12
Planning Board – 02/27/08
PLANNING BOARD
RUTHERFORD HALL
VILLAGE HALL
SCARSDALE, NY
February 27, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Scarsdale was held in
Rutherford Hall in the Village Hall on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 8:00 p.m.
Those members present were: William Miller, Chair, Jonathan Drescher, David Karp,
Beverley Sved and Jane Veron. Also present were Counsel, Richard Gardella; Village
Engineer/Building Inspector, Nunzio Pietrosanti, Village Planner, Elizabeth Marrinan and
Secretary to the Planner, Janet Annacone.
******
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the December 19, 2007 and
January 23, 2008, meetings were approved as amended.
******
The reading of the following legal notice was waived by unanimous vote of the Board.
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, February 27,
2008, at 8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Planning Board will consider the following:
1. The application of Penny and Israel Kornstein for a Wetlands Permit to construct a garden
wall on this wetlands controlled property at 15 Rural Drive, identified on the Village tax map
as Sec. 22, Blk. 19, Lot 54.
2. The application of Rachel and Richard Laxer for Site Plan approval to construct a house on
this lot at a distance from the street at 10A Heathcote Road, identified on the Village tax map
as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 7A.
3. The application of the Trustees of Scarsdale Friends Meeting for Site Plan approval to
construct a handicapped ramp at 133 Popham Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec.
3, Blk. 1, Lot 2A.
4. The application of the Fox Meadow Tennis Club, Inc. for Site Plan approval to construct an
addition and an open deck at 14 Wayside Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 3,
Blk. 3, Lot 2.
5. The application of Lisa and Michael Lafelle for a Wetlands Permit to construct an addition at
35 Sheldrake Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 40.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
13
6. The application of Lisa and Sang Han for an amendment to the subdivision approval at 27
Paddington Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 3, Lot 925A.
7. The application of Birchall Acquisition LLC for a Wetlands Permit to construct a driveway,
tennis court and a swimming pool at 107 Birchall Drive and 6 Kelwynne Close, identified on
the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lots 18A, 18E.
8. A recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees regarding the issuance of Special Use
Permits for a restaurant and a bank at the Christie Place Development Project located on
Christie Place between East Parkway and Chase Road.
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 February 11, 2008.
Elizabeth Marrinan AICP, Village Planner.
******
CASE #24 OF 2007
1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Penny and Israel Kornstein for a
Wetlands Permit to construct a garden wall on this wetlands controlled property at 15 Rural
Drive, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk. 19, Lot 54.
Penny and Israel Kornstein, applicants, were present.
Mr. Kornstein said they were here some time ago. A neighbor had contacted the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) regarding the stones that
they lined up in the rear rather than have them removed. He said he and Ms. Marrinan played
detectives and contacted the NYS DEC officer. He said Ms. Marrinan had spoken with Officer
Jason Kuringa from the NYS DEC who confirmed he had inspected the site with the NYC DEC
wetlands biologist. Officer Kuringa had stated that probably a permit was required; however, he
and the biologist agreed it was not necessary for the applicant to file for the permit after the fact
since the porous stone wall would not have a negative impact on the wetlands. Mr. Kornstein
said he had an identical conversation with Officer Kuringa. Mr. Kornstein said he would have
contacted the NYS DEC prior to moving the stones if he had known it was required.
The Chair said the Board is concerned about any work done on wetlands and this is also
State wetlands which raises the bar. The fence appeared on the wetlands and had to be
reviewed. The Chair asked for confirmation that no stones were brought in for the fence; just
the existing ones were realigned for the fence. Mr. Kornstein said it is not a wall or fence but
just garden stones excavated in order to save money. The Chair said they are concerned about
times of storms and stricter requirements. Mr. Kornstein said they are hypersensitive to backup
because their property backs on woods.
Ms. Marrinan said this is a retroactive application to the Planning Board for a local
wetlands permit. She confirmed her conversation with Officer Kuringa who stated after he and
the NYC DEC wetlands biologist inspected the site that they determined there was no need for a
State permit after the fact. However, the Village wants a permit to legalize an existing
condition.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
14
The Chair said the ball is back in our court. Mrs. Sved said the ball is still in NYS’s
court. She asked why they didn’t issue a retroactive permit. Do they just not have enough time?
Ms. Marrinan said they indicated there should have been a permit but not after the fact. Now the
applicant has a file with the NYS DEC and anything further would raise a more significant issue.
Mrs. Sved asked why the Board couldn’t write the NYS DEC and request a permit be
filed. Ms. Marrinan said she tried to get something in writing from them stating this type of wall
has no negative impact. Ms. Sved said these things weaken NYS’s position; shame on them.
The Chair said the Board should have something. Mr. Gardella said they wouldn’t even give a
letter.
Mr. Karp suggested the Board send a letter to the NYS DEC to confirm that we
understand they have no concerns. Mr. Gardella said this is a legal issue as the Board’s decision
is based upon NYS’s representation. The Chair said the delay could have been avoided. One
cannot be blamed for the NYS’s bureaucracy. Mr. Drescher asked if it would be an open issue if
it is held out for a state permit.
Mr. Kornstein said he is comfortable with Ms. Marrinan’s notes. As lawyers, he would
want a letter written to them. Mr. Gardella suggested the Board write a letter to the NYS DEC.
The Chair asked the Village Engineer if this is not a local issue. Mr. Pietrosanti said the
State said it is a non-issue; a boundary line wall that doesn’t typically require a permit except a
wetlands permit. Delineation may be a good thing with stacked stones. If the vegetation is
changed then there would be issues.
