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 04/22/03
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2003:


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 in the Municipal Building.

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

                         ABSENT:        Ted Brumleve
        
                 ALSO PRESENT:  Trustee Deborah McCarthy
Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer

                                                
1.  Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M. by Chairman Gallelli.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Croton-on-Hudson Realty, LLC (Finkelstein Warehouse) – 1 Hudson River Drive (Sec. 78.12 Blk. 4 Lot 1) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval

Peter Elkin, architect, and Ira Silver were present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the first order of business tonight is the public hearing on the Finkelstein Warehouse.  The Applicant has provided the Planning Board with the items requested at the last meeting, including the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and the Visual Addendum.  The visual renderings show how the building would appear from various places including Half Moon Bay Drive and Route 9.  

Mr. Elkin stated that the Applicant is proposing a 42,000sq. ft. addition to his warehouse located just off of Route 9 on Hudson River Drive.  The Applicant has obtained a Special Use Permit from the Village Board and is before the Planning Board for Amended Site Plan Approval.  The engineering drawings, lighting and landscaping plans have been submitted.  

Mr. Elkin stated that the Applicant has agreed to provide some landscaping off-site to screen the Finkelstein Warehouse building from the town park being proposed.  The Applicant has elected to provide plantings along a 500’long stretch that abuts the west side of the building.  

Mr. Elkin stated that the new lighting would consist of metal halide cut-off “luminaires” not to exceed a half a foot candle at the perimeter of the site.

Mr. Elkin stated that the Applicant is making drainage improvements on the property.  The Applicant is also required to obtain a SPEDES permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to prevent run-off from getting into river water.
  
Chairman Gallelli opened the public hearing on this application.  There were no comments from the public.  The public hearing was closed.

Chairman Gallelli stated that Planning Board member, Ted Brumleve, who is unable to attend the meeting tonight, spoke at a previous meeting about putting in landscaping in one section behind the new addition (in an area) west of the building and east of the railroad tracks.  She noted that the Applicant has been able to incorporate several spruce trees in this area.  Mr. Elkin added that there would be spruce trees, low-growing bushes and ornamental trees.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the last meeting, there was a consensus that the estimated value of off-site landscaping, west of the railroad tracks, would be in the range of $5,000.  She told Mr. Elkin that this condition about the off-site landscaping would become part of the Planning Board’s resolution of approval.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant would need the SPEDES permit from the DEC before a Building Permit could be issued.  Mr. Elkin stated that the Notice of Intent would have to be prepared before the drainage control work is done.  He added that the Notice of Intent could not be filed before everything is approved.   

Mr. Klein stated that no information has been provided in Part II of the Applicant’s Environmental Assessment Form.  He noted that, normally, the Applicant gives the Planning Board a “first cut” on providing this information.  Mr. Elkin stated that he did not realize that the Planning Board expected him to prepare this part of the EAF.  He did not bring Part II with him tonight.  He noted that he thought the Planning Board, acting as the Lead Agency, filled out Part II of the EAF. The Village Engineer stated that he has reviewed this section of the document, and any impacts were “small to moderate.”  Chairman Gallelli noted to Mr. Elkin that Planning Board member, Fran Allen, is also the chairman of the Village’s Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC).  Because this application is a Type I Action under SEQRA, the WAC would also require that Part II of the FEAF be provided.  Ms. Allen concurred and stated that Part II should, indeed, be filled out.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she feels that the Planning Board has already carried out a thorough review of the environmental impacts of this application. She suggested that it could be made a condition of approval that Part II of the Applicant’s FEAF be filled out with the assistance of the Village Engineer.  Ms. Allen agreed. The Village Engineer noted to the Board members that the Planning Board’s other procedural obligation under SEQRA would be to prepare the Negative Declaration.

Ms. Allen asked if there was a stream that once flowed through the Applicant’s property that is now underground.  She noted that, in the EAF document, there is a question to this effect.  Mr. Elkin replied that there are two pipes going under the property.  They are both for storm water.  He thought that there might have been a stream at one time.

Mr. Klein pointed out a discrepancy in the notes on the Applicant’s plan(s).  He referred to plan #SP-3 and stated that the notes do not appear on this plan.  If the notes are the same as on the other plans, then, they should be repeated on SP-3.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that a condition could be added to the resolution, which states that the appropriate notes should be recorded on SP-3.

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the draft resolution.  The conditions are:

The Applicant will provide the Village with a check for $5,000 for the purpose of providing landscape screening along the new road to the west of the building and the railroad tracks.

The Applicant must obtain a SPEDES permit before a Building Permit can be issued.

The Village will provide for the completion of Part II of the EAF, as required, based on substantial review of these issues by the Planning Board during previous discussions.

Appropriate notes should be recorded on plan #SP-3.

Mr. Klein wanted to know when the Applicant would be proceeding with the construction of the new addition.  He stated that he would like to see a time frame established for when the Village would receive the $5,000 for the off-site landscaping.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that the condition about the landscaping could say that the $5,000 would be provided with the granting of the Building Permit, to which the other members concurred.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this Amended Site Plan application.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Zelman, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

b)      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

Rand Rosenbaum and Steven Pi of Rosenbaum Design Group Architects and Wilson Rugel of Shop Rite were present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that Shop Rite is before the Planning Board for proposed changes to the exterior lighting and a new door to the outside that would provide an entrance to the Bottle Return Room.

Mr. Rosenbaum stated that Shop Rite is proposing some minor exterior alterations to enhance their storefront.  Additional recessed lamps are being proposed under the storefront canopy to improve the lighting at the doorway(s).  Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the second part of the exterior alterations is for the recyclable cans/bottles room (Bottle Return Room).  Shop Rite wants to separate the recyclable area from the main entry.  There is a lot of activity in the recyclable area including repairs, maintenance, and the daily operation of the machines.  Shop Rite does not want its customers to have to go past the recyclable area when entering the store.   The Bottle Return Room would remain in the same location but be accessed from the outside.   Shop Rite is proposing to put the opening through the masonry wall.  The door would be on a track with an automatic opening.  The room would be handicap accessible.  In the inside, the room would be blocked off on the side facing the main entrance so that the room would be a self-contained and maintained space and out of view of Shop Rite customers.  There would be an electronic eye installed to make sure that the recyclable area is not wrongly used.  The hours of operation, the maintenance and the personnel for the recyclable room would remain exactly the same.  

Mr. Klein asked how the recycling machines are emptied.  Mr. Rugel of Shop Rite replied that these machines open up from the front and are unloaded from the bottom.  The recycled cans and bottles are taken to a back storage room.  The machines are emptied on an “as needed” basis two or three times a day.  When the soda trucks come, they take away the “recyclables.”

Ms. Allen wanted to know if the machines in the Bottle Return Room would be located on the side of the room or facing a person when he/she enters the room. Mr. Rugel replied that the machines in the recyclable room would stay where they are on the side(s).  They would not be moved.   Ms. Allen noted that the existing entrance door would be blocked off so that Shop Rite personnel would have to go all the way around outside with the recycled cans and bottles to get to the back of the store.  Mr. Klein wondered why this door was being blocked off.  It would be easier for Shop Rite personnel to use the existing door to get to the back than to go all the way around.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she thinks that this issue of leaving the interior door opened or closed would constitute an interior change and would not be a part of the Applicant’s Amended Site Plan application.  She, too, thought that it would probably be a better idea to keep the existing door in place for use by Shop Rite personnel.  She pointed out further that it might be difficult to maneuver a load of recycled cans and bottles in the area outside the Bottle Return Room where the planters are situated.

The Village Engineer noted that the Building Permit has already been issued to Shop Rite for the interior changes to the Shop Rite store.  At this juncture, the only approval needed is the Planning Board’s approval of the exterior changes.

Ms. Allen wanted to know where the flower boxes are shown on the site plan.  Mr. Rosenbaum indicated to the Planning Board members on his picture board where the flower boxes are located.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the planters/flower boxes were approved as part of an Amended Site Plan application submitted by the landlord.  At the time the Amended Site Plan was submitted, the landlord was looking into the possibility of changing the entire layout of the parking lot at Shop Rite.  Ms. Allen wanted to know if the location of the flower boxes had an impact on the accessibility of the “recyclable” space. She asked if Shop Rite is responsible for maintaining the area underneath the canopy at the front entrance, to which Mr. Rugel replied that the landlord and not Shop Rite is responsible for this area.

Chairman Gallelli stated that Trustee Deborah McCarthy is here tonight to discuss the handicap parking at the Shop Rite store.  Chairman Galilee stated that Trustee McCarthy is suggesting that one or more handicap spots should be allocated in the small cul-de-sac to the left of the entrance to be closer to the entrance of Shop Rite.  There are requirements for accessible parking spaces to be close to a store entrance.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she realizes that Shop Rite is the tenant and it would be the landlord that would come before the Planning Board for changes to the over all parking situation.  Mr. Rugel stated that, with respect to this suggestion regarding the handicap parking spots, he contacted the Shop Rite management earlier today.  The management at Shop Rite has agreed to address this issue with the owner of the property.  The owner told Shop Rite that he would prepare a written response “on letterhead” as to what, if anything, he were going to do.  

Chairman Gallelli suggested that, although there might have to be a change in the parking requirement for the handicap spaces, it might not be required of Shop Rite as part of this application. Shop Rite is before the Planning Board for minor exterior changes to the façade.  Furthermore, the over all parking plan at Shop Rite is the landlord’s, and not the tenant’s, responsibility.  She thought that the Village could pursue, directly with the landlord, the matter of the landlord’s having to meet handicap accessibility requirements, including the possibility of changing the location of the handicap spots and re-striping the parking lot.  Chairman Gallelli noted that, as it stands now, the parking lot at Shop Rite is in excess of the required number of handicap parking spots.    

Mr. Klein asked Mr. Rugel if the property owner knows that Shop Rite is before the Planning Board requesting a change in the site plan.  Mr. Rugel replied that the landlord is not aware of the façade changes being proposed. Shop Rite had applied for a Building Permit and was told that, for the exterior changes, Planning Board approval would be required.  The Applicant did not realize, when the Building Permit application was submitted, that it would be required to go before the Planning Board.  Mr. Rugel noted to the Board members that the first time he heard about the handicap parking concern(s) was earlier today. Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Klein’s point is that the Planning Board would need confirmation that the landlord is agreeable to the exterior changes being proposed.  Mr. Zelman suggested that it could be a condition of the Planning Board’s resolution that the landlord agrees to these changes.

Trustee McCarthy distributed to the Planning Board members copies of Sec. 4.6.2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  She stated that, a couple of years ago, she was contacted by a resident in the Village who suffers from multiple sclerosis.  This resident expressed concern about the handicap parking situation at Shop Rite. Trustee McCarthy noted that Sec. 4.6.2 of the law states that handicap accessible parking spaces should be (located) the shortest route to the entrance of a building from the parking lot.  She referred to the parking lot at the Shop Rite store and stated that, if handicapped individuals could park in the cul-de-sac area, as suggested, it would be closer to the entrance, and the “round-trip” travel distance for handicap individuals would actually be less.  They would not have to go across the parking lot if their mobility is impaired, and they would not have to worry about traffic issues.  Trustee McCarthy asked that both Shop Rite and the Planning Board do what they could to resolve this issue.

Mr. Rosenbaum noted to the Planning Board and Trustee McCarthy that he is here before the Board tonight representing Shop Rite and not the landlord.  The Shop Rite application is (only) for changes to the facade.  He did not think there was much he, personally, could do tonight to resolve the handicap parking issue.

Trustee McCarthy stated that, when this issue came up, she talked with this resident about where the handicap spaces are and where they should be.  She recognizes the fact that there are (would be) more spaces than required.  Trustee McCarthy thought that, in this instance, it would be an advantage to move these spaces to the other side where handicap individuals would not have to cross traffic.  Mr. Rosenbaum said that, in his view, Trustee McCarthy is “right on target.”  The time to “make a swap” would be when the parking lot is re-striped.  

Chairman Gallelli thought that, although the Planning Board would certainly want to resolve this issue about the handicap parking, it would not want to hold up Shop Rite’s Amended Site Plan application for the exterior changes being proposed.  The changes to the parking are subject to review of the landlord’s site plan.  The Planning Board would ask the Village Engineer to direct correspondence to the landlord regarding the parking situation at Shop Rite and this issue of compliance with ADA regulations.  Ms. Allen stated that, if the site plan were reviewed, she would hope that the Planning Board would look at the handicap parking over all and not just this one issue of moving spaces from one side to the other.  She expressed her concern about some handicap spaces being situated on a slope.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she would like to ask that the roadway in the front of the Shop Rite store be re-striped, but she realizes now that this matter belongs in a different discussion.  Ms. Allen referred to the cul-de-sac area of the Shop Rite parking lot and stated that when the parking was put in there, the Planning Board had a lot of concerns.  One of the concerns was the maneuverability of vehicles.  The Planning Board would want to take another look at that.  Chairman Gallelli recalled that the landlord’s reason for wanting to have parking in that area was to provide more accessibility to the interior stores.

Trustee McCarthy thanked the Planning Board for its positive input in receiving this resident’s request for a change in the handicap parking.

Mr. Zelman asked how the “recyclables” (bottles and cans) are removed from the Bottle Return Room and taken to the back of the store, to which Mr. Rugel stated that the employees in charge of maintenance use a cart for this purpose.   Mr. Zelman expressed concern that if the cart, filled with bottles and cans, runs off the walkway and into a snow bank during the wintertime, glass and other sharp objects might end up in the street.  He thought it would be safer, and easier to clean up a spill, if the bottles and cans were transported to the back from the interior of the store.  Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Zelman if he would want to have, for maintenance purposes, a sliding door at the same (existing) entrance that is there now, to which Mr. Zelman stated that he thought this would make more sense.  Mr. Rosenbaum noted to the Board members that, once recycled, the soda cans are no longer recognizable as cans.  They are crushed in the recycling machine into small ?” thick pieces.    

Ms. Allen expressed concern about keeping the Bottle Return Room and the area outside clean.  She noted that floor cleaning would require taking cleaning materials outside the building to access the Bottle Return Room.  She wanted to know if the excess cans and bottles that would not fit into the machines would be left under the canopy outside or brought into the room.  She would not want the area, inside or outside the room, to get dirty.  Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the Bottle Return Room would receive the same level of maintenance that it receives now.  The Shop Rite personnel in charge of the maintenance would be on the same maintenance schedule.  Mr. Klein asked if the hours of operation would be the same, to which Mr. Rosenbaum stated that when the supermarket closes, the Bottle Return Room would also close. Ms. Allen noted that cleaning up the outside area underneath the canopy would be the landlord’s responsibility, to which Mr. Rugel said that, indeed, it would be.  Generally, the landlord is in charge of maintaining the outside of the store.    

Mr. Klein asked the Applicant what the impetus was for requesting this facade change to begin with, to which Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the Applicant, Shop Rite, simply wanted to separate the recycling area from the supermarket entrance.  It was mostly a matter of aesthetics.  

Ms. Allen stated that she would assume, if people will be coming into a recycling place (room) that is now accessible from an outside entrance, Shop Rite would surely put in trashcans.  Chairman Gallelli noted that there are, at present, containers in the Bottle Return Room for cans and bottles that cannot be recycled.  She assumes this policy would remain the same.  

Ms. Allen stated that she does not see any advantages to the change(s) being proposed for the Bottle Return Room.  She does not see an improvement being made.  If anything, there is a potential for more maintenance problems.  She said that she would have less of an objection to this proposal, if there were a door for employees on the inside.  She would rather have the employees use this door than have to go outside and around to get to the back of the store.  Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Rugel if Shop Rite would have any objection to having an interior door for the employees. The Village Engineer added that he would want this door to be a fire-rated door for safety purposes.  Mr. Rugel replied that he does not think Shop Rite would be opposed to having a door on the inside.  

Mr. Klein noted that people coming with “recyclables” would have to go 10’ out of their way to get to the new entrance.  He asked Mr. Rugel what the experience has been with other stores that have the outside entrance, to which Mr. Rugel replied that, with respect to the use of the recycling area, it does not seem to make any difference how the recycling area is set up.  Chairman Gallelli stated that other supermarkets in town, i.e., the old Grand Union and the A&P, both have (had) problems keeping their recycling areas clean.  She thought that the solution being discussed tonight, with the door on the inside for use by the employees, is probably the best solution. Chairman Gallelli suggested that a condition be added to the resolution stating that a fire-rated door be maintained for Shop Rite personnel at the existing entrance for maintenance purposes.

The Village Engineer asked if the existing soda machines would be removed, to which Mr. Rugel stated that they would be relocated.

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that documentation should be provided to the Village Engineer’s Office stating that the landlord is in agreement with the changes being proposed.

The Village Engineer stated that an electronic eye should be installed for security purposes.  Chairman Gallelli added that the security camera should be in place and working during store hours.   

Ms. Allen stated that there should be a condition that the bottle recycling area should only be accessible during store hours.

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the draft resolution.  The conditions are:

Documentation will be provided that the landlord is in agreement with the changes Shop Rite has proposed.

A fire-rated door will be maintained for Shop Rite personnel at the existing entrance for maintenance purposes.

A security camera will be in place and working during store hours.

The recycling area will only be accessible during store hours.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve the Amended Site Plan application for Shop Rite Supermarket. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Klein and seconded by Mr. Zelman.

Chairman Gallelli asked if there was any further discussion on this application.  Ms. Allen asked if the lights being proposed were all going to be located underneath the canopy of the store, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that they would be.  She noted that, at the last meeting, the Village Engineer provided the Planning Board with pictures taken at night showing the low level of lighting at the supermarket’s entrance.

The Planning Board approved this application for an Amended Site Plan by a vote of 4 to 0.

Chairman Gallelli noted to those present that the Applicant’s plan should, now, be revised to show an interior access door.  

Chairman Gallelli wanted it stated for the record that the Village Engineer would contact the landlord to address the issue(s), discussed earlier, regarding handicap parking compliance.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the present time, there is nothing scheduled for the May 6th Planning Board meeting.  There has been no word yet from Mark Giordano on the grocery store application.

The Village Engineer stated that the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer, Frank Pusatere, is in contact with Lou Giordano at the Autopark to resolve the problem with the lighting/off-site glare.

Mr. Klein noted to the Village Engineer that there has been a dumpster parked on the side of Old Post Road for the past week.  There is no Building Permit sign posted.  He wanted to know what (if any) building/construction was taking place at this location. The Village Engineer told Mr. Klein that he would look into this matter.

Mr. Klein noted that there was a truckload of landscaping debris recently delivered to the Metro Enviro site.  He wondered if landscaping debris was allowed, to which the Village Engineer replied that he did not think it was.  He would look into the matter and write a letter to Metro Enviro accordingly.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Planning Board meeting was adjourned until the next meeting.

The minutes of the Tuesday, April 1, 2003 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:45 P.M.


Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 for Croton-on-Hudson Realty, LLC, (Finkelstein Warehouse), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 1 Hudson River Drive and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.12 Block 4 Lot 1; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this application is for the expansion of the existing warehouse; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant was granted a Special Permit for this expansion by the Village Board of Trustees at its meeting of January 21, 2003; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its meeting of March 4, 2003, declared its Intent to Act as the Lead Agency on this application; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Planning Board a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) received on March 14, 2003; and

WHEREAS, on March 19, 2003, the Planning Board distributed to the interested and involved agencies its resolution of Intent to Act as Lead Agency, to which there were no objections; and

WHEREAS, the project is a Type 1 Action under Section 116.3(A)(6) of the Village Code.  The Planning Board has reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and Visual Impacts Addendum to the FEAF.  Any relevant areas of environmental concern have been identified and thoroughly analyzed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations (6NYCRR617.7(c)) and Chapter 116 of the Village Code.  Based on the above, a Negative Declaration is hereby issued under Section 116.8(A) of the Village Code and Sections 617.7(a)(2) and 617.3(c) of the SEQRA regulations (6NYCRR617); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, having reviewed the Project under SEQRA and the Village’s Environmental Quality Review Act, thereby finds that the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has found that the landscape screening can be best achieved through off-site landscaping.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amended Site Plan application as shown on Drawing SP-1 entitled “Site Plan,” dated August 7, 2002, last revised March 13, 2003; Drawing SP-2 entitled “Site Plan Details,” dated March 13, 2003; Drawing SP-3 entitled “Site Plan Details Site Lighting,” dated March 13, 2003; and Drawing SK-1 entitled “Elevations,” dated March 12, 2003, prepared by Peter Elkin Architect, be approved subject to the following conditions:

The Applicant will provide the Village with a check for $5,000, with the granting of the Building Permit, for the purpose of providing landscape screening along the new road to the west of the building and the railroad tracks.

The Applicant must obtain a SPEDES permit before a Building Permit is issued.

The Village will provide for the completion of Part II of the EAF, as required, based on substantial review of these issues by the Planning Board during previous discussions.

Appropriate notes should be recorded on plan #SP-3.

In the event that this Amended 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. Zelman, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, April 22, 2003.


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 for Croton Enterprises, LLC, C/o Juster Development Co., (Shop Rite), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 440-460 South Riverside Avenue and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.17 Block 2 Lot 2 (formerly #2 98 1E); and

WHEREAS, the proposal is to install a new exterior access door to the existing Bottle Return Room and provide additional lighting to the storefront of the Shop Rite Supermarket; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amended Site Plan application as shown on Sheet #A-2 entitled “Shop Rite Supermarkets, Inc., Dtls & Part. Elevs at New Door,” prepared by Rosenbaum Design Group Architects, dated January 6, 2002, and last revised March 25, 2003, be approved subject to the following conditions:

Documentation be provided that the landlord is in agreement with the changes Shop Rite has proposed.

A fire-rated door be maintained for Shop Rite personnel at the existing entrance for maintenance purposes.

A security camera be in place and working during store hours.

The recycling area only be accessible during store hours.

In the event that this Amended 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. Klein, seconded by Mr. Zelman and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, April 22, 2003.