https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d4d1469310793f3d90733924b1d57102.pdf 17a336c36a14899a7400df0eee4aa55f PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. September 27, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING A Public Hearing was held before the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown on the above date. PRESENT: Ellen Tsangaris, Chairperson James Galgano John O'Leary Richard Ayers Alan Kaplan ABSENT: Steve Baderian Roman Windas ALSO PRESENT: John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Chairperson Tsangaris called the meeting to order at 8P.M. Mr. O'Leary moved, seconded by Mr. Galgano that the minues of the meeting held on August 9th, 1990 be approved as submitted. Carried. Chairperson Tsangaris stated that the first order of business would be the following: 1. Public Hearing-E. Massaro & A. Pauluetti. Convert garage to apartment, an addition of a 7th family, at 190 Valley Street. The Clerk read the Public Notice to hear and consider an application of E. Massaro and A. Pauluetti of 952 Knollwood Road, White Plains, N.Y., for final site approval of plans to convert the garage to an apartment, an addition of a 7th apartment, at 190 Valley Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y. duly designated on Village Tax Assessment Map as Section 16, Block 12, Lot 3. Chairperson Tsangaris asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. Mr. Thomas Gissen representing Frederick P. Clark Associates submitted a memorandum stating comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Joseph Gulino, representing Charles A. Manganaro, Consulting Engineers submitted a memorandum stating their comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Massaro stated that the apartment was to be an apartment for a handicapped person and all objections by the Planner and Engineer had been or would be met before he would apply for a Certificate of Occupancy. There being no further comments, Mr. Galgano moved, seconded by Mr. Ayers that the Public Hearing be closed. Carried. �-2Mr. Galgano moved, seconded by Mr. 0*Leary that the Site Plan be approved and the Village Attorney be directed to prepare the necessary resolution to be adopted at the next meeting. Carried. 2. Preliminary Hearing-Vincent Margotta, Proposed Alteration to 89 & 91 Cortlandt Street. Mr. Gissen submitted a memorandum stating their comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Gulino submitted a memorandum stating their comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Ronald Turnquist, Architect for Mr. Margotta presented plans for the project and advised the Board of the work to be done to the buildings. He stated that the Mayor informed him she wanted the repairs to be completed as soon as possible. He stated one of the buildings was empty and the other had tenants. They hoped they would not have to displace them while construction was going on. He stated that the matter is in the local court and he would make the Court aware of the intent to repair the buildings. After a discussion, Mr. O'Leary moved, seconded by Mr. Galgano that the matter be referred to the Zoning Board. Carried. 3. Preliminary Hearing-Proposed Subdivision-D. Kringas, 149 Webber Avenue. Mr. Gissen submitted a memorandum stating their comments and recommendations to the sub-division. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Gulino submitted a memorandum stating their comments and recommendations to the sub-division. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Turnquist, representing Mr. Kringas, stated that' it was the intention of Mr. Kringas to erect two single family dwellings, one for his son and one for his daughter. Mr. Turnquist outlined the project to the Board. Chairperson asked if there was anyone present who would like to comment. Mr. Arthur Ceconi, Amos Street stated he was representing the Briggsville Association and asked what impactfe the project would have on the sewer system and what variances would be needed. He also asked if an Environmental Study had been completed. •*• m i �-3Mr. Margotta stated that the lots to be sub-divided would be 5,000 square feet as called for in the code. The multi-family dwelling would be non-conforming and would be covered under the grandfather clause. Mr. Turnquist stated that if permission was granted future plans will show re-routing of brook, storm drainage and other items requested by the Board, with a completed environmental study attached. After a discussion Mr. O'Leary moved, seconded by Mr. Galgano that the matter be referred to the Zoning Board. Carried. 4.Preliminary Hearing- Leonard Rutligan, 97 College Avenue, Automotive Repair Shop. Mr. Thomas Gissen submitted a memorandum stating their comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Gulino submitted a memorandum stating their comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Rutligan stated that he was a resident of the Village of North Tarrytown and had previously had a repair shop on Cortlandt Street but moved to Tarrytown. He recently lost his lease and wanted to come back to North Tarrytown. The property in question has been vacant for the last two years and he feels that his type of establishment would be good for the area. There would be no cars parked on the street. All the cars would be parked within the building. After a discussion Mr. O'Leary moved, seconded by Mr. Galgano that a Public Hearing be scheduled for the October meeting, contingent on receiving drawings of the project. Carried. Mr. Margotta stated that adjacent to the building is a Body and FendertStnop and he has never received any complaints, and feels there is no objection to a garage in that area. 5. Sleepy Hollow Cemetery-Wetlands Permit & Site Plan. Continued Discussion. Mr. Larry Nardecchia, Jr., Professional Engineer representing Sleepy Hollow Cemetery presented plans for the Cemetery. Mr. Gissen submitted a memorandum stating comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). �-4Mr. Gulino submitted a memorandum stating1 comments and recommendations to the project. (Copy in Official Minutes). Mr. Nardecchi stated that a stream disturbance plan will be submitted to the D.E.C. and a permit applied for. He stated that they will disturb the stream but will not displace it. After a discussion Mr. Hughes stated that we should call for a Public Hearing on the matter. Mr. Galgano moved, seconded by Mr. O'Leary that a Public Hearing be held at the next meeting and that a water course and site plan be submitted. Carried. A discussion followed regarding the planting of trees to replace the trees that would be removed. Mr. Nardecchi stated he would be willing to discuss the matter with the Planners to satisfy the Boarcl members as to the type of trees to be planted and the number of trees. Mr. Gerard Weiss, Attorney and member of the Cemetery Association stated that the approval of the application is vital to the Cemetery. The Cemetery is running out of saleable land. If the project is approved it will double the number of two-grave plots. He stated that the sale of plots provides income for the Cemetery. If they have no land to sell the cemetery will not have the income to operate. He would appreciate the Board. making a decision as soon as possible. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. O'Leary moved, seconded by Mr. Ayers that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully su£mubfeted, f Irene Ama;co Acting Clerk �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: September 20, 1990 Subject: Massaro and Pauletti Site Plan Review. This application appeared before the Planning Board on July 19, 1990. At that time the Planning Board determined not to engage in a substantive review prior to scheduling a public hearing on the application. As we have received no updated plans since the July Planning Board meeting, we can only assume there have been no revision of the previously submitted plans. Consequently, we have not revisited the submitted plans and our previous comments contained within our memorandum of July 17, 1990 - stand. We have enclosed the previous memorandum for your convenience. Thomas Gissen, AICP Associate Consultant cc: Mayor Janet Gandolfo William Regen John Hughes, Jr. James Margotta Irene Amato Joseph Guilino (By Facsimile) Julius Twyne, Jr. 500\not0-010.tg �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: July 17, 1990 Subject: Massaro and Pauletti Proposed Dwelling Unit Addition Site Plan Review. !_•- INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this memorandum is to review the above noted revised application for the conversion of an existing basement garage into a proposed basement handicap dwelling unit. The proposed application is for an existing three story, six-dwelling apartment building located on the corner of Valley Street and Chestnut Street in a C-2 General Commercial Zoning District. The applicants have submitted a revised site plan prepared by JT2 Architects, titled "Proposed Handicapped Dwelling Unit Add.; 190 Valley Street; North Tarrytown, New York." The plan was prepared on December 4, 1989 and last revised June 6, 1990. II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW: In December of 1989, this office reviewed an earlier version of this plan. At that time, we noted that the existing use was nonconforming relative to the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown (the Code) . The areas of nonconformity included parking, building coverage, lot area and setback deficiencies. At that time, we also noted that, with the exception of the setback and building coverage deficiencies, all of the above noted areas of non-conformity would be further aggravated by the addition of another apartment. Due to these issues of nonconformity with the Code, the Planning Board informed the applicant that variances from these deficiencies would need to be granted by the ZBA before the Planning Board could consider any approval of the proposed application. It is our understanding, based upon a telephone conversation with Village of North Tarrytown Building Inspector Jim Margotta, that the applicants have received the necessary variances. The variances granted, inclusive of any conditions attached thereto, and the date the variances were granted should be specified on the plan. Provided the necessary variances have been granted, the Planning Board may now review the proposed application, subject to Article VIII of the Code. �III. REVIEW COMMENTS; Handicap Accessibility - Documentation should be provided to demonstrate that the proposed apartment and parking garage space meet all of the requirements of the State of New York and the Village of North Tarrytown for handicapped person accessibility. In addition to various state requirements for door widths, bathroom facilities and counter heights, the proposed handicapped parking space should maintain a minimum width of 13 feet at all points. Toilet Exhaust Fan - Because of the rising elevation at the northeast edge of the site, it would appear that the proposed toilet exhaust fan may be below grade. Obviously, such a location would not work. Furthermore, the applicant should investigate an alternative exhaust system. The proposed system would vent toilet fumes into a narrow alley directly below the windows of an adjacent structure. The adjacent structure appears to support residential uses. Venting toilet fumes in this manner appears to be contrary to the purposes of Section 62-30.B.(4) of the Code. This section of the Code directs the Planning Board to assure the following: "Satisfactory and harmonious relations between the development on the site and the existing and prospective development of contiguous land and adjacent neighborhoods." Site Litter - A pile of trash has been left on the northern corner of the site. It would be appropriate for the Planning Board to withhold any approvals until the site is brought into conformity with general maintenance standards. Thomas Gissen, AICP Associate Consultant 300\not0-002.tg 2 �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: September 21, 1990 Subject: 89 and 91 Cortlandt Street Site Plan. La. INTRODUCTION: This site plan application involves a proposal to perform a major rehabilitation on two adjoining existing three-story structures situated on an approximately 3,810 s.f. lot, which is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Cortlandt and Clinton streets in the C-2 (General Commercial) district of the Village of North Tarrytown. The applicant proposes to redevelop this site with the ground floor of the newly unified structure supporting a commercial restaurant use and the upper floors supporting four two-bedroom apartments. It would appear that one effect of this major renovation is to effectively combine the two structures into a single structure. Site Plan approval from the Planning Board is required under Section 62-29.A(4) (b) of the Zoning Code of the Village of North Tarrytown (the Code). This section of the Code requires site plan approval for any development of any site in a commercial district that is located across the street from a residential district. Because the subject site is located within the C-2 district, which is both a commercial and a residential district, and is across the street from an R-6 residential district, site plan approval is mandatory. Additionally, as further delineated below, it appears that several bulk, area and parking variances will be required before this site plan may be implemented. II. ANALYSIS: A. Area and Bulk Standards. 1. Overview. Because the application proposes a mixed-use structure it appears that the structure will need to conform to both the commercial and the residential area and bulk standards for the C-2 district. Residential structures in the C-2 district must conform to the minimum lot size standards of the R-5 district and the maximum lot coverage and setback standards of the R-4 district. This results in numerous area and bulk variances being required for the residential portion of �the structure as well as a single setback variance being required for the commercial portion. 