Mr. Kornstein said this is purely a Scarsdale issue. Scarsdale Village Code defines a
wall as a structure over two feet tall. This “wall” is not a structure as the stones are not two feet
high. They do not enclose, separate or define a lot. The stones are simply there to save us the
money for carting them away.
Ms. Marrinan said Mr. Pietrosanti had indicated this is not a wall; but, the need for a
wetlands permit is triggered by this activity being conducted within the wetlands.
No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #2 OF 2008
2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Rachel and Richard Laxer for Site
Plan approval to construct a house on this lot at a distance from the street at 10A Heathcote
Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 7A.
Bana Choura, architect, and Paul S. Jason, attorney, were present.
Mr. Jason said they are requesting site plan approval to construct a new residence and a
swimming pool on a sixty year old flag lot. The Committee for Historic Preservation approved
the demolition of the 1973 house. The rear portion of the lot is in an A-1 (1 acre) zoning district
with 75,100 sq. ft. where 40,560 sq. ft. is required in a quadrilateral. The construction site
conforms to the setbacks, impervious surface regulations, etc.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
15
Mr. Jason said the new President of the Heathcote Neighborhood Association is here this
evening. This property is bound by covenants of the Heathcote Neighborhood Association that
were enacted over 60 years ago.
Ms. Choura said they are proposing a two story house located on an existing lot. The
house’s orientation will be different with the front yard on the eastern side of the lot and the
northern and southern sides as the side yards and the western side as the rear yard. The structure
will be designed in a classic traditional style. They provided a proposed site plan with the pool,
driveway and walkways shown. They will have shrubs and screening on the sides and rear for
privacy. The lot area calculations did not include the existing driveway. The site and drainage
plans were submitted. In response to Mr. Pietrosanti’s comments, she will add the calculations
and the site plan will be redone to meet the Village’s requirements. The Chair said they do have
a copy of Mr. Pietrosanti’s memorandum. Ms. Choura said their engineer will redesign to
address the water and drainage issues. The Chair asked if that would be achievable. Ms. Choura
said yes.
Mr. Pietrosanti said they get no credit for existing conditions; it will be treated as a new
lot. Also, the catch basin on the plan along the northerly line shows cut off pipes. There needs
to be an investigation as to where the pipes go through the property.
Mr. Pietrosanti said gravel driveways are considered pervious for zoning purposes and
for drainage purposes are considered impervious. Mr. Gardella said there has been a suggestion
to change the zoning law.
Mr. Drescher asked if a fire engine can turn around. Mr. Jason said the Village Engineer
will determine that. He said they believe the radius meets what is required. Ms. Choura said it
is the current radius. Mr. Pietrosanti said the radius is not shown. Typically a paved driveway
needs two inches of asphalt. A fire engine would stop at the pavement and run hoses to the
house. The Chair asked if this should be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure safe and
adequate emergency access. Mr. Pietrosanti said they should confirm if the Fire Department
would be O.K. with running houses to the house. Also, the pipe galley under the driveway
would be crushed. The Chair asked if these were existing issues. Mr. Pietrosanti said there are
no pipes under the existing driveway. Ms. Marrinan said clearly this is an opportunity to better
the situation. They may be going from Heathcote Road now. Mr. Jason said they will meet
whatever is required. The Chair thanked Mr. Drescher for his insight.
The Chair asked Mr. Pietrosanti if all his points were covered. Mr. Pietrosanti said yes.
Mr. Jason said he understands they need to address the engineering aspects. He prefers
approval on the location of the house which meets the setbacks because they want to proceed
with the demolition of the existing house based on this approval. The Chair said they Board
needs to discuss this application because there are a lot of open issues.
Mr. Ronald Parlato, President of the Heathcote Neighborhood Association, said there are
certain restrictions from the 1904 subdivisions regarding berms, etc. They do have the right to
hold emergency meetings and give waivers. He said Mr. Jason is going to submit for waivers
also. Mr. Jason said the Association has issued a lot of waivers over the years. The last one was
in 1954 and was a special one for this property.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
16
CASE #3 OF 2008
3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of the Trustees of Scarsdale Friends
Meeting for Site Plan approval to construct a handicapped ramp at 133 Popham Road, identified
on the Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 1, Lot 2A.
Allen D. Ross, architect, was present.
Mr. Ross said this is a simple application for a handicap accessible ramp between the
parking lot and the main entrance of the building.
The Chair asked if the construction of the ramp would require cutting through the stone
fence. Mr. Ross said they would chip away at the stone boulder.
The Chair said the ramp starts on the parking lot side then goes in a “U” shape. Mr. Ross
said he had the site staked and on Friday he relocated two of the stakes. He said starting facing
the existing stairs there would be an entry to the left. Then you would go up eight inches to a
level area 60” wide and then up another eight inches. A person would enter and exit the ramp in
the same location as the steps. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply because it is
a church.
No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #4 OF 2008
4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of the Fox Meadow Tennis Club, Inc.
for Site Plan approval to construct an addition and an open deck at 14 Wayside Lane, identified
on the Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 3, Lot 2.
Steven Frantz (President), applicant, Gordon Rafajac, Building Committee Chair, and
Howard A. Patterson, Jr., architect, were present.
Ms. Veron recused herself.
