Planning Board 10/03/07 Meeting

Planning Board – 05/28/08 76

PLANNING BOARD

RUTHERFORD HALL

VILLAGE HALL

SCARSDALE, NY

May 28, 2008

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Scarsdale was held in

Rutherford Hall in the Village Hall on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 8:00 p.m.

Those members present were: Jonathan Drescher, Chair, David Karp, Beverley

Sved, Jane Veron and Jeffrey Watiker. Also present were Counsel, Richard Gardella;

Village Engineer/Building Inspector, Nunzio Pietrosanti, Elizabeth Marrinan, Village

Planner, and Secretary to the Planner, Janet Annacone.

* * * * * *

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the April 30, 2008, meeting were approved as amended.

* * * * * *

The Chair noted that the application of Jennifer and Matthew Kaufman to appeal the determination of the Village Engineer denying a second curb cut for a circular driveway at 43

Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 2, Lot 641, would be held over at the request of the applicants.

* * * * * *

Board.

The reading of the following legal notice was waived by unanimous vote of the

LEGAL NOTICE

PLANNING BOARD

VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Planning

Board of the Village of Scarsdale in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Wednesday, May 28,

2008 , at 8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Planning Board will consider the following:

1.

The application of Jennifer and Matthew Kaufman to appeal the determination of the

Village Engineer denying a second curb cut for a circular driveway at 43 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 2, Lot 641.

2.

The application of Elizabeth and Alan Cohen for a Wetlands Permit to reconstruct and expand a deck on this wetlands controlled property at 161 Rock Creek Lane, Sec. 19, Blk.

3, Lot 511.

3.

The application of Terry Singer for a Wetlands Permit to construct an addition to the house on this wetlands controlled property at 14 Richbell Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 6, Lot 24A.


The Board will also discuss:

4.

The application of F.S. Fish #32 – Scarsdale, LLC/S. Oder T.I.C. for a Preapplication

Conference, pursuant to A319-39 of the Village Code, to discuss the proposed construction of a 24,300 sq. ft. multifamily building with 18 age restricted units and parking at 2 – 4 Weaver Street, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 2, Lot

88.

5.

A recommendation to the Village Board regarding the amount of the recreation fee to be assessed in lieu of land dedicated to park, playground or recreational purposes for the two new lots created as a result of the three lot subdivision at 72 Brewster Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 2, Lot 252.

6.

A recommendation to the Village Board regarding the issuance of a Special Use Permit for a Spa and Wellness Center at the Christie Place Development Project located at 1

Christie Place, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 2, Blk. 5, Lot 2A1.

The above applications are on file in the Office of the Building Department and may be viewed by interested parties at any time during usual business hours. By Order of the

Planning Board, Scarsdale, New York, dated May 13, 2008.

Elizabeth Marrinan AICP, Village Planner.

* * * * * *

CASE #17 OF 2008

1.

The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Elizabeth and Alan Cohen for a

Wetlands Permit to reconstruct and expand a deck on this wetlands controlled property at 161

Rock Creek Lane, Sec. 19, Blk. 3, Lot 511.

Elizabeth Cohen, applicant, and John Cotugno, architect, were present.

Mr. Cotugno said they are proposing a 194 sq. ft. extension to the existing deck on this property which is grossly non-conforming. They would remove the pole part of the driveway and turn it into gravel. It is now dark and dingy and they wish to make it more light and airy. They would have gravel and crushed stone underneath for drainage. A short environmental form was submitted.

Ms. Sved said when she was walking the property she noticed a pipe under the small bridge which goes over the stream. She asked where that pipe is from and what is it for.

Mrs. Cohen said it is to remove water from the grass. Ms. Sved asked if Mr. Cotugno had noticed the pipe. Mr. Cotugno said no but he will look into it. He said the applicants didn’t put the pipe in. Ms. Marrinan said typically the Board requests a stream condition survey.

Ms. Sved said the stream looks nice.

The Chair asked if they were proposing any tree removal. Mr. Cotugno said there would be none as part of this job. He said the photographs show shrubs to be removed and moved out.