2. Commercial Standards. The only non-conforming area or bulk standard maintained within the commercial portion of the proposed site plan is a deficient rear yard. Commercial structures in the C-2 district are required to maintain a 20-foot rear yard; the application proposes a rear yard of approximately 16 feet. 3. Residential Standards. i. Minimum Lot Size: Multi-family residential uses proposed in the C-2 district must conform with the minimum lot size standard specified in the R-5 district. A minimum lot size of 6,500 s.f. is required for a fourunit multi-family development (5,000 s.f. for the first three units plus 1,500 s.f. per additional unit). The subject site is approximately 3,810 s.f. ii. Maximum Lot Coverage: The residential portion of the structure appears to maintain a footprint of approximately 1,630 s.f. For the 3,810 s.f. lot, this translates into a lot coverage of approximately 42.8 percent. Residential uses in the C-2 district must conform to the lot coverage requirements of the R-4 district, which permits a maximum of 35 percent lot coverage. iii. Yard requirements: Yard setback standards for residential uses in the C-2 district must conform to those standards in the R-4 district. As the chart below demonstrates, the structure does not meet any of the yard setback standards established in the R-4 district. Yard Min. Req'd in R-4 District Proposed Deficiency Front 20 Feet 2 Feet 18 Feet Side - One 3 Feet 1 Foot 2 Feet Side - Both 12 Feet 2 Feet 10 Feet Rear 25 Feet 17 Feet 8 Feet �Parking. Loading and Circulation. 1. Numerical Reguirement. Section 62-14.E. of the Code specifies numerical parking standards required for a variety of uses. Specifically, this section requires that one parking space be provided for each dwelling unit and that one parking space additionally be provided for every two bedrooms in a multi-family housing development. Additionally, one parking space is required for every five seats in a restaurant or bar use. While we do not know the number of seats proposed for this restaurant, it is clear that eight parking spaces are required for the proposed apartments. Since only three parking spaces are proposed, the applicant will require a parking variance from the ZBA. The applicant should be sure to calculate his aggregate parking need based upon the maximum number of seats he thinks the restaurant will ever maintain. Otherwise, if the ZBA grants a parking variance based upon a number of seats less than that actually in place at some point in the future, then the site plan will become void at that time. The ramifications for one's business could be severe. 2. Parking Space Size. Section 62-14.A. of the Code requires that each parking space maintain 180 square feet (s.f.) of space exclusive of all driveway, aisle and turnaround areas. The parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan appear to maintain only about 150 s.f. Consequently, either the size of the spaces should be adjusted or a variance should be sought for undersized parking spaces. 3. Parking Lot Lighting. Section 62-14.D.(5) of the Code requires that the proposed parking area be lit and that the lighting not produce light or glare onto adjoining properties. Consequently, a lighting plan should be included in the site plan. 4. Loading. No loading area is provided. However, there does appear to be offsite parking and loading space available in the vicinity of the subject site during daytime hours. Section 62.14.F. of the Code empowers the ZBA to determine the loading requirements for unlisted uses (a restaurant use is an unlisted use). 5. Driveway Width. Section 62-22.A. requires that all driveways for commercial and industrial uses maintain a width of not less than 15 feet and not more than 25 feet. The proposed driveway appears to be only 11.5 feet. 3 �Also, analysis of the site plan in the field appears to indicate that a chimney extension on the building located immediately to the west of the subject site abuts the western facade of the portion of the building thiat the applicant proposes to remove. Therefore, it would appear that this chimney may impinge on the proposed drix/ev/ay area. This apparent conflict between the site plar** and the field condition should be resolved as it may affect the driveway width. Lastly review rescue family C. as concerns driveway width, the Fire pepartment should this access relative to their fir^ suppression and needs for the proposed commercial restaurant ancl multiresidential uses. Performance Standards. All uses in the C-2 district are required to conform to the Code's performance standards, as articulated, in section 62-16. Other than general building and fire code standards, the only standard pertinent to the proposed application vould appear to concern odors. This standard, as articulated in Section 6216.B. (2), requires that odors not be emauiated beyond the property line. Given the food preparation nature of the proposed ground floor establishment an^5 the adjoining residential uses both proposed for the s i t ^ and existing in close proximity to it, the applicant should c3emonstrate how he proposes to vent kitchen fumes and mitigate their possible impacts. Thomas Gissen, AICP Associate Consultant cc: Mayor Janet Gandolfo William Regen John Hughes, Jr. James Margotta Irene Amato Joseph Guilino (By Facsimile) Ronald Turnquist 500\not0-011.tg 4 �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: September 20, 1990 Subject: Krinaas Subdivision Sketch Plat (September 12. 1990). The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Board with our analysis of the above noted sketch plat. The Kringas Subdivision plan of September 12, 1990 represents a major change from the previously submitted proposed subdivision sketch plats for this property. Whereas the previous submissions proposed either five or four new attached dwelling units, the new subdivision plat proposes the creation of two new single family lots of 5,000+ square feet (s.f.) each. The most recent of the previously submitted sketch plats for this site (titled Webber Mews and dated July 27, 1990) proposed the development of four new attached units in addition to the five existing attached units on the property. In addition to subdivision approval and the granting of numerous variances, this previous proposal would have required application of the clustering provisions of New York State's Village Law (Section 7-738). In our review of the July 27, 1990 sketch plat (see the memo from our office of August 7, 1990), we noted that the proposed subdivision would result in the creation of two grossly gerrymandered lots, the elimination of virtually all open recreation areas on one of the lots, a density of development beyond that which is permitted in the R-3 district and the need for multiple variances. The newly revised plat appears to effectively addresses those concerns previously raised by this office. While the newly proposed subdivision would result in one flag lot, this proposal greatly reduces the gerrymandering of lot lines evident in the previous submissions. Consequently, usable open space for recreation and aesthetic purposes has been provided for all proposed properties and units. Also, the density of development now conforms to the minimum standard required under the R-3 district (5,000 s.f. of land area per dwelling unit). Furthermore, the character of the streetscape now should be more in keeping with the single family residential character existing in the area and called for under the R-3 district standards. �Lastly, it appears that the need for all previously required bulk variances has been eliminated under the new proposal. However, the existing five-unit residential structure constitutes a pre-existing non-conforming use due to the fact that only single family homes and certain public