo a D •Yes DNo D D D • Yes • Yes DNo DNo D D • Yes, DNo; a ° •Yes EJNo • D • Yes DNo a a O • Yes .-DNo•'. D • Yes DNo a ' • . DYes DNo D • YOI QNO" • DYES Prt'!"'sed Action will requite i discharge permit. r Prc'f e d Action requires us • of a source of wakv th.-'t does not ha\<- approval to serve prop' •ed Ipf-'ject) action Pre: ' e d Action requires wa«- r Mipp'v from svclh with nt'" 1 '' i than 45 gal' its per minute pumplnp •ap«c it-, Co/i"fuctlon or operation cr< -inn any contamination of a '•• nter supp'v system. a f f f t groundwater. Prcf-'-ed Action will advers' Liqi" • effluent will be comes • • off the site t o facilities \shk h presently do n -i exist or have Inadequ.' e capacity, Propped Action would use ••ater in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. Prop' 'ed Action will likely c«- <s<? slltntlon or other dijehativ' Into an exls'.i'-n body of water t o the <• ent that there will be an ol\ lews visual coninM t o natural conditions P r o i " " e d Action will requif the storage of petroleum at chemical p r e ' " ' ts greater than 1,100 R< lions Prop' ,r>d Action will allow ic idential uses In areas without water and,'' * sewer services, Proi , f , d Action locates camp • -fdal and/or industrial uses v, filch may fequi'" new or expansion of e - stlnii waste'treatment and.'oi storage facllif'"s, Other 1 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change Impacts' j ^ W i l l proposed action alter >' a'mtv* flow or paltenn, r<» nifface ^ A v o t " runoff I^MO DYES ^ ^ E x a m r l e s thai would apply tf -OIUIMM ; • P r o f " ''d Action would c h a w flood v,aler flosvs 7 a O \ �1 Small to Moderate Impact • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion oposed Action is Incompatible with existing drainage patterns, oposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: «__»_«-____--»____«____---«-^^ t D D D D 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Urge Mitigated By Impact Project Change D DYes DNo D DYes DNo D DYe$ DNo D DYe$ DNo * IMPACT ON AIR RPNO DYES 7.-Will proposed action affect a r quality? Examples that would apply t( column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1, XX) or more vehicle trips In any ifTven hour, • Proposed Action will result in he Incineration of more than 1 tpn of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contami lants will exceed 5 lbs, per hour or a heat source producing more thjn 10 million BTU's per hour. / • Proposed action will allow an increase In the amount of land committed to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase In the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other Impacts: __ D D ... ' DYes DNo D. O DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D O .'"' DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D D D DYes DYes DNo DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo ° ° DYes DNo ri a •Ves DNo IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect a iy threatened or endangered Apecles? D3NO DYES ^rxamples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near He or found on the site, • Removal of any portion of a < Itlcal of significant wildlife habitat. • Application of pesticide or herb clde more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other Impacts: ' 3, Will Proposed Action substant1, lly affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? K3N6 DYES Examples that would apply to-olumn 2 • Proposed Action would substai 'tally interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wlldM? <p^cics. 1 Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 year • of age) of other locally Important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 0, Will the Proposed Action affe^.t anrlcultural land resources? C3NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 The proposed action would sever c»o<* or limit access to agricultural IjaL (Includes cropland, hayfleld', pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc) 8 0 �1 -V • onstruction activity would txcavate or compact the soil profile'of agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, If Ic ated in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would db upt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e,$, subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, ••trip cropping); or create a nei.'d for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to I creased runoff) • Other impacts: _______»_____-«__-. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affec' aesthetic resources? KJNQ DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum In.Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether marvmade or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible -to users of aesthetic resources which vvlh eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. roject components that will result In the elimination or significant !reenlng of scenic views kno <n to be important to the area. • • Other Impacts; _~_>-._«^»-_»___-____~__~. IMPACT ON' HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12, Will Proposed Action lmpa< t nny site or structure of historic, pre« historic or paleontologlcal nnortance? GDNO DYES Examples that would apply {•> column 2 • Propped Action occurring wh -lly or nar'tfally within or substantially continuous to any facility or jH li«»"H *-<n the State or National Register of Imiorlc places. • Any impact to an archaeolopi' il site or fossil bed located within the projf ' site. « Prof *'d Action will occur I an moa designated as sensitive for arch." logical sites on the N'i Site Inventory, » Othfi Impacts: . IMPACT ON OPEN f WOE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or fu!""? open spaces or recrc (lonnl opportunities? ' Examples that would apply "> column 2 ISjNO DYES «^3e p« imanent foreclosure of * future recreational'opportunity, t^^mfli'-w reduction of an ope*' siwe Important to the community. * Oth«."' impacts: , ,,. , . , ..'. ',, . 