https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/69859f74ff9cb100c7278d57e074dc0f.pdf 7c3d0593ccc369084565e7f2b01a42be PDF Text Text -• * A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 15, 1990, 8:00 PM in Village Hall, North Tarrytown, N. Y. Present: James Galgano, Chairman Ellen Tsangaris Richard Ayers Ray Windas Frank Rey Also Present: Daniel K. Wery,Consultant, Frederick P. Clarke Associates Joseph Gulino, Consultant, CAMCE Absent: John O'Leary Alan Kaplan Meeting was called to order at 8:10 PM. IN THE MATTER OF THE GAULIN SUBDIVISION. 199 WEBBER AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN. The hearing was held for final site plan approval. The public notice was read aloud by the recording secretary. Mr. Wayne Martell, attorney for his client was seeking to make sion to create an additional lot dwelling. The new lot will meet the Village. the Gaulin estate stated that one lot into a two lot subdivifor the erection of a one family all the zoning requirements of He also stated that there were sufficient water and sewer lines to accommodate one additional home in that area and that this new dwelling would not have any adverse effects to the surrounding area. Mrs. Garrity, who is purchasing the existing house, asked the Board if 15 ft requirement for the side yard be on her side, so that both houses are not too close together. Mr. Windas stated that her request would be included in the final resolution for approval of the subdivision, to be prepared by the consultants. Mr. Windas asked that Mrs. record. Garrity's name be taken for the A motion was made by Mr. Windas that as "a friend of the court", the Board supports Mrs. Garrity's request to have as much distance between the proposed new dwelling and the house she is purchasing. ') 6 �Mr. Dan Wery of Clarke Associates advised the Board that there could be a considerable amount of water shed due to the property decline and made several suggestions for better drainage. Mr. Frank Rey moved that the comments of the consultant be included in the provisions of the resolution concerning construction on the newly subdivided building lot. Ray Windas moved to close the public hearing and seconded by Frank Rey. Motion carried unamiously. Mr. Galgano read aloud a note from Village Attorney John Hughes and stated that he felt the subdivision could be approved tonight. Mr. Windas made a motion to approve the subdivision of the lots with notes 1) granting the request subject to the consultants' suggestions and 2) considering the neighbor's request for distance between the building lots. Motion was seconded by Frank Rey. Motion carried. A final resolution will be prepared. IN THE MATTER OF THE JOYNER SUBDIVISION, 21 CLINTON STREET. NORTH TARRYTOWN. N. Y. This is a continuation of discussion from a previous meeting. Mr. Robert Stanizale, architect, and George Turpee represented the Joyners. Mr. Galgano read a note from Village Attorney John Hughes who stated that the Board could direct to have a resolution prepared to approve the subdivison. Mr. Galgano stated that he understood the Joyner project had been before the Zoning Board and was granted the required variances. A number of questions were brought up by the Board as to easements, location of the proposed buildings on the lots and the comments of the consultants. (Copy attached). At this point, Mr. Turpee , attorney for the Joyners, stated that he had just received the comments of the consultants and did not have sufficient time to review them. Mr. Galgano addressed the consultants and asked if there was any way the Board could receive their comments at least two weeks in advance of the Planning Board meetings so that they could be properly prepared at the meetings. Chairman Galgano suggested that the discussion be continued at the next meeting and a public hearing be held at that time. Mr. Margotta replied that he would make the arrangements for the public hearing. 7 �IN THE MATTER OF THE OLIVEIRA AND GASPAROVIC SUBDIVISION. 304 GORDON AVENUE. NORTH TARRYTOWN. N.Y. This was a continuation of the preliminary hearing held by "the Planning Board. Both Mr. Durafete and Mr. Gasparovic addressed the board along with the architect, Julius Twine. After a very long discussion concerning easements and property lines and sales of property, and reviewing the comments from the consultants (copy enclosed), it was decided to table any further discussions until they went before the Zoning Board with completed plans for any type of development for the property. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Frank Rey, by Ray Windas. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 RPM Respectfully submitted, A * du, <^J^y)<fl^Francesca Lorenz Recording Secretary fl encl. 8 seconded �Rav windas moved, seconded by Frank Rey and unanimously carried that the following resolution be adopted as read: WHEREAS, this Planning Board, on the application of Estate of Joseph Gaulin Name of Applicant • , did on February 15, 1990 Date grant permission for a subdivision of their property located at 3,99 Wfihhflr Avenue North Tarry town i N» Y. 10591 Section 17 , Sheet , Block 3 , Lot 14 ; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid subdivision permits the development of u s e s that are i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e p r e v i o u s l y permitted, i n that the action did not provide f o r any change of zone, or approval of s i t e plan; and WHEREAS, the property contains no s t r u c t u r e or area that i s l i s t e d or e l i g i b l e t o be l i s t e d on the Federal Register of Historic Places or d e s i g n a t e d by t h e l o c a l H i s t o r i c Architectural Review Board a s an h i s t o r i c landmark or d i s t r i c t and the s a i d s u b d i v i s i o n complies with a l l r e g i o n a l , s t a t e and l o c a l land use plans; �NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The subdivision of the property as above described is an unlisted action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Part 617 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and will, in and of itself, not have a significant effect on the environment, so that no Environmental Impact Statement is required or need be filled therefor. 2. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be deemed to indicate or suggest that subsequent submissions for development of the property will not require the preparation and filing of Environmental Impact Statements. 3. This resolution is a Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Local Law Environmental Quality Review Act for the Village of North Tarrytown, and will be kept on file at the Village Hall and be available for public examination. 2 �Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consultants P'inmprj Of^.e\oorr'fir' E'^.ronrrent T'-irTmorntion Rye N e w far* ana ScL,;noort ConnedCJj' '<J'J-''J68! \, : . - T"- in : ^50 Thrones FrerT!(j ^.er'.t) R V H Ne.v /o'« '0580 9*4,967-6540 -AX i9U)967-56'5 MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning-p Board Date: February 15, 1990 Subject: Site Plan for 21 Clinton Street At your request, we have reviewed "Proposed T^hree Family Dwelling and Conversion to a Two Family Dwelling: ; site Plan: Driveway Elevation," prepared by Robert Stanziale, i^H\IA, and last dated January 31, 1990. GENERAL INFORMATION Proposal. Conversion of an existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling with two off-street parkimg spaces on a 9,135square-foot Parcel A, and construction of a t^_hree-family dwelling and six off street parking spaces on a 6, 250-Sssguare-foot Parcel B. Parcel B is proposed to be served by p u b l i c water supply and sewerage facilities, as is currently the ca ; se for the existing building on Parcel A. Tax Map. Section 16, Block 8, Lot 26 (Parcel &\) ; Section 16, Block 8, Lot 27 (Parcel B ) . Location. The northern side of Clinton Street t, approximately 170 feet west of its intersection with Cortland S^treet. Zoning. R-5 residential. Land Use. Residential. Physical Characteristics. A two-story dw^slling with a nonconforming front yard and northern side yard oon Parcel A. Several mature trees stand on the site, with the remaining vegetation being lawn and scrub growth. A retaining wall in poor condition runs along a portion of the southern property line for Parcel A and the rear property line for Parcel B. �have the following comments regarding the proposal: Separate Lots. The proposal encompasses two adjacent tax parcels. However, it is not clear if the site is one property under the Zoning Ordinance—in which case a subdivision would be necessary to provide a separate lot for each building, as required by Section 62-7.C. The applicant should provide individual, filed deeds in each parcel, or he should submit an application for subdivision approval. Driveway for Parcel B. a. A site plan proposes a driveway 20 feet wide in front of the westernmost garage (2.5 feet of that width being on the adjacent Parcel A ) . A driveway of that width will make maneuvering into and out of the garage very difficult. We recommend that the driveway be at least 22 feet wide in front of garages (the standard 24 feet would be preferable). b. The plan shows the driveway for Parcel B extending to a maximum of 3 feet onto Parcel A. At the least, the plan should indicate an easement for access and maintenance within that area. However, we recommend instead that the driveway be placed entirely on Parcel B. This can be accomplished by reducing the width of the proposed dwelling units on Parcel B and by reducing the width of Parcel A. Such a redesign should also allow for adequate separation of the proposed parking on Parcel A from the building on that parcel and from the driveway on Parcel B; we recommend a minimum 5-foot-wide planting strip between the parking on Parcel A and the driveway for Parcel B. c. Access to the easternmost garage will be very difficult, requiring a U-turn within a narrow area for both entering and leaving the garage. We recommend that the garage be relocated to provide more convenient access. Parking. a. The plan proposes two spaces per dwelling unit for the three-family building proposed from Parcel B. However, Section 62-14.E requires multifamily buildings to have one parking space per unit plus 1/2 parking space per bedroom. The plan does not indicate the number of bedrooms for the three proposed dwelling units. That information should be provided, and the plan revised accordingly. 