uses are permitted principal uses in the R-3 district. Consequently, one use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will still be required to permit the existing structure on what amounts to a new lot. Thomas Gissen, AICP Associate Consultant cc: Mayor Janet Gandolfo William Regen John Hughes, Jr. James Margotta Irene Amato Joseph A. Guilino (By Facsimile) Ronald Turnquist 500\not0-009.tg 2 �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: September 24, 1990 Subject: Leonard Rutialan Automotive Repair Shop. I. INTRODUCTION. This application is for site plan approval for an automotive repair shop use in the C-2 (General Commercial) district of the Village of North Tarrytown. The subject site, which is located at 97 College Avenue, currently maintains a vacant single-story masonry structure of approximately 4,100 square feet (s.f.) in size. It is our understanding that the proposal is to rehabilitate this structure for use as an automotive repair shop. Due to the fact that this site is located within the C-2 district, which is both a commercial and residential district, and is further located directly across the street from a residential district (the R-6 district), the Planning Board maintains site plan review authority under Section 62-29.A. (4) of the Zoning Code of the Village of North Tarrytown (the Code). As further delineated below, numerous bulk variances as well as a use variance will be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) before this site plan can be implemented. II. ANALYSIS. A. Use Variance: Automotive repair shops are only permitted as-of-right in the C-l (Highway Commercial) district. As an automotive repair shop is not a permitted use in the C-2 district, a use variance will be required from the ZBA. B « Non-Conforming Bulk Standards: 1. Overview. Due to the fact that the existing structure covers virtually the entire lot, the site's physical layout is non-conforming in two regards. 2. Building Coverage. While the existing structure maintains virtually 100 percent building coverage, the �maximum building coverage for a commercial structure in the C-2 district is 60 percent. 3. Rear Yard Setback. A 20-foot rear yard setback is required of commercial structures in the C-2 district; the existing structure is built out virtually to the rear lot line. Performance Standards: Any use in the C-2 district is subject to the performance standards specified in Section 62-16 of the Code. The strict employment of these standards appears to be highly justifiable given the use proposed for this site (an automobile repair shop) and its proximity to residential uses and a residential district. Specifically, the applicant should be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that necessary measures have been undertaken to assure that no noise, odors, glare or vibrations associated with the proposed automotive repair activity will emanate beyond the property lines either at ground level or at an elevation that could potentially affect neighboring residents in mid-rise apartments. Furthermore, the control of atmospheric pollution and potential groundwater contamination should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Board. This should include the provision of all procedures and safeguards necessary to assure the proper disposal of engine oil. Lastly, given the proposed use, it is recommended that the Planning Board request that the Fire Marshal review the proposed plans to assure that all necessary fire suppression and safety measures have been employed. Parking Standards: Section 62-14.E. requires that parking for this use be provided at a ratio of one space per 1,000 s.f. or one space per two employees, whichever yields a greater number of parking spaces. Employing the size standard would yield a requirement of five parking spaces. The applicant should provide a liberal estimate of the maximum number of employees per shift and then demonstrate that all required parking can be provided on site. 2 �Given the potential for an unsightly spillover of automobiles from this use onto adjoining lots or onto the public sidewalk and street, we would recommend that any site plan approval that may be forthcoming for this application be conditioned upon a continuous prohibition against employee or client parking anywhere but within the existing structure. E. Miscellaneous: 1. Environmental Assessment Form. As alluded to earlier in the section of this memorandum on "Performance Standards," the applicant should be required to demonstrate that all appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented necessary to prevent any adverse off-site impacts from noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance. He should also be required to demonstrate that there will be no major adverse effect on air quality associated with the proposed auto repair shop. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that these impacts will be sufficiently mitigated, then the answers to sections (d)7 and (d)8 of the submitted short environmental assessment form should be changed from "no" to "yes." 2. Spillover of Neighboring Use onto Subject Site. The applicant should also explain the relationship of the property to the west of the subject site's northwest corner. It appears that part of a three-story wooden porch, that is ancillary to neighboring residential uses, is located on the subject site. Based upon a field investigation, it further appears that a one-half story high portion of the existing structure on the subject site is located below this wooden porch. A detailed explanation of the exact legal nature of any easements involved in this impingement upon a portion of the subject site by another lot's uses should be provided. Furthermore, the Planning Board should employ those restrictions upon the storage or other use of this space below and near the wooden porch that are appropriate and necessary to assure the health and safety of the residents of the neighboring structure. 3 �F. Conclusion. Pending the submission of the additional requested, this concludes our review. information Thomas Gissen, AICP Associate Consultant cc: Mayor Janet Gandolfo William Regen John Hughes, Jr. James Margotta Irene Amato Joseph Guilino (By Facsimile) Charles Riley 500\not0-012.tg �MEMORANDUM To: Village of North Tarrytown From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: September 25, 1990 Subject: Sleepy Hollow Wetlands Permit and Site Plan. I- INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Board with our review of the September 17, 1990 "Wetland Watercourse Protection - Chapter 61; Summary of Sleepy Hollow Project" report prepared by Larry Nardecchia, Jr., P.E.; the "Landscape Proposal Alternate" also prepared by Larry Nardecchia, Jr., P.E. and dated September 12, 1990; and to relate to the Planning Board the substance of recent correspondence between this office and Richard Speidel of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) . II. WETLANDS REPORT A. Overview. The submittal by Larry Nardecchia, Jr., P.E. of additional information to meet the requirements of a formal wetlands application provides almost all of the information needed to process this application. The remainder of this section of the review is devoted to identifying additional information or clarifications we believe are necessary, and to presenting our preliminary comments. B. Additional Information and Clarifications Necessary. i• Information for item 61-10.A.