Ms. Veron said a comment in the staff notes was that the Board may require a certified lot coverage form and survey. Ms. Marrinan said when the lot coverage is close to the maximum permitted amount, they want it verified at the end of the day.

The Chair said there is no drainage proposed for the driveway. Mr. Cotugno said no; but they are improving the current situation. There were no wetland ordinances when this house was built.

Mr. Watiker said the trade off of the driveway versus the small deck extension is in the Village’s best interest to approve. Mr. Cotugno said they are greatly improving the current situation, although personally he wouldn’t remove the asphalt; but they really want the deck.

The Chair asked if Mr. Pietrosanti had any questions. Ms. Marrinan said she could retrieve him from the other meeting. The Chair said no, they would discuss it with Mr.

Pietrosanti during deliberations.

Ms. Dorine Perahia, 106 Palmer Avenue, said her back yard abuts the Cohens’ sideway. They were originally before this Board years ago and were asked for more trees and they refused. It didn’t get approved. She would appreciate screening with trees from the basketball court. It is now even worse and she can’t open her windows to the north. The

Chair asked where her property was. Ms. Perahia repeated her address. She said next to the asphalt were trees.

The Chair asked if this would go before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR).

Ms. Marrinan said she was not sure. Mr. Cotugno said no because it is not five feet above ground.

Ms. Sved said she was still confused about the neighbor’s location. There was a discussion of that location at the dais.

The Chair asked the applicant and her representative if they wished to respond. Mr.

Cotugno said that is not part of the deck, only the driveway and they will consider it. The

Chair said they are changing landscaping and replacing landscaping. Mr. Cotugno said the noise complaint is from the driveway, not the deck. They could replace the landscaping along the property line.

No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.

* * * * * *

CASE #18 OF 2008

2.

The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Terry Singer for a Wetlands

Permit to construct an addition to the house on this wetlands controlled property at 14

Richbell Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 6, Lot 24A.

Terry Singer, applicant and architect, and Richard Kadin, architect, were present.

Ms. Singer said they are proposing a two story addition to enlarge the kitchen, family room and attached garage. They would remove the detached garage. They are expanding the

Planning Board – 05/28/08 79 raised terrace straight across the rear beyond the family room and a new on grade terrace beyond the driveway.

The Chair asked if they would be paving the terrace with pervious or impervious materials. Ms. Singer said they have not made that decision yet. Mr. Kadin said the raised terrace is impervious. Ms. Singer said they calculated both terraces as impervious per the worst case scenario.

The Chair said this intrudes into the wetlands buffer. He asked if they would consider using non-pervious materials. Ms. Singer said they can consider that. She said for the conservative benefit they could use something like bluestone.

Mr. Kadin asked if they couldn’t widen it with pavers and grass in between. The

Chair said this is an opening of a discussion. Ms. Sved said the calculations were done per a worst case scenario; pervious versus impervious surfaces. Ms. Singer said if the concern is in the lot coverage, their proposal is way under. The concern is the construction within the wetlands buffer. Ms. Marrinan said normal mitigation of 1 sq. ft. is 1.5 sq. ft. which was not noted in the staff notes. Ms. Singer said that is interesting. She said she would do that if necessary if within the wetlands buffer versus the wetlands. Ms. Marrinan said this will be reviewed. Ms. Singer said if the code does require it then yes, she will take care of it.

Mr. Watiker said there is a letter in the file from the Kingsbergs. He asked if the applicant has seen it and if they want to respond. Ms. Singer said she has seen it and asked if he would like her to respond. She said the first part doesn’t relate to this application but general neighborhood conditions. The focus of the letter regarding her application was on the second page in the first paragraph. She said they submitted a conceptual plan on the site plan.

Mr. Kadin agreed on the site plan is the concept.

Ms. Marrinan asked if there are any drainage calculations and where the overflow is going. Mr. Kadin said the overflow goes to the front yard. Ms. Marrinan said the Cul-Tec was to retain but was to flow to where. Mr. Kadin said they hired Vince Masucci but he hasn’t started yet. They only located infiltrators but they are not sure where they will flow too. Mr. Masucci will design that.

