VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2003:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chair
ABSENT: Joel Klein
ALSO PRESENT: Charles Kane, Chair, Water Control Commission
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.
111 Grand Street Corp. (Amy Cotton) – (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 26) – Site Plan Approval (Awning) – Preliminary Discussion
Amy Cotton was present for this application.
Chairman Gallelli stated that this application is for a retractable awning to be installed on the façade of Ms. Cotton’s antique shop on Grand Street. The Planning Board received a packet of materials on the awning. Chairman Gallelli asked Ms. Cotton if she wanted to say anything further tonight regarding her Site Plan application.
Ms. Cotton told the Board that she wants to install an awning in the front of her store to reduce her exposure to the sun. The awning would help her to avoid any further occurrence of skin cancer. The awning would also shield the front of her store from rain.
Chairman Gallelli asked Ms. Cotton what her hours of operation are, to which Ms. Cotton replied that they are erratic. She does not post her hours. Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any times when the store would not be open, to which Ms. Cotton replied that the store is not open in the wintertime. Chairman Gallelli stated that she would, therefore, assume that the awning would not be up during the winter months. Ms. Cotton stated that the weather keeps her from opening up her shop during the winter. Chairman Gallelli asked what time the store closes, to which Ms. Cotton replied that the store closes about 6:00 P.M.
Mr. Zelman wanted to know if, at the antique shop, Ms. Cotton had sun exposure for most of the day, to which Ms. Cotton replied that she has exposure to the sun until the mid-afternoon. At around 3:00 P.M., it begins to be less strong.
Mr. Brumleve asked Ms. Cotton if she would retract the awning when the store is closed, to which Ms. Cotton said that she would.
Chairman Gallelli asked if there would be any signs or symbols on the awning, to which Ms. Cotton said that there would not be any signs.
Ms. Allen asked Ms. Cotton if she thought that the shape, the position and the size of the awning being proposed were going to provide the shading that she would be looking for. Ms. Cotton told Ms. Allen that she explained what she was looking for to the awning salesman, and he recommended the one being presented tonight. He did not think that the wider panels would be necessary. Chairman Gallelli noted that the awning only extends out about 5’. Ms. Allen wanted to know how high it would be in the front and in the back, to which Ms. Cotton said that it would be 8’ high. Ms. Cotton stated that when she first went to the Village Engineer’s office about the awning, she was told that the awning would have to be at least 6?’ above the sidewalk. The awning being proposed is 8’ above the
sidewalk. The Village Engineer noted to the Board members that the minimum 6 ?’ dimension can be found in Sec. 197-5 of the sidewalk regulations.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board is required to hold a public hearing on this Site Plan application. She suggested that the Planning Board could schedule the public hearing and notify the abutting and adjacent property owners.
Mr. Brumleve noted that, in the awning specifications, there are choices given on the aluminum arm system. He asked Ms. Cotton if she had given any thought to whether she wants a white, bronze or clear anodized finish. Ms. Cotton replied that what she really wanted was an awning that was old-fashioned in style.
Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Cotton that, if the Planning Board were to proceed with its review of the awning that is being presented tonight, then, the Planning Board would be approving this specific awning and no other. If Ms. Cotton makes any changes to the awning, and it is not what the Planning Board approved, she would have to come back before the Planning Board and repeat the whole process. Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Cotton that she might want to hold off until she feels more assured that she has made the right selection. If she wants to proceed with the awning presently being proposed, the public hearing could take place at the next Planning Board meeting on July 22nd. Chairman Gallelli noted that there would be plenty of time before the meeting of the 22nd to publicize
the hearing in the newspaper(s) and notice the neighbors. Ms. Cotton asked if there would be time for her to make changes to the awning presently being proposed, to which Chairman Gallelli said that there would be.
The Village Engineer noted that the awning being proposed projects out 5’. If Ms. Cotton decides that she wants an awning that projects out 6’, then, she should make the change now. He told Ms. Cotton that, if the Planning Board approves the 5’ awning, then, she would have to go with that.