2 �b. Section 62-14.D(3) requires parking areas with more than 3 spaces to have shielded lighting and a screening of fences or plantings. The plans should be revised to show adequate lighting for the parking area on Parcel B (including information showing that the light will be shielded from adjacent properties) and a detailed plan of proposed plantings and fences to ensure that the parking area is adequately screened. We recommend that that screening include plantings along the common property line between parcels A and B. (The Planning Board may also wish a fence or plantings along the southern property line of Parcel B to buffer the proposed residences from the adjacent machine shop.) c. The plan proposes two parking spaces for the two-family dwelling on Parcel A. Although this meets the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, we note that each of the two proposed dwelling units in the existing structure will have two bedrooms. The Planning Board may wish the applicant to revise the plan to provide two more parking spaces. Open space. Section 62-8.D of the Zoning Ordinance requires multiple dwellings to have 100 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit. The plan proposes a front lawn of approximately 325 square feet and a rear "seeded area" of 200 square feet. The Planning Board should be satisfied that these areas represent the usable open space required by the Zoning Ordinance. We note that the front usable area, which is divided by the proposed sidewalk, could be enlarged to a single area by relocating the sidewalk to the southern edge of the proposed driveway (and, of course, relocating the second story entrance to the westernmost dwelling unit). Facade of proposed building. The applicant has provided an elevation of the northern facade of the proposed building for Parcel B. The Planning Board may wish elevations of the other three facades of the building. At a minimum, we recommend an elevation for the Clinton Street facade of the building be submitted for the Planning Board's review. Existing retaining wall. A retaining wall in very poor condition stands along a portion of the southern property line of Parcel A and the rear property line of Parcel B. We recommend that the Planning Board seek the advice of its engineer regarding the stability of that existing structure. If necessary, the repair or replacement of that wall should be a condition of site plan approval. Plan information. In addition to the incorrect citation of required parking for multifamily dwellings noted in Item 2 �above, the "Zoning Analysis" on the site plan should be corrected to indicate that the minimum lot area for the twofamily dwelling on Parcel A is 4,000 square feet. The table should also include the minimum lot width—40 feet for twofamily dwellings and 50 feet for multifamily dwellings. In addition, the plan should be revised to include a current survey; a lighting plan; a landscaping construction details plan; and construction details for fences, pavement, and stormwater facilities. The plan should also include topographic data to ensure proper drainage of the parking spaces on Parcel A. Finally, the plan appears to propose curbing for the parking areas on both parcels; the plan should note that curbing is proposed and provide elevations and a detail, if in fact curbing is proposed. David P. Fuller 500\noto\002.dpfrev 4 �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: February 13, 1990 Subject: Oliveira and Gasparovic Subdivision As requested, we have reviewed the application for subdivision approval consisting of one sheet of plans entitled, "Subdivision Map Prepared for Duarte F. and Elizabeth T. Oliveira and Mary Gasparovic in the Village of North Tarrytown", dated June 23, 1989, prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers. The subject parcels of land are located in the R-4 (1 and 2 family residence) Zoning District. It is not clear from the submitted plans what the Applicants are proposing other than a subdivision of one lot with frontage on both Dell Street and Gordon Avenue. It appears that since there are two separate lots involved there must be a land transfer between the two lots being proposed. However, without a clear indication of the existing property lines and identification of new property lines and areas to be transferred, there is no way to decipher what the Applicants are proposing. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. Location Map. The plans should be revised to include a location map at a scale no greater than 1" » 400' , which would include the existing property lines of the subject properties, adjacent properties and the zoning boundaries. 2. Property Lines. The Applicants should be required to show the existing and proposed lot lines and lot ownership. The existing plan does not even indicate which lots are owned by the Oliveiras or the Gasparovics. 