VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chair
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Gallelli.
Hudson Valley Ventures – 35 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 5 Lot 61 – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval for the Croton Medical Building
Neil Carnow, architect, was present to represent the Applicant.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the first item on tonight’s agenda is a public hearing for an Amended Site Plan application for Hudson Valley Ventures. The Applicant wishes to reconstruct a retaining wall for the side and rear of the Croton Medical Building.
Mr. Carnow stated that the existing railroad tie retaining wall is in disrepair. The Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the wall and, in so doing, increase the parking on the site. The number of parking spaces will be increased by 17. The parking lot will be resurfaced and restriped. Mr. Carnow stated that the new retaining wall will be made of concrete with a 4” precast concrete cap. In order to reduce the impact of the height of the wall, the Applicant is proposing to install a planter containing a 6’ high blue spruce tree. The Applicant is also proposing to install a fence on top of the wall for safety purposes.
Mr. Carnow showed the Planning Board the manufacturer’s specifications on the galvanized fence. Mr. Brumleve asked if it comes in a minimum of 4’ in height, to which Mr. Carnow stated that it does. Mr. Carnow stated that the fence would be put on top of the wall, in portions of the wall over 6’ in height, for safety reasons. Mr. Brumleve wanted to know if there is a code issue relative to the maximum permissible opening in the fence and the required height, to which Mr. Carnow stated that the fence is a “separating” fence. From that perspective, the height being provided should be sufficient.
Chairman Gallelli opened the public hearing.
Marc Shenfield of 4 Hamilton Avenue was present. Mr. Shenfield stated that he lives up the hill from Edward Carter. He has owned the house at 4 Hamilton Avenue for 28 years. Mr. Shenfield stated that he has concerns about the project being proposed. He told the Planning Board that Mr. Carter and himself have an easement for a sewer line that passes underneath the existing retaining wall. He would want to make sure that discussions take place for the provision and protection of the sewer line and/or alterations to the sewer line during the construction phase. Mr. Shenfield stated that he is seeing the plans tonight for the first time, and he is shocked that the location of the sewer line is not accurately noted on the plans.
The Village Engineer, Daniel O’Connor, stated that the sewer manhole is correctly shown on the plan. He noted that it is not necessarily true that the utility is in the center line of the easement. Mr. O’Connor added that he has (already) asked the Applicant’s architect to show the existing sewer line on the plan. Mr. Carnow noted to those present that these drawings, requested by the Village Engineer, are in progress and should be done by the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Carnow stated that there were a number of items outlined in the Village Engineer’s letter that still need to be addressed. Nonetheless, the Applicant thought that it would be beneficial to have this meeting tonight. By holding a public hearing, the Applicant has the opportunity to gather input from the neighbors so
that, for the next meeting, the neighbors’ comments can be incorporated into the plans.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, for tonight’s meeting, the Village Engineer has provided the Planning Board with another memorandum in which he has some additional comments. The first comment in the Village’s Engineer’s memorandum relates to the need for the sewer line to be physically surveyed and shown on the drawings.
Mr. Zelman asked Mr. Shenfield what his concern(s) would be, assuming there is a discrepancy regarding the location of the sewer line. Mr. Shenfield stated that he wants to make certain that Mr. Carter and himself have a legal property right to this easement. He noted that they have the right to use and operate the line. Mr. Shenfield told the Planning Board that his attorney has asked that the Applicant publicly state that they have a right to this sewer line.
Mr. Shenfield wanted to know how the line (sewer line) is going to operate during construction. Mr. Carnow referred to a note on the Applicant’s plan regarding protection of the sewer line. During construction, the contractor must use caution, and the sewer line must be kept in working condition at all times.
Mr. Shenfield stated that he assumes the Village Engineer’s office is responsible for supervising this project. Mr. O’Connor stated that his office, as the Office of the Village Engineer/Building Department, will do its routine inspections. There will be a pre-construction conference. He reiterated that his office will inspect the removal of the existing wall and will perform all routine inspections.
