VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chair
ABSENT: Fran Allen
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.
Malom Development Corp. (Kieran Murray) – Croton Point Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 2 Lots 18, 19 & 20) – Application for Site Plan Approval
John Lentini, Architect, and Kieran Murray, owner of the property, were present for this application.
Mr. Lentini stated that the color of the building being proposed is gray, with white trim and a black shingled roof. As requested, the gray siding will go all the way to the base of the building on both sides.
Mr. Lentini told the Board members that, since the last meeting, he has done research on putting wood on a storefront. He found nothing that would prohibit using wood, but he would be uncomfortable with the idea. Wood is flammable. Mr. Lentini stated that, essentially, the storefront being proposed is glass with a metal frame. The scalloped gables on the front of the building are proposed to be white and the shutters, a sky blue color.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she is glad to see that Mr. Lentini’s architectural renderings show the siding going down to the base of the building, as Mr. Brumleve had suggested. She thought that what was being shown tonight is what the Planning Board had requested at the previous meeting(s). The colors and materials being used have now been specified on the Applicant’s plan(s). She asked if the Board members had any comments.
Mr. Brumleve stated that, at the last meeting, he requested that Mr. Lentini should prepare one more end elevation showing the alignment of the retaining wall. The intent was to show the wall at either end at its finished height to get a feeling for the magnitude of the wall relative to the building height. Mr. Lentini stated that he does recall Mr. Brumleve asking for this elevation drawing. Unfortunately, he forgot to make note of it. Mr. Lentini tried to explain what the wall would look like relative to the building. He said that, “beyond the building, there should be the stairs and the wall, and a higher grade. The wall will come as high as the grade line, and several steps.”
Mr. Brumleve stated that the other discussion at the last meeting was the location for the garbage. Mr. Lentini stated that, with respect to the garbage, he has done what the Superintendent of Public Works, Ken Kraft, asked him to do. Mr. Murray stated that he has brought with him tonight plans for the garbage container/enclosure.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board members have several drawings on the Malom Development application to review tonight. She asked if there was anything more that the Planning Board wanted to talk about with regard to the architectural plans. Mr. Brumleve stated that he would like to offer a message of congratulations and thanks to the Applicant for his perseverance and hard work. He noted that this is such an important visual site in the Village. He thought that the project had “come a long way” since its inception, to which the other members concurred.
The Village Engineer brought up the matter of color(s) for the metal storefront. Mr. Lentini stated that the color would essentially be a light shade like the trim. The frame would be white. He noted that the intent is to put in glass, and the siding will terminate at the frame of the glass. He thought that this would add a nice touch. Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Lentini to add a note and/or a detail to the Applicant’s plan(s) describing what he just said about the storefront colors and design.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she has some questions for the Applicant on the site plan drawings. She noted that the Village Engineer has prepared for tonight’s meeting a summary of all the remaining issues discussed at the last meeting. She thinks that most of these issues have been addressed.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Final Subdivision Approval for this application has not yet been granted. The Applicant has been through the Preliminary Subdivision approval process; however, the Applicant has not yet submitted plans for Final Subdivision approval. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board is not going to be able to approve the Applicant’s site plan until Final Subdivision approval is granted. She told the Applicant that she thinks the Planning Board is very close to what is going to be finally approved. It would behoove the Applicant to submit to the Planning Board the Final Subdivision Plat. Mr. Murray stated that he would have the map ready for the next meeting. Chairman Gallelli noted that, if the Final Subdivision Plat is not substantially
different from the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, then, the Planning Board does not have to call a public hearing.
Chairman Gallelli stated that there are some notes from the Preliminary Subdivision Approval that need to appear on the Final Subdivision Plat. One of the conditions of the Preliminary approval was that “Access to the lot created by this approval for any commercial uses developed on it in the future, either through an exclusively commercial building or mixed-use building, shall not be permitted from Wayne Street.” This condition should be noted on the Final Subdivision Plat.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the most recently submitted site plan shows air-conditioning units on the side of the building. A note should be added to the Applicant’s site plan accordingly.
Chairman Gallelli asked where the condenser unit for the air-conditioning would be located, to which Mr. Lentini stated that the condenser unit is shown on the Applicant’s site plan (on the upper right side). Chairman Gallelli stated that, in our previous discussion, the Planning Board wanted to make a condition that there would be no air-conditioning units situated in the front of the building. Mr. Lentini referred to his plan(s) and stated that this condition about the air-conditioning is noted on the plan in Note #3.
Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Murray about his plan for the garbage unit on Wayne Street, to which Mr. Murray showed the Planning Board pictures of two different styles of garbage enclosures. The one he preferred was the barn-shaped structure, 8’ x 8’ in size. The unit is a “walk-in.” He would build shelves in it. This type of garbage enclosure would keep the garbage contained in one place. Both enclosures are from the Home Depot Company.
Chairman Gallelli asked if the structure would be placed on a concrete pad, to which Mr. Murray stated that it would be.
Mr. Klein wondered how Mr. Murray is proposing to put the shelves in. He pointed out that a person would have to lean over the garbage cans to get to the recycle shelf in the back. He wondered what the interior layout would have to be for 9 garbage cans to fit into an 8’ x 8’ structure. Mr. Murray stated that, right now, his tenants in the other (existing) apartment building keep their garbage outside. There is no enclosure. Chairman Gallelli stated that the critical issue is the ease with which the tenants use this enclosure. If it is not convenient to use, they will not use it.
Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Murray what would happen with the garbage on pick-up day. Mr. Murray stated that the tenants would be expected to pull the garbage cans out of the enclosure and take them to a designated place for pick-up.
Mr. Brumleve asked Mr. Murray why he wants to use an enclosed structure for the garbage as opposed to a simple outside enclosure/“surround,” to which Mr. Murray stated that the enclosed structure would keep the garbage contained. The garbage area would not get as messy.
Mr. Brumleve stated that, from his point of view, the problem with this structure is its size. “It is the first thing you see when you come down Wayne Street.”
Mr. Murray indicated on the site plan where the garbage enclosure is proposed to be located.
The Planning Board members chose the style of garbage enclosure known as the “New Yorker” style. Chairman Gallelli asked what the height of this one is, to which Mr. Murray stated that it is 8’ in the back. The other one (the barn-shaped one) is 8’2”.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, if Mr. Murray could give the Planning Board the specifications on the “New Yorker” style garbage enclosure, the description of the unit could be included in the resolution of approval. The Planning Board would want to know exactly where it is to be located. Mr. Klein stated that he does not think that the language used in the resolution about the garbage enclosure should be too specific. It might not be possible to purchase a garbage enclosure exactly like this one later on. Chairman Gallelli stated that, in that case, the Applicant would be better off indicating its dimensions and giving the description of it on the site plan.
Chairman Gallelli noted that, the way it was left the last time, no freestanding sign would be proposed. In the event that the Applicant would want to propose a freestanding sign, he would have to come back before the Planning Board.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the colors for the building are noted on the Applicant’s plan.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Engineer had a comment in his memorandum about the exterior lighting in the rear of the building. The Village Engineer stated that he wanted to know if Mr. Murray would be providing light at the stairs, to which Mr. Murray replied that the modular company is required to provide lighting at the doors. The lighting is indicated on the blueprints of the house.
Chairman Gallelli stated that Ken Kraft of the DPW has been looking into the matter of the dumpster at the Croton Point Avenue side of the property. He has asked that the actual siting of the dumpster be delayed to see how the maneuvering of the garbage truck on the property is going to work out. Mr. Murray told the Board members that Mr. Kraft thinks that, by turning the dumpster 90 degrees, a truck could maneuver; however, he would want to look at this again once the parking lot is installed. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board needs to incorporate this wording/language in its resolution of approval. The Planning Board needs to “leave an opening” in the resolution so that, once the paving is put in, the Applicant has an option for siting the dumpster in a way that is convenient
for the DPW.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the Applicant’s cover letter, accompanying the plans submitted for tonight’s meeting, mentions a final landscaping plan dated October 15, 2002. There have been planting areas added after that date. Mr. Brumleve referred to the revised site plan that shows four planters in the front of the property between the parking lot and the storefront. He noted that these are not shown on the landscaping plan. Mr. Brumleve stated that what was actually discussed at the last meeting was an 18” wide planting strip at sidewalk level. Planters were not discussed. No matter what form the plantings take, the landscaping plan needs to be updated.
Mr. Brumleve noted that a 30” redwood box/planter is going to be expensive to install and maintain. He preferred the 18” wide planting area in the front.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, in the discussion about the landscaping at the last meeting, the Planning Board talked about an approximately 2’ wide section, with openings for pedestrians, that ran the whole length of the front. She suggested that the planters, now being shown, be removed.