(6)(a). Mr. Nardecchia indicates that there are no wetlands on site. However, the Proposed Drain Plan and Profile sheet, revised 8/5/90, indicates a wet area at the bottom of the ravine. Furthermore, Mr. Nowicki's report in Appendix E indicates the presence of "saturated soils" at the bottom of the ravine. Mr. Nowicki's report also indicates that there is only a very sparse growth of hydrophytic plants in the saturated soil. It is not clear why the soil has been labeled as saturated in one part of the report, while another part of the report indicates a lack of functioning hydric soils in the ravine. Under normal circumstances, this would appear to be a basic inconsistency. It is also not clear if this �saturated soil area extends beyond the limits of the stream, as seems to be indicated on the drawing. However, if it can be clearly shown that the saturated soil is not a functioning hydric soil and that it does not "support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation," then the Planning Board can safely agree that there are no wetlands at the bottom of the ravine beyond the edge of the watercourse. ii. Information for item 61-13.A.& B. The Village's Wetland Law, as currently written, requires the submittal of a mitigation plan when losses to a wetland/watercourse are necessary and unavoidable. Mitigation is to be in the form of replacing the lost wetland/watercourse at a 2:1 ratio. The applicant indicates that the requirements for mitigation should not apply to watercourses. From an environmental viewpoint, we would tend to agree. Nevertheless, the law as currently written requires the mitigation plan, even when the loss affects a watercourse only. However, assuming that the applicant can reasonably address the issues raised in the previous comment (i.e. conclusively demonstrate that no wetlands exist), then the Board must decide if the proposed action would result in the loss of the watercourse. If placing the stream in a culvert is considered to be a modification of the stream only, then the stream may be considered not to have been "lost" and no mitigation would be required. However, if the placement of the stream within a culvert is considered to constitute the loss of the watercourse, then a mitigation plan must be submitted. As Mr. Nardecchia states in his submittal, the law provides no indication of what technical date needs to be provided as part of a mitigation plan when only a watercourse is involved (61-13.B. only address the mitigation of lost wetlands). If the Planning Board determines that the stream would be lost under the proposed actions, then some determination from the Board will be necessary as to what will constitute an acceptable mitigation plan. 2 �LANDSCAPE PLAN; A. Landscaping Plan Dated June 16, 1990. The grading plan has been revised to remove the previously proposed grade change directly around the hemlock grove on the north side of the project site. While this will definitely help preserve the hemlocks, even further separation between these trees and the proposed grading may be necessary. Furthermore, the future subdivision of this area into plots ultimately may render all efforts to preserve these trees futile. If the trees are to be saved, then all efforts necessary to protect them should be taken now. This includes providing some perpetual clearing and grading limit area around these trees. Also, while the Landscaping Plan shows some replacement of trees, we think more can be added without jeopardizing the proposed use of the land. We would suggest doubling (at least) the amount of trees planted on the site. The additional trees should be shade trees. such as the proposed oak, rather than the smaller dogwoods. Exact tree species should be specified. Dogwoods come in many forms, from smaller shrubs to flowering trees. Many of these types are not suitable for the proposed planting area. We would recommend Cornus kousa, Kousa Dogwood for this planting. Similarly, there are a number of oak types available; we would recommend Ouercus rubra. Red oak for this planting. B. Landscape Proposal Alternate. The Landscape Proposal alternative provides a good additional start at mitigating the loss of vegetation due to filling. We feel that this proposal, in conjunction with additional planting on the proposed project site, would begin to provide more substantial mitigation. DEC SUBMISSION According to Richard Speidel of the Division of Regulatory Affairs for Region 3 of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Lake Freemont is a Class B protected waterway. Consequently, the stream running from North Broadway (just south of the ravine site) to Lake Freemont, which is readily identifiable on the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Map, also takes on the Class B protected status, according to Mr. Speidel. 3 �He further stated that the ravine stream flow is probably also protected, provided it flows on a year-round basis. It appears that this stream probably does flow on a year-round basis. He recommended that the applicant apply to the DEC for a stream disturbance permit. V. CONCLUSION Pending the submission of further information identified above and further direction from the Planning Board, this concludes our review at this time. Jim Donovan, ASIA Landscape Architect Thomas Gissen, AICP Associate Consultant cc: Mayor Janet Gandolfo William Regen John Hughes, Jr. James Margotta Irene Amato Joseph Guilino (By Facsimile) Larry Nardecchia, Jr., P.E. 500\not0-013.tg 4 �CAMCE P M ARI PQ A M A N P A N A P P l ^ n M R L C O M. I V I M I I W H I I M n w CONSULTING ENGINEERS COURT PLAZA NORTH. 25 MAIN ST.. HACKENSACK. NJ 07601-7032 sf^gj SUITE 8C NEW YORK. NCW YORK 10021 1 2 0 £AST Jsm 201-342-4200 212-683-7712 PAX. 201-342-0790 TABLE QF CONTENTS MEMORANDUMS - PROPOSED SUBDIVISION/SITE PLAN UPDATES VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK (SEPTEMBER, 1990) MEMORANDUM DESCRIPTION CAMCE REF. NO 1. E. Massaro & A. Pavluetti Proposed Handicapped Dwelling Unit, 190 Valley St. 1344R 2. Vincent Margotta - Proposed alteration to 89 & 91 Cortlandt St. 1383R 3. Proposed Kringas Subdivision 149 Webber Avenue 1378R 4. Sleepy Hollow Cemetery - Proposed subdrain near Route 9 1368R 5. Automotive Repair Shop 97 College Avenue 1384R �CHARLES A. MANGANAftO M E M O R A N D U M TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: ' Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers DATE: September 21, 1990 RE: Proposed Handicapped Dwelling Unit Addition 190 Valley Street CAMCE #1344R Per our review of the site plan last revised June 6, 1990, by Mr. Julius B. Twyne, Jr., Architect, for the above referenced project, our comments or questions concerning potable water, sewage, and drainage facilities are as follows: A. The site plan should show where the drains located in the ramp area adjacent to the trash bin area and entry door, discharge too, along with pipe sizes and calculations to verify sizes. Final recommendations will be made to the Planning Board once the necessary information has been addressed. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please let us know. JAG/gsb.960 cc: Mr. William T. Regan, Village Administrator Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector John Hughes, Esq. Mr. Thomas Gissen, Assoc. Cons. - Frederick P. Clark Assoc.(Via Facsimile) Mr. Julius B. Twyne, Jr., Architect �CHARLES A. MANGANARO M E M O R A N D U M TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers DATE: September 21, 1990 RE: Proposed Alteration to 89 & 91 Cortlandt Street CAMCE #1383R Per our preliminary review of the site plan last revised September 17, 1990, submitted to us by the North Tarrytown Building Department for the above referenced project, our comments concerning potable water, sewage, and storm water drainage only, are as follows: A. The names of all owners of record of adjacent properties should be shown on the site plan. B. The location of all existing structures and other manmade features on adjacent properties including existing utility lines should be shown on the site plan. C. The design of the proposed water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems including the locations, sizes, invert, and rim elevations to the existing water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems. In addition, the Village's water and sewer, and public works departments have standards, specifically typical detail sheets on the above mentioned systems. The developer should conform with these standards. D. Existing and proposed topography map of the subdivision should be shown extending at least twenty 20 ft. beyond the site boundaries with contour intervals not greater than five (5) ft. and referenced to USGS or other approved bench mark and scale. E. The Owner's endorsement should be on the site plan. �CHARLES A. MANGANARO Page 2 Planning Board September 21, 1990 CAMCE 1383R F. Planning Board Chairman's endorsement per subdivision regulations, Part IV, Page 7817 (14C) should be shown on site plan. G. The locations of nearest fire hydrants should be shown. H. The widths of streets and avenues encompassing the sites should be shown. I. Fire sprinklers, if required, should be shown or indicated by note on the drawing. Final recommendations will be made to the Planning Board once the necessary information has been received. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please let us know. JAG:ab:959 cc: Mr. William T. Regan, Village Administrator Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Village Attorney Mr. Thomas Gissen, Assoc. Cons. - Frederick P. Clark Associates (via Facsimile) Mr. Vincent Margotta �CHARLES A. MANGANARO M E M O R A N D U M TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers DATE: September 21, 1990 RE: Proposed Kringas Subdivision 149 Webber Avenue CAMCE #1378R Per our preliminary review of the revised site plan dated September 12, 1990, submitted to us by the North Tarrytown Building Department for the above referenced project, our comments concerning potable water, sewage, and storm water drainage only, are as follows: A. The names of all owners of record of adjacent properties should be shown on the site plan. B. The location of all existing structures and other manmade features on adjacent properties including existing utility lines should be shown on the site plan. C. The design of the proposed water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems including the locations, sizes, invert, and rim elevations to the existing water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems. In addition, the Village's water and sewer, and public works departments have standards, specifically typical detail sheets on the above mentioned systems. The developer should conform with these standards. D. Existing and proposed topography map of the subdivision should be shown extending at least twenty 20 ft. beyond the site boundaries with contour intervals not greater than five (5) ft. and referenced to USGS or other approved bench mark and scale. E. The nature and location of all other existing site features, including wetlands, water bodies, water courses, wooded areas, and rock outcrops should be shown. F. The Owner's endorsement should be on the site plan. �CHARLES A. MANGANARO Page 2 Planning Board September 21, 1990 G. Planning Board Chairman's endorsement per subdivision regulations, Part IV, Page 7817 (14C) should be shown on site plan. H. The locations of nearest fire hydrants should be shown. I. The widths of streets and avenues encompassing the sites should be shown. J. Fire sprinklers, if required, should be shown or indicated by note on the drawing. Final recommendations will be made to the Planning Board once the necessary information has been received. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please let us know. JAG:ab:959 cc: Mr. William T. Regan, Village Administrator Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Village Attorney Mr. Thomas Gissen, Assoc. Cons. - Frederick P. Clark Associates (via Facsimile) Mr. Demitrios Kringas �CAMC r M A Q t PQ A M A N P A N A R n COURT PLAZA NORTH. 25 MAIN ST. HACKENSACK. NJ 07601 -7032 LnMMLCO M. wiMrMvaMi^Mnw 120 ygf 75TH STREET sum K NCW Y0Wt N£w Y0RK l(J021 201-342-4200 212-683-7712 FAX. 201-342-0790 CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers DATE: September 21, 1990 RE: Sleepy Hollow Cemetery - Proposed Subdrain Near Route 9 CAMCE #1368R As of this date, no further information has been received. Therefore, our sole comment concerning the technical aspects has not been addressed (See attached CAMCE Memorandum of August 9, 1990). Final recommendations will be made to the Planning Board once the necessary item is noted on the drawings. We trust this information satisfies any inquiries you may have. If you require any additional information, please let us know. JAG:ab:958 enc. cc: Mr. William T. Regan, Village Administrator Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Mr. Thomas Gissen, Assoc. Cons. - Frederick P. Clark Associates (via Facsimile) Mr. Larry Nardecchia, P.E. �CHARLES A. MANGANARO UH&AOO TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: Joseph A. Gulino Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers DATE: August 9, 1990 RE: Sleepy Hollow Cemetary - Proposed Subdrain Near Route 9 CAMCE #1368R As of this date, no further information has been received. Therefore, our sole comment, concerning only potable water, sewage and storm water, which has not been addressed, is as follows: A. The pipeline shall be sized to withstand the loads of overburden plus those resulting from construction equipment. Subsequently, in some sections of the pipe where deep backfilling would be required, it appears that a more tolerable pipe class be selected. Final recommendations will be made to the Planning Board once the necessary item is noted on the drawings. We trust that this information satisfies any inquiries you may have. If you require any additional information, please let us know. JAG:da:823 cc: Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. William T. Regan, Village Administrator John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Mr. Larry Nardecchia, P.E. �CHARLES A. MANGANARO M E M O R A N D U M TO: Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board FROM: 'Joseph A. Gulino, Project Engineer Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers DATE: September 21, 1990 RE: Lenny's Auto Repair 97 College Avenue CAMCE #1384R Per our review of the site