The Chair said this is a special permit and they want good rationale versus a conceptual plan before approving the wetlands permit.

Ms. Veron said there is tree removal proposed for the work yet there are an enormous number of trees on the lot. Are they proposing any replacements? Ms. Singer said they will landscape it especially in front of the new garage and will replace trees. The two mature trees cannot be replaced. One dogwood would be replaced.


* * * * * *

CASE #19 OF 2008

3.

The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of F.S. Fish #32 – Scarsdale,

LLC/S. Oder T.I.C. for a Preapplication Conference, pursuant to A319-39 of the Village

Code, to discuss the proposed construction of a 24,300 sq. ft. multifamily building with 18

Planning Board – 05/28/08 80 age restricted units and parking at 2 – 4 Weaver Street, identified on the Village tax map as

Sec. 18, Blk. 2, Lot 88.

Frederick Fish, applicant, Richard Behr, architect, and Chris Kannel, architect, were present.

Mr. Kannel summarized the previous preapplication conference on March 26, 2008.

He said based on the Planning Board’s recommendation for senior housing, they had presented a project of 20 age restricted units in 30,000 sq. ft. with 88 parking spaces; 44 parking spaces for the site and 50 parking spaces for the occupants of this project. He said they met with the Village Planner and Village Engineer on April 24, 2008, to discuss their concerns. He said the building statistics for as-of- right is the gross residential floor area, building height and commercial uses. They provided a zoning compliance table.

Mr. Kannel said this project responds to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan and the 2005

Senior Housing memorandum with Heathcote Corners as a recommended location.

Mr. Kannel said they revised the plan and are currently considering 18 units with

24,300 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area. This equals a total area minus the lot occupied by the existing restaurant and office building and setbacks times three or 24,306 sq. ft. They provided parking calculations (see Sheet EX Drawing 1) with the existing parking in the lot now. Drawing Number 2 is the parking permitted by code per the existing site conditions.

The 50 existing spaces should only be 43 spaces according to the Village Code. They used

50 spaces non-conforming. The uses conform but the parking doesn’t comply. Mr. Watiker asked he means there are too few spaces or are the spaces themselves non-conforming. Mr.

Kannel said both. Also he was asked to determine the usable gross floor area on site. The restaurant and offices are shown in Drawing #3 with the leasable floor area and their calculated parking for the restaurant and office uses. The retail building on site would be demolished.

Mr. Kannel said there will be 44 spaces retained for the existing non-conformity.

They are not being expanded and they are not required to improve this. They propose one new space for every 750 sq. ft. of residential use. The required parking is 76 spaces (see

Sheet N-1). Ms. Sved asked when calculating one spot for 750 sq. ft. per code is it for both the cars of residents and guest parking. Mr. Kannel said yes.

Mr. Watiker said that 76 is the number of spaces required. This falls short for the office space and restaurant yet conforms for the apartments. Mr. Kannel said that is correct.

Sheet N-1 shows the lower parking level with 44 spaces, maintaining the existing nonconformity and provides 9 residential parking spaces on the Village land currently used for access and for parking. This land is leased from the Village and has been for many years in the past. It will be maintained. In addition, the mechanical and storage space for the residences would be on the lower level.

Ms. Sved asked him to describe the land. Ms. Marrinan asked if the spaces leased are included in the 44 count. Mr. Kannel said yes. Mr. Watiker asked if the actual spaces on

Sheet N-1 conform to actual spaces per code.

Mr. Karp asked if the lease went away then what is left. Mr. Fish said this land has been leased year to year for 40 years. Mr. Karp asked what happens if the lease is terminated.

Mr. Kannel said the residential component will continue with sufficient parking on site.


Mr. Karp asked how they will control the residential parking. Mr. Kannel said that will probably be the case but they are not near that point. He said Sheet N-2 shows the drop off area noted for the residences. There are 23 spaces on the second floor with a residential lobby. Sheets N-3, N-4 and N-5 show the basic layouts of each floor.