3. Joint Subdivision. Due to the lack of detail, it is not clear what the Applicants are proposing. However, if there are no land transfers between the two properties, there should be two separate subdivision applications and fees. If there is a land transfer between the two properties the subject parcels should be clearly identified, their area(s) clearly indicated and notes specifying from whom and to whom the areas are being transferred. 4. Roads. The Applicants should be required to show the right-of-ways and edges of pavement (both sides) for both Dell Street and Gordon Avenue. 5. Topography. The Applicants should be required to show a topographic map with two foot contour intervals prepared by a �licensed surveyor. It should be noted that the steep contours and the existing surrounding development may preclude any reasonable development of these lots. Zoning Bulk Compliance Schedule. All applicable standards with regard to the R-4 Zoning District and all proposed dimensions should be indicated in and a Zoning Bulk Compliance Schedule. Separate Lot. The Applicants apparently own a parcel of land on the opposite side of Dell Street from the existing residence which they wish to include as part of the minimum lot area for the lot. Because this lot is not contiguous, we have serious reservations whether it could be counted towards the minimum lot area, and recommend thorough legal review of this proposal. The Applicants should be required to explain how the lot indicated on the plan as 1A was created, if it was ever contiguous with Parcel IB, and whether Dell Street is located in an easement or a formal right-of-way. Garage and Grape Arbor. The Applicants have proposed a property line which would bisect an existing grape arbor and stucco garage. The grape arbor could easily be removed. The stucco garage is built into the hillside so that the existing roof line is roughly equal to the existing grade of the hillside at the southern end of the garage. The garage would have to be removed and would require a significant effort of the part of the Applicants. Frontage. Proposed Lot 3 only has 13.72 feet of frontage along Gordon Avenue. Normally, the Applicants are recommended to provide at least the minimum lot width (in this case 40 feet) for the minimum lot frontage. However, reductions are often allowed for lots fronting on streets with small radius curves. However, we do not recommend the creation of any lot with less than 25 feet of frontage along a public road. Lot width. The minimum lot width in the R-4 District is 40 feet. Proposed Lot 3 does not comply, as almost two thirds of the lot is 30 feet wide or less. Buildable Area. We seriously question the viability of proposed Lot 3 with regard to any suitable buildable area. The lot is extremely long and extremely narrow and consists of several parallel concrete retaining walls and pathways which traverse the steep slopes between two rows of homes on either side. Construction in this area would be extremely difficult and any new structure in this area would seriously affect the value of the neighboring residences. Drainage. if the Applicants wish to pursue this application they should be prepared to conduct a drainage analysis for the proposed development of these properties and their impacts upon the adjacent residences. �• 13. Residence Type. The Applicants should be required to indicate whether the existing hones on the subject properties are occupied by one or more families. 14. Rear Yard Setback. It appears that the proposed lot line between Lots IB and proposed Lot 2 would not meet the required rear yard setback of 25 feet from the existing structure on proposed Lot IB. 15. Proposed Site. If the Applicants should decide to proceed with this application, they should be required to indicate the proposed house locations, driveways, utility connections, drainage and grading plans, driveway profiles, etc... CONCLUSION In general, this is one of the most unrealistic subdivision proposals we have ever reviewed for the Village. It appears that the Applicants are attempting to create buildable lots out of land that is just not available. It appears that the application only achieves the creation of two dimensional areas meeting the minimum square footage requirement for lot area. Upon review of these plans and inspection of the site, we do not see any feasible means of additional residential development on the subject properties, and would not recommend the Applicants pursue this application. However, if they do wish to proceed, the Village should not schedule any further reviews of this application until all of the comments of this memo have been addressed and all requested information has been submitted. Daniel K. Wery Associate Planner 500not0-001.dkw:rr � 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-1990 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_1990-02-15 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1990 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990