3 \ >/ Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change • • D •Yes QNo D •Yes DNo D D •Yes ONo D • •Yes DNo D • •Yes DNo D • •Yes ONo D D •Yes D'No D D •Yes •DNo D D •Yes DNo D D" •Yes DNo D a •Yes DNo a 0 •Yes ONo , GQO Small to Moderate Impact 2 (Potential Large Impact D •Yes •Yes •Yes DNo DNo DNo D �1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Q D D D D D DYes DYes 'DNo DNo PX«* DNo D D DYes DNo a D' DYes DNo a D DYes DNo • Blasting within 1,500 feet r. a hospital, school or othe,r sensitive facility. ' o d d s will occur routinely (i* ore than one hour per day). D D DYes DNo ( D a • Proposed Action will produ* e operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for nols- outside of structures a D DYes DYes DNo DNo • Proposed Action will remov- natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. D D DYes DNo • Othf i D D DYes DNo D • DYes DNo a a DYes DNq • Storap.c facilities for one mllli n or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquid 1 D a DYes DNo « pfop'vod action may result i the excavation or other disturbance ^ v l t h m ?,000 feet of a site use' for ih* disposal of solid ot hazardous D D DYes DNO a , b DYes D No IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14 Will there be an effect to ousting transportation systems? KJNO Example* that would appis to column 2 DYES w * Alteration of present p a t t e r n of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Changer IMPACT ON ENERGY 1S. Will proposed action affoct the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? _ $NO DYES ftamples that would app!y to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause i greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in. the m jnlclpallty. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply systeir to ser\e more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a m a j ' i commercial or industrial use. • Other Impacts: « NOISE Al 1 ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionab ? odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? KNO DYES Examples that would applv o column 2 impacts: __^ IMPACT Of PUBLIC-HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affer public health and safety? 13NO Examples that would apply o column 2 DYES, • Propped Action may cause a si' of explosion or release of hazardous substances (I.e. oil, pesticides, • lemlcals, radiation, etc) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic losv level discharge or emission, • Proposed Action may result In • he burial of "hazardous wastes" In any form (I e, toxic, poisonous, l ghly reactive, radioactive, Irritating, Infectious, etc.) ' > O l h * " impacts: _~ _. 10 �IMPACT ON GP JWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNI Y OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 Wj|| proposed action affe< the cliaracter of the existing community? 59 NO DYES rumples that would app1 to column 2 1 2 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact • The permanent population f the city, town or village in vshich the project is located is likely t' grow by more than S%, • Th* municipal budget for c nitfil expenditures or operating services will increase by more than Ho per year as a result of this project, • Proposed action will conflie' with officially adopted pl«\ns or goals, • Proposed action will cause r change in the density of land use. •"Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or .-uoas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a dr nand for additional community services (e R schools, police and fire, Ac ) • Proposed Action will set an • nportant precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create r eliminate employment • Otb r r impacts: ; . D ,' >n : 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change DYe* Ohio D D DYes DNo a D D D D D DYes DYe$ DYes DNo DNo DNo D D DYes D M O D D D D DYes DYes DYes a D DNo DNo DNo 19. Is ^rc, or Is there likely to bo, public controversy related to po* ntial adverse environmental Impacts? G3NO DYES If Any Actio In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannoi Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of l.ond Agency Part 3 <"ijst be preparedlf one :r m«»re Impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even If the Impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions ** " Discus* the following for each Impact identified In Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the Impact 2. Desr rlbe (If applicable) how thr Impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate Impact by project changes). 3. Bas'-' on the Information av/» lablt\ decide If It is reason*!'!** to conclude that this Impact is Important, 1 " answer the question of Impottance, consider: * The probability of t l f Impact occurring * The duration of the Impact * Its Irreversibility, lncli'dln« permanently lost resound of value " Whelher the Impact c in or will be controlled ; < * The regional consequ'nee M the Impact $' < " Its potential dlvergenr? ffrMii local neods and nO'iN * Whether known obJcUon* to the project folate H- diU Impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 �PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS IN POOR ORIGINAL CONDITION �David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA, ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: December 10, 1S93 Subject: Preliminary Review of Valley Plaza Site Plan As requested, we have reviewed the site plan application for a property which is approximately 4,900 square feet in size, triangular in shape and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Valley Street in the C-2 General Commercial District. The site presently contains a onestory building (including a garage) which covers practically the entire lot. The Applicant is proposing the renovation of the existing first floor for retail use and the construction of a second floor for residential apartments and an office and a third floor loft for that office. The building permit application states that the proposed building will have a total floor area of 2,980 square feet and be 33 feet in height. Five retail spaces are proposed and five one-bedroom dwelling units are proposed. The Applicant has submitted the following plans: 