Mr. Shenfield stated that part of the sewer line goes underneath the parking lot at the Medical Center. He would like assurance that the sewer line will be protected from heavy equipment. Chairman Gallelli noted that one of the Village Engineer’s comments in his recent memorandum was that steel construction plates should be used as a method of protection for the clay pipes.
The Village Engineer stated that there will be additional inspections performed by the professional engineer working for the property owner.
Mr. Shenfield stated that the proposed wall is to be moved back closer to the property line and to be made higher than the existing wall. He expressed concern that this is an excessive change to the site. He was concerned about the change in the configuration of the wall. He did not believe that the land and soil are conducive to an expanded parking area. He stated that he is opposed to digging out a hillside for the purpose of creating more parking spaces.
Chairman Gallelli stated that it is her understanding that the wall is in very bad shape due, to some extent, to previous problems that had occurred to the sewer line. Mr. Shenfield stated that he did not think there is proof that a faulty sewer line is causing the wall to erode. He thought that it may be just the opposite, i.e., that the wall has caused damage to the sewer line.
Mr. Carnow stated that the wall is intended to be 1’ thick with a concrete foundation. It will be shaped with a formwork liner to give the appearance of concrete block on the exposed side. Mr. Shenfield noted that he did think that the new wall being proposed is a vast improvement to what is there.
Edward Carter of 41 Grand Street was present. Mr. Carter told the Planning Board that he is worried about the stability of the soil. He stated that, at one time, there was a nice gentle slope down toward the river. He recalled that, when the Croton Veterinary Hospital was built, there were heavy rains; and dirt was brought in to save the hillside. The hillside is all sand. Mr. Carter stated that he does not have a problem with the Medical Center expanding their parking lot. However, he believes that the retaining wall should be higher and the slope needs to be stabilized. Mr. Carter stated that, right now, there are trees that help to hold up the bank; however, the bank has already eroded. The slope is 4 ?’ from his property line. He would like the developer to put up
a substantial bond so that, if he loses a piece of his property, it can be replaced. He told the Board members that he did not want his property to be put at risk just so someone else can put up a parking lot.
Thomas Peyton of 33 Grand Street stated that his main concern is what he does not see on the plan(s). He wanted to know what the foundation of the wall would look like. He wanted to know how far back the ground on the outside will be disturbed. He stated that he does not see enough details on how the work is going to be done. He expressed concern about saving the existing trees if the foundation of the wall is going to have to be moved back. Mr. Carnow noted that the Applicant has already prepared a construction drawing for the wall. The contractor will provide the information (means) on how this project is going to take place. The plan(s) will be submitted for the next meeting. Mr. Carnow stated that he did not want to misrepresent the facts. He is an architect,
not a contractor or engineer. He reiterated that the information requested will be provided for the next meeting.
Chairman Gallelli summarized the main points discussed tonight. A survey of the actual sewer line must be prepared and submitted. There must be protection provided for the clay pipe during the construction period. More engineering information on the height of the wall must be submitted. There is concern about the stability of the bank. A construction plan should be submitted describing how the construction is actually taking place.
Mr. Brumleve added that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should provide a detail on the sewer sleeve from the foundation.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the Planning Board has not seen the wall section. The Applicant should show the property line at its (the wall’s) deepest point. Mr. Carnow stated that the wall elevation was set so it would be “in sync” with the existing slopes. The height of the wall varies from place to place.
Ms. Allen stated that she thought it would be reasonable to ask for a profile of the slope at two or three key points. Mr. Carnow said that he would be willing to provide profile drawings.
Ms. Allen wanted to know if anything could be done to increase the stability of the slope. Mr. Klein asked Mr. Carnow if (it is true that) the “end product” of what is being proposed is going to be more stable than what is there now, to which Mr. Carnow stated that there is no question that it will be more stable.
Mr. Carnow stated that the dumpsters have been moved 5’ away from the building, as requested by the Fire Inspector. Mr. Brumleve stated that there should be curbs installed on either side of the dumpsters to keep them in place.
Mr. Zelman asked Mr. Carnow if, when the contractor cuts into the slope and raises the wall, there is a concern that the remaining wall will be less stable than it is today, to which Mr. Carnow responded that this is not (should not be) a concern. Chairman Gallelli stated that when the architect provides detailed construction plans, he will provide the actual method(s) to be used.
Mr. Klein asked if the Applicant is planning to do any “geo-tech” work prior to construction, to which Mr. Carnow stated that he thinks some of this work will have to be done. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would prefer to have this work done in advance so that the Board can know with certainty what the soil conditions are.
Janet Mainiero of 33 Grand Street expressed her concern about the trees to be removed. She said that these trees would help with the stabilization of the slope. Chairman Gallelli asked the Applicant to indicate on the revised plans the existing trees and what the status of these trees will be.
Mr. Klein asked how the surveyor is going to locate the sewer line in the field. Mr. Carnow stated that the surveyor will need authorization from the property owners to enter their properties and do the work. Mr. Carnow stated that if the property owners already know the location of the sewer line, it would help. Chairman Gallelli suggested that the property owners could provide their authorization letters to the Village Engineer’s office. The Village Engineer suggested that, to locate the sewer line, the surveyor could run a metal snake up the manhole.
Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Carnow when he would be ready to come back before the Board. Mr. Carnow asked the Planning Board if he could leave the date open. He needed to find out the surveyor’s schedule. He would have a better idea after speaking with the surveyor. He did not think it would be before the first of the year. The Planning Board decided to continue the public hearing until then.
Mr. Shenfield asked how long the job would take once it actually starts, to which Mr. Carnow said about 6 weeks.
Mr. Shenfield wanted to know how long it would take to fix the sewer line if it were breached, to which Mr. Carnow stated that he does not anticipate that it will be breached.
Mr. Carnow reiterated that he will be in touch with the Planning Board once he knows when the Applicant will be ready to come back.
Croton Autopark (Lou Giordano) – One Municipal Place (Sec. 78.12 Blk. 3 Lot 2) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval
Neil Carnow, architect, was present for this application.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the last meeting on this application, the Applicant requested that the vote be postponed until the full board was present.
Chairman Gallelli noted to those present that, in the meantime, Fran Allen, Dan O’Connor and herself went, at night, to the Kerekes’ residence on 62 Beekman Avenue to see firsthand the problem with the off-site glare. There are, indeed, lights that shine too brightly onto the Kerekes’ property.
Mr. Carnow stated that, with respect to the lighting, he will furnish the Planning Board with an updated drawing, showing the new lighting being proposed, as soon as his computer is repaired.
Mr. Carnow stated that he has spoken with Lou Giordano about the lighting. The Applicant’s intention is to take the heads off of the existing pole to eliminate the glare to the neighbors. The light fixture on the building will be removed. The existing light on the building will be replaced with a light that shines downward only. Mr. Carnow reiterated that the light that faces directly toward the Kerekes’ residence will be removed.
Mr. Carnow told the Planning Board that Mr. Giordano has expressed his frustration to him about the tree plantings. Chairman Gallelli stated that she would be in touch with the DPW about this matter of the trees.
Chairman Gallelli referred to the draft resolution and stated that, since the last meeting, a new condition #12 was added. Another sentence was added at the end of condition #8 that limited the time for the Planning Board to review the lighting adjustments. The review(s) shall not extend beyond January 31, 2003.
Mr. Zelman stated that he thinks the condition in the resolution on the lighting should say words to the effect that there will be on-going adjustments made to prevent any off-site glare. The Planning Board decided to change the wording in the sentence on lighting adjustments to “…will be made and maintained…” to ensure that there will be no off-site glare in the future.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve the Amended Site Plan application for the Croton Autopark. The motion was made by Mr. Zelman, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Klein was opposed.
HHM, LLC (Manhattan Mortgage Company) – 125 Grand Street (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 21) – Application for a Change-of-Use, Preliminary Discussion
Hugo Iodice, owner of the property, was present for this application.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, before the discussion on the HHM, LLC Change-of-Use takes place, she wants to explain to the Planning Board members why the Finkelstein application was removed from tonight’s agenda. Under the new regulations for the Light Industrial District, a warehouse requires a Special Permit from the Village Board. The present owner wants to expand his warehouse use; therefore, this application will require a Special Permit. Chairman Gallelli reiterated that, originally, warehousing in the LI District was an “as of right” use; now, it requires a Special Permit. Chairman Gallelli stated that, after the Finkelstein application goes before the Village Board, it will be referred (back) to the Planning Board for a recommendation.
Chairman Gallelli told those present that, with respect to the Change-of-Use application before the Board tonight, the Applicant, Mr. Iodice, has already applied for a sign permit for his mortgage business. He has gone before the VEB with his sign application. His business is already in operation.
Mr. Iodice stated that he has come before the Planning Board for a Change of Use because the space he occupies has changed from a retail space (bakery) to a retail office space.
Mr. Iodice stated that the building next door will be used as a conference room. Mr. Brumleve asked why the Applicant is not breaking through to the other building, to which Mr. Iodice stated that the building was an add-on. He decided that, rather than having to deal with the structural issues, it would be easier to keep it as it is. He noted to the Planning Board that the only two people working out of this facility will be Wayne Slaughter and himself.
Mr. Iodice stated that, with respect to window signs, it is his understanding that the Village does not want storeowners to put anything in their windows. He noted that he put blinds in the windows. Chairman Gallelli told those present that she would tend to agree with the VEB’s comments on the window treatment that on larger sections of window, vertical blinds should be installed.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, on the side where the Applicant anticipates having a conference room, she would like to see the windows cleared of painting(s). Mr. Iodice explained to the Planning Board that all of his time, of late, has been taken up with a closing on his house. He stated that, in a month or two, everything will be cleared out.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the VEB suggested curtains or, perhaps, a planter to break up the window space. Mr. Iodice stated that he did not think the framing of the window would be strong enough to hold up a window box. He noted that when the bakery was there, he had 4’ of walking space. Chairman Gallelli said that she thought something to break up the front would be nice. Mr. Iodice stated that this is an old wood frame. He would worry about the stability of the frame to support a plant box. Chairman Gallelli stated that something would have to be put right on the ground; however, it cannot be too wide or intrusive on the sidewalk. Mr. Iodice suggested that benches might be a solution, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that she thought benches would be attractive
Chairman Gallelli referred to the colored sign illustration submitted by the Applicant and asked if this sign is the one that he anticipates installing on the façade of the building. Mr. Iodice stated that this is the sign; however, the color of the sign is actually a forest green. The color in the illustration is not the right shade of green.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board needs to schedule a public hearing on this application since it is a Change of Use. Mr. Brumleve asked what the Change of Use is in this case, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that the space is going from a retail store to a retail office space. Chairman Gallelli stated that it is her understanding that, even though it is a retail office, the use being proposed is for an office space. She asked the Village Engineer to look at the Code to be absolutely certain that this is, indeed, the correct interpretation
The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing on this application for Tuesday, December 3rd.
Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Chairman Gallelli stated that the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for Monday, December 2nd. The Planning Board has had an opportunity to see the draft of the Plan. Chairman Gallelli stated that she realizes there are items that are matters of import. She noted that Mr. Klein had mentioned at previous meetings that he had concerns about the parts of the Plan dealing with historic preservation. Mr. Zelman has stated the concerns of the Greenway Committee. The Greenway Committee has raised issues about uses that could occur on the waterfront property. The Comprehensive Plan Committee has stated that the waterfront should be used to serve the best interests of the people in the community; however, Mr. Zelman thinks that the Plan should be
more specific. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Plan has been changed back to what it had previously said, i.e., that the waterfront property should not be reserved for exclusively passive uses.
Mr. Zelman stated that, with respect to the parts of the Plan dealing with the waterfront, his concern has been as much with the process as the substance. The Greenway Committee spent 8 years on the waterfront issue and ended up with (its idea on) passive use(s). Now, the Village has put together a Comprehensive Plan that, in one sentence, overrides that. Mr. Zelman stated that he thinks the issue of how to use the waterfront property is a big decision that needs much thought. He did not think that a decision should be made in the Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to leave this issue open rather than resolving the issue in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Gallelli stated that she thinks Mr. Zelman’s suggestion is a good one. Mr. Zelman stated further that one of the
items that should be duly noted are the differences of opinion on how to use the waterfront.
Ms. Allen stated that there has never been a public hearing held on the Waterfront Study. She thought that a public hearing should be held at some point in the near future. Chairman Gallelli thought that Ms. Allen had a valid point; however, this matter should be addressed outside the Planning Board’s recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that one of the Planning Board members, other than herself, should write the letter of recommendation to the Village Board.
Chairman Gallelli thought that the two issues, discussed tonight, are key issues that should be included in the recommendation letter. The other key issue has to do with the Planning Board’s acting as an architectural review board in its review of applications. Mr. Brumleve stated that he, personally, is against architectural review boards per se. He told the Planning Board that if this Board acts as an architectural committee of sorts, it will spend much time in the process and be embattled in controversy “on many fronts.” Mr. Brumleve stated that, nevertheless, he thinks it is important that the Comprehensive Plan “says what it says” in this regard. Mr. Brumleve suggested that the Village needs to develop guidelines that have been successfully put in place in other
communities. We should be cautious on how these guidelines are worded. Chairman Gallelli agreed that the design guidelines would have to be developed. The intention in the Comprehensive Plan is that the design guidelines would be professionally done.
Ms. Allen questioned what the overlap is between architectural review standards and design guidelines.
Mr. Brumleve referred the other Board members to the draft of the Comprehensive Plan and asked if, in the “definition of gateways” section, the gateways are mapped. He stated that the entry from the northeast on Route 129 is definitely a gateway, and it is not there. Chairman Gallelli stated that this gateway was not included because it is not a commercial gateway. She added that, “everyone realizes that Route 129 is an important gateway.” Mr. Brumleve stated that it is the singular gateway that the Village has to celebrate the process of entering the Village. He stated that he thinks the Comprehensive Plan should include the Route 129 gateway. Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Brumleve to write up a sentence to this effect in the Planning Board’s recommendation letter. Mr. Klein
noted to the others that to have the Route 129 gateway duly recognized as such in the Comprehensive Plan would give the Village some back-up, should the Town of Cortlandt enact zoning changes along Route 129 later on. The Planning Board members all thought that this was a good point.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the discussion on the Comprehensive should be carried on and, if at all possible, concluded at the next meeting.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the site plan application for Malom Development at the next Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, this week, the Croton Housing Network is releasing a press release on the housing units that are (will be) available at Half Moon Bay for senior citizens.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the clubhouse at Half Moon Bay is on schedule for completion. The swimming pool is being held up by the Homeowners Association’s litigation.
The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that the Half Moon Bay developer is asking for a bond reduction. He asked if this should come before the Planning Board or if it is (just) his office that deals with this type of request. Chairman Gallelli stated that it is the Village Engineer’s office.
Chairman Gallelli asked Fran Allen to report on the status of the Millennium Pipeline project. Ms. Allen stated that the Department of Commerce is holding a hearing tomorrow night regarding the Millennium’s appeal to have the NYS Department of State’s finding in our (the Village’s) favor overturned. Representatives of the Village of Briarcliff and the Village of Croton-on-Hudson will be giving presentations. There will be several other organizations coming to the meeting to give presentations. There will be opposition to the Village’s position on the pipeline there as well. The Westchester County Chamber of Commerce will be coming out in favor of the pipeline. Labor unions will be represented. Ms. Allen told the Planning Board that one of the
big issues is that Millennium did not provide enough alternates that would avoid the Coastal Zone Management areas. There will be two officials attending the hearing tomorrow night to talk about the alternates.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the date for the last Planning Board meeting of December has not yet been determined. The first meeting in January will be held on Tuesday, January 7th.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, September 24, 2002 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Klein, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Messrs. Brumleve and Zelman abstained.
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 1, 2002 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Messrs. Brumleve and Zelman abstained.
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 22, 2002 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Mr. Zelman and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Ms. Allen abstained.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 for Croton Autopark, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” located at One Municipal Place and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.12 Block 3 Lot 2 (formerly Sec. 21 Blk. 209 Lot 72-C); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project includes additional landscaping; modifications to the parking; and an application for a free-standing sign; and
WHEREAS, site visits were made to the Croton Autopark by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amended Site Plan application as shown on drawing SY101 entitled “Site Plan,” and drawing A201 entitled “Elevations and Signage,” prepared by Neil Carnow, A.I.A., Architect, dated March 27, 2002, last revised September 12, 2002, be approved subject to the following conditions:
The parking of automobiles beyond the property line adjacent to Municipal Place and South Riverside Avenue, on the NYS Right-of-Way, is subject to consent by the NYSDOT. The parking of vehicles as shown on SY101 is approved by the Planning Board only for the present Applicant.
The Applicant will provide eight (8) trees of no less than 2-inch caliber to be planted by the Village at the locations shown on the above-referenced site plan.
Drawing SY101 will be amended to show a 15’ buffer from adjacent properties on Beekman Avenue and also to show location of exterior lights on the building.
All loading/unloading of supplies for the Parts Department will take place either on Riverside Avenue or on-site from the Riverside Avenue entrance, not on Municipal Place. This condition is subject to reconsideration for up to two (2) years at either the Applicant’s or the Village’s discretion.
No more than seven (7) vehicles will be located on the rock on the northeast side of the property for display purposes.
All banners will be removed from poles on the site and no new signs, as defined in 230-44M., shall be installed except as noted on SY101for a semi-annual temporary event.
Except as modified by the discretion of the Planning Board by this site plan approval, all other provisions of Chapter 230-44 which apply to Motor Vehicle Sales and Service agencies shall apply, specifically 230-44P.(6)(c) having to do with signs on the interior and exterior of individual vehicles.
On-site adjustments will be made and maintained by the Applicant to the existing lights on the site to ensure that there will be no off-site glare. The Applicant will return to the Planning Board the first Planning Board meeting of November 2002 to review the status of the lighting adjustments. Further reviews may be scheduled until the Planning Board is satisfied with the result, but not to extend past January 31, 2003.
The driveway areas behind the building must be kept clear and passable to assure emergency vehicle (including fire truck) access around the building perimeter at all times and also meet the requirements of Sec.125-5A and B (Fire Prevention) of the Village Code.
All vehicle-inventory loading and unloading must occur on Riverside Avenue northerly of the existing main driveway. Hours permitted for loading and unloading vehicles shall be restricted to occur between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. on weekdays. No more than one (1) delivery truck may be present on the road at the same time.
Under normal operating conditions, the cars on the site shall not exceed the number of parking spots shown on the site plan but, for limited periods of time, additional cars can be on site provided they meet the conditions in Section 125-5A and B (Fire Prevention) of the Village Code. The (corresponding) note on the parking count on SY101 should be changed, accordingly.
No stacking or double-deck parking of vehicles shall be permitted.
In the event that this Amended Site Plan is not implemented within one (1) year of this date, this approval shall expire.
The Planning Board of the Village of
Croton-on-Hudson, New York
Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson Fran Allen
Motion to approve by Mr. Zelman, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of to 4 to 1. Mr. Klein was opposed.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, November 12, 2002.