Mr. Brumleve stated that an updated landscaping plan needs to be submitted that indicates what kind of plants would be installed.
Mr. Murray summarized the changes/additions to the landscaping discussed at tonight’s meeting. The planters in the front, now being shown on the site plan, should be removed. The planting area can remain 18”. The planting area should be planted to grade. The plants being installed should be specified on the plan(s). Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Murray that, at the previous meeting, the Planning Board had suggested using some form of evergreen material and “annual color.”
Mr. Brumleve referred again to the most recently submitted site plan and stated that the four shaded boxes (planters), above grade, are a new feature tonight.
Mr. Brumleve noted that there would be 4’ of sidewalk between the face of the building and the inside edge of the planting area(s).
Chairman Gallelli stated that the last (remaining) issue to be discussed is the fencing on top of the retaining wall. At the last meeting, the Planning Board did not make a decision on the type/style of the fence. Mr. Murray showed the Planning Board a picture of the proposed fencing, to which the Board members seemed satisfied. Chairman Gallelli thought that the fencing being shown is along the lines of what the Planning Board discussed the last time. Mr. Murray noted that the fence is made of aluminum; hence, it is maintenance-free. The style is known as “Avalon.” Mr. Murray asked what the general wording of the note on the site plan should be describing the fence. Chairman Gallelli suggested that the note could say, “…..fence with a wrought-iron
appearance, black in color, with a continuous top rail…..”
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board has been working on a draft resolution for the Malom Development Site Plan application. It is complete except for the conditions added tonight.
Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant needs to submit to the Planning Board the Final Subdivision Plat.
Chairman Gallelli closed the public hearing on the application for Site Plan approval.
Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Murray that, provided that his application materials are ready in time, he could be on the agenda for the next Planning Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 1st. She stated that both the Site Plan application and the Final Subdivision application could be reviewed at that time. Mr. Murray told the Board members that he would have the application materials ready for the April 1st meeting.
Michael DiVitto and Tim Puff – Morningside Drive (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 6 Lot 32) – Referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit, Continued
Ronald Wegner, P.E. of Cronin Engineering was present. Mr. Wegner stated that this application was last heard by the Planning Board in October 2002. The Planning Board’s major concerns were the height of the building and the visual impacts to the neighbors.
Mr. Wegner stated that he received, today, the Village Engineer’s memorandum to the Planning Board dated March 25, 2003. As requested in the Village Engineer’s memorandum, the Applicant’s revised plans now show an equipment list and an expanded construction sequence. The trees to remain and to be removed have been shown. A site location map and some additional details have been added. The proposed residence has been lowered and a shallow pitched roof provided. The sidewalk in front of the lot and the parking lot are now being shown.
Mr. Wegner stated that he was not able to provide a cross section map from Truesdale Drive. He did take a picture to show what is there.
Mr. Wegner distributed to the Board members a booklet of 14 photographs, taken from various points, that show the houses in the surrounding neighborhood. Photograph #1 shows the front of the site looking south. The next photograph (#2) is taken from Morningside Drive and shows the house directly north of the site. Mr. Klein asked what the height of the proposed house would be compared to the house in photograph #2. Mr. Wegner replied that it would be taller than the house in the foreground. It would be 8’ to 10’ higher.
Mr. Wegner referred to the red house in photograph #3. He stated that this house has a floor below ground level and a shallow pitched roof. Photograph #4 shows the third house north of the site looking east.
Mr. Wegner stated that he took pictures from Truesdale Drive. Photograph #5 shows the residence to the south of the site. The house in this photograph has a floor at road level and a deeply pitched roof.
Mr. Wegner referred the Planning Board to page 4. Photograph #7 on page 4 shows the third house to the south of the site looking east. Mr. Wegner noted to the Board that this house looks like “new construction.” The Applicant’s house will be lower than this one. Height-wise, the Applicant’s house will resemble the house in photograph #5. Mr. Wegner stated that the house in photograph #7 is the tallest house in the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Wegner stated that Photograph #8 is from Truesdale Drive looking northwest. If one goes further south, there is a hill, and it is impossible to see where the houses are. These pictures were all taken in January when “you would have the most visibility.”