Mr. Patterson showed plans and photographs to the Board. He said the club house is
from 1927. There is a little shed on the northern side of the building which is falling down and
needs replacement. Rather than just replace the shed they hope to improve the area and its use
for the club. There is a storage area, tennis pro shop and a porch there now. Their idea is to
simply go out 3’4” further than the existing porch for a larger storage area for the outside
furniture and handicap bath. They would relocate the pro shop to be nearer to the tennis and
paddle courts which would provide more access to the deck. Some of the deck would be
extended beyond the shed roof. The existing club house wall openings provide access to the
deck. The persons on the east side would be most affected; however, this is well screened even
in the dead of winter as shown in the photographs. This modest change adds value.
Mr. Frantz said the reason this project was started was the need to replace the roof and
deck. They wanted a handicap bath and to improve the storage and pro shop.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
17
Mr. Patterson said the existing shed doesn’t even have a foundation. This is a modest
increase in space; 320 sq. ft. including the deck. The club house itself covers only 1.92 percent
of area on the site.
Mr. Pietrosanti said they will need a building permit and a Stormwater and Erosion
Control permit (SWEC) would be required for over 500 sq. ft. of disturbance. The SWEC
would need to be filed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Patterson said he gave Ms.
Marrinan a SWEC plan. Ms. Marrinan said the Board saw it. The Chair said this area is very
wet. Mr. Patterson said the increase in the room area is only 194 sq. ft. The Chair said they
would have to look at it.
Mr. Drescher asked if any new exterior lighting was proposed. Mr. Patterson said no
flood lighting was proposed but possibly wall sconces for the deck and pro shop entrance area.
There are no lights on the Tennis Courts. Mr. Frantz said the porch lights are by the tennis
courts. Mr. Gardella said that was approved previously. Ms. Marrinan said the lighting of the
paddle tennis courts was approved. No new exterior lighting is proposed, only deck lighting.
Mr. Rafajac said the piping would be underground. The Chair said that information is to
be submitted under the SWEC. Mr. Patterson said there would only be 192 sq. ft. of increased
runoff from the roof. Mr. Rafajac said the existing gutters and leaders go to underground storm
drains.
The Chair thanked them for coming and said there may be additional submissions for this
application.
No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #5 OF 2008
5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Lisa and Michael Lafelle for a
Wetlands Permit to construct an addition at 35 Sheldrake Road, identified on the Village tax
map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 40.
Stephen Marchesani, architect, was present.
Mr. Marchesani said they are proposing a two story addition to the rear. They are only
excavating a three foot by three foot area for a pier in the corner of the addition. They will have
erosion control measures in place.
The Chair asked if they had reviewed Mr. Pietrosanti’s memo and if they had any
questions regarding his requirements. He said that area at Sheldrake is extremely vulnerable and
they have a stream on the side. He asked if they had any questions regarding the requested
drainage plan and grades. Mr. Marchesani said they are only disturbing that corner. The Chair
said it could have an impact.
Mr. Pietrosanti said history over the past three years shows that his client has complained
about backup and flooding in the basement, curtain drains, etc. Mr. Marchesani said his client
filed to raise the steps up, etc. Mr. Pietrosanti said there is an issue as to whether that was filed
or not. He is concerned about a negative effect.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
18
Ms. Marrinan said the stream is to be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. The
Chair said there are issues about the surrounding drainage with the stream across the side. This
Board makes a point about the fact that the owners need to clean and maintain the watercourses.
No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #6 OF 2008
6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Lisa and Sang Han for an
amendment to the subdivision approval at 27 Paddington Road, identified on the Village tax
map as Sec. 4, Blk. 3, Lot 925A.
Sang Han, applicants, and Michele Luzio, attorney, were present.
Mr. Han said he is the current owner since January 2007 and moved in February 2007.
He had asked the builder to remove the dead trees along the border of 27 and 29 Paddington
Road. The builder said the rule is to keep the trees two years from the ground breaking so they
left them alone. The home at 29 Paddington Road was demolished and new construction began.
His new neighbors wanted to take down the trees. As a good neighbor, he agreed. His
neighbors asked him for a copy of his survey. He said no that it was their project. On a
Saturday the trees came down. The Police showed up for what he thought was a noise violation.
The work continued. Later he found out from the builder who was upset that there was a bond
on those trees. Neither he nor the builder removed those trees.
Ms. Luzio said she is an attorney representing 27 Paddington LLC. Her client sold this
property last January. She is in agreement with Mr. Han. Mrs. Sheen, the current owner of 29
Paddington Road signed a statement. Ms. Luzio said she spoke with Ms. Marrinan and they
determined it was best to apply to try to amend the subdivision approval.
The previous owner of 29 Paddington Road wanted the trees preserved and that was
addressed in the Planning Board resolution. It is hard to tell which side of the property line the
trees were on. The woman who originally complained about the trees being preserved no longer
resides there. The current owners of both 27 and 29 Paddington Road didn’t want the trees.
The current owners of 27 Paddington Road want this amendment to release the tree
bond. The Chair said the former owner that wanted the trees protected sold to the Sheens. Mr.
Han said the former owner passed away and her children sold the property to the Sheens.
Mrs. Sved asked why types of trees were removed. Ms. Marrinan said there were fairly
overgrown cedar and hemlocks which the former owner of 29 Paddington Road represented she
planted. Mrs. Sved asked why the developer didn’t advise the Hans of the tree bond. Ms. Luzio
said it was discussed but he was not advised that there was money at stake. Mr. Han said he had
no idea and would have advised the Sheens.
Mr. Gardella asked what type of bond was it, cash? Ms. Luzio said she believes it was
cash. Mr. Gardella said they are not asking for a bond release but an amendment.
