https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/e629566b81915c770c7dca5b0a95f0e6.pdf fc019c6cd2010046f27f54931957c76c PDF Text Text SEPTEMBER 23rd, 1993 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT (9/28/93) PLANNING Board NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK • SEPTEMBER 23rd, 1993 A regular meeting of the North Tarrytown Planning Board was held on September 23rd, 1993 at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York 10591. PRESENT: George Hritz, Chairman Ellen Tsangaris Donald Caetano Steve Salman James Donovan Edward McCarthy Roman Windas ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Arshad Jalil-CAMCE Susan Portman, Clark Assoc. Chairman Hritz called the meeting to order at 8:15 1. P.M. Mr. & Mrs. A. Ruivo, Preliminary Hearing-39 Depeyster Street, Construction 3 family residence. John Hughes represent!ng Mr. & Mrs. Ruivo stated that the property was purchaed in 199 2 from the Levy Family. Mr. Reivo completely restored the ex isting three family residence and would like to sub-divide the lot and construct a new three family residence. Mr. Hughes st ated that Mr. Ruivo had appeared before the Zoning Board and had been granted a variance to construct the new building. The Zoning Codes allow more than three families residence to be construct and the variance granted was for a rear yard vari ance of 20 feet instead of 25 feet, and was the only variance necessary. Parking for six cars will be provided for the ne w building and six spaces for the present building. There is no existing parking available. Mr. Hughes stated that Mr. Ruivo had complied with all requests of Clark Associates and would like to have a public hearing on the request for a sub-division. Mr. Margotta stated that since the project had been down sized there should be no objections from the neighbors. Mr. Windas stated he felt the area was zoned for multi-family and did not require Planning Board approval. Discussion followed regarding sub-division and site plan approval. Mr. Caetano stated there was a parking shortage in the Village and felt that if the blacktop area was landscaped it would be more appealing to the public. (Memo from Clark Associates in Official Minutes) �(Draft-10/8/93) -2Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. Caetano that a Public Hearing be held on October 21st, 1993 on the sub-division. Carried. 2. Errma Serina, 9 Lawrence Avenue-Construction 2-Story Building. Continued. Robert Barstow, Architect for the project stated Mrs. Serina had appeared before the Zoning Board and has obtained various variances for the project as indicated on the Site Plan presented to the Board. Mr. Barstow stated they have relocated the building, eliminating two variances that were necessary, and have created four full size parking spaces which eliminated a side yard variance. With these changes Mr. Barstow stated he would like approval of the revised plans as approved by the Zoning Board. Ms. Portman stated that a memo dated September 21st, 1993 was sent to the Board regarding their review of the project. (Copy in official minutes). Mr. Hritz stated that Clark Associates recommend the planting of a hedge along the side yards. MR. Barstow stated that Mrs. Serina was agreeable to the planting. Discussion followed regarding the installation of "stops" . Mr. Barstow stated there will be stops or curbing and a green area in front of the building. Regarding the planting on the south side of the building, Mr. Barstow stated that the building to be constructed by Mr. Rodriguez will be built to the property line and there will not be enough sublight for plantings. Mr. Donovan, moved, seconded by Mr. Windas to approve the revised plans as submitted. Mr. Hritz polled the Board as follows: Mr. Caetano Ms. Tsangaris Mr. Salman Mr. Donovan Mr. McCarthy Mr. Windas Mr. Hritz declared the No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes motion carried. 3. C M . Pateman, North Broadway-Car Wash-Continued. Mr. Hritz asked the attorney for the status of the moratorium imposed by the Board of Trustees. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the moratorium was in effect for a period of ninety days, from September 7th, 1993, and prohibits final spprovals by the Planning Board of all projects in C-l District on Route 9. Ms. Gandolfo stated the applicant may proceed with the process, and the Board may review the application, subject to the understanding that final approval �(Draft-10/8/93) -3cannot be given until the moratorium is over. Mr. Pateman stated he would like to proceed with the process. M s . Gandolfo stated there is a written opinion on file with the Board of Trusees regarding the moratorium. Discussion followed regarding a Zoning change in the area and what effect it would have on Mr. Pateman's application. M r . Salman stated that the traffic flow will be changed and greatly increased due to the Rockefeller Archives and the new office building to be constructed by Mr. Rodrigues. Mr. Margotta stated that the plans for the office building are being revised by the Architect and will be resubmitted to the Planning Board for their approval. M s . Portman presented Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Board to review. (Copy in official minutes). Ms. Portman suggested that Mr. Pateman submit his plans to the Department of Health for their review. Mr. Salman moved, seconded by Ms. Tsangaris that the Board make a negative or positive declaration and directed Ms. Portman to prepare a draft for the Board. Carried. M r . Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Donovan to defer the matter to the next meeting. Carried. M s . Gandolfo stated that the Board has been adjcairning the Public Hearing and the Notice was still in effect. Ms. Gandolfo stated the Board could readvertise in order to inform the public the matter will be heard at the next meeting. M r . Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. Salman to readvertise that the Public Hearing is to be continued. Carried. 4. Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, North Broadway-New Parking Spaces. Representatives for the Hospital stated they would like to amend the site plan for the Medical Office Building. The site plan presented and approved was for a four-story building of approximately 60,000 square feet. It is now proposed that a three-story building of approximately 45,000 square feet will be built. The hospital would like to reduce the number of parking spaces needed. The building would have the same foot prints but due to the fact that a lot more rock was encountered than expected some changes are needed. They seek approval of 62 additional spots elsewhere on the property. �-4- DRAFT (9/28/93) Mr. Hritz stated that the request was reasonable butt felt the public should be allowed to speak at the Public Hearing, due to the fact they are changing the plans. Discussion followed regarding the cost in delaying the construction. Representative for the hospital stated the hospital would like to amend the site plan which has previously been approved by the Board. He also stated that the delay would cost the hospital a lot of money and they were trying to keep the cost down. Ms. Portman stated that a memo wa s sent to the Board regard!ng the amended site p Ian. She state d that the drawings submitt ed by the applicant are not clear as to what is being propose d. The drawing;s are inconsistent wi th the approved site pi an. She stated the d rawin gs due not show the MRI building and its related parkin g area . It is not cle ar whether the MRI facilit y is to remain or if that area will be redeveloped to its former state as part of this proposed a pplication. She also stated that a full Env ironmental Assessment Form will have .to be subm itted, and the application must be r eferred to the (Copy of Memo Westchester County Planning Board for revie w. in offi cial minutes). Ms. Gandolfo advised the Board that a Public Hearing should be held, due to the change in the Site Plan and that a long form EAF be submitted. She also stated the Board could make a negative or positive declaration at the next meeting. Mr. Hritz requested that the Hospital present more comprehensive plans for the changes to be made prior to the next meeting. Mr. Salman stated that if all the information was presented to the Board it would be possible to hold a Special Meet ing. Representatives stated that the hospital was anxious for approval as all the contractors were on site and to delay would be costly. Mr. Caetano moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that a Public Hearing be held at the next meeting to review the changes to be made. Carried. MINUTES Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. Salman to approve the minutes of August 19th, 1993 as amended. Carried. There being no further business to come before the meeting Mr. Donovan moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted^ ene Amato Acting Clerk �DRAFT 9/23/93 VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN NEW YORK DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) SCOPE OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED Classification of Action: Lead Agency: Type I Action Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board North Tarrytown, New York GENERAL GUIDELINES: The DEIS should conform to the format outlined in the scope if possible. Each impact issue (e.g., surface water, traffic, etc.) should be presented in a separate subsection which includes a discussion of existing conditions, significant impacts associated with the proposed action, and mitigation measures designed to minimize the identified impacts. Narrative discussions should be accompanied by appropriate tables, charts, graphs, and figures whenever possible. If a particular subject matter can be most effectively described in graphic format, the narrative discussion should merely summarize and highlight the information presented graphically. All figures showing the site should include adjacent homes, structures, railroads and roads. Information should be presented in a manner which can be readily understood by the public. Efforts should be made to avoid the use of technical jargon. When practical, impacts should be described in terms which the layperson can readily understand (e.g., truck-loads of fill and cubic yards rather than just cubic yards). The document should be written in the third person (i.e., the terms "we" and "our" should not be used). The applicant's conclusions and opinions should be., identified as those of "the applicant" or "the developer." • Any assumptions incorporated into assessments of impact should be clearly identified. In such cases, the "worst case" scenario analysis should also be identified and discussed. I. FRONT MATSfiJAL A. Cover Sheet: The DEIS must begin with a cover sheet that identifies the following: 1. That it is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; 