Mr. Kannel said in response to Mr. Watiker’s question, all of the spaces conform to the zoning code dimensions with only 14 percent for compact cars which is below the maximum permitted.

Mr. Kannel said the building encroaches into the rear yard setback for a more regular footprint. They would need two variances; rear yard setback and density. Per zoning, only ten gigantic units are permitted and wouldn’t reflect the age restricted market with at least one person 55 years old or older. This would be a more viable project reflecting the

Comprehensive Plan and Senior Housing for age restricted.

Mr. Karp asked the number of bedrooms. Mr. Kannel said they would be one or two bedroom units. Mr. Karp asked the density of persons occupying each development; up to four persons? Mr. Gardella said there are state laws regulating that. Mr. Watiker said that could be 35 or more persons living there. Mr. Gardella said the family size per unit issues is not relevant here.

The Chair said the density is associated with the traffic impact and water. Mr. Kannel said the sizes of units are extremely large with three to five bedrooms if they follow the basic building standards. There are no regulations in the code per the size and occupants. The standard per most towns are studios, one, two and three bedrooms.

Mr. Fish said 55 years or older senior housing typically consists of two people who are not full time residents. The Chair said there is lower density with less people. Mr. Fish said the larger more expensive units would be prohibitive.

Ms. Sved asked how many bathrooms would be in a one or two bedroom unit. Mr.

Fish said it varies. A one or two bedroom, some are one large bedrooms, each depends on their needs. These would be around $900,000 per unit which is modestly affordable in

Scarsdale.

Mr. Watiker asked if the FAR regulations apply to this site. Ms. Marrinan said no.

Mr. Kannel said this project will meet the building height restrictions but they do not have topographical information at this time.

Mr. Kannel said if this doesn’t move forward, his client would go to the permitted commercial usage; like a bank, nail salon, etc. This project complements the Comprehensive

Plan and the Planning Board’s Senior Housing recommendations. Is this project appropriate and approvable in the Village of Scarsdale?

Mr. Watiker asked if they would be using the Heathcote Bypass as part of this project.

Mr. Kannel said that would be up to the Village. Mr. Watiker said the restaurant would use the same ingress and egress and the dance studio would be eliminated. Mr. Kannel said that is correct. Mr. Watiker asked where the drop off area for the restaurant would be. Mr.

Kannel said that would be at the lower level and it would be widened for safety. There will be an elevator to the restaurant from the lower level for the disabled and elderly. Mr. Watiker

Planning Board – 05/28/08 82 asked where the apartments are serviced. Mr. Kannel said that would be at the lower level and include all deliveries and trash removal for both the residential and the restaurant. Ms.

Veron asked if the service entrance is from the real driveway. Mr. Kannel said yes. There is no staging area at this time for Federal Express, etc., only the loading dock for the restaurant.

The Chair said this needs to be considered with possibly three or four trucks and garbage service. They may lose parking spaces. He asked how they would stop people from dropping off at the restaurant and then proceeding out. Did they think it would be a problem?

Mr. Fish said people do things just because it is convenient. He said this will be reviewed.

The Chair asked about the status of the lease with the Board of Trustees. Mr. Fish said the Board of Trustees has leased with their predecessors for over ten years and for a number of decades. The Chair said he is trying to see any problems. He asked if they have spoken about firming it up. Mr. Fish said the issue is that the committee has said it is their contention not to ever discontinue the agreement but they wish to control it and want some avenues if it becomes obnoxious. Mr. Watiker said the lease by the Village is for the restaurant but what control is there if it is not a restaurant. Mr. Fish said he wanted it when they started but the Board of Trustees wanted the current conditions. He felt very comfortable moving forward with the lease.

The Chair said there are 43 restaurant spaces now and asked how is it at the peak of the day, this afternoon? Mr. Kannel said the retail use shows up at the same time. They pick up children from the dance studio between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. and then they leave. The restaurant fills up the spaces later. The office spaces compliment the restaurant spaces. The

Chair asked, given the restaurant and studio, about a traffic issue. Mr. Kannel said to eliminate the retail which would be high impact at peak time (3 p.m. to 5 p.m.). Age restricted housing is better than retail because of the low volume of traffic at not peak times.