plan dated August 27, 1990, prepared by Mr. Charles Riley, Land Surveyor; our comments concerning potable water, sewage, and storm drainage, are as follows: A. The location of all existing structures and other man-made features of the site, as well as those on adjacent properties, including existing utility lines (gas & electric). B. The location and design of the proposed water supply, sewage disposal and storm water drainage systems, including the locations, sizes, invert, and rim elevations to the existing water supply, sewage disposal, and storm water drainage systems. C. Existing and proposed topography map of the subdivision, extending at least twenty (20) ft. beyond the site boundaries with contour intervals not greater than five (5) ft. and referenced to US6S or other approved bench mark and scale. D. The nature and location of all other existing site features, including wetlands, water courses, wooded areas, and rock outcrops. E. The plan shall clearly indicate which site features are existing and proposed, and which will be removed. F. Owner's endorsement. G. Planning Board Chairman's endorsement per subdivision regulations, Part IV, Page 7817 (14C). H. The locations of nearest fire hydrants. I. The widths of streets and avenues encompassing the site. �CHARLES A. MANGANARO Page 2 Memorandum Lenny's Auto Repair CAMCE #1384R J. An area map showing all streets and property within one thousand (1,000) ft. of the applicant's property, at a scale of one (1) inch to four hundred (400) ft. All property owned by the applicant shall be clearly identified. K. Flow and pressure requirements for the fire sprinkler system and backflow preventers, if required. L. Cover letter to the Planning Board, including brief summary of proposed action in letter form, indicating scope of project, purpose and plans for development. JAG/gsb.962 cc: Mr. William T. Regan, Village Administrator Mr. James T. Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Esq. Charles Riley, Land Surveyor Thomas Gissen, Assoc. Cons. - Frederick P. Clark Assoc. (Via Facsimile) �Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consultants Planning/Development. Environment/Transportation Rye. New York and Southport. Connecticut Frederick P dark (1909-1968) David J portman. AICP Frederic* E Wiedle. AICP Howard / Reynolds PL 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue Rye. New York 10580 (914)967-6540 FAX (914)967-6615 August 13, 1990 Larry J. Nardecchia, Jr. P.E. 21 McKinley Place Ardsley, N.Y. 10502 Dear Mr. Nardecchia: At the last Planning Board meeting (August 9, 1990) you voiced a concern that you did not know what materials you should submit in support of the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery's wetlands amplication. You further requested that someone supply you with "a road map" of the materials you will need to submit in support of this application. As we indicated in our memorandum of August 8, 19^0, Chapter 61, The Wetlands/Watercourse Law, of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown (the Law) clearly specifies information that must be included in any application involving a proposed disturbance to a wetlands/watercourse or associated buffer area, ^s well as the standards the Planning Board must employ in reviewing such applications. Section 61-10, "Applications," clearly spells out exactly what information must be included in every permit application, as well as the information that may be required if certain development thresholds are met. Furthermore, subsection 61-10.c. provides that the Planning Board may require additional information throughout the review process, if analysis of the site and of "the information provided up to that point warrant further information and analysis. The normal procedure is for the applicants' first to provide the information required under the statue and then fot* the approving authority to review that information. However, a t "the Planning Board meeting of August 9, 1990, you indicated that you did not know what information was still missing. An initiai review of the requirements of the Section 61-10 and the materials so far submitted by the applicants indicates that, at ei minimum, the following additional information is required for untfer Section 6110 of the Law and has not yet been submitted by t h ^ Sleepy Hollow Cemetery: �Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consultants Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 1) 61-10.A. (4): "A statement of the proposed work and purpose thereof and an explanation why the proposed activity cannot be located at another site, including an explanation of how the proposed activity is dependent on wetlands or water-related resources." Please note that this information is important as subsection 61-12.D. (2)& (3) of the Law require the Planning Board to make findings that the proposed activity could not feasibly be accomplished at any other location on the site or at another site. Furthermore, subsection 61-12.C. directs the Planning Board to give preference to applications where the proposed activity is dependent upon a shoreline or a wetlands/watercourse location. 2) 61-10.A. (5); A list of all property owners whose property both adjoins the affected watercourse and is 100 feet or less from the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery property line should be included. 3) 61-10.A.(6)(a): "The location of all wetlands/watercourses as determined bv a qualified ecoloaist/botanist and/or soil scientist no earlier than twelve (12) months prior to the date of filing the application." (emphasis added) You have identified wet areas beyond the stream bank that presumably may constitute wetlands as defined by this Law. However, the Law specifically requires that the actual delineation of this area be performed by persons with certain specific qualifications (i.e. an ecologist/botanist or soil scientist, as defined in Section 61-5 of the Law). The full and accurate delineation of any wetlands that may exist on the subject site is very important for determining the wetlands/watercourse buffer area, which also constitutes a regulated area. �Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consultants Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation 4) 61-10.A.(6)(b): "A description of the vegetative cover of the regulated area, including dominant species.11 5) 61-l0.A.