Ms. Luzio said the new owners of 29 Paddington Road submitted a letter of support.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
19
Ms. Veron questioned how her client, an experienced builder, informs new owners of
issues to preserve trees. Ms. Luzio said he relied on Mr. Han as a subsequent owner and the
subdivision map of his property. They never expected another neighbor to take them down. The
persons they are in contract with abided with the agreement.
Mr. Drescher said the bond was to the developer and it was not noted to the buyer to
preserve these trees. Ms. Luzio said no. Mr. Drescher said the developer wants the bond
removed because he didn’t obligate the new owner. Ms. Veron said if the new owner was aware
then he wouldn’t have proceeded. Mr. Han said he was advised it was two years from the
ground breaking. He did advise the Sheens to operate under local government regulations.
Mr. Drescher said Mr. Han had mentioned that several trees were dead. This alone
would enforce the bond if the trees were dead. Ms. Marrinan said the bond is actually for two
growing seasons after the issuance of a C.O. The purpose of the bond is to replace trees or plant
new ones. Mr. Drescher said the developer was obligated to pass on the protection of these
trees. The developer was faulty and irresponsible.
Ms. Veron asked if there is water in the tree area. Mr. Han said the property is much
dryer with the trees removed and more exposure to the sunlight. Ms. Veron asked what
implications are to him personally. Mr. Han said as the new homeowner, New York State Law
says there should be a six year performance warrantee. He is showing good faith in assisting the
builder.
Mr. Han said he not a tree expert but the trees looked like they had been dead for a very
long time. He didn’t know which trees were his.
Ms. Luzio said in 2006 a letter was sent to Ms. Marrinan that some trees were already
dead per the September 2006 report. Mr. Drescher asked if Ms. Luzio could present this report
to the Board. Ms. Marrinan said it is probably deep in the Planning Board files.
Mrs. Sved asked when the developer purchased the property. Ms. Luzio said in 2002 or
2003. Mrs. Sved said if hemlocks are not treated properly they die. If the developer brought the
property without continued maintenance to the trees, then he killed them. Mr. Han asked if
weeping evergreens are Hemlocks. Mrs. Sved said yes. Mr. Han said then they were alive. He
said the two trees in the front met that description and they were alive. The other trees in the
back were different.
Mr. Drescher said the bond covers two growing seasons from the issuance of a C.O. The
Chair said there are a number of trees with a $2,500 bond. Mr. Gardella said members of the
Board had reviewed the site and placed the bond.
Mrs. Sved said there were ten trees and three are dead. The rest were in good health, not
just healthy. One tree with lower story branches dying is due to natural conditions. Only one
tree is identified as a Hemlock. The others are spruces and cedars. Ms. Veron asked the age of
the trees. Mrs. Sved said it is not the age but the caliber; Norway spruces with 48”, 34” and 28”,
cedars with 38”, 30” and 26”; had a 48 inch caliber and a 12” hemlock.
Mr. Gardella said they received subdivision approval in 2004. Ms. Luzio said in 2006
after the construction was completed the landscape architect sent a report confirming the
condition of the trees. Mrs. Sved said there are two more trees listed on the second page. There
were twelve trees of which four were dead. The Chair said the bond was to cover 8 trees then.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
20
Mr. Drescher said they don’t require a report; only that they are alive two growing
seasons after the issuance of a C.O. The developer is responsible to pass on this conveyance.
Ms. Marrinan said the Village couldn’t release the bond until two years after the issuance of a
C.O. and two growing seasons.
The Chair said the neighbors were unaware of the Bond. Mr. Han said Mrs. Sheen had
stated they received approval from the Village. Ms. Luzio said Mrs. Sheen stated “some trees
were tagged by the Village”; however, Ms. Marrinan advised that the Village doesn’t tag trees.
Ms. Marrinan said there would be no prohibition to remove trees on private property unless
stipulated. The Chair asked if they know for a fact that Mrs. Sheen came into Village Hall. Ms.
Luzio said Mrs. Sheen had said she came in three times. Mr. Drescher said none were
documented.
Ms. Veron said there were four dead trees and eight living when Mr. Han moved there.
Mr. Han said there were four dead trees, five live trees and one maple left which equals ten trees.
Mrs. Sved asked if he had any idea regarding the cost of the tree removal. Given the size of the
trees it was probably over $25,000 to take them down and remove the wood. Mr. Gardella said
the wood removal is very expensive. Mr. Han said that point is why he said it was the
neighbor’s project.
Mr. Drescher said the purpose of the bond was to preserve the large trees and it assigned
responsibility which got lost in this case.
Mrs. Sved said the Planning Board did this several years ago and can do it now. There
are two reasons for tree bonds. First, the aesthetic reasons and in this case the neighbor
complained regarding a spoiled view. Secondly, is to preserve trees because they suck up water.
This is a large concern nowadays but probably was not then. If both current owners are pleased
the trees are gone then “isn’t that grand”.
Ms. Luzio asked if the Board can impose a financial obligation not to remove the trees if
they cannot police the current owner, the Sheens who are the successor of interest of the person
who planted the trees and wanted them to be preserved. If they had tried it would have been
hard to tell which property they were on. Once they were not destroyed during the construction
process, they should have released her client’s obligation.
Mr. Gardella said she is arguing that the person holding the bond did everything possible
and is requesting a return of the bond. She is not really asking for an amendment but a return of
the bond. Ms. Luzio said that is right. Mr. Gardella said the bond is not punitive. The Board
members visited the site and wanted the trees preserved because of concerns regarding drainage,
openness and the loss of old trees so they tried to protect the trees. If Ms. Luzio’s client didn’t
enforce those conditions, that is her client’s problem. The issue with this application is as
presented.