Mr. Zelman stated that, judging by the computer renderings, it does not look as if the awning projects out 5’. It appears that it would overhang by half that distance. Chairman Gallelli thought that the computer renderings do not give the correct perspective.
Mr. Brumleve told Ms. Cotton that, if she would prefer a projection of 6’ instead of 5’, she should set it up that way now. Chairman Gallelli suggested that Ms. Cotton could try the 5’ projection now being proposed to see what it would give her in terms of shade.
Mr. Brumleve suggested that Ms. Cotton should ask her awning vendor to give her the mounting height on the building. This would answer the question, posed earlier by Ms. Allen, about the angle of the awning. Ms. Allen told Ms. Cotton that it does not seem to her that a 5’ projection would solve her problem. Mr. Brumleve agreed and said that he thought a 6’ projection would serve her purposes better.
Ms. Cotton asked if she had to pay a fee for the Planning Board’s review of this application, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that she would have to pay a Site Plan fee. The fee is $125.00. Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Cotton that if the public hearing takes place and Ms. Cotton decides to make a change, or the application has to be modified in some way, the public hearing could be held over. Ms. Cotton would not have to pay another Site Plan fee. She would have an opportunity to come back under the same application.
Chairman Gallelli noted that there might not be a Planning Board meeting on the first Tuesday of August due to the lack of a quorum.
Mr. Zelman suggested that the Planning Board could hold off on scheduling the public hearing on this application. Chairman Gallelli asked Ms. Cotton if she would prefer that the Planning Board hold off on calling the public hearing for July 22nd, to which Ms. Cotton said that, indeed, she would prefer to hold off. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would be willing to wait until Ms. Cotton is more comfortable with the awning being proposed. She noted to Ms. Cotton that there might not be a meeting on the first Tuesday of August. The public hearing would have to take place at the end of August. She suggested that Ms. Cotton contact the Planning Board Secretary when she is ready to come back. If it works out, the Planning Board could schedule a public hearing at
the next meeting.
Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Cotton that she thought the awning seemed like a good idea. Ms. Allen said that she liked the color. However, she thought Ms. Cotton might like a somewhat larger awning than the one presently being proposed.
Brian Ackerman & Lael Morgan – Batten Road (Sec. 68.17 Blk. 2 Lot 8) – Discussion of Lot Line Adjustment
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board has received application materials from Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Morgan regarding the subject property on Batten Road. She asked if they are, indeed, the owners of record, to which Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Morgan said that they are.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicants are proposing to make variations in lot lines to incorporate the nine acres of land that they purchased, divide up the property with a neighbor, and, then, carve out a small lot to sell off as a building lot. Their ultimate goal is to divide up this large piece of property into only three lots. Chairman Gallelli stated that she spoke to the Village Attorney, Seymour Waldman, about this matter. Mr. Waldman came to the conclusion that this application would have to be processed as a subdivision application. Chairman Gallelli referred to Section 230A of the subdivision law and stated that, according to this section of the Village Code, a subdivision is created when a lot line is created where none existed before and when it is a question of three (rather than
two) lots. She added that, in this particular case, this provision in the subdivision law would apply to the newly created small lot (new Tax Lot # 8) that did not exist before.
Ms. Morgan stated that, rather than selling the whole piece of property and then putting restrictions on it, she and Mr. Ackerman would rather “keep it out of other people’s hands.” They both want a minimum amount of development. Ms. Morgan noted that at one time, the developer, Galena Feit, was interested in purchasing this parcel. Ms. Morgan told the Board members that she believes it is good for the neighborhood that they have purchased this property. It impedes development of the land. She noted that they tried to include more neighbors to “take it out of circulation.”
Chairman Gallelli stated that, even though it might be good for the neighborhood, there is still a process involved. This application would require subdivision approval by the Planning Board.