1. "1, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Lower Level Plan, Site Plan and Location Map," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects; 2. "2, Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591, Owner: Gerald Bregman, Upper Level and Loft Plans, Data and Symbols," scale as noted, dated November 30, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Zoning Compliance: The proposed uses are permitted in the C-2 District. The proposed 'project complies with the permitted maximum building height and appears to comply with the required minimum lot width. The proposed project will exacerbate any existing nonconformities although it will be an aesthetic and economic Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation improvement to the property and the surrounding area. Several variances will be needed for its approval. The only way to avoid the need for many or all of the variances would be by demolition of the existing building and redesign of the site. The minimum required lot size for five dwelling units is 8,000 square feet and the lot is only 4,900 square feet in size. A variance for lot size will be needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The maximum permitted lot coverage for the residential use is 35%. The actual building lot coverage is nearly 100% and since the residential portion of the coverage is certainly more than 35% a variance will be needed. (If the Applicant is proposing a building which will contain more than two stories on a lot which is 4,900 square feet in size and the building covers nearly 100% of the lot, the floor area figure given in the application does not make sense. The Applicant should clarify whether the 2,980 square feet means that there will be 2,980 additional square feet of floor area and what the total floor area will be.) For a residential use, the required minimum front yard is 2 0 feet, the minimum side yard is three feet for one side and 12 feet for both and the minimum rear yard is 25 feet. None of these setbacks has been provided and variances will be needed. 2. Parking. Loading and Circulation: No parking is proposed to be provided on the property and the existing garage space is proposed to be removed. No loading is provided for the retail uses. It is not clear whether the existing garage was used for parking, loading or both and what its capacity is. Still, the removal of this parking opportunity is aggravated by the addition of parking demand to the site. It is assumed that loading will occur in the on-street parking spaces and the vehicular travel lanes on Valley Street. This is not an ideal situation as far as safety and convenience. Eight parking spaces are required for the dwelling units and, as none are proposed to be provided, a variance will be needed. Residential parking would have to be through private individual rental of parking spaces on another property or onstreet parking on Chestnut Street. Valley Street has metered parking. There are a few restrictions for parking on Chestnut Street for certain hours during the week. 3. Environmental Review: The Applicant has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), this is a Type I Action because the property is located within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The Applicant is required to submit a full (long form) EAF for a Type I Action. After review of the full EAF, the Planning Board may declare its intent to be Lead Agency in the review 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation of this action. A notice of intent to be Lead Agency should then be circulated to the involved (i.e. ZBA) and interested (e.g. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) agencies. After 30 days or receipt of the responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency, provided no other involved agency (i.e. ZBA) objects, and make a determination of significance. The Lead Agency's preparation of a Negative Declaration or a findings statement (following a Positive Declaration and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement) would complete the SEQR review process. We would recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQR process is completed. Although based on preliminary review it does not appear that the project will adversely impact the critical environmental area, compliance with this process is required by State law. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer Gerald Bregman Ronald E. Turnquist 500\not3-009.sjp:aj 3 �FREDERICK P. CLARK A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut David J. Portman, A,CP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914) 967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: December 16, 1993 Subject: Preliminary Review of Rock of Salvation Church Site Plan The Applicant and the Building Inspector have determined that site plan approval is needed for the conversion of this building and, as requested, we have reviewed the submitted site plan consistent with that determination. The site plan application is for a property which is approximately 11,320 square feet in size and located at 131 Cortlandt Street in the C-2 General Commercial District. The site presently contains a one-story brick building with a side loading area and a concrete driveway. The Applicant is proposing the conversion of the building from its former use as a Con Edison Company electrical sub-station to a church with 300 permanent seats, an approximately 170 square foot day care center, 13 classrooms (one of which is proposed to double as a children's nursery during services), four meeting rooms, two offices and a kitchen. The first floor of the building is 7,867 square feet in floor area and the proposed mezzanine is proposed to be an additional 3,150 square feet. The Applicant has submitted the following plans: 1. "1, Rock of Salvation Church, Rev. Christian Santiago, Pastor, 131 Cortlandt Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y., Site Location, Site Plan and Data," scale as noted, dated December 6, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects; 2. "2, Rock of Salvation Church, Rev. Christian Santiago, Pastor, 131 Cortlandt Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y., Schematic Plan of First Floor," scale as noted, dated December 6, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects; 3. "3, Rock of Salvation Church, Rev. Christian Santiago, Pastor, 131 Cortlandt Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y., Schematic Plan of Mezzanine," scale as noted, dated December 6, 1993, prepared by Ronald E. Turnquist Architects. Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Zoning Compliance: The proposed church use is permitted in the C-2 District. The building and the lot comply with the permitted maximum building height (no change from the existing is proposed), minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum rear yard and one of the required minimum side yards complies. The existing building does not comply with the required maximum lot coverage, minimum front yard and minimum combined side yards. Still, it does not appear that the Applicant will need any variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for lot coverage and front and side yard setbacks because there is not a proposal to modify the outside of the existing building in such a way as to aggravate those preexisting nonconformities and because the change in use from the substation to the church also will not aggravate them. As per Section 62-15D and 62-15E, the Church is allowed one sign, which shall not exceed 2 0 square feet in area. No sign details have been provided at this time. 2. Parking and Circulation: No parking is proposed to be provided on the property other than on the existing driveway (which is too narrow to allow cars to pass). The lack of parking on the site is aggravated by the additional parking demand generated by the proposed use. The previous use of the building, based on existing floor area, probably only would have been required to provide eight off-street parking spaces (this does not account for the parking requirement based on the maximum number of employees). With the proposed use, at least 38 parking spaces (based only on the number of permanent seats) or 73 spaces (based on total floor area) are required. Usually the greater number, or 7 3 spaces, is that which is required in a situation in which two standards are provided in the Code. Since the proposed use will increase the parking demand from the previous use and will aggravate the existing non-conformity, a variance will be needed from the ZBA. Required handicap parking also has not been provided on this site. 3. Proposed Day Care Use: Unlike the H Hospital District, none of the other zoning districts specifically permit day care centers as an accessory use. The question of whether a day care center is a permitted accessory or ancillary use to a church in the C-2 District is for the Building Inspector to decide. If it is determined that it is not a permitted accessory use, a use variance will be needed from the ZBA. 2 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation The day care use is proposed to operate five days per week and to occur throughout the building (i.e. the first floor classrooms), not simply to be limited to the space designated on the plan. The Applicant should provide more information concerning the number of children and day care employees which are anticipated. If the Applicant does not want to provide the day care center at this time the designation of that use should not be included on the plan. If a day care center is determined to be permitted by the Zoning Code, the center should adhere to any and all New York State licensing and design requirements for day care centers (we would need to check whether a day care center in connection with a religious use would be exempt from those regulations). 4. Environmental Review: The Applicant has submitted a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). According to Part 617.12 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), this is a Type I Action because the property is located within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The Applicant is required to submit a full (long form) EAF for a Type I Action. After review of the full EAF, the Planning Board may declare its intent to be Lead Agency in the review of this action. A notice of intent to be Lead Agency should then be circulated to the involved (i.e. ZBA) and interested (e.g. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) agencies. After 3 0 days or receipt of the responses from the other agencies, whichever comes first, the Planning Board may declare itself Lead Agency, provided no other involved agency (i.e. ZBA) objects, and make a determination of significance. The Lead Agency's preparation of a Negative Declaration or a findings statement (following a Positive Declaration and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement) would complete the SEQR review process. We would recommend that the ZBA defer its final decision until the SEQR process is completed. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer Ronald E. Turnquist 500\not3-023.sjp 3 �CHANGES TO DRAFT RESOLOTIOM DATED 12/16/93 2.4 A fence shall be shown on the plan located, whenever possible, approximately 2-4 feet back from the curb along the south side of the southeast driveway approximately 25 feet from the maple tree located to the south of the 62 spot accessory lot to the south where the existing hedge begins. This fence shall be six feet in height and composed of spruce wood set in concrete and the style of fence and construction of the fence shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, Building Inspector and Hospital in order to screen all headlights coming from the Hospital driveway and parking area to the east in order to protect the adjacent residential district. The Hospital will pay up to $7,000 for this fence and the Village will pay up to $1,000, for a total cost not to exceed $8,000. 