(6Wc); types on site." "A description of the soil Again, a person qualified in identifying and mapping soil types will be needed for this requirement. The following information, which has not yet been supplied fully, is also required under the Law. However, the Planning Board may waive this requirement, provided the proposed action does not exceed certain size or cost thresholds, as specified in Section 6110.B. of the Law. Subsection 61-10.A. ( 6 W d ) ; "The location of the construction area or area proposed to be disturbed and its relation to property lines, roads, and buildings within two hundred fifty (250) feet; and watercourses within one hundred (100) feet. In preparing the required information it may be of use to you to review Section 61-12, Standards for Permit Decisions, of the Law. This section outlines the standards the Planning Board should establish before granting approvals and further specifies a number of findings the Planning Board must be able to make in order to grant approval. Section 63-13 of the Law also requires that if the Planning Board approves the proposed action, then the applicant must prepare a mitigation plan that, if approved, will result in the applicant creating new wetlands at least twice as large as the combined areas of the wetlands, watercourses and associated buffer areas that are to be disturbed by the proposed action. The actual requirements of such a mitigation plan are further explained in Section 63-13 of the Law. �Frederick P. Clark Associates, Consultants Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Tom Gissen at this office directly. Sincerely, Thomas Gissen, AICP Associate Consultant cc: 'Jim Donovan Landscape Architect Village of North Tarrytown Planning Board John Hughes James Margotta Joe Gulinoi 500\not0-007.tg �'•» PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN RESOLUTION: AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED USE: CANOPY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION OWNER: JOHN TORNELLO SR. LOCATION: SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BROADWAY AND HUDSON TERRACE ADDRESS: 254-256 NORTH BROADWAY TAX MAP DESIGNATION: SECTION 17, BLOCK 13, LOT 4D ZONING: C-l, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for amended site plan approval (the Application) pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Article VIII, site plan review, Article VI, Section 62-19, Gasoline Service Station and other requirements of the Village Zoning Ordinance considered pertinent to the application, which application is to construct a 23.5-foot by 23.5-foot canopy above an existing pump area at an existing gasoline service station, subject to the development standards in the C-l zoning district, including but not limited to: parking and loading standards (Section 62-14E), performance standards (Section 52-16) and Site Plan Review standards (Section 62-29); and WHEREAS, the Application is supported by a site plan prepared by Gismondi and Pielli, Architects, 66 South Central Avenue, Elmsford, New York, 10523, prepared on June 5, 1990 and titled "Proposed Canopy Addition to Existing Citco Gasoline Service Station; Broadway and Hudson Terrace, North Tarrytown, N.Y.", and a short form Environmental Assessment Form; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Caused field inspections to be made of the property under review and surrounding areas. 2. Reviewed said application materials. 3. Held a public hearing on said application on June 18, 1990, at which time the applicant, Planning Board, it's consultants and members of the public were given an opportunity to be heard. 4. Acting as Lead Agency, requested, received and reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in compliance with SEQR. �\l 5. As Lead Agency for site plan and subdivision review in the Village of North Tarrytown, the Planning Board, after review of said field conditions, recommendations and environmental assessment form as well as other matters noted above, has determined that the proposed action is an unlisted type and hereby issues a "negative declaration" determination of nonsignificance and environmental impact for this unlisted action. WHEREAS, the Village of North Tarrytown Planning Consultant, Frederick P. Clark Associates, recommended that the site plan be amended to include additional landscaped areas that would extend along the interior of the subject site's western property line extending from the northern property line to a point roughly parallel with the southern end of parking space number three and from the southern end of the western property line north to a point parallel with the northernmost edge of parking space number four; and WHEREAS, the applicant expressed some reservation as to the cost of landscaping this existing paved area and the Planning Board and the applicant agreed that substantial and permanent planter boxes planted with attractive flowering vegetation would provide a suitable alternative to a curbed landscaped area in the ground; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested that the applicant provide a detailed lighting plan demonstrating the placement, inclusive of height, wattage and luminosity of all proposed and existing exterior lighting on the site, and clearly demonstrating that no off-site glare will impact any adjoining properties, including adjoining roadways; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested written detailed explanations of the petroleum recycling program the applicant will employ and of the existing pump system on the site including all technical details of the system and the age of the system's various parts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested and the applicant has agreed that the existing stockade fence identified on the applicant's site plan as "to be removed" will not be removed but rather will be relocated approximately two feet to the east, to a position where it will form a continuation of the front (or western) facade of the existing one-story concrete block garage structure, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board requested that all of the above additions and modifications to the site plan be presented on the site plan, but the applicant requested that these additions be identified in a written signed document by the applicant rather than on the site plan due to the cost of modifying the site plan, and the Planning Board agreed to allow the substitution of a signed 2 �V statement by the applicant identifying all of the above changes with the exception of the requested lighting plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said site plan application and site plan drawings 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 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 six (6) 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 the applicant has not obtained a building permit: 1. Lighting Plan - a detailed lighting plan showing the location, inclusive of height, luminosity and direction of all proposed and existing exterior lighting on the site and clearly demonstrating that no glare from said existing or proposed exterior lighting shall be evident to adjacent properties, including adjacent public rights-of-way. 2. A detailed written description of the planter boxes that will be provided by the applicant along the interior of the site's western property line. Two such planters shall be provided, and said planters shall be no less than 2 feet deep, 18 feet long and 3 feet high. Said planters shall be constructed in such a manner as to be placed on the site permanently and shall be located between the site's western property line and parking spaces three and four. 3. A signed written explanation of the petroleum recycling program that is presently employed on the site and that will be employed on the site in the future shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 4. A written explanation of the existing pump system including its various parts and the age of those parts shall be provided. /V/ft/ "7 I41Q Date €VU^^^M—^ E l l e n T s a n g a r i s Q-/ Planning Board Chairperson 500\not0-002.tg;cs 3 � 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_1990-09-27 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