Ms. Luzio said, assuming the Board members had that concern; it only impacts the
boundary of this property. Mr. Drescher said not the outside boundary. Mr. Karp said on the
Hans’ property. Ms. Luzio said the roots must travel on the neighbor’s lot.
Mr. Karp asked how one would normally withhold monies from a bond after two years.
Mr. Pietrosanti said it would be done in conjunction with the Village Naturalist. Mr. Karp asked
if we allowed passing trees dying from natural causes. Mr. Pietrosanti said we need the
Planning Board – 02/27/08
21
applicants’ arborist report and the Village Naturalist’s review. Mr. Karp said if a tree was struck
by lightning monies would not be taken from the bond.
Ms. Veron asked how the money taken from the bond is used. Mr. Pietrosanti said the
monies are used to replace trees there or at other sites within the Village.
Mr. Karp said the monies taken are fault based. Mr. Gardella said the trees are not there
now. How can you decide if the bond was to be released? Mr. Karp said if there is no
amendment granted then they need to see Mr. Pietrosanti and argue their case. Mr. Gardella said
we are not sitting here to determine if it is justice in getting the Bond back.
Ms. Veron said in terms of preserving neighborhood character, this area now stands out
without the large trees. Mr. Gardella said forty inch caliber trees are very important.
Ms. Luzio said her client’s successor in interest didn’t protect the trees. The Chair said
Mr. Gardella is suggesting an amendment is not applicable in this case. Ms. Luzio said they are
being put in a box – to argue trees that are gone. Mr. Gardella said they need to say how many
trees are gone. The Chair said the Board will discuss this important case and advise.
No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #7 OF 2008
7. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Birchall Acquisition LLC for a
Wetlands Permit to construct a driveway, tennis court and a swimming pool at 107 Birchall
Drive and 6 Kelwynne Close, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lots 18A,
18E.
Marc Holiday, applicant, William S. Null, attorney, Diego Villareale, architect, and Jorge
Sanchez, landscape architect, were present.
Mr. Null said there are before this Board because they need a Wetlands Permit although
the wetlands are offsite but they are within the setback. Mr. Villareale showed the Board the
wetlands setback and the new driveway location on the plans. Mr. Null said the Village
wetlands are offsite and the one onsite is not regulated as per Beth Evans Associates report
which was submitted previously. The tennis court is located partially within the buffer for onsite
sloped wetlands. The driveway is so close to the wetlands that they may have to encroach into
the wetlands by two or three feet during construction. The tennis court and swimming pool fall
within the regulated area but not the wetlands.
Mr. Null said the original concern was not to act on the Wetlands Permit prior to the
issuance of a special use permit for the tennis court and swimming pool. The Chair said yes;
there is a step by step process for this project. He asked Mr. Pietrosanti if he had any questions
regarding this application. Mr. Pietrosanti responded no.
The Chair said there is a one or two foot issue with the driveway. Mr. Null said the
gravel driveway on the side is to eliminate impervious surface. Mr. Villareale said the driveway
grading will be a little bit into the wetlands buffer. Mr. Null said for the installation of pavers or
Planning Board – 02/27/08
22
Belgium block and then the grading will be filled back. The Chair confirmed that it will be
filled back.
The Chair asked if the gravel driveway is considered impervious. Ms. Marrinan said for
zoning purposes it is considered pervious; for engineering it is considered impervious. The
Chair said this is the same issue as in an earlier application.
Mr. Null said they can reduce the amount of driveway paver for zoning purposes.
However, he still submits that gravel is more pervious than pavement. This is still a betterment
that what is running through the wetlands now.
No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #8 OF 2008
8. The Chair declared the hearing open on the recommendation to the Village Board of
Trustees regarding the issuance of Special Use Permits for a restaurant and a bank at the Christie
Place Development Project located on Christie Place between East Parkway and Chase Road.
Doug Brout, applicant, and John Kirkpatrick, attorney, were present.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said the approval for Christie Place requires a Special Use Permit for
retail at street level which the Board of Trustees referred to the Planning Board. The lessees, the
Bank of America and a restaurant which would be a benefit to Scarsdale.
Mr. Gardella said the Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the Village Board.
Ms. Veron asked if this would be decided publicly.
Mr. Karp asked if the parking issues were handled under their original application. Ms.
Marrinan said yes. Ms. Sved asked if there were any trees involved.
The Chair asked about the nature of the restaurant and its menu. Mr. Kirkpatrick said it
would be a white tablecloth type. Mr. Brout said it is the same owners as Moscato. The Chair
asked if it would be an Italian restaurant. Mr. Brout said no, but it will be upscale to allow
people to come more often.
Ms. Veron asked about the restaurant’s hours of operation. Mr. Brout said it would be
open for lunch and then until 10 or 11 p.m. weekdays and midnight on weekends. The Chair
asked if the parking would be in the lot. Mr. Brout said yes. Also, the trash will be removed
everyday from the garage. The Chair asked if there would be outside dining in the summer. Mr.
Brout said outdoor dining tables are their plan.
Mrs. Sved asked Mr. Brout for his best guess as to when the garage will be open. Mr.
Brout said they will be totally finished by the end of the year. The garage is done now but the
safety issues have to be worked out with Mr. Pietrosanti. Also, the garage is still being used for
staging. The Chair said the questions about when the garage will be usable are just
informational. Mr. Brout said they are not obligated to open it for one and one-half years but he
hopes it will be open to commuters by the end of this summer; then retail afterwards.