Mr. Ackerman asked what constitutes a lot line adjustment, to which the Village Engineer replied that a lot line adjustment would always involve two, rather than three lots.
Ms. Allen referred to the Applicant’s Lot Line Adjustment Map dated March 13, 2002. According to this map, part of original Tax Lot #8 has been absorbed into existing Lot #9 (belonging to Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Morgan) and the other part has been absorbed into existing Tax Lot #7 (belonging to Mr. & Mrs. Harbeson). A new Tax Lot #8 has also been created. Ms. Allen asked, if Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Morgan were simply to create another lot, and the Harbeson’s were out of the equation altogether, would it still be considered a subdivision, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that she did not know the answer. Chairman Gallelli stated that, based on what is being presented tonight with the three lots being proposed, this application would fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the Applicants seem well versed in the Village’s tax laws. He suggested that they could converse directly with the Village Attorney on this whole matter. He noted further that, for tonight’s discussion, Chairman Gallelli took it upon herself to contact the Village Attorney, and he has rendered his opinion. Mr. Brumleve did not think that it would help to carry on the discussion any further tonight. Ms. Allen pointed out to the Applicants that the answer to this problem might be a multi-step process that would go forward in a different way.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicants should not necessarily view the process of going through a subdivision as negative. It is essentially a positive process for all involved. Furthermore, in order to legalize this transaction, a certain procedure would have to be followed. Chairman Gallelli stated that new Tax Lot #8 would have to meet all of the Village’s zoning, steep slopes, sewer and water requirements. The Planning Board would not want to create a new lot that is non-conforming.
Ms. Morgan expressed concern that the subdivision process would be expensive. It would require more meetings with the Village Engineer. A topographical map would have to be prepared. Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Morgan that this information would have to be provided to the building department anyway to obtain a building permit.
Mr. Brumleve stated that, among other items, the Applicant’s map would need to show the utilities, setbacks, and steep slopes.
Mr. Ackerman said that an alternative might be to go back to the original owner of the entire lot, shrink Lot #8 and then, later on, sell the lot to the Harbesons. Chairman Gallelli said that, no matter what course the Applicants take, the Village would have to know that the new tax lot created would conform, in all ways, to the current Zoning Law.
The Village Engineer asked the Applicants if their engineer performed a steep slopes analysis, to which Ms. Morgan replied that she knows they went through a zoning analysis. She thought that they looked at the steep slopes, too. She recalled that they did take the steep slopes into consideration. Chairman Gallelli pointed out that, whether Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Morgan go through the subdivision process or this entire matter is settled in a different way, the property in question has to conform to the Village’s steep slopes regulations. The Village Engineer added that a Building Permit could not be issued until a steep slopes analysis is performed.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would want to know that the proposed house on the new tax lot could be connected into the municipal sewer, which is on Eklof Court. That connection would have to be established. The Village Engineer added that the sewer line would have to be extended, and this extension would have to be approved by the Westchester County Department of Health. The Village Engineer asked if this lot is within the sewer district, to which Ms. Morgan said that she does not know. The Village Engineer stated that the Applicants would have to look into this matter, and if it is not within the sewer district, they would have to petition the Village Board.
Mr. Zelman noted that the Applicants, Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Morgan, might have already created a subdivision of land. The transaction/closing with the Harbeson’s has already taken place. The Village Engineer noted further that they might be in violation of the subdivision laws. Ms. Morgan told the Planning Board that they would talk to Seymour Waldman on how best to proceed.
American Building Technologies (Galena Feit) – Prospect Place and Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19) – Application for Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Hudson View Subdivision
Bob Phelan and Galena Feit were present for this application.
Mr. Phelan stated that this subdivision application came before the Planning Board last year. The application was submitted before the drainage study, prepared for the Village by Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, was completed. Now, the study is done. He asked the Planning Board what its position on this application is as a result of the study being concluded.
Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Phelan that if he or Ms. Feit would like to read the study, it is available to the public. She stated that the study addresses this area, where the subdivision is being proposed, as one of the key (priority) drainage areas. The Village’s consultants suggested two different scenarios for solving the Village’s drainage problems for that drainage basin that includes this property. One had to do with solutions upstream of Old Post Road North and the other involved downstream solutions. There were different solutions suggested. The solution offered for above stream included a retention basin and check dams. The down stream solution called for doing work on private properties to expand the dimensions of the drainpipes. The Village Board will have to decide which way
they want to go. Another possibility involved diverting water down Prospect Place. None of the solutions had been thoroughly assessed or engineered.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the proposal set forth by Ms. Feit would need to be reviewed by Dvirka & Bartilucci to know whether it could work with one or both of the above-mentioned solutions and, if not, what changes could be made to make it work. The plan would be to create an enhanced channel through the property. The consultants would have to look at what Ms. Feit is proposing to see what it would take to manage the drainage capacities.
Mr. Phelan stated that Ms. Feit needs to know how the Planning Board would want her to proceed. Would the best way be to study the flow of water coming through the property, or would the Village want to be granted an easement? He noted that, if the water has been diverted elsewhere, then, Ms. Feit would be “out of the picture” altogether.
The Village Engineer noted to Mr. Phelan that, when the drainage study was presented at the Village Board meeting, the consultants laid out some options for people to consider. There is a comment period for people to respond.
The Village Engineer stated that the Village’s timeframe for developing a drainage system might not be Ms. Feit’s timeframe. The Applicant needs to look at options for the subdivision being proposed. He thought that the Applicant would need to be conservative in the design for the drainage system.
Mr. Phelan stated that an option was not to go through the property at all but down Prospect Place, to which Ms. Allen replied that, when this was being discussed, the consultants were talking about bubbler systems. They said they had not looked at the feasibility of this particular option.
The Village Engineer stated that the Village is looking at what would be the most viable option for a storm drainage solution for this basin.
Mr. Phelan asked how Ms. Feit could move her project forward and still provide the Village with the flexibility it needs to implement these different drainage options. The Village Engineer suggested that Ms. Feit’s engineer should be provided with the full drainage report. He thought that if the Applicant were conservative in the design for the drainage, then, the Applicant might be able to take into account different scenarios that would be suitable for all three options.
Mr. Phelan suggested that they could take into account the worst case scenario, with the highest volume of water coming through the property, and design the drainage system for that volume. He asked if that would be agreeable to the Village, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that the Village does not know where the drainage channel is going to end up. She thought that the Applicant could take the most conservative approach with respect to the water coming onto the property. Then, the problem is where it leads, i.e., through private property or down Prospect Place. The question would be whether or not the system being devised would have the capacity to handle the flow. The Applicant would have to show that it would.
Mr. Phelan asked if a possible solution might be for the Applicant’s engineer to design a pipe and grant the Village an easement to put it in place on Prospect Place. The Village Engineer stated that this is still only an option. Chairman Gallelli added that the Village could not approve something when it does not know where the drainage system is going to be and/or where it would end up. Mr. Phelan stated that one option would be through Ms. Feit’s property and the other would be out to Prospect Place.
Mr. Zelman stated that the Village would have to be comfortable with the amount of water coming out at the other end of the pipe. Mr. Phelan stated that the Applicant would put a pipe in that would handle the maximum amount.
The Village Engineer stated that one issue is how the Water Control Commission would feel about a pipe versus a swale. Mr. Brumleve stated that he thinks a pipe could create a funnel of water that could make matters worse. He did not think that a pipe could be engineered to solve the worst case scenario.
Chairman Gallelli stated that no matter what the Applicant’s design for the drainage system is, it should be sent to Dvirka & Bartilucci for review. This would be at the Applicant’s expense. In the end, it would be necessary for the Planning Board to draw conclusions about the success or failure of the design.