2. Date of the DEIS as submitted; �3. The name and location of the project; 4. The Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board as the Lead Agency for the project and the name and telephone number of a person at the Village to be contacted for further information; 5. The name and address of the project sponsor, and the name and telephone number of a contact person; 6. The name and address of the primary preparer(s) of the DEIS and the name and telephone number of a contact person; 7. Date of acceptance of the DEIS later); and 8. Deadline by which comments on the DEIS are due (to be inserted later). (to be inserted B. List of Consultants Involved With the Project: The names, addresses and project responsibilities of all consultants involved with the project should be listed. C. Table of Contents: All headings which appear in the text should be presented in the Table of Contents along with the appropriate page numbers. The Table of Contents should include a list of figures, a list of tables, a list of appendix items, and a list of additional DEIS volumes, if any. SUMMARY The DEIS must include a summary if the DEIS is longer than 10 pages. The summary should only include information found elsewhere in the main body of the DEIS and should be organized to follow the format of the DEIS. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Introduction: The iri€rdductf6n should . explain the purpose of the DEIS, des'cribe" th^ nStur'e of the project, and identify the primary approvalsype¥iit# r^guirerl. A brief statement of the proj ect- purpbs^ aVid neeti should be presented. If relevant, a brie£ history* cff .the project review process should be iricluided. The introduction should identify the future role of the\applicant in the eventual construction of afny s^rfce^ or building improvements. 2 �B. Involved Agencies and Required Approvals: A complete listing should be provided of all Involved Agencies (along with their addresses) and required approvals/permits. C. Interested Parties: A complete listing should be provided of all Interested Agencies, and persons and groups who have expressed an interest in reviewing the DEIS in order to provide comments. D. Site Description: the following: E. F. The site description should include 1. Precise site location, size, and tax map number(s) . 2. Description of the existing site character. 3. Site location relative to surrounding land uses and transportation corridors (describe existing zoning and access). Design and Layout: 1. Structures: site plans and profile views. 2. Parking: 3. Utilities. 4. Storm Water Management. 5. Lighting. 6. Signage. number of spaces and layout. Construction and Operation: 1. Schedule of Construction. 2. Operation. a. Type of operation. b. Schedule of operation. IMPACT ISSUES The sub-headings presented in each impact issue below represent items of specific interest which should be addressed in addition to providing appropriate general discussion of the impact issues. 3 �Land Use. Planning and Zoning 1. Land Use. a. Existing land use and vicinity. b. Impacts. c. Mitigation. zoning of site ajid Surface Water 1. 2. 3. Existing Conditions. a. Existing drainage patterns. b. Discharge points of existing drainage. Impacts. a. Construction related impacts. b. Runoff quantity and quality impacts following project completion. Mitigation Measures. a. Runoff quality control measures, waste wat^r recycling, pre-treatment of storm wat^r discharge to wetlands, etc. b. Conformance of proposed project and mitigation measures with the New York State Department c f Environmental Conservation "Storm Wat^r Management Guidelines for New Development." Air Quality 1. Existing Conditions. 2. Impacts - vehicular residences. 3. Mitigation Measures. exhaust from queues near Aesthetic Resources 1. Existing Conditions - historic character of area. 2. Impacts - reduction of aesthetic qualities of tjie area. �3. Mitigation Measures. Historic and Archaeological Resources 1. Existing Conditions. a. Location and description of historic areas or structures listed on state or National Register within the Village or those designated by the community. b. Communication with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. 2. Impacts. 3. Mitigation Measures. Traffic 1. Existing Conditions. a. Description of area roadways that will serve the development. b. Manual traffic volume surveys at the following intersections at a minimum for a weekday afternoon and Saturday midday peak hour: North Broadway at Gordon Avenue/Lawrence Avenue North Broadway at Pocantico Street North Broadway at Beekman Avenue/Hudson Terrace/Bedford Road/New Broadway New Broadway at Rice Avenue 2. c. Capacity analysis. d. Accident above. history for intersections Impacts a. Site-generated traffic. b. Percent distribution patterns. c. On and off-site vehicular storage. 5 listed �d. 3. G. H. Mitigation Public Health 1. Existing Conditions. 2. Impacts - oil and water on roadway. 3. Mitigation Measures. Community Character 1. Existing Conditions. 2. Impacts. 3. I. Overflow traffic queuing along Gordon Avenue site frontage. a. Lighting. b. Noise. c. Traffic. d. Visual Impacts. Mitigation Measures. Water Utilities 1. Existing Conditions: availability and quality. 2. Impacts, including anticipated water usage. 3. Mitigation Measures. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Those adverse environmental impacts that can be expected to occur if the proposed action is implemented regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section IV must be identified. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to the proposed action are to be evaluated in terms of the impact issues listed in Section IV. A. No action. 6 �VII. B. Alternative land use. C. Alternative design(s). QTHEK ISSUES A. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources B. Growth Inducing Impacts C. Effects on the use and conservation of energy resources VIII. SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY IX. APPENDICES The following materials should be included: A. All SEQR documentation, including a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Positive Declaration and the DEIS scoping outline. B. Copies of all official correspondence related to issues discussed in the DEIS. C. Copies of at least the following technical studies, in their entirety: 500\not3-058.sjp 1. Hydrology study. 2. Cultural resources study (if needed). 3. Traffic study. �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: September 22, 1993 Subject: Site Plan/Subdivision Application for Ruivo Property As we have not received any new materials regarding this application, we do not have any further comments to offer at this time. Susan J. Portman, AICP Associate/Planning cc: William T. Regan, Village Administrator Janet A. Gandolfo, Esq., Village Attorney James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Joseph A. Gulino, P.E., Village Engineer Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. David J. Portman, AICP Howard I. Reynolds, PE David H. Stolman, AICP Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation Rye, New York and Southport, Connecticut 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye, New York 10580 (914)967-6540 Michael A. Galante Joanne P. Meder, AICP Jim Donovan, RLA. ASLA MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board Date: September 15, 1993 Subject: Phelps Professional Building, Amended Site Plan Application As requested, we have reviewed the submission of Vincent Del Bagno, Director of Engineering for Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, for the proposed Phelps Professional Building. The Phelps Memorial Hospital Center property is located at 701 North Broadway within the H Hospital District. It appears that, in order to add 56 additional parking spaces, the Applicant proposes to amend the site plan, which was approved by resolution at the April 14, 1992 meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board and which approval was extended through June 1994. The original approval was for the development of a 62,000 square foot medical office building and nearly 300 additional parking spaces. The Applicant has submitted a cover letter and the following four sheets of drawings: 1. "S-l, Sheet 2, Site Plan, Phelps Professional Building, Town of North Tarrytown, Westchester, New York," dated 4/27/93 and last revised 5/18/93, scale 1" = 3 0 ' , prepared by Charles H. Sells, Inc., Consulting Engineers; 2. "S-2, Sheet 3, Site Plan, Phelps Professional Building, Town of North Tarrytown, Westchester, New York," dated 4/26/93 and last revised 8/17/93, scale 1" = 3 0 ' , prepared by Charles H. Sells, Inc., Consulting Engineers; 3. "Revised Grading Plan, West Parking Expansion, Mediplex Medical Building Corp.," dated 8/23/93, scale 1" = 30'; "e.) North-East Parking Lot," dated 8/2 3/93, scale 1" = 3 0'. 4. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Submissions. It is not clear from the drawings submitted by the Applicant what is being proposed in this application for amended site plan approval. These drawings are inconsistent Connecticut • (203) 255-3100 FAX • (914) 967-6615 Long Island • (516) 364-4544 �FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation both with each other and with the approved site plan. Consequently, it is not clear what is being proposed in this application. Also, the MRI building and its related parking area are not shown on any of these drawings. It is not clear whether the MRI facility is to remain or if that area will be redeveloped to its former state as part of this proposed application. 2. Status of Construction. The proposed professional office building is currently under construction. We assume that the construction is in accordance with the approved site plan. If the professional office building and related facilities, landscaping and parking are not being constructed as per the approved site plan, in both size and location, amended site plan approval will be required. The Applicant should provide information confirming the size of the building under construction. As well, any changes to landscaping and parking from the approved site plan should be clearly noted. If the parking areas are proposed for change, the total number of parking spaces should be provided and explained. We suggest the Planning Board require the Applicant to submit three plans. The first plan should illustrate the existing condition of the site, including the MRI building, but not including the office building now under construction. Second, a copy of the previously approved site plan for the office and MRI building and associated parking and landscaping should be submitted. Third, a site plan which clearly delineates what is proposed for the entire site should be submitted. The Planning Board will need to see how the site plan has been developed and what the Applicant is requesting for