Mr. Wegner stated that photograph #9 on the top of page 5 shows the site, and the first house north of the site, from Truesdale Drive looking west. He referred the Planning Board to the middle area of the picture and stated that the house being proposed would be situated above the tan-colored shed. Mr. Brumleve noted that this shed is not shown on the tax map. It is situated at the rear of the combined lots (i.e., at the rear of Lot 31). Mr. Wegner noted that there is a narrow corner where the parcel can be seen. If a person moves north to the other side of the trees, he/she can see the house to the north. There are woods in back of the parcel on Truesdale Drive, which will provide some cover.
Mr. Wegner referred the Board members to photograph #11 showing the site and the first house north of the site from Truesdale Drive looking west. He pointed out that it is easier to see from this photograph that, when the foliage is back on the trees, the house would not be very visible.
Mr. Wegner referred to photograph #13 and stated that this photograph is taken from “where the back of the house would go.” The tan building is situated straight ahead. To the left is Truesdale Drive on the far side. Truesdale Drive is still visible on the right side, but, then, it disappears behind the hill. Mr. Wegner noted to the Board members that he is not showing in these photographs what the developed parcel would look like but instead, what the parcel looks like now. The pictures are taken from a distance of 400’ to 500’ along Truesdale Drive.
Mr. Klein asked if in photograph #13, which is taken from the back of the property, the tree in the middle is the 12” ash shown on the tree plan, to which Mr. Wegner said that it is. Mr. Wegner stated that the sewer line runs across this area. The Applicant could leave the tree there; however, the Village might not want the Applicant to do so because of the sewer line. Mr. Wegner referred to the woodpile shown in photograph #13 and stated that, in developing this piece of property, the Applicant’s engineers have tried to save the locust tree near the woodpile.
Chairman Gallelli stated that another concern that the Planning Board has had is how the house could actually be constructed so as not to have an adverse affect on the neighboring houses. Mr. Wegner stated that one of the factors, which will alleviate the impact on the neighboring homes, is that the house being proposed is a modular house. The construction is done off site and delivered to the site. Mr. Wegner said that, “they are trying not to go too deep with the footings.” The basement design is stepped in order to minimize the disturbance. The erosion control plan is in place. It calls for multiple inspections for control and maintenance purposes. Concrete footings will be poured as opposed to concrete blocks. This technique is quicker and will reduce the
impact to the neighbors.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Engineer distributed his memorandum on this application tonight, so the Board members have not yet had an opportunity to review his comments in detail. She asked the Village Engineer if he had any issues he wanted to raise tonight. The Village Engineer referred to item #1 of his memorandum. He told the Applicant that the house height might exceed, by approximately 1’, the maximum height requirement of 35’. He should review the Code regulations to see how “story above grade” is defined. The Village Engineer stated that many trees are being removed from the front, so the Applicant may want to provide in their place a street tree.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the twin 24” Maple trees on the north side of the house would be removed to put in the house, to which Mr. Wegner stated that, indeed, these trees would have to be removed.
Mr. Klein stated that, because of the nature of the steep slopes on this piece of property, he would ask that a note be added to the plan prohibiting fueling or changing of any fluids on site during excavation. He would not want to risk the possibility of an oil spill. Chairman Gallelli stated that, in the Planning Board’s memorandum to the Village Board, she would ask that this be made a condition of the resolution.
Mr. Brumleve asked that the Applicant contact the modular company to see if there would be a way to save any of the larger trees in the front, e.g., the 24” twin Maple trees. Mr DiVitto replied that, if at all possible, he will save them or in the alternative, replant something else in that area. The street trees would have to be larger, and they are expensive. Chairman Gallelli asked what would be a replacement tree size that would be acceptable. Mr. Brumleve stated that he would like to see a 2”-3” caliper tree.
The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant might want to show the “lateral” next to the tree in a different location.
The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board might want to discuss tonight the bonding for the erosion control. Chairman Gallelli stated that, recently, when the Planning Board has been working with these more difficult sites, the Planning Board has recommended to the Village Board that the Applicant provide a bond to cover potential problems during the construction phase. In this case, she thought that bonding would be appropriate in the construction of the basement and/or the foundation. Mr. Klein asked the Applicant how long he anticipates that the site work would take, to which Mr. DiVitto replied, “about a month for the site work and two months to set the house.” Mr. Klein suggested that, if the Applicant intends to have a few 2 or 3-day periods when he is going to be moving dirt,
there should be a condition that the Applicant must have a weather forecast that is positive. Mr. Wegner suggested that a 48-hour forecast might be appropriate. He thought that this would be particularly important prior to starting the three major excavation projects/steps: 1) the parking area, 2) the drainage areas and 3) the foundation. Mr. Klein thought that a 48-hour positive weather forecast, prior to beginning any of these three major excavation projects/steps, should minimize any potential problems.