He said the current traffic on Weaver Street at the five corners would be worse with retail versus the age restricted housing. He said the next step is site plan and a traffic study.

The Chair asked if there is any resolution. Ms. Marrinan said a recommendation doesn’t require a formal vote.

The Chair asked about the rear yard setback and screening of the parking and proposed big building. He asked if they were willing to commit to landscape from the bypass side. Mr. Fish said yes; in the spring, summer and early fall you would not be able to see the building. He said not in the winter. The Chair said the Board needs the ability to mitigate.

Mr. Fish said then it behooves them to screen. The Chair said this time of year it is obscured by the existing vegetation.

Mr. Watiker asked about the pedestrian safety. He said he assumes it would be at the corner of Heathcote Tavern where the original entrance was and connect to the residential drop off area. Mr. Kannel said he doesn’t have a confirmed survey. Currently the sidewalk turns around and ends at the drop off areas. It may be the same or change. Mr. Watiker said it would be helpful to allow future access to the Colonial Village Shopping Center. Mr. Fish noted that Baldacci’s is closer.

Ms. Veron said they spoke last time about a discussion with the Village regarding the bypass. She asked if there has been any progress; has this been raised; is there a policy or any give and take between the Village and them. Mr. Fish said he doubted the Village and the County would agree on this in his lifetime.


Mr. Fish said interiors three times the size of these proposed would suffer economically and not be feasible. Ms. Veron said as a community they would benefit with a leasing arrangement. She asked what the benefit to the Village is. Mr. Fish said they would provide moderately reasonably priced Senior Housing for the Village. They would landscape it. They care and feel the building would be pleasing. He said they are open to suggestions.

Ms. Sved asked if a Full Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) would be required given this location. Ms. Marrinan said 50 units and above trigger it per New York State laws.

This Board could require one given the nature of the site. They could also require a traffic study and look at the use of the Village land. The study of alternatives could be required to achieve the same level of environmental scrutiny without the two year time frame of a FEIS.

Ms. Sved asked if the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) had been filled out.

Ms. Marrinan said it is not required for a preapplication conference.

Ms. Sved said there are major concerns with this location, primarily traffic and congestion. She said further studies could shed a light on this. She said question Number

Nine on the SEAF was checked residential uses in the area but the cleaners and SCARVAC are there. Mr. Kannel said it was an oversight on their part. Ms. Sved said the site itself is a concern. They want more senior housing at a different price point than Christie Place. But, given the problems and the site, they need traffic and visual impact review.

Mr. Karp said they should be encouraged but the problem is they need additional information regarding traffic, etc. They should see that this is viewed favorably.

Mr. Behr said he has spent 12 years at this office. There are trees and visual screening along the bypass. They measure the trees to be 80’ to 90’ in height. There is a tree buffer to the bypass and then to the Golden Horseshoe. He said the closest building is over 500’ away.

Ms. Veron said the last time they spoke it was regarding 20 units and the environmental issues. Now they are at 18 units. If there is any additional resistance, what is the bare basic minimum number of units they would consider? Mr. Fish said they are at that number now. They need critical mass. People want to live with each other. Some will be only part time residents but they still need staff and services which would be very expensive allocated to less units. They are not trying to be arbitrary or capricious. They are focusing on great architecture and layouts. Ms. Veron asked how many persons would work in the building. Mr. Fish said he hopes for a maid service on an as-needed basis. Some would want it four months a year. Also there are maintenance needs including the common areas. Mr.

Kannel said there may not be any full time staff in the building. The Chair asked Ms. Veron if she was trying to get to the traffic issue.

Mr. Watiker said to access by the bypass would be very wise but could be hard to make happen. Utilizing the existing curb cuts make the proposal easier than proposals using the bypass. He liked that this proposal is set back from the road and smaller.

The Chair said taking a bigger picture of adding 18 to 20 units close to shopping and public transportation with 76 parking spaces to stay the same but with more age restricted residences; there are a lot of good things going for it. Mr. Fish thanked the Board for their candor and honesty.