Planning Board – 02/27/08
23
Mr. Kirkpatrick said these two establishments want to open by December 2008.
Ms. Veron asked, considering the off peak parking demand, how they propose to
accommodate the parking demand particularly during lunch. Mr. Brout said there are 80 Village
parking spaces. Ms. Marrinan said the overall parking requirements for the entire facility
accounted for a restaurant. She said retail requires one space for every 150 sq. ft. and restaurants
require one space for every 75 sq. ft. They recognized the construction of 350 parking spaces on
site. She asked how many square feet are in each retail space and how much space is left. Mr.
Brout said the bank and restaurant are each 4,000 sq. ft. and one other space is taken. That
leaves one space left at 2,400 sq. ft. They may subdivide that remaining space. The Chair said
that the Board would then see him again. Mr. Brout said you can count on it.
Mr. Drescher said he recluses himself regarding the Bank of America who are major
clients of his company; but he is prepared to discuss the other issue.
No other person desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
24
CASE #24 OF 2007
1.
Penny and Israel Kornstein
15 Rural Road
Section 22, Block 19, Lot 54
Wetlands Permit to legalize the construction of a garden wall on this wetlands
controlled property
The Board considered the application of Penny and Israel Kornstein, Case #24 of
2007, 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 minor accessory structures (such as driveways,
fences or pools) 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 placement of stones along the rear property line will not have a significant
impact on the environment or on the adjacent wetlands; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in
the Assessor’s records as 20,785 sq. ft. and is a wetlands controlled lot as it is
adjacent to the New York State regulated wetlands area at Crossway Field and
in fact, a portion of this wetlands is located on the property; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 171 of the Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to consider
Wetlands Permits where construction is proposed within 100’ of a mapped
wetlands area; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the construction of a “garden wall” of stones no more than 2’
high just inside the rear property line; and
WHEREAS: The Board considered the application at its December 19, 2007 meeting and
held the application over pending submission of documentation from New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) regarding
any required permits; and
WHEREAS: The applicant submitted a letter noting representatives of the NYS DEC had
visited the site but did not provide any documentation of the visit nor any
requirement for a permit; and
WHEREAS: The Village Planner informed the Board she had spoken with a representative
from the NYS DEC who indicated that he had visited the site with a wetlands
biologist who stated the open stone wall would not significantly impact the
wetlands and, while a permit may have been required, there was no need to file
retroactively; and
Planning Board – 02/27/08
25
WHEREAS: The NYS DEC has not yet responded to the Village Planner’s request for
confirmation of this conversation in writing; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the application of Penny and Israel Kornstein for a Wetlands Permit to
legalize the construction of a garden wall on this wetlands controlled property
at 15 Rural Drive, as shown on the plans dated July 30, 2007 and submitted
with the application be approved conditioned on the following:
1. Village staff shall send a letter to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation confirming the Village Planner’s conversation
regarding this matter.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
26
CASE #2 OF 2008
2.
Rachel and Richard Laxer
10A Heathcote Road
Section 13, Block 1, Lot 7A
Site Plan approval to construct a house and swimming pool on this lot at a distance
from the street
The Board considered the application of Rachel and Richard Laxer, Case #2 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 or expansion of a single family residence, is
considered a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (9) and no further
environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in two zoning districts with the “pole” portion of the lot
(the driveway) located in the AA-1 (2 acre) zoning district and the rear portion
of the lot in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district; and
WHEREAS: The lot is listed in the Assessor’s records as 2.14 acres and on the plans as
92,783 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS: The original house was built in 1973; however the Committee for Historic
Preservation approved its demolition at its December 12, 2007 meeting; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 77 of the Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to consider site
plans for lots at a distance from a street, pursuant to Chapter 310-19 of the
Village Code; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 251 of the Village Code regulates Site Plan review; and
WHEREAS: Chapter A319 of the Village Code describes the requirements for Site Plan
review; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a new house and a swimming
pool on the property; and
WHEREAS:
The proposed location of the house appears to meet the required setbacks in
the AA-1 zoning district with the front yard on the eastern (driveway) side of
the lot and the northern and southern sides as the side yards and the western
side as the rear yard; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
Planning Board – 02/27/08
27
RESOLVED: That the application of Rachel and Richard Laxer for Site Plan approval to
construct a house and a swimming pool on this lot at a distance from the street
at 10A Heathcote Road, as shown on Plan A-1 through A-6 dated January 7,
2008, 11.01 dated April 25, 2007 and Plan 21-01 dated January 31, 2008 be
approved conditioned on the following:
1. A Stormwater and Erosion Control permit shall be required and the
application and plans should address the issues raised in the Village
Engineer’s memo dated February 25, 2008.
2. A Special Use Permit will be required for the construction of the
swimming pool.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans should be reviewed by
the Fire Department to ensure safe and adequate emergency access.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
28
CASE #3 OF 2008
3.
Trustees of Scarsdale Friends Meeting
133 Popham Road
Section 3, Block 1, Lot 2A
Site Plan approval to construct a handicap accessible ramp
The Board considered the application of the Trustees of Scarsdale Friends Meeting,
Case #3 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 or expansion of a primary or accessory nonresidential facility of less than 4,000 sq. ft., is a Type II action pursuant to 6
NYCRR 617.5(c) (7) and no further review is required; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is listed in
the Assessor’s records as 33,188 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS: The Friends Meeting House was built in 1949 and an addition was constructed
in 1961; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-7 includes churches or other places of worship as permitted uses
in the Residence A zoning districts; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 77 of the Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to consider Site
Plans for non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 251 of the Village Code regulates Site Plan review; and
WHEREAS: Chapter A319 of the Village Code describes the requirements for Site Plan
review; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a ramp to provide handicap
access from the parking lot to the yard and a path to the door of the Friends
Meeting House; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the application of the Trustees of Scarsdale Friends Meeting for Site Plan
approval to construct a handicap accessible ramp at 133 Popham Road, as
shown on the Partial Site Plan dated January 28, 2008 and TP-1 revised
January 28, 2008, be approved.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
29
CASE #4 OF 2008
4.