Mr. Brumleve stated that Section A-A on the Applicant’s plan indicates a basement level (that is) 6’ below the first floor. He asked if there is an intended use for that part of the basement, to which Mr. DiVitto said that there is not. Mr. Brumleve stated that his concern is that a homeowner, sometime in the future, might decide to finish the basement, and the basement height does not meet the requirements of the Building Code. He asked if there is a reason why it is not being made a habitable height, to which Mr. DiVitto stated that the basement is at this height to keep the overall height of the house lower.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board make a positive recommendation to the Village Board for the granting of a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit with the conditions called out tonight, to which the Planning Board members all agreed. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. DiVitto that she would write a letter to the Village Board, on behalf of the Planning Board, with a positive recommendation. Once the Village Board receives the Planning Board’s recommendation, the Village Board will call the public hearing. The abutting and adjacent property owners will be noticed. The Applicants, Michael DiVitto and Tim Puff, will have an opportunity at that meeting to present their application. Chairman Gallelli stated that the next meeting of the Village Board is Monday, April 7th. The Village
Board will probably set the public hearing date that night. She thought that the public hearing would be held either the third Monday in April or the first Monday in May.
Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano) – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Discussion, Continued
Mark Giordano, owner of the property, was present.
Chairman Gallelli told the Board members that Mr. Giordano was unable to attend the last meeting on this application for medical reasons.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to discuss some of the concerns/questions, about the new grocery store being proposed, (that were) posed in the Planning Board’s memorandum to Mr. Giordano dated March 5, 2003.
Chairman Gallelli stated that several questions in the memorandum had to do with deliveries to the grocery store. Mr. Giordano noted to the Board members that deliveries to CVS, the other store occupying the old Grand Union space, take place in the back.
Mr. Giordano stated that the grocery store is supposed to be an Amish market. The grocery items sold include fresh produce, meat and fish. Mr. Giordano stated that the name of the grocery store is “Zeytuna.” There are 4 of these stores located in Manhattan. There is a trip to New York City slated for tomorrow for representatives from the Village to visit the store located on Maiden Lane.
Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Giordano what he means when he says, “Amish market,” to which Mr. Giordano did not have an answer. He suggested that she might know why it is being referred to in this way, once she visits the grocery store tomorrow.
Mr. Giordano told the Board members that the storeowner would like to put 20 tables in the grocery store, which is approximately 15,000 -16,000 sq. ft in size. Mr. Giordano thought that putting in the tables might raise some zoning issues. The tenant wants to have small tables for people to have a place to eat, similar to what Dunkin’ Donuts has. Mr. Klein stated that a problem he would foresee would be the traffic situation. Chairman Gallelli thought that having the tables would constitute a Change of Use. Mr. Brumleve stated that, if he (the tenant) were to have tables, he would have to have public restrooms.
Mr. Giordano stated that he and his tenants at the shopping center are trying to develop a way to monitor the parking whereby the storeowners have designated parking for their stores. Chairman Gallelli thought that this is a step in the right direction.
Chairman Gallelli referred to the point that Mr. Klein made about the traffic situation and/or the parking at the site. She stated that there would be a certain number of parking spots required for these 20 tables. The Planning Board would have to see if this number would fall within the amount of parking spots available. She pointed out to Mr. Giordano that he has already been granted a variance for parking. Mr. Klein suggested that the Applicant’s tenant might be able to alleviate the situation by reducing the number of tables.
Mr. Giordano asked, if it were just a grocery store, would the parking still be an issue, to which Mr. Klein stated that it would be less of an issue. There is already a problem with traffic and/or parking at the shopping center. Mr. Klein thought that people might want to spend more time at the grocery store if there were tables set up. He thought that a situation might be created where there would (also) be more traffic. Mr. Giordano noted to the Board that, the way the owner of the grocery store describes it, the tables are small. It would not be like “sitting at a table in a restaurant.”
Mr. Brumleve asked Mr. Giordano what time he would be doing his tour of the grocery store, to which Mr. Giordano said that it would be at 12 noon for lunch. Mr. Brumleve said that he would find out where the grocery store is and try to go.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she looked at the web site for the grocery store. The only one featured is the one on Maiden Lane. According to the “Zeytuna” web site, the store has grocery items (including fresh produce, fish and meat), prepared foods, catering and tables. She questioned whether there would be enough space, at the shopping center site, to offer all these services.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board should get back to the issue of the number of tables and what the impact of having tables would be on the overall parking at the shopping center.
Mr. Giordano stated that CVS was originally supposed to take the middle section of the old Grand Union store. As it turns out, CVS has quite a bit of “dead space” on the left side. There is that whole back area which is not functional at all. He thought that the Planning Board could take this into consideration when reviewing the parking situation. Chairman Gallelli stated that, with respect to the parking, her personal sense is that CVS would not bring in the crowds of people that a gourmet grocery store like “Zeytuna” would bring in.
Chairman Gallelli thought that it would help to alleviate the problem if Mr. Giordano were to enter into an agreement with the Village for the Village to enforce the parking at the shopping center. She noted that there have been discussions taking place between Mr. Giordano and the Village on this subject. Mr. Giordano stated that he would wholeheartedly support such an agreement. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village is also considering legislation to provide special employee parking for the (old Grand Union) shopping center and Croton Commons.
Mr. Klein stated that, when the Grand Union was there, the parking on Saturdays was a disaster. He did not know what the volume of traffic would be for “Zeytuna” as opposed to the Grand Union. He thought that “Zeytuna” would draw a different “demographic.” Mr. Brumleve thought that it would be the kind of place where people coming from the train would buy their dinner and go home. Chairman Gallelli stated that there would not be the Post Office traffic at that point (dinnertime).
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board needs to continue its discussion about the tables. The Village Engineer noted to the Board members that the Village Code specifies 1 parking space for 4 seats. Mr. Giordano wanted to know how this would translate into square footage. Mr. Brumleve thought that it would be a question of at least 10 additional parking spots required.
Mr. Giordano noted that, in the Planning Board’s memorandum, the Board expressed its concern about deliveries to the site. He told the Board members that he has little control over deliveries when it comes to the larger tenants at the shopping center. He did not think that he would have any luck at all determining a schedule for deliveries. He noted that the deliveries to this gourmet grocery store would not be the same type as the Grand Union deliveries.
Mr. Brumleve asked if it could be a condition in the lease that deliveries must occur in the rear. Mr. Giordano thought that such a condition could be imposed.
Mr. Giordano stated that, for the grocery store to move in, he has to knock down a wall. There is also a double wall in the back, which he is not going to take down. The grocery store will use that area for storage. Mr. Giordano referred to his plan and stated that this overhead door in the back is where the grocery store would accept deliveries. Chairman Gallelli asked if CVS has another door for deliveries, to which Mr. Giordano replied that it does. The CVS deliveries come into the area in the back next to the sprinkler system.
Chairman Gallelli stated that it might be better for the grocery deliveries to be in the front, especially if the deliveries are made early in the morning. She noted that Mr. Giordano does not open up the back area until 6:00 am. If the deliveries were made at 5:00 am, for example, she would not see a problem with making the deliveries in the front. She thought it might actually be better for the residents living behind the shopping center. Mr. Giordano suggested that Chairman Gallelli could pose these questions about deliveries to the storeowner on the tour tomorrow.
Mr. Giordano stated that, with respect to trash removal, he has told the storeowner that a trash compactor should be put in the back. This grocery store will produce a lot of trash just like the Grand Union did. He would want a trash compactor in the back. He noted that DiSalvo Carting empties the garbage for all his tenants except the bank. He is trying to get the bank to switch to DiSalvo. Chairman Gallelli asked if DiSalvo Carting would be emptying the garbage for the new grocery store, to which Mr. Giordano stated that he has specified using DiSalvo Carting in the lease.
Mr. Giordano stated that, as far as the compactor is concerned, he would indicate that he wants a brand new unit that does not leak. It would be like the one that was there before but brand new.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the specifications for the garbage container should be noted on the Applicant’s plan(s).
Chairman Gallelli stated that, with respect to deliveries, only one truck could fit in the back at any given time. She asked what Mr. Giordano intends to do if trucks line up to make deliveries. Mr. Giordano stated that he could ask the storeowner what kind of trucks he would be bringing in. He noted that one of the Trustees asked that the curbside in the rear be widened. He intends to follow through with this request and move the curb cut out by a few feet so that there would be more room to turn around. Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Giordano should show this change to the curbside on his revised plan(s). Mr. Giordano stated that he could indicate to the new tenant that trucks waiting to make deliveries in the back should wait in the parking lot and not on the main road. Mr. Klein
stated that the question is where to tell them to wait in the parking lot. Chairman Gallelli stated that it should be included in the site plan that trucks waiting to deliver cannot wait on Route 129.
Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Giordano when he anticipates moving ahead with the changes to the façade of the store. Mr. Giordano said that he is leaving it up to the new tenant. The owner of the grocery store wants to know first how the Planning Board feels about the tables. Mr. Brumleve suggested that, in his discussions with the storeowner, Mr. Giordano could be encouraging, but he should say that there are issues to be addressed, including the number of tables, parking, deliveries, etc.
Chairman Gallelli brought up the issue, mentioned in the Planning Board’s memorandum, of the mail drop-off boxes at the shopping center and the possibility of changing the location of these mailboxes. Mr. Giordano said that he would be more than happy to move these mailboxes if the Planning Board were able to find an appropriate spot for them.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the issues “come down to the tables and making conditions about deliveries.”
Chairman Gallelli stated that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should provide a plan showing the changes to the façade. If the Applicant proposes to eliminate the shopping cart stalls in the parking lot to add to the parking, then, these should be removed from the plan. Notes should be added to the plan with regard to deliveries. The garbage compactor location and specifications should be provided. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would need to know what the sign for the new grocery store is going to look like. Mr. Giordano thought that the Sign Permit application could be a separate application.
A discussion ensued about the parking situation at the shopping center. Mr. Giordano said that he hoped, with the possibility of the Village enforcing the parking at the shopping center and with the proposal being considered for employee parking on South Riverside Avenue, the parking problem at the shopping center could be resolved. He also thought that the leftover “dead space” at CVS would help resolve the parking problem. Mr. Klein suggested to the other members that, with respect to the new grocery store, the Planning Board could approve 10 tables, rather than the 20 requested, and see how this affects the parking. There could be a provision in the Planning Board’s resolution that the storeowner could add more tables, if the parking situation does not change significantly. The
Village Engineer asked how many parking spaces could be made available for employee parking on South Riverside Avenue, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that about 16 to 20 spaces could be made available. Mr. Giordano told the Board members that he owns a wooded area nearby that could be made into a parking lot. He did not know if the Village would want to consider that. He thought that there would be room, on this piece of property, to install at least 10 to 15 parking spots. Mr. Brumleve suggested that Mr. Giordano could look into this matter.
Mr. Giordano reviewed the items required for the next meeting, which included the specifications on the trash compactor; plans for modification to the curb cut; and information on truck deliveries to the grocery store. He noted that the Planning Board would not want any deliveries in the back before 6:00 am. Chairman Gallelli added that deliveries could be made in the front, but they would have to occur earlier (5:00 am).
Mr. Giordano asked if the demolition on the inside of the building could be done with (just) a Building Permit, to which the Village Engineer said that it could.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would need to have one more meeting on this application before scheduling the public hearing.
Chairman Gallelli noted to Mr. Giordano that, if he has his materials ready by Friday of this week, he could be on the agenda for April 1st. The public hearing could, then, take place on April 22nd.
Bus Shelter Discussion
The Village Engineer stated that, at the staff meeting on March 18th, one of the topics of discussion was the disassembled bus shelter now being stored in the basement of the Municipal Building. The Village Manager wants to move the bus shelter out of the basement now that this area of the basement is being used for something else. A request was made to have the Planning Board discuss a possible location for this shelter. It was thought that one possible site could be across the street from the old Grand Union store. The Planning Board members agreed that this might be an appropriate place for the shelter. Mr. Klein suggested that the Planning Board could ask the Bee Line Bus Company where it picks up the most people. Mr. Klein suggested that Sky View Nursing Home might also
be an appropriate location. The Village Engineer noted that Sky View Nursing Home would probably not want the bus shelter on their property for liability reasons. If it were to be situated on State property, it would require a DOT permit. Chairman Gallelli pointed out that, if it were at Sky View, it could be a place for the nursing home employees to wait for the bus. Mr. Brumleve referred to the photos of the bus shelter, received by e-mail, and suggested that, with respect to its appearance, it would have a softer look (feel) if the corner posts were wrapped in wood. The Village Engineer asked the Board members if, after the meeting were adjourned, they would like to go down to the basement to see the bus shelter firsthand, to which they said that they would.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 25, 2003 was adjourned until the April 1st meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:35 P.M.