* * * * * *

CASE #20 OF 2008

4.

The Chair declared the hearing open on the recommendation to the Village Board regarding the amount of the recreation fee to be assessed in lieu of land dedicated to park, playground or recreational purposes for the two new lots created as a result of the three lot subdivision at 72 Brewster Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 2, Lot 252.

Dr. Henry Oksman, applicant, was present.

Dr. Oksman said they started this project a long time ago and came a long way. He thanked the Board for their time that they spent on it. His family went for one year. This is not business but they intend to live there. The third lot is for covering costs. He asked the

Board to consider the time and cost spend when they are considering the amount of the recreation fee they will recommend.


* * * * * *

CASE #21 OF 2008

5.

The Chair declared the hearing open on the recommendation to the Village Board regarding the issuance of a Special Use Permit for a Spa and Wellness Center at the Christie

Place Development Project located at 1 Christie Place, identified on the Village tax map as

Sec. 2, Blk. 5, Lot 2A1.

Doug Brout, applicant, was present.

Mr. Brout said he was here to answer questions if there were any.

Mr. Watiker said he sees this retail space as an opportunity to add retail unique to the

Village. There is already a restaurant. What else would they propose? Mr. Brout said the original plan and design was with four spaces; a corner bank, a restaurant, one proposed for the spa and the space to the east of the garage entrance. Mr. Watiker said there would be a bank, restaurant, wellness center and one other unknown. Mr. Brout said they are currently marketing for one to three spaces, but they need to feel it out. They do not want to compromise the quality of the tenants.

Mr. Karp asked about the purpose of one particular space. Mr. Brout said that was for yoga classes.

The Chair asked about the window treatments. Mr. Brout said they would be display windows. The Chair asked if this was shown on a plan. Mr. Brout said not yet. Ms.

Marrinan said there is an issue with the CVS windows at 7 Popham. The Chair said asked if there would be any additional signage. Mr. Brout said no. The Chair stated they didn’t want signage. Mr. Brout said the display windows wouldn’t be approved because they would be out of character.


Mr. Watiker asked if this space can be converted for other uses in the future. Mr.

Brout said yes.


* * * * * *


CASE #16 OF 2008

1. Jennifer and Matthew Kaufman

43 Hampton Road

Section 4, Block 2, Lot 641

Appeal the determination of the Village Engineer denying a second curb cut for a circular driveway

The Chair noted that the application of Jennifer and Matthew Kaufman, Case #16 of 2008, would be held over to a future meeting at the request of the applicants.

* * * * * *


CASE #17 OF 2008

2. Elizabeth and Alan Cohen

161 Rock Creek Lane


Wetlands Permit to reconstruct and expand a deck on this wetlands controlled property

The Board considered the application of Elizabeth and Alan Cohen, Case #17 of

2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, adopted the following resolution unanimously:

WHEREAS: the Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State

Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: that after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information submitted on the plans and on the EAF, the Board determined that such application, the construction of deck) on a wetlands controlled lot is an

Unlisted action pursuant to Chapter 152 of the Village Code and 6 NYCRR

617.2(ak) further determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment or on the adjacent wetlands; and

WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-2a (15,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is listed in the Assessor’s records as .45 acres and 19,975 sq. ft., and is improved with a house built in 1968 with interior renovations made since then; and

WHEREAS: The lot is considered a wetlands controlled lot due to Rock Creek which crosses the property; and

WHEREAS: Chapter 171 of the Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to consider wetlands permits where construction is proposed within 100 feet of a

Village regulated wetlands; and

WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed repair and a 194 sq. ft. extension of the deck and the replacement of approximately 1000 sq. ft. of the driveway with gravel; and

WHEREAS: The lot coverage form indicates the existing lot coverage is 4,882 sq. ft. where 3,952 sq. ft. are permitted on this wetlands controlled lot and the proposed lot coverage is shown as 3,941 sq. ft.; and

WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the application of Elizabeth and Alan Cohen for a Wetlands Permit to reconstruct and expand a deck on this wetlands controlled property at 161

Rock Creek Lane, be approved conditioned on the following:


1.