Fox Meadow Tennis Club, Inc.
14 Wayside Lane
Section 3, Block 3, Lot 2, 91
Site Plan approval to construct an addition and an open deck
The Board considered the application of the Fox Meadow Tennis Club, Inc., Case #4
of 2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, with Ms. Veron recused, 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 or expansion of a primary or accessory nonresidential facility of less than 4,000 sq. ft. is considered a Type II action
pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (7) and no further review is required; and
WHEREAS: The property consists of two lots located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning
district and is listed in the Assessor’s records as 3.1 acres; and
WHEREAS: The property is improved with a clubhouse built in 1927 as well as tennis and
paddle tennis courts; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals approved alterations to the clubhouse in 1965 with
certain conditions regarding parking, provision for off duty police for events,
limiting use to members and guests and prohibiting a restaurant or bar service;
and
WHEREAS: In 1976, the Board of Appeals approved the expansion of access decks; and
WHEREAS: In 1994, the jurisdiction over non-residential special use permits was
transferred from the Board of Appeals to the Planning Board and, in 1997, the
Planning Board approved an amendment to the previously approved Special
Use Permit and granted Site Plan approval for the installation of lighting and
an additional paddle tennis court; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-7 includes clubs as permitted uses in the Residence A zoning
districts, subject to the approval of a Special use permit by the Planning Board;
and
WHEREAS: Chapter 77 of the Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to consider site
plans for non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 251 of the Village Code regulates Site Plan review; and
Planning Board – 02/27/08
30
WHEREAS: Chapter A319 of the Village Code describes the requirements for Site Plan
review; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed demolition of an existing covered porch and the
construction of a slightly larger addition and a deck for the pro shop, storage
and a handicap accessible bathroom; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the application of Fox Meadow Tennis Club, Inc. for Site Plan approval
to construct an addition and an open deck at 14 Wayside Lane, as shown on
Plans EX-1, P-1 and P-2 dated January 24, 2008 and the Soil and Erosion
Control Plan be approved conditioned on the following:
1. A Stormwater and Erosion Control Permit will be required prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
31
CASE #5 OF 2008
5.
Lisa and Michael Leffell
35 Sheldrake Road
Section 17, Block 1, Lot 40
Wetlands Permit to construct an addition
The Board considered the application of Lisa and Michael Leffell, Case #5 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 proposed addition to a single family house on a wetlands
controlled lot, is considered an Unlisted Action pursuant to Chapter 152 of the
Village Code and 6 NYCRR 617.2(ak) and further determined the proposed
project will have no significant negative impact on the environment as soil and
erosion control measures are required and the stream is to be cleared and kept
free from obstruction; and
WHEREAS: the property is located in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district and is listed in the
Assessor’s records as 1.02 acres and on the lot coverage form and FAR forms
as 44,461 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS: the house was extensively rebuilt in 2001 and the Board of Appeals granted a
Special use permit for a swimming pool which was built in 2003; and
WHEREAS: there is a stream, part of the Sheldrake River, which runs adjacent to and
across the rear of the property; and
WHEREAS: a wetlands report dated June 25, 2002 was filed in conjunction with the
Wetlands permit for the swimming pool which shows the extent of the
wetlands; and
WHEREAS: at its January 15, 2007 meeting, the Board of Appeals approved a 2% lot
coverage variance and a 3% FAR variance for the construction of the proposed
addition; 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 construction of a two story addition with a
footprint of 186 sq. ft. at the rear of the house to expand the library on the
ground floor and the master bedroom above; and
Planning Board – 02/27/08
32
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the application of Lisa and Michael Leffell for a Wetlands Permit to
construct an addition at 35 Sheldrake Road, as shown on plans A-1 through A4 dated December 19, 2008 be approved conditioned on the following:
1. Due to the location of the property at the headwaters of the Sheldrake
River, a Stormwater Management and Erosion Control permit will be
required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The permit application
should address the concerns raised by the Village Engineer in a
memorandum dated February 25, 2008 and should include a plan for
cleaning and maintaining the stream on the property free and clear of
obstruction during and after construction.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
33
CASE #6 OF 2008
6.