approval. Regarding the "new parking" shown on the "Revised Grading Plan, West Parking Expansion," the Applicant should provide information as to the number of trees that would need to be removed from that area for construction of the proposed parking lot. Any tree removal should be in accordance with Chapter 52A of the Village Code: Tree Conservation. All parking should be laid out to provide adequate circulation. Also, handicapped parking should be labeled as such on the plan. 3. Environmental Review. Due to the property's location within the Hudson River Shoreline Critical Environmental Area, this action will be a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Applicant will need to submit a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 2 �RESOLUTION Adopted at the September 23, 1993 Meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MIXED USE BUILDING. PROPOSED: ONE APARTMENT AND ONE OFFICE IN TWOSTORY BUILDING. OWNER: EMMA B. SERINA LOCATION: 9 LAWRENCE AVENUE TAX DESIGNATION: SECTION 15, BLOCK 13, LOT 16A ZONING: R-5 RESIDENTIAL 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 demolition of an existing garage and development of a twostory, 1,200 square foot commercial office and residential apartment building, including related off-street parking and landscaping on a property that is approximately 2,207 square feet in size and is located on the western side of Lawrence Avenue approximately 70 feet north of the intersection with Beekman Avenue, as shown on the drawing prepared in the office of Barstow Architects, and further identified as follows: "Proposed Mixed-Use / 2 Story, Emma B. Serina, 9 Lawrence Ave., N. Tarrytown, N.Y.," scale 1" = 10', dated April 25, 1993 and last revised August 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the site plan proposes the construction of a twostory building with a commercial use (office) on the first floor which will be 600 square feet in size and, on the second floor, a residential apartment, also 600 square feet in size, with four outdoor paved parking spaces, a paved walkway between the street and the front entrance, and landscaping; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has received a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown for the proposed commercial use within the R-5 District, and the Applicant also received all necessary area variances to remedy the deficiency in the size of the lot; 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, a duly advertised public hearing was held at the Village Hall on June 17, 1993, which hearing was continued and closed on September 23, 1993, 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. Hcuu4wedwfcecreation fees in the amount of $3,600/7 3. Received engineering fees in the amount of $778.94, as of the date of approval; 4. Received reimbursement for payment of planning review costs the amount of $1,129.86, as of the date of approval; 5. Caused field inspections to be made of the property and o surrounding areas; 6. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village planning consultant, the Village engineering consultant and the Building Inspector; 7. 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); 8. After circulation of the EAF and the Planning Board's notice of intent to be Lead Agency, and 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 circulated a "Negative Declaration," dated July 22, 1993, in which the Planning Board stated its determination of nonsignificance of environmental impact for this Type I action; and AJAJU/J*A-**+P ^^^_^ WHEREAS, the Applicant has revised the proposed plans consistent with the comments that have been made about the project; 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 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 2 �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 payment 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. Revision of the above noted plan, to the satisfaction of the planning and engineering consultants, to demonstrate the following: 2.1 A note shall be added regarding utilities and compliance with erosion control standards. 2.2 Additional information shall be provided on the plan regarding landscaping, including the location of the plantings, their sizes and species, and a hedge to be located along the side yards to screen the parking area. In addition, up to, but not exceeding, two (2) feet of the length of the parking spaces shown may be used as an area for "over-hang" of parked vehicles and may be landscaped with grass or other ground cover, instead of pavement. 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. 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. 4. 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 conditions with respect thereto for a good cause. 3 �5. 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 parking, drainage, access, paving and other 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 ^ h * ^ - ^ kKNT GeorgfiT F. HriTtzX Chairman >Z~/ Village of Nqr£Jr Tarrytown PlannrRg^Board 500\not3-003.sjp:ev 4 Date: ^/t</tfO �Approved with respect to substance and form: /iy. Village Attorney Dated: ffafri Approved by the Planning Board Filed with Village Clerk G l e i k Ui Deputy Clerk Dated: ** I i<\| <\$ Date o^^Meeting 7 � 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-1993 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_1993-09-23 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993