A Stormwater and Erosion Control Permit will be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. An existing condition survey of the open watercourse should be included with the SWEC application as should a plan for any necessary improvements and cleaning and maintaining the stream on the property free and clear of obstruction during and after construction.

2.

A certified survey and lot coverage form shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

* * * * * *


CASE #18 OF 2008

3. Terry Singer

14 Richbell Road

Section 14, Block 6, Lot 24A

Wetlands Permit to construct an addition to the house on this wetlands controlled property

The Board considered the application of Terry Singer, Case #18 of 2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting pending receipt and review of the following:

1.

An existing conditions survey of the open watercourse should be submitted along with a plan for any necessary improvements and cleaning and maintaining the stream free and clear of obstruction during and after construction.

2.

Preliminary drainage calculations to support the Stormwater

Management system design including percolation rates should be submitted.

3.

The requirements of Chapter 171-7 E regarding construction in the wetlands/watercourse buffer and mitigation measures should be addressed.

4.

Documentation showing the applicant is considering options to avoid or limit the impact on the watercourse buffer and/or permeable surfaces or structures for construction there.

* * * * * *


CASE #19 OF 2008

4. F.S. Fish #32 – Scarsdale, LLC/S. Oder T.I.C.

2 – 4 Weaver Street


Preapplication Conference, pursuant to A319-39 of the Village Code, to discuss the proposed construction of a 24,300 sq. ft. multifamily building with 18 age restricted units and parking

The Board considered the application of F.S. Fish #32 – Scarsdale, LLC/S. Oder

T.I.C., Case #19 of 2008, and, made the following recommendations:

1.

The project, as revised, should be further developed and carefully reviewed.

The provision of senior housing in the Heathcote Five Corners area would appear to be a benefit to the Village and meets the objectives of the

Comprehensive Plan and the Senior Housing Study as completed by the

Planning Board in 2005. The construction of modestly sized units at a lower price point than is currently available in the Village would provide senior citizens additional housing options.

2.

The site is appropriate for housing as it is served by public transportation and is within walking distance of shopping, cultural and community services.

3.

The Planning Board is concerned about the traffic impacts and encourages the applicant to conduct a detailed traffic and parking study.

4.

The Planning Board reiterates its comments made at the March 26, 2008 meeting regarding the environmental review. The environmental issues to be addressed during the project’s review will likely include, but not be limited to, traffic impacts, parking, visual impact, storm water management, ingress and egress to the property and a market analysis of senior housing need. In addition, the Board will likely require the applicant to explore certain options for the development of the property including an as-of-right commercial project, a senior housing project that incorporates the Village owned property, and a “nobuild” scenario.

5.

The Planning Board also encourages the applicant to work with the Village to explore either a longer term lease or the purchase of the Village property, with any conditions that may be appropriate to the application. This would allow for greater flexibility of design and for the potential of accessing the Heathcote Bypass; however, it is not the Board’s intention to recommend that the Village property be used for development purposes (i.e. additional bulk or density).

* * * * * *


CASE #20 OF 2008

5. Recommendation to Village Board

72 Brewster Road


A recommendation to the Village Board regarding the amount of the Subdivision

Recreation Fee the two new lots created as a result of the three lot subdivision at 72

Brewster Road

The Planning Board, at its regular meeting of May 28, 2008, considered a recommendation to the Village Board regarding the amount of the recreation fee to be assessed in lieu of land dedicated to park, playground or recreational purposes for the two new lots created as a result of the three lot subdivision at 72 Brewster Road, Case #20 of

2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, adopted the following resolution with

Mr. Drescher, Ms. Sved, Ms. Veron and Mr. Watiker in favor, Mr. Karp opposed:

WHEREAS: The Planning Board approved the three lot subdivision of the property, creating two new lots on April 30, 2008; and

WHEREAS: The Board finds that dedication of land for park, playground or recreation purposes is not feasible in view of the small amount of land available in this three lot subdivision; and