2.5 In addition, the Hospital shall spend $2,000 for landscaping by the new accessory lot. This landscaping will be mutually agreed to by the Planning Board and Hospital. Total cost to the Hospital for the fence and landscaping will be approximately $9,000 tjut need not exceed $9,000. 2.6 The handicap parking spaces shall be shown on the plan and constructed and designated in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). BBD\RES0L £^Z_js^ ^>^- ^^- �»«-• -<%F C H A R L E S A . M A N G A N A R O C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S • MEMORANDUM TO Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer DATE January 17, 1994 RE Phelps Memorial Hospital Village of North Tarrytown, NY CAMCE No. 800-17 In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the site plans and reports submitted by the Applicant's Engineer. The Applicant to date has not yet submitted information concerning the sewer force main located between IBM and Sleepy Hollow Manor. The Applicant's Engineer had indicated that his report would be revised to include the following: A. Force main size, length and material type; and B. A headloss calculation for the Force main based on a flow of 400 gpm, 225 gpm and 190 gpm. Once the above information is submitted and reviewed, final recommendations will be made to the Board. court piaza North. 25 Main streei Hackensack, NJ 07601-7032 201.342.4200 fax 201.342.0790 120 E. 75th St. Suite 8C New York. NY 10021 212.683.7712 P.O Box 1007 East Stroudsburg, PA 18301 717.421.1499 if you should have any questions or require further information, please let us know. JAG/11 cc: Ms. Linda David, Administrator Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Janet A. Gandolfo, Attorney Ms. Susan J. Portman, AICP Mr. Edward Gonsalves, P.E. VNPV800-I7\JGOII74M.LL # �-«p- . ~H> C H A R L E S A . M A N G A N A R O CONSULTING ENGINEERS «pf MEMORANDUM TO: Village o f North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Mr. Joseph A . Gulino Project Engineer DATE: January 17, 1994 RE: Preliminary Review o f the Proposed Valley Plaza, 185 Valley Street Village of North Tarrytown, N Y C A M C E N o . 800-19 In accordance with your request, w e have reviewed the latest revised site plan dated December 10, 1993. Our comments concerning this project are as follows: # A. The structure and foundation should be investigated b y a Structural Engineer ' to determine its adequacy in supporting additional floors above it. B. The location and design o f the proposed water supply, sewage disposal, and stormwater drainage systems including the locations, sizes, invert, and rim elevations to the existing systems, should be submitted for review. C. The location o f the nearest fire hydrants should be shown on the drawings. Once the above information is submitted and reviewed, final recommendations will be made to the Board. Court Plaza North, 25 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601-7032 j f v o u should have any questions or require further information, please let u s know. 201.342.4200 lax 201.342.0790 120 E 75th St., Suite 8C New York, NY 10021 JAG/11 212.683.7712 PO BOX 1007 East stroudsburg, PA 18301 cc. 717421 m y n d a ^ ^ Administrator Mr* James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Janet A . Gandolfo, Attorney Ms. Susan J. Portman, AICP Mr. Ronald E . Tumquist, R.A. Ms VNPU00-I9MO0II74M.LLI �David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board DATE: January 21, 1994 TO: Linda David, Village Administrator PROJECT: 520.032/Valley Plaza Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq. FAX NO.: James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, Village Engineer W E TRANSMIT HEREWITH: VIA: (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) As requested a t m e e t i n g As per conversation Per request of ( ) ( ) ( ) First Class Mail Express Delivery Telefax-# of Pages (including cover sheet) Our Messenger Your Messenger Hand Delivery FOR YOUR: ( ) ( ) ( ) Approval Review Distribution (x) ( ) () File Information ( ) ( ) Use Cornrnent THE FOLLOWING: No. of Copies 1 Description Date 1/2 0/94 Negati.ve Declairation - Valley Plaza REMARKS: cc: Gerald Bregman Ronald E. Turnquist Connecticut •(203)255-3100 By Susan J . Portman, AICP Associate/Planning FAX • (914)967-6615 Long Island •(516)364-4544 �SEQR 617.21 Appendix F State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number Date January 20. 1994 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Village of North Tarrvtown Planning Board . as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below wll not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: SEQR Status: Valley Plaza Site Plan Type I X Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes X No Description of Action: Proposed second-story and loft addition to existing one-story building to contain five retail spaces, five dwelling units and one office. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 185 Valley Street, Village of North Tarrytown, Westchester County �SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: (See 617.6(g) for requirements of this determination; see 617.6(h) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) The proposed action will not cause a significant adverse impact on land, water, air, plants and animals, agricultural land resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archaeological resources, open space and recreation, transportation, energy, public health, growth and character of the community or cause significant adverse noise and odor. If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed. For Further Information: m ontact Person: Linda David, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Telephone Number: (914) 631-1440 For Type I Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Region 3, Department of Environmental Conservation, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, New York 12561 Gerald Bregman, 185 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Ronald E. Turnquist, 95 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591 500\not4-O06.sjp.crc \ � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_1994-01-20 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994