Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Welcome to the website for the Village of Croton on Hudson, New York

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

Village of Croton-on-Hudson
1 Van Wyck Street
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Phone: 914-271-4781
Fax: 914-271-2836


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
Planning Board Minutes 04/01/03
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003:


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, April 1, 2003 in the Municipal Building.

        MEMBERS PRESENT:        Ann Gallelli, Chair
                                        Fran Allen
Ted Brumleve
Joel Klein
                                        Andrew Zelman
        
                 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.

OLD BUSINESS:

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

Chairman Gallelli told the Board members that she has drafted two resolutions on the Malom Development (Kieran Murray) application for discussion at the meeting tonight.  She noted that the two items to be discussed are the Final Subdivision Approval and the Site Plan Approval.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, in this particular case, because the Applicant is joining together or merging the three lots as opposed to creating new lots, the subdivision process is referred to as a “consolidation.”  She noted that the Village refers to the merging of lots as a “reverse subdivision.” Chairman Gallelli stated that the subdivision map still has to be filed with the Westchester County Department of Land Records.  However, the Final Subdivision application does not need the approval of the Westchester County Department of Health.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board’s first order of business tonight is the Final Subdivision Approval.   Once the Applicant has the Planning Board’s approval of the one “intact” merged lot, then, the Planning Board can make a decision on the Applicant’s Site Plan application.

Chairman Gallelli noted that the “whereas” clauses in both resolutions (Final Subdivision and Site Plan) are, for the most part, identical.  

Mr. Brumleve asked if the Applicant’s Consolidation Subdivision Map would ultimately be revised when structures are put on the property, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that the subdivision map (just) gives the metes and bounds and the actual lot line(s).  It is the site plan that shows where a structure/building is actually constructed on the lot.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Engineer has provided to the Planning Board tonight a memorandum on the Final Subdivision and Site Plan applications.  The Village Engineer has stated in his memorandum that the Consolidation Subdivision Map and Site Plan need to be signed and stamped by a surveyor or engineer.   Chairman Gallelli stated that she would like to add a condition to the resolution incorporating the Village Engineer’s comments regarding the proper signing and sealing of the “mylar.”  She noted that all of the conditions in the Village Engineer’s April 1st memorandum should, in fact, be incorporated into the resolution.  Mr. Klein suggested that the Village Engineer’s April 1st memorandum should be attached to the Planning Board’s resolution of approval.  

Mr. Murray stated that the signed maps/plans are arriving tomorrow via “overnight” mail.

Chairman Gallelli referred to the draft resolution for Final Subdivision Approval.  The two conditions of approval would be as follows:  

Evidence of filing the Consolidation Map be provided to the Village Engineer prior to any construction occurring on the site.

Conditions of the memorandum of Daniel O’Connor, Village Engineer, of April 1, 2003 be completed. (See memorandum attached.)

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this application for Final Subdivision Approval.  The motion was made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Brumleve and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the other item of business tonight is the application for Site Plan Approval.  The Applicant has provided the Planning Board with the application materials/plans requested at the last meeting.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the “whereas” clauses in the Site Plan resolution are the same as in the Final Subdivision resolution except for the reference(s) to certain drawings.

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the conditions in the draft resolution.

Chairman Gallelli referred to the condition in the resolution about the stairs to the rear of the building.  These stairs should not be there.  She stated that she thinks it was determined at a previous meeting that these stairs, which still appear on the Applicant’s most recently submitted site plan, are not to be built.  The others all agreed.

Mr. Zelman referred to the condition about the bond to be posted for the separate phases of the project.  He noted that the construction phase (item “a”) covers excavation, slope stabilization and the laying of the foundation.  The second phase (item “b”) would cover the exterior of the building, i.e., the façade, landscaping and project completion.  Mr. Zelman stated that, with respect to the posting of a bond, he thinks that the construction of the retaining walls and, also, the installation of the asphalt parking area should be included.  The retaining wall should be considered part of the excavation and added to item “a.”  He wondered if the asphalt parking lot should also be considered part of item “a.”  Mr. Klein stated that he thinks the intent of item “a” is to protect the environment.  He agreed with Mr. Zelman that the retaining wall and parking lot should both be included.  He thought that the retaining wall should be included in the construction phase (item “a”) and the parking area in the completion phase (item “b”).  Ms. Allen stated that she, too, thinks it would be useful, in the posting of the bond, to include the retaining wall and the parking area.   She stated that the way she interpreted the construction notes, there would be a temporary wall.  Mr. Murray stated that the intent is (will be) to build the retaining walls first; then there could be, between the temporary wall and permanent wall, a dirt run.

The Planning Board members decided that, in the condition about the posting of a bond, the retaining walls should be added to item “a” and the asphalt parking area to item “b,” respectively.

Mr. Zelman referred to the Applicant’s modified planting plan dated March 27, 2003.  He had a question on the last sentence of the second note, which reads:  “The owner and landscape architect shall not be responsible for any damage to utility lines.”  He wanted to know what the significance is of putting this note on a plan that would be approved by the Planning Board.  The Village Engineer stated that this note is probably a standard note that is put on the plan by the landscape architect.  Mr. Klein stated that he does not think this note should be on the approved plan.  He stated that, by having this note on the approved site plan, it is as if the Village is agreeing that the landscape architect does not carry any liability. Mr. Murray stated that he thinks this note has less to do with the initial planting and more to do with the shrubs as they grow.  Mr. Brumleve stated that he would not have a problem with eliminating this sentence altogether. He added that, for the purpose of going out to bid for a landscape contractor, this sentence needs to be there; but, for the Planning Board’s purposes, it does not.  

The Planning Board members all agreed that the last sentence in the second note of the Planting Notes, regarding liability for damage to utility lines, should be eliminated. The condition of the Planning Board’s resolution should, then, read: “The second sentence in the second note under Planting Notes on the Planting Plan which begins, “The owner and landscape architect…..,” shall be deleted.”

Mr. Zelman also had a question on the fifth note in the Planting Notes, which reads:  “No changes are to be made without the prior consent of the landscape architect and/or owner.”  He wanted to know if this means that the landscape architect and/or owner could make a change to the planting plan.  Mr. Klein stated that, the way he interprets the note, the note is not intended to permit the Applicant to make a change to the planting plan without coming back before the Planning Board.  Chairman Gallelli stated that her interpretation of the note is that the contractor cannot make a change without approval of the owner who, in turn, must have the approval of the Planning Board.

Mr. Brumleve stated that the site plan that Mr. Murray brought the last time, prepared by Ralph Mastromonaco, showed four planter areas at the building walkway in the front.  The more recent site plan submitted for tonight deleted these planting areas.  Mr. Brumleve stated that the discussion last time was to remove the above-grade planters, which Mr. Mastromonaco has done; but, the hole/space in the sidewalk area for plants is not indicated.  Mr. Brumleve pointed out that, when the sidewalk is constructed in the front, the contractor would be referring to the Applicant’s site plan, and not the landscaping plan.  He (Mr. Brumleve) would be concerned that there would not be a hole/space left for the plants.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that, to rectify this situation, a condition should be added about these 4 planting areas. The Planning Board decided that condition #6 of the resolution should state that, “prior to issuing a Building Permit, the Village Engineer shall ensure that 4 ground level planter areas at the building walkway shall be indicated on the plans in coordination with the landscape plan.”  

Ms. Allen had a question about the condition regarding the steps in the back of the property.  She noted that one of the conditions in the draft resolution says that they will not be built; but she thought that they existed already.  Chairman Gallelli stated that when the new building is actually built, these existing steps would be removed.  

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve the Site Plan application for Malom Development Corporation.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Mr. Zelman and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Mr. Murray thanked the Planning Board for their help in guiding him through the Planning Board approval process.  

Mr. Murray mentioned to the Board members that his Special Permit, which was granted by the Village Board, expires in 3 years, and he has already “lost a year.”  He expressed his concern about the time it will take to construct his new building. He hoped that his Special Permit would not expire before the building is completed.  He said that he would be interested in knowing what constitutes the beginning of construction.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she does not have an answer as to what constitutes the beginning of construction, but she will look into it.  She told the Applicant that she thinks it would be something more substantial than removing a tree.  She thinks it means that the Applicant has shown evidence of making a start to the construction project in a significant way.  She noted to Mr. Murray that the Planning Board cannot extend the Special Permit.  This is the Village Board’s domain.

NEW BUSINESS:

Croton Enterprises, LLC (C/o Juster Development Co.) – 440-460 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.17 Blk. 2 Lot 2) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval for Shop Rite Supermarket – Preliminary Discussion

Chairman Gallelli noted that there is no one present tonight to represent the Applicant.

Chairman Gallelli told the Board members that the Applicant, Shop Rite, is proposing to change the façade of their building by 1) adding exterior lighting below the front entrance canopy and 2) installing a new door, which would provide a new access to the existing bottle return room.

The Planning Board looked at some photographs, taken by the Village Engineer, of the lights in the front of the Shop Rite store at night.

Chairman Gallelli reiterated that the new additions to the store are the glass door on the side and the additional exterior lighting.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, right now, there is only the one entrance door to the supermarket.  To the right is the el, which, according to the Applicant’s plan, would be closed off, and the only way into it would be from the new access door from the outside.  Chairman Gallelli noted that these exterior changes are being proposed in conjunction with renovations to the interior of the store.

Chairman Gallelli told the others that she, personally, does not think the changes being proposed are significant. The Applicant is required to come before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval because of the changes to the exterior (façade).

Chairman Gallelli stated that there would be new lights by the front entrance and on the side.  She noted that the existing lighting at Shop Rite is not particularly bright.  The lighting at the store, as it exists now, is “low level.”

Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board could call a public hearing on this application, to which the other Board members agreed.  The public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, April 22nd.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Chairman Gallelli told the other members about her tour, the week before, of the “Zeytuna” grocery store on Maiden Lane in Lower Manhattan.  There are actually four stores in Manhattan.  The reason the market has been called “Amish” is that, in the past, the stores in Midtown Manhattan have gotten their bread and fresh vegetables from the Amish in Pennsylvania.  These stores still purchase bread from the Amish, but the Amish no longer supply other goods.

Chairman Gallelli stated that she thinks the residents of the Village would be pleased to have this grocery store in town.  It is an upscale gourmet grocery that also sells prepared foods.  The fruits and vegetables are “exquisite,” and the place in Manhattan that she visited was immaculate.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the store being proposed in the Village, and one other now being proposed in Wilton, CT, is this store’s first “foray” out of Manhattan.  The one in Croton-on-Hudson would be 14,000 to 14,500 sq. ft. in size.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, ideally, the storeowner would want to have 20 tables set up in the grocery store for people to have lunch; however, if the Village does not allow him to have 20 tables, he thinks that 12 might be sufficient.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, besides the prepared foods and the freshly baked breads and pastries, this grocer also has coffee and spices (by the barrel), a large selection of cheeses, fresh fish and prime meats, and a rather extensive selection of other grocery items.  The store would not be a replacement for the Grand Union, however.  Chairman Gallelli stated that each of the 4 stores in Manhattan also has a small gift area.

Chairman Gallelli stated that parking at the shopping center is one of the issues to be addressed.  She expressed some concern that the owner of the grocery store is thinking more along the lines of selling prepared foods than grocery items.  In her view, there would not be that kind of business (lunch business) in the Village.

The storeowner told Chairman Gallelli that, in terms of deliveries, most items would be delivered in step trucks (e.g., bread trucks).  Canned goods might be delivered on a larger truck.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that another issue that came up is the employee parking.  The grocery has about 35 employees working at the store over the course of the day.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she has discussed with the storeowner the idea, presently being explored by the Village, of employees at the shopping center and Croton Commons having special permits to park along South Riverside Avenue.  Furthermore, Mr. Giordano intends to ask the Village to assume the enforcement of the parking in this lot. Chairman Gallelli stated that with respect to the required number of parking spots, there is building space (“dead” space) that is not being used at CVS right now.  In terms of equating the square footage of the building to the number of parking spots required, this is (would be) advantageous to the grocery store.  The “dead” space at CVS is not generating any need for parking. Mr. Klein wondered if there is any flexibility on using the cart corrals in the parking lot for additional parking spots.  These cart corrals take up about a space and a half.  He thought that a few additional spaces could be provided if these cart corrals were eliminated.  Chairman Gallelli thought it would be worth looking into this matter.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, earlier last week, she and the Village Engineer, along with members of the Recreation Department staff, visited the Masonic Hall in the Village.  The Masons are interested in discussing with the Village whether or not their facility could be used for recreational purposes.  The issues that would need to be considered include the parking on the site; what the facility would be used for; and how much money the Village would initially have to invest.

Chairman Gallelli told the others that Board member, Fran Allen, has informed her that Mr. Swee’s property at the top of Finney Farm Road has been sold to John Hamilton, a member of the Hudson National Golf Club.  The property in question is about 5 acres in size.  Mr. Hamilton is the primary owner of this property; however, some other members of the golf club have part ownership.  These members bought the property because they were afraid it would be subdivided, and they wanted to prevent any subdivision of this land next to the golf club from taking place.  They are considering ways to make use of the property for the golf club.  They are looking into the possibility of a practice hole for golfers and instructors; this is as opposed to a driving range.  These members feel that a practice hole would be an enhancement to the golf club.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, in order to do this project, they would have to come before the Planning Board for Site Plan Approval. The Village Engineer asked Chairman Gallelli if there is a house on this property now, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that there is.  She noted to the Board members that the golf course architect, Tom Fazio, would determine if this plan/proposal were workable, after the environmental study is done.

The Village Engineer told the Board members that the owner of the tanning salon near the Shop Rite supermarket wants to put a small juice bar in the front of her salon.  Among the items offered for sale would be juices and coffee.  The owner of the tanning salon has asked the Village Engineer what permits/approvals are required, if any.  Chairman Gallelli stated that one of the issues to be resolved would be exactly where this use falls in the Village’s Zoning Code.  Mr. Brumleve noted that the Applicant would have to seek the approval of the Westchester County Department of Health.  The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant would need a Plumbing Permit from the Village and an Electrical Certificate from the New York State Board of Fire Underwriters.  Chairman Gallelli stated that it would have to be determined whether or not the Applicant needs to come before the Planning Board for a Change of Use or an Amended Site Plan.  Mr. Klein pointed out that the juice bar is not the primary use but is, instead, an accessory use.  Mr. Brumleve noted that food, such as sandwiches, might be prepared on site along with the beverages.  Mr. Klein stated that, in his view, the criterion is not so much the food as it is people sitting down to eat.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, from her perspective, a tanning salon would not be a place that someone would go to eat; it would be for the customers who are using the facility.  Mr. Zelman said that maybe people would go into the facility to eat, if there were no other place like this in town.  He thought the addition of the juice bar in the tanning salon might constitute a Change of Use.  Ms. Allen suggested that, before making any decision, the Planning Board should look into the property’s history.   

Chairman Gallelli stated that for the next meeting on April 22nd, there would be the two public hearings, (for the Finkelstein Warehouse and the Shop Rite Supermarket, respectively), and Mark Giordano might also be coming back. The Village Engineer noted that, with respect to the Finkelstein application, he is still looking into the matter of whether or not the Applicant needs a zoning variance.

The Village Engineer told the Board members that he has recently received a phone call from Mrs. Kerekes of Beekman Avenue regarding the lights at the Croton Autopark.  Mrs. Kerekes claims that the lights shining onto their property from the Croton Autopark are still too bright and that nothing has changed. The Planning Board members and the Village Engineer decided to visit the Kerekes’ residence after the meeting to see, firsthand, the problem with the lighting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, February 25, 2003 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Mr. Klein abstained.

The minutes of the Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Zelman, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Mr. Brumleve abstained.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:30 P.M.


Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, Malom Development Corp. has applied to the Planning Board for Site Plan Approval on property which is located on Croton Point Avenue, in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District, and is designated on the Tax Map of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 2 Lots 18, 19, and 20, and

WHEREAS, the three lots, consisting of a total of .38 acres, have been consolidated through Final Subdivision Approval by the Planning Board at its meeting of April 1, 2003, and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) dated March 14, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its meeting of April 2, 2002, declared itself the Lead Agency on this application, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, having reviewed this Project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Village’s Environmental Quality Review act known as Local Law No. 7, 1977, thereby finds that the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and

WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the Site Plan application on Tuesday, November 26, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Public Hearing on the Site Plan application was closed on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, and

WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to build a Mixed Use building on Lots 19 and 20 of the above named three properties, both of which are undeveloped, and

WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees granted a Steep Slopes Hardship Exemption to the Applicant for this project on June 24, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees also granted a Mixed Use Special Permit under Section 230-42.1 of the Village Code at its meeting of June 24, 2002, and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Site Plan application as shown on the plan entitled “Site Plan prepared for Malom Development Corp. Village of Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester Co., NY” dated January 25, 2002, last revised March 28, 2003, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE, PC, “Profiles and Details Prepared for Malom Development Corp., Village of Croton-on-Hudson”, dated July 18, 2002, last revised March 28, 2003, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE, PC, and the drawings showing the architectural renderings title “Malom Development Corp., Croton on Hudson”, dated March 19, 2003, prepared by John Lentini, Registered Architect,  and the landscape drawings entitled “Malom Development Planting Plan” dated October 15, 2002 and last revised on March 27, 2003, prepared by Studer Design Associates, Landscape Archtects and Planners, 27 Governor Street, Ridgefield, CT.,  be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.      Evidence of filing the Consolidation Map be provided to the Village Engineer prior to any construction occurring on the site.
2.      A bond will be posted prior to the beginning of construction as follows, with the details for the separate phases as to amounts to be worked out with Village Engineer to cover:
a.      The construction phase to cover excavation, slope stabilization, foundation laying and retaining walls.
b.      Façade, landscaping, and asphalt parking area completion.
3.      Location of garbage pad at proposed new building may be adjusted to meet DPW requirements with the approval of the Village Engineer.
4.      Stairs to the parking area to the rear of the building as shown on the Site Plan drawing will not be built.
5.      Sentence 2 of the 2nd note under “Planting Notes” on the Landscape Plan, which begins, “The owner and landscape architect…..,” shall be deleted.
6.      Prior to issuing a Building Permit, the Village Engineer shall ensure that ground level planter areas at the building walkway (four) shall be indicated on the plans in coordination with the Landscape Plan.

In the event that this site plan is not implemented within three (3) years 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
                                                Ted Brumleve
                                                Joel Klein
                                                Andrew Zelman
                                                
Motion to approve by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Mr. Zelman and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

        
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, April 1, 2003.



RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, Malom Development Corp. has applied to the Planning Board for Final Subdivision Approval (lot Consolidation) on property which is located on Croton Point Avenue, in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District, and is designated on the Tax Map of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 2 Lots 18, 19, and 20, and

WHEREAS, the three lots, consisting of a total of .38 acres, are proposed to be consolidated into one lot, and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) dated March 14, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its meeting of April 2, 2002, declared itself the Lead Agency on this application, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, having reviewed this Project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Village’s Environmental Quality Review act known as Local Law No. 7, 1977, thereby finds that the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and

WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held and closed on the application on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to build a Mixed Use building on Lots 19 and 20 of the above named three properties, both of which are undeveloped, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval on May 7, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees granted a Steep Slopes Hardship Exemption to the Applicant for this project on June 24, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees also granted a Mixed Use Special Permit under Section 230-42.1 of the Village Code at its meeting of June 24, 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the plans of the Applicant and visited the site, and has found the joining together of the three above-names lots into one lot to be the only practical means by which the Applicant could proceed with the proposed used and that the consolidation is consistent with the potential permitted uses of the property,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the Final Subdivision (Consolidation) Map submitted by Malom Development Corp. for the merging of the three lots into one lot, on property located on Croton Point Avenue, as shown on the Consolidation Map entitled “ Consolidation Map of Tax Lots 18, 19, and 20 for Malom Development” dated September 25, 2002 and last revised on March 28, 2003, prepared by James A. Dillin, PLS, Goshen, N.Y., subject to the following conditions:

1.      Evidence of filing the Consolidation Map be provided to the Village Engineer prior to any construction occurring on the site.

2.      Conditions of memorandum of Daniel O’Connor, Village Engineer, of April 1, 2003 be completed.  (See attached.)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a public meeting of the Planning Board in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson held on the 1st of April, 2003.

                                        THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE
                                        OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK

                                        ________________________
                                        Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson

                                        Fran Allen
                                        Ted Brumleve
                                        Joel Klein
                                        Andrew Zelman

The Motion to approve was made by Mr. Klein, was seconded by Mr. Brumleve, and was carried by a vote of 5 to 0.  The Resolution was accepted with the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting held on April 1, 2003.

                                                
NOTE:  The following memorandum, attached to the 4/1/03 Planning Board minutes, can be found in the Planning Board Minutes File in the Village Manager’s Office area in the Municipal Building:

Memorandum to the Planning Board from the Village Engineer, Daniel O’Connor, dated 4/1/03.