Lisa and Sang Han
27 Paddington Road
Section 4, Block 3, Lot 925A
An amendment to the subdivision approval
The Board considered the application of Lisa and Sang Han, Case #6 of 2008, and,
upon motion duly made and seconded, adopted the following resolution unanimously:
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is listed in
the Assessor’s records as .3 acres and is the result of a two lot subdivision
approved by the Planning Board in 2004; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 77 of the Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to consider
subdivisions; and
WHEREAS: Chapter A319-27 of the Village Code regulates subdivision applications and
authorizes the Planning Board to require a performance bond or other surety to
ensure the protection of trees; and
WHEREAS: The Planning Board, in approving the two lot subdivision in October 2004,
required a tree bond of $25,000 to ensure the trees shown on the plans to be
protected during construction were preserved or replaced including several
trees along the northern property line of 27 Paddington Road; and
WHEREAS: The bond was to be held for two growing seasons after the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy which was issued on December 21, 2006; and
WHEREAS: The original developer of the subdivision posted the cash bond; and
WHEREAS: Subsequent to the construction of the houses, the property at 29 Paddington
Road, (to the north of 27 Paddington Road) was sold, the house demolished
and a new house is under construction; and
WHEREAS: Several of the trees to be protected, and covered by the tree bond, along the
property line between 27 and 29 Paddington Road were removed with the
consent of both new owners; and
WHEREAS: The applicants are seeking to amend the subdivision approval to eliminate the
requirement for the tree bond; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the application of Lisa and Sang Han for an amendment to the subdivision
approval at 27 Paddington Road, as requested in the application be denied
based on the following findings:
Planning Board – 02/27/08
34
1. The Planning Board in requiring a substantial tree bond as part of its
approval of the subdivision clearly wanted those trees to remain and to be
protected for aesthetic and environmental reasons and that has not changed.
2. The former developer has the option of asking the Village Engineer for the
release of all or a portion of the bond.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
35
CASE #7 OF 2008
7.
Birchall Acquisition LLC
107 Birchall Drive and 6 Kelwynne Close
Section 18, Block 1, Lots 18A, 18E
Wetlands Permit to construct a driveway, tennis court and a swimming pool
The Board considered the application of Birchall Acquisition LLC, Case #7 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; and
WHEREAS: At its December 19, 2007 meeting, the Planning Board determined the lot
merger would not have a significant adverse environmental impact; and
WHEREAS: At its February 13, 2007 meeting, the Board of Appeals determined that the
granting of variances and special use permits for the construction of a
driveway, tennis court, swimming pool and an addition to the house on a
wetlands controlled lot would not have a significant adverse environmental
impact; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application for
the construction of a driveway, tennis court, swimming pool and an addition to
the house on a wetlands controlled lot is an Unlisted Action pursuant to 6
NYCRR 617.2(ak) and Chapter 152 of the Village Code and further
determined the proposed action will not have a significant negative impact on
the environment; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-1 (one acre) zoning district and consists of two
recently merged lots totaling 4.1 acres or 177,586 sq. ft as shown on the lot
coverage form; and
WHEREAS: The property is located across the street from the stream that runs along
Birchall Road and the proposed construction of the driveway is within 100 feet
of that mapped wetlands; and
WHEREAS: In addition, the application materials indicate there is a wetlands area just to
the south of the proposed driveway; however as it is not included on the
Village’s Freshwater Wetlands Map, it is not regulated; and
WHEREAS: The applicant also owns three adjacent lots which were the result of a five lot
subdivision approved by the Planning Board on June 23, 2004; 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
Planning Board – 02/27/08
36
WHEREAS: The Planning Board, on December 19, 2007 approved a lot merger to merge
the two lots (Lots 1 and 5 in the application) effectively creating a through lot
from Birchall Road to Kelwynne Close; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals, on February 13, 2008 approved variances to permit the
swimming pool and tennis court to be located in the front yard and to allow the
development of the newly merged Lots 1 and 5 to exceed the maximum
permitted lot coverage; and
WHEREAS: In addition, the Board of Appeals approved Special use permits for the
swimming pool, tennis court and for a house in excess of 15,000 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS: The plans submitted with the application show that a small portion of the
proposed driveway is located within 100’ of the Village regulated wetlands and
also indicate the tennis court and swimming pool are within 100’ of the nonregulated wetlands area; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the application of Birchall Acquisition LLC for a Wetlands Permit to
construct a driveway at 107 Birchall Drive and 6 Kelwynne Close, as shown
on Plan SP-2A dated February 14, 2008 be approved.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
37
CASE #8 OF 2008
8.
Recommendation to the Village Board
A recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees regarding the issuance of Special
Use Permits for a restaurant and a bank at the Christie Place Development Project
located on Christie Place between East Parkway and Chase Road
The Planning Board, at its regular meeting of February 27, 2008, discussed a
recommendation to the Village Board regarding the issuance of Special Use Permits for a
restaurant and a bank at the Christie Place Development Project located on Christie Place
between East Parkway and Chase Road, Case #8 of 2008, and, upon motion duly made and
seconded, with Mr. Drescher abstaining, adopted the following resolution unanimously:
WHEREAS: The Village Board, at its February 13, 2008 meeting referred a request from
Ginsburg Development Corporation LLC for Special Use Permits for two 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 including one bank and one restaurant 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 application materials include a letter from the applicant and partial floor
plans of the proposed bank and restaurant space; and
WHEREAS: The applicant has indicated that each of the two retail spaces are approximately
4,000 sq. ft.; and
Planning Board – 02/27/08
38
WHEREAS: The applicant has also indicated the proposed bank will be a retail bank
operation and the restaurant will provide casual sit-down dining; 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 for
Special Use Permits for a restaurant and a bank at the Christie Place
Development Project located on Christie Place between East Parkway and
Chase Road based on the following findings:
1. The Planning Board approved the Site Plan on June 28, 2006 including one
bank and one restaurant 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. The Planning Board recognizes the community’s interest in more
restaurants and evening activity in the Village Center and finds the
proposed casual sit- down restaurant with an outdoor dining component in
good weather will enhance the Village Center.
3. The Planning Board again recommends that no more than one bank be
permitted in the Christie Place Project.
******
Planning Board – 02/27/08
The Chair announced the next meeting of the Planning Board would be held on
Wednesday, March 26, 2008.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Janet Annacone, Secretary to the Board
******
39