WHEREAS: The Village Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation provides a variety of facilities to meet the interests and needs of the community which includes parks, playgrounds, ball fields and an outdoor pool; and

WHEREAS: The Village Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation has a Five

Year Capital Plan that calls for the replacement of facilities and equipment as well as additional facilities that will be needed in the future; and

WHEREAS: The Village Board, on February 27, 2007 updated the Guidelines for monetary payment in lieu of land for new building lots; and

WHEREAS: The Board considered the calculations prepared by staff using the guidelines for two new lots; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Planning Board recommends to the Village Board that the applicant, Dr. Oksman and Mr. Amidor, be required to pay 4.7% of the

Guideline Value or $39,000 for each of the two new lots created by the subdivision at 72 Brewster Road.

* * * * * *


CASE #21 OF 2008

6. Recommendation to the Village Board

1 Christie Place

Section 2, Block 5, Lot 2A1

A recommendation to the Village Board regarding the issuance of a Special Use

Permit for a Spa and Wellness Center at the Christie Place Development Project

The Planning Board, at its regular meeting of May 28, 2008, discussed a recommendation to the Village Board regarding the issuance of a Special Use Permit for a

Spa and Wellness Center at the Christie Place Development Project at 1 Christie Place,

Case #21 of 2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, adopted the following resolution unanimously:

WHEREAS: The Village Board, at its May 13, 2008 meeting, referred a request from

Ginsburg Development Corporation LLC and Christie Place Scarsdale LLC for a Special Use Permit for one of the retail spaces available in the Christie

Place Project to the Planning Board for a recommendation; and

WHEREAS: The 88,000 sq. ft. building approved by the Planning Board and the Village

Board is currently under construction; and

WHEREAS: The Planning Board, on April 26, 2006, adopted a resolution, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and

Chapter 152 of the Village Code, finding that the project, including the issuance of Special Use Permits for the ground floor retail use of a single bank and a restaurant would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts; and

WHEREAS: The Planning Board in granting Site Plan approval of the Christie Place

Project on June 28, 2006, did so subject to the applicant’s seeking Special

Use Permits from the Village Board of Trustees for each of the individual ground floor uses for permitted retail uses pursuant to Chapter 310-12(B)(6) of the Village Code which states that permitted ground floor uses in the

PUD 0.8 – 1.4 zoning district require a Special Use Permit from the Village

Board; and

WHEREAS: Chapter 310-28 states that the procedure for the Village Board of Trustees to consider Special Use Permits shall include a review of a report and recommendation from the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS: The Planning Board recommended the Village Board approve Special Use

Permits for a bank and a restaurant at its February 27, 2008 meeting and the

Village Board approved the permits at its April 8, 2008 meeting; and

WHEREAS: The application materials include a letter from the applicant requesting a

Special Use Permit for a Spa and Wellness Center and partial floor plans of the proposed space; and


WHEREAS: The applicant has also indicated the proposed tenant will provide a “holistic wellness center, providing spa treatments and selling natural cosmetics, supplements and wellness education and yoga- related items” ; and

WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That Planning Board recommends that the Village Board of Trustees favorably consider the application by Ginsburg Development Corporation

LLC and Christie Place Scarsdale LLC for a Special Use Permits for a spa and Wellness Center located at 1 Christie Place:

1.

The Planning Board approved the Site Plan on June 28, 2006 including permitted retail uses after an extensive review and a State

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination, made on

April 26, 2006, which found these permitted uses would not have an adverse impact on the environment or a significant impact on traffic given the project’s location near public transportation and the fact that adequate parking will be provided on site.

2.

While not noted on the submitted plan, the windows shall be active display windows (in accordance with all signage and other applicable ordinances) and shall not be blocked by interior walls or fixtures.

* * * * * *

Planning Board – 05/28/08

The Chair announced the next meeting of the Planning Board would be held on

Wednesday, June 25, 2008.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Janet Annacone, Secretary to the Board

* * * * * *

94

Planning Board 10/03/07 Meeting

Related documents

Products

Support

Planning Board 10/03/07 Meeting

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib