Planning Board Minutes 11/26/02
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2002:


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 in the Municipal Building.

        MEMBERS PRESENT:                Fran Allen, acting as chair
           Ted Brumleve
                                                    Andrew Zelman

                         ABSENT:                Ann Gallelli, Chairman
                                                    Joel Klein

                 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 Fran Allen, acting as the chairperson in Ann Gallelli’s absence.

PUBLIC HEARING:

Malom Development Corp. (Kieran Murray) – Croton Point Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 2 Lots 18, 19 & 20) – Application for Site Plan Approval

Ms. Allen opened the public hearing on the Malom Development application. There were no members of the public present. She asked the Applicant if he had anything further that he wanted to discuss. Ms. Allen stated that, for tonight’s meeting, the Planning Board has received an updated site plan and the modular house plans.  

Mr. Zelman noted that the picture of the house that the Planning Board has received for tonight’s meeting is very different from the picture of the house with multiple views previously received.   Mr. Murray explained to Mr. Zelman that the modular plan he is referring to actually shows the way the house will look from the back, with the exception of the doors.

Mr. Brumleve stated that the Planning Board has now received a set of plans indicating the modular portion of the project.  It would be helpful to have the exposed basement level added to the rear elevation of the plans.  The Planning Board still does not have one document that assembles the way the building will actually look.  Mr. Murray stated that he cannot put together, in one drawing, the modular and the architectural component(s). He told the Planning Board that the modular company is not going to combine the two, and an architect is not going to take the modular plans and stamp them as his own.

Ms. Allen stated that the Planning Board has to have a picture of what the building is going to look like. The Planning Board does not yet have a completed application (drawing) to which it can grant site plan approval.  Ms. Allen noted to the Applicant that the landscaping being proposed should be included on the site plan.

Mr. Murray stated that the Planning Board has received a landscaping plan prepared by a landscape architect.  The only item the Planning Board does not have yet is the set of architectural drawings of the basement level.  

Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Murray that the Planning Board needs to see a rendering of the storefront with the apartment house “sitting on top of it.”  The Planning Board needs to see, as part of its site plan review, a full exterior rendering (the exterior elevations).

Ms. Allen stated that Chairman Gallelli has provided her comments on this application.  Chairman Gallelli noted in her comments that the Planning Board needs to see the window treatment being proposed.  The Applicant’s plans should include areas for signage and examples of the proposed signs.   

Mr. Murray stated that he does not know yet what businesses are going in or whether there will be one or two businesses, to which Ms. Allen stated that, as far as signage is concerned, the plan could be conceptual in nature.  Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Murray that the architect could show, on an elevation drawing, where the signs would be located.  Mr. Zelman suggested that the Applicant could show two alternative locations for the signs and, then, once approved, he could go either way.  

Mr. Brumleve noted that the type of siding being used and the roof material have not been designated on the Applicant’s plans.  

The Village Engineer asked the Applicant what he is proposing to use for the siding, to which Mr. Murray said that he intends to use vinyl siding.  Ms. Allen stated that one of the intentions in the Comprehensive Plan for the gateway areas was that natural materials be used.  Mr. Murray stated that he thought an agreement had been reached at a previous meeting about the siding.  He thought it had been agreed to that he could use a less expensive material for the siding if he added details to the façade, e.g., shutters to accent the windows; bump-outs to create interesting shadows to the facade; etc.  Ms. Allen said that she does not recall any mention of using, as an alternative, vinyl or aluminum siding.  She does remember a discussion in which Mr. Murray was pleased that he did not have to use brick facing.  Mr. Brumleve stated that he does not recall a commitment to non-vinyl siding.

Mr. Brumleve stated that there seems to be a discrepancy in the drawings. He referred to the front elevation drawing(s) and stated that the elevations are out of alignment with the placement of the foundation. He told the Applicant that, in the end, it would be in his best interest if what is being placed on the site is accurately aligned with the elevations that are being shown.

Mr. Brumleve told the Applicant that, given the plans that the Planning Board has received, the Board cannot accurately judge the quality of the exterior of the building.

Ms. Allen suggested that the Planning Board could create a list of items, which are still required, for the Applicant to take the next step.  She told the Applicant that the public hearing on this application will be continued to the next meeting.

Ms. Allen reiterated that the Planning Board needs to have a view of what the site is actually going to look like.

Mr. Murray reviewed the items still required.  Architectural elevation drawings of all four sides of the building need to be provided.  As per Mr. Brumleve’s comments, there should be unity shown between the foundation and the elevations.  The roofing and siding materials must be designated.   The window treatment should be shown on the plan(s).  Examples of the proposed signage should be submitted.
Ms. Allen stated that the landscaping being proposed should be shown on the site plan.  Mr. Murray stated that he spoke to his engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, about the landscaping.  Mr. Mastromonaco told him to simply attach the landscaping plan to the site plan.  Ms. Allen told the Applicant that another way of proceeding with the landscaping would be to put together a memorandum saying that this is the final landscaping plan.  She said that the Planning Board, in reviewing this application, should not have to tie all these elements together.

The Village Engineer referred to the Applicant’s site plan and stated that there is a possible conflict with respect to the matter of the concrete pad for garbage on Croton Point Avenue.  Mr. Murray stated that his engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, must have forgotten to take it off the site plan.  The concrete pad is shown correctly on the landscaping plan.

Ms. Allen noted that, at a previous meeting, the Planning Board talked about a steel sheeting being used during construction for the retaining wall.  The Village Engineer asked the Applicant if borings have already been done, to which the Applicant stated that they have been done.  The Village Engineer stated that there was a discussion at one of the meetings about the need to do sheeting for the slope area at the rear of the building, and this will need to be done.  Mr. Murray told the Planning Board that he has difficulty with the notion of having to do sheeting.  Mr. Brumleve pointed out that, in the rear of the building, the retaining wall being proposed does not have to hold back (support) 10’ of slope. Nevertheless, he thought that the Applicant’s engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, should be looking into this matter.  Mr. Zelman stated that the Planning Board needs more detail on the construction plan.  When the Applicant’s engineer prepares the construction plan(s), he can explain how he proposes to handle the problem of the rear slope.

Mr. Brumleve stated that Mr. Mastromonaco has to provide the Planning Board with a construction methodology in narrative form.  

Mr. Murray told the Board members that he intends to have the sand trucked out from the site.  Ms. Allen stated that such details about the construction process should be put in writing.

Mr. Murray asked if he could review with the Board members the items discussed tonight that he feels are “deal breakers.”  One of these is the exterior material.  He wanted to know if the Planning Board is going to insist that he use premium exterior material.  Ms. Allen suggested that the Applicant wait until Chairman Gallelli is present to discuss this issue.  Chairman Gallelli has indicated in her comments that the Comprehensive Plan calls for natural materials as opposed to synthetic materials.  Mr. Murray stated that the other issue of concern to him is the bonding.  

Ms. Allen stated that, with respect to the matter of the exterior materials, she can only tell the Applicant what the intent in the Comprehensive Plan is.  She would prefer to wait for Chairman Gallelli to be present to discuss this issue any further. Chairman Gallelli has been deeply involved with the Comprehensive Plan.     

Mr. Zelman suggested that, if the Applicant feels that this is a “make or break” issue and that the vinyl he is proposing to use is attractive, then, perhaps, the Applicant could show the Planning Board, in more detail, what it would look like.  Perhaps, there is a building nearby that has the exterior material the Applicant plans to use.  

Mr. Murray asked what constitutes slope disturbance.  He wanted to know if slope disturbance was digging into a slope or just building on top of a slope.  He asked if the Steep Slopes Hardship Permit that he has obtained is tied to any specific plan or could he pursue another project.  Ms. Allen stated that there is not a lot of history on Steep Slopes Hardship permits but, in the cases the Planning Board has seen, the Board had information on the specific building (building project) when the permit was approved.   Mr. Zelman stated that, in his view, this application is not a typical Steep Slopes Hardship Permit application.  

Mr. Zelman stated that, with respect to the type of siding, the Planning Board has not “closed the door” on the materials that can be used.  If the Applicant wants to use vinyl siding, the burden is on the Applicant to make his presentation to the Planning Board.

Mr. Murray stated that the bonding issue is also a “make or break” issue for him.

Ms. Allen stated that in preparation for this Planning Board meeting, Chairman Gallelli made up a draft resolution with conditions.  The draft resolution has a condition that calls for two bonds, one to cover the construction phase and the other to cover the façade and completion of the landscaping.   

Mr. Zelman stated that the Applicant’s project is unique for the reasons discussed tonight.  It is the first project of this nature that is going into what has been designated as a “gateway” area.  

Mr. Brumleve stated that he thinks the Planning Board owes the Applicant an answer as to whether there is a precedent for the establishment of a completion and stabilization bond.  He thought that the Planning Board should check with the Village Attorney and get back to the Applicant.  Mr. Murray stated that he needs this information in order to project the cash flow for the project.

Mr. Murray stated that the VEB has rescheduled the meeting on his application.  He has not heard back from them.

Ms. Allen stated that she will keep the public hearing on this application open.  Mr. Murray wondered why it was necessary to keep the public hearing open since no one showed up. Mr. Zelman stated that he did not think the Planning Board should close the public hearing until all the information for the Applicant’s site plan has been provided.  It is appropriate to keep the public hearing open when there are outstanding issues.  

Ms. Allen read the condition about landscaping that Chairman Gallelli wrote in the draft resolution.  The Planning Board needs to see a complete landscaping plan for the site showing specific plants and locations as well as trees to remain on the site.  Mr. Brumleve stated that a note should be put on the landscaping plan saying what the area in the back is.  The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant needs to show boundaries.  The Applicant needs to indicate which areas are gravel and which areas are grass.

Mr. Brumleve noted that this application cannot be on the agenda for next week’s meeting because the Planning Board needs time to discuss the bonding issue with the Village Engineer and the Village Attorney.  Mr. Zelman thought that the earliest the Applicant could come back would be the second meeting in December.  Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Murray that, for the next meeting, he will need to submit the “unified” plan discussed earlier tonight.    

NEW BUSINESS:

a)      Aguanno and Singer – 5 Georgia Lane (Sec. 68.09 Blk. 3 Lot 4) – Referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit

Robert Davis of Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis and Hollis, P.C., and Jim Ryan of John Meyer Consulting were present for this application.

Mr. Davis stated that the Applicants, Peter Aguanno and Sharon Singer, are before the Planning Board tonight on a referral pursuant to Sec. 195 of the Village Code whereby the Village Board refers a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit application to the Planning Board for recommendation.  

Ms. Allen stated that she and the Village Engineer went out this afternoon to look at the site.

Mr. Ryan stated that the property in question is part of the Waldwood Subdivision on Georgia Lane.  The site is approximately .92 acres in size.  Mr. Ryan pointed to a colored map showing the site and stated that there is a rise in grade at the road level and, then, the land flattens out.  The septic system takes up the area between the proposed house and Georgia Lane.  There is storm drainage out on Georgia Lane, which the Applicant will connect into.  The Applicant will make use of the rock on the site for the construction of the stone wall.  The stone wall will taper off on both sides and will, therefore, not be the same height throughout.   Mr. Ryan stated that the Applicant wants to create enough usable area but, at the same time, does not want to push the slope back too far.  

Mr. Ryan told the Board that, in locating the house, his engineering firm tried to “nestle” it in parallel to the contours.  The Applicant’s house will not have a big visual impact on the houses to the side of them.  In terms of the overall drainage design, the Applicant has storm water that will come down to the roadway system.  Mr. Ryan told the Planning Board that there was concern about velocities so his firm put a stone channel that is close-pitched along the driveway.  Mr. Ryan stated that the wall along the driveway is 1 ?’ tall in the beginning and goes up to 10’ in height.  Mr. Ryan stated that the water from the driveway will go into a swale at the bottom.   

Ms. Allen asked what the width of the driveway is, to which Mr. Ryan stated that the width of the driveway is 12’.  He pointed to the location of the proposed two-car garage on the map.  The garage comes in at the lower level.  There is a 12’ change in grade.  Mr. Ryan showed the Planning Board where the steps would be located.  The wall in the front tapers off from 6’ to 2’.  Mr. Ryan stated that the overall disturbance to the steep slopes was dictated by the location of the septic system.

Ms. Allen noted that, in looking at the driveway, the wall increases in height on the left side and, then, meets the gravel section.  Ms. Allen wanted to know what the terrain is on the right, to which Mr. Ryan stated that the right side is all lawn.  Mr. Ryan noted that there is a swale on both sides of the wall.

Mr. Ryan stated that, as far as the trees on the property are concerned, the trees of fairly substantial size are the tulip trees.  He told the Board members that his firm was quite successful in avoiding the trees of significant character such as oak trees.  

Ms. Allen noted that there is an elm tree on the property, which she hopes can be protected, to which Mr. Ryan replied that Mr. Aguanno and his wife want to maintain the natural character of the property in the back.  

Mr. Ryan stated that, in terms of the visual impact(s) to the neighbors, the Village Engineer has asked in his memorandum to the Planning Board that the neighboring properties be shown on the Applicant’s plan.  Mr. Ryan noted that the rest of the Village Engineer’s comments are quite straightforward and can be easily addressed.

Ms. Allen told the Applicant that, in looking back at the materials that the Planning Board originally received for this application, the steep slopes analysis has changed considerably.  Now, the “greater than 20%” calculation is 34 whereas the original calculation was 26.3.  The “15% to 20%” category now says 5.4. This amount was greater in the original analysis.  Ms. Allen questioned why these changes occurred.  Mr. Ryan explained that the original mapping that his engineering firm had for this property did not match the survey.  For the revised plan that the Planning Board has before it tonight, his firm used a good topographical map by a licensed surveyor.  Furthermore, the first positioning of the house did not account for the septic system. The second plan shows the house moved back further due to the location of the septic system.   Mr. Davis referred to the plan and stated that there is minimum disturbance around the rear of the house.  An effort was made not to disturb anything beyond the septic area.  

Mr. Zelman wanted to know about the sequence of the construction.  He noted that there are two walls, both running behind the house.  He asked how the slopes would be secured prior to construction of the walls.  Mr. Ryan stated that a detail will have to be created, once it is known what the slope is made of.  He said, “we won’t go beyond the disturbance line but, if the slope is rock, we may have to chip and lay that back.  Some type of wall has to be put in or a rock slope will have to be established.”   

Mr. Brumleve stated that, according to the plan(s), the Applicant is digging 14’ into the existing grade where the basement slab will be located.  He asked if the rear retaining wall will be put in before the foundation is built, to which Mr. Ryan said that it will be.  He added that this is the most practical way to do it.

Mr. Davis noted to the Planning Board members that a discussion has taken place on how to stabilize the front lawn area.  Mr. Ryan explained that what the Applicant intends to do is to grub that area and stabilize it with some type of vegetation that does not require maintenance.  A type of vegetation will be selected that will support the slope.  Mr. Ryan stated that a note has been added to the plan stating that this area will be disturbed but will be stabilized with some kind of vegetation.  The Village Engineer asked Mr. Ryan if this means that he intends to have additional notes on the plan regarding the vegetation.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Applicant is committed to the idea of vegetating that area in order to stabilize it.  The notes will be added to the plan once a landscaping plan is further developed.

Ms. Allen asked the other members if they wanted to give a favorable recommendation to the Village Board on this Steep Slopes Hardship application.  Mr. Davis suggested that, perhaps, the Board could issue a favorable recommendation on condition that the Applicant satisfactorily addresses the comments brought forth in the Village Engineer’s memorandum to the Planning Board dated November 26, 2002.  Mr. Brumleve referred to the item(s) in the Village Engineer’s memorandum regarding tree preservation and stated that the Applicant should try to preserve the trees on the property as much as possible.

Ms. Allen entertained a motion to recommend to the Village Board that this Steep Slopes Hardship Permit be granted, subject to the Applicant’s satisfactorily addressing the items listed in the Village Engineer’s memorandum (mentioned above).  The motion was made by Mr. Zelman, seconded by Mr. Brumleve and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

After the vote, Ms. Allen told Mr. Ryan about a Pace seminar she had attended on new storm water Best Management Practices. One goal of the new BMPs is to put storm water into the aquifer rather than the storm drains. She noted that changing the driveway pitch on the plan so that water went to the grassed area on the right rather than towards the wall on the left would reduce the amount of water that went offsite into the storm drain. Mr. Ryan agreed but said they could not do that in this case because the grassed area was the septic field. He added that John Meyer Consulting was starting to incorporate the new best management practices in their designs. The stone channel on the left of the driveway was such a design and would capture some water before it reached the storm drain.   

b)      Croton-on-Hudson Realty, LLC (Finkelstein Warehouse) – 1 Hudson River Drive (Sec. 78.12 Blk. 4 Lot 1) – Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit

Peter Elkin, architect, was present to represent the Applicant.

Ms. Allen stated that the Planning Board is being asked to provide a recommendation to the Village Board on the Special Permit application for the Finkelstein Warehouse at 1 Hudson River Drive.

Ms. Allen told the others that she and the Village Engineer visited the site earlier today.  

Mr. Elkin told the Board members that he is currently doing several projects for the Finkelstein Company.  The present proposal will provide more floor area to accommodate the new lines of tires that the Finkelstein Company has taken on.

Mr. Elkin stated that the site is situated between Hudson River Drive and the Metro North Railroad.  The recent Comprehensive Plan had suggested creating a green way in that area.   Mr. Elkin stated that the landscaping has been done.  He distributed to the Board members an aerial photograph showing the area(s) surrounding the warehouse lined with trees.

Ms. Allen asked who owns the property between the chain link fence and the road, to which Mr. Elkin responded that the Applicant owns the chain link fence but probably not the cedar fence.

Mr. Brumleve noted that the property line does not seem clearly indicated on the Applicant’s plan.

Mr. Zelman referred to the plan and stated that, at this point in time, Village residents would have no occasion to walk in this area; but there will be an opportunity to do so later on.   He asked Mr. Elkin if the warehouse addition will be visible to pedestrians when they “make that turn,” to which Mr. Elkin stated that it will be visible.  Mr. Zelman pointed out that the walkway near the Finkelstein property will be the “grand entrance” to the Croton waterfront.  The lower down the hill a person goes, the less visible the warehouse will be.  However, when a person reaches the top, he/she will see the Finkelstein addition.  

Ms. Allen expressed concern about the massiveness of the building and the white color.  Mr. Elkin stated that the Applicant has not yet selected a color for the addition.  The color does not have to be white.

Mr. Brumleve stated that the Applicant’s site plan should be presented in the context of its surroundings.  He suggested that the site plan could be reduced in scale so that Hudson River Drive could extend out to show the Finkelstein building in relation to the waterfront.  Mr. Brumleve noted that the public is going to be coming around three sides of the Finkelstein building to gain access to the waterfront.

Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Elkin that the look of the façade of the building, the roof, and the truck dock doors will (most likely) be some of the issues raised at the Village Board public hearing.

Ms. Allen stated that the Planning Board needs to see what the addition will look like visually from various points.  

Mr. Elkin suggested that, for screening purposes, the Applicant could put in additional trees.  He referred to the map of the property and asked if the roadway being shown is a town road or privately owned.  Ms. Allen stated that the road was built by the Half Moon Bay developer.  It is her understanding that it has since been dedicated to the Village.  Mr. Elkin asked if he could have a survey of the road, to which the Village Engineer said that he would provide Mr. Elkin with whatever plans the Village has.  He would (even) try to provide Mr. Elkin with old plans so he could see what the intent was.

Ms. Allen stated that the Planning Board would like to see a different color than white.  The Village Engineer stated that, with respect to the color, the Metro Enviro building, situated on the other side of the road, is shades darker than the Finkelstein building.  He suggested that, perhaps, the color of the building could be toned down.

Mr. Brumleve stated that Mr. Elkin’s letter talks about truck deliveries to the warehouse.  He asked Mr. Elkin if the Finkelstein facility ever receives any deliveries by rail, to which Mr. Elkin stated that it does not.

Mr. Elkin stated that the new addition will be constructed at least 10’ from the center line of the drain pipe situated on the property.  The drain is 12’ down.  The idea is to put piles in and augur it in 8’ deep and, then, begin driving.  Mr. Elkin noted to the Board members that a design is being prepared such that no work is performed within the area of influence affecting this pipe.

Mr. Brumleve stated that the light fixtures being proposed will also be a concern raised at the public hearing.

Mr. Brumleve thanked Mr. Elkin for his letter to the Planning Board regarding this application.  He thought that it was very thorough and most helpful.

Ms. Allen suggested that, in the referral letter to the Village Board, the Planning Board could request that the Village Board put a condition in its resolution for a change of color or whatever would be needed to lessen the visual impact of the new addition.  Mr. Zelman stated that the Applicant should be asked to  review the views of the new addition from the new bridge and explore what could be done to mitigate the visual impact of the new building.  

Mr. Brumleve noted that, once the Special Permit is granted, the Applicant will have to come back before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval.  Mr. Zelman stated that the resolution should address the visual impact(s) including screening and the color of the building.  Mr. Brumleve stated that the Village Board resolution should carry with it the understanding that, when the Applicant comes before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board is going to be looking at the visual impact(s).

The Planning Board agreed to recommend that the Special Permit be granted subject to a satisfactory site plan that addresses the issues of visual impact including the color of the building and the views from the waterfront access.  The motion was made by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Mr. Zelman and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

OTHER BUSINESS:

a)      Comprehensive Plan Discussion – Letter to the Village Board

Ms. Allen stated that there will be a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan at the Village Board meeting on Monday night.  

Ms. Allen stated that Mr. Zelman sent to the Planning Board members this afternoon a commentary on the waterfront that can be incorporated into the letter to the Village Board.  Mr. Zelman based his commentary on the Planning Board’s discussion at the last meeting.  

Mr. Brumleve referred to the section(s) of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Architectural Review Boards.  He thought that the Planning Board should provide its comments on design/architectural review standards in its letter to the Village Board.  Mr. Zelman thought that the jurisdiction of an Architectural Review Board should encompass commercial properties but not single-family residential properties.  Mr. Brumleve agreed but he also thought that an Architectural Review Board could encompass multiple residential properties.  Mr. Zelman pointed out that multiple residential housing developments could almost be considered a “commercial use.”

Mr. Brumleve stated that he does not have a problem with the language (itself) in the Comprehensive Plan on Architectural Review Boards.  His problem has to do with the notion of legislating good taste. Mr. Brumleve stated that the powers of an Architectural Review Board can be very broad in nature.  They can encompass anything from the color of siding to the kind of outdoor lights to be installed.  

Ms. Allen stated that she liked the idea in the Comprehensive Plan that an architectural review would be in the Planning Board’s domain.  

Ms. Allen asked if there are other ways of codifying the visual impacts, to which Mr. Brumleve said that there are.  He said that building bulk, building height, and placement of a building on a lot are more important issues to be addressed than issues pertaining to colors and textures.

Mr. Brumleve noted that even though “Architectural Review Board” is the right term, the Planning Board will have to recognize that, in taking on the role of an Architectural Review Board, it will be saddling itself in a more subjective role.   

Mr. Zelman suggested that in the language of the Comprehensive Plan there could be an exemption, from an Architectural Review Board’s actions, of single-family residences that do not require Special Permits.  Mr. Brumleve stated that the following wording could be added in the relevant section(s) of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to architectural review standards:  “..…with the exception of 1 and 2-family residences that do not require the Special Permit process.”

Mr. Zelman stated that, in general, the suggestion (concept) in the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to an architectural review process makes sense; however, the Planning Board needs to define where it does not apply.

The Planning Board decided that the letter to the Village Board should say words to the effect that, in general, the Planning Board supports the concept of an Architectural Review Board, if focused on commercial and multiple residential developments.  The Village Board should consider addressing these (architectural design) issues in 1- and 2-family residences through bulk and height or other similar regulations.

Mr. Brumleve referred to page 83 of the draft Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Village gateways and stated that the Gateway District is shown as one side of South Riverside Avenue only.  It does not include the shopping center.   He thought that the east side of Route 9A should be shown.  Mr. Brumleve stated further that the northerly route of Route 129 is not shown at all.  He thought that it should be shown as one of the gateway areas.  He pointed out that if Route 129 is considered a gateway to the Village, then, the Town of Cortlandt would feel compelled to have to go through the Village for possible changes in zoning.  

Mr. Brumleve suggested the following wording in the letter to the Village Board:  

that Figure 4.1 be revised to include district mapping that straddles both sides of Croton Point Avenue in the South Riverside Avenue Gateway and both sides of Route 9A at the North End Gateway.

that although not commercially zoned, the Village entry on Route 129 should be noted as an important gateway to the Village.

Mr. Brumleve noted that gateway districts in the Comprehensive Plan are called “commercially zoned” districts, to which Mr. Zelman stated that the Route 129 gateway coming from the dam cannot be placed under the heading of “commercial.”  Ms. Allen stated that the Planning Board seems to be raising concerns (here) about the meaning of “gateways.”  Mr. Brumleve stated that, perhaps, the Planning Board could suggest that the Gateway District section of the Comprehensive Plan should consider additional language to address non-commercial aspects, i.e., Route 129 entry, as well as gateways on both sides of South Riverside Avenue, etc.   The idea is that the Planning Board thinks that “gateways” pertain to more than commercial uses.

Mr. Brumleve stated that he would be willing to write the letter to the Village Board.  He will incorporate the Planning Board’s comments tonight on gateways and the establishment of architectural review standards, respectively.  He will also add Mr. Zelman’s commentary on the waterfront.

b)      Discussion Joint-Meeting Date VEB/Planning Board

The Planning Board discussed a possible date for a joint-meeting with the VEB.  Ms. Allen told the Board members that Chairman Gallelli did not think that a meeting should be scheduled in December.  She suggested, instead, that the Planning Board look for a date in January.  Ms. Allen thought that, perhaps, the Planning Board Secretary could poll the Board members in order to come up with an agreed upon date.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:10 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY


NOTE:   THE FOLLOWING LETTERS, ATTACHED TO THE 11/26/02 PLANNING
                BOARD MINUTES, CAN BE FOUND IN THE PLANNING BOARD
                MINUTES FILE IN THE VILLAGE MANAGER’S OFFICE AREA:

Letter to Mayor Elliott and the Board of Trustees from Fran Allen dated 11/27/02 regarding the Steep Slopes Hardship Permit application, Aguanno and Singer

Letter to Mayor Elliott and the Board of Trustees from Fran Allen dated 11/27/02 regarding the Special Permit application, Finkelstein Warehouse

Letter to Mayor Elliott and The Board of Trustees from the Planning Board dated December 2, 2002 regarding the Draft Comprehensive Plan