Mr. Brumleve referred to the Applicant’s plan and stated that he thought the driveway/curb cut for Lot #2 could have been done differently. The Applicant’s engineer might want to shift the driveway somewhat. Mr. Phelan responded that the driveway on Lot #2 is located where it is to preserve significant trees. Chairman Gallelli noted that with respect to this subdivision proposal other issues, besides drainage, need to be discussed. She said that the Planning Board would need to see a tree survey. The Village Engineer asked if an engineer’s report was already submitted, to which Mr. Phelan said that he believes it was. The Village Engineer stated that, for the next submittal, the Planning Board should see the entire set of plans for this subdivision. Ms. Feit told the Board members
that she submitted a tree survey when this application came before the Planning Board last year.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the Applicant needs to meet with the hydrology engineers, Dvirka & Bartilucci, about the drainage issue(s). Mr. Phelan said that the Applicant met once before with Dvirka & Bartilucci. They told the Applicant to ask for direction from the Planning Board. Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Applicant should submit a specific proposal to Dvirka & Bartilucci. The Planning Board needs to have their comments on a proposed drainage system. Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Applicant should take a conservative approach and allow for either drainage option (upstream or downstream) in their design plan. Mr. Brumleve thought that Dvirka & Bartilucci would probably be able to work better with the Applicant now. These consultants would know more about the
drainage problems now than the last time they met.
Mr. Zelman said that he would want to see a drainage design that would work for the Applicant and, at the same time, reserve all options for the Village in the future. He did not know whether the Applicant could create a design that would strike that balance. Mr. Phelan asked if they could go back to the proposal that they had before, to which Mr. Brumleve said that it depends on what the consultants say. The Applicant should pose this question to the hydrology engineers.
Mr. Phelan asked if the Applicant could come back to the Planning Board later on with a more defined area for a drainage easement. He thought that this might allow the Applicant to move forward more quickly. Chairman Gallelli said that this might be a possible solution provided that the Village’s consultants say that the Applicant’s design is workable.
Ms. Allen noted that the Applicant would need to go before the Water Control Commission (WCC) for a Wetlands Permit. Ms. Feit questioned why she would have to go before the WCC. She pointed out that the houses now being proposed are outside the 120’ regulated wetlands area(s). Mr. Brumleve told Ms. Feit that the WCC would need to look at the driveway and sewer easement(s).
Chairman Gallelli stated that, when she spoke with Mr. Klein earlier today, Mr. Klein asked her to bring up the matter of the archeological study. Mr. Phelan stated that, according to Ms. Feit’s attorney, there has to be a specific reason for such an archeological study to be required. The reason for it has to be substantiated.
The Village Engineer asked if an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) was ever submitted. If so, it should be updated due to the fact that the design for the subdivision has changed.
Chairman Gallelli asked Ms. Feit if she could submit to the Planning Board Secretary the letter/information from her attorney regarding the archeological study. If she understood Mr. Phelan’s earlier comment(s) correctly, the Planning Board must specifically request this study and give their reasons why. Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that Mr. Klein’s reason for wanting the study is that there has been much discussion on what this property was years ago. Mr. Phelan asked how such a study would impact this subdivision proposal. The Village Engineer said that, for example, if a prehistoric site were found on the property, there might be an easement granted for future archeological study.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant needs to prepare a Full EAF (Parts I and II). If the Applicant has already prepared an EAF, the EAF would need to be revised because the Applicant’s plan has changed.
Chairman Gallelli wanted to talk about the proposed location of the house on Lot #3. She thought that it might be more “user friendly” if that house were moved further to the north and a little off High Street, to which Mr. Phelan replied that the Applicant would also like to move the house in that direction. He noted that a reason for putting in the piping (discussed earlier) would be to be able to move this house substantially closer to Prospect Place. Chairman Gallelli said that she thought this is where a tree survey would be useful. The Planning Board needs to see the trees that are along the High Street side of the property. Mr. Brumleve stated that the Planning Board would want to see on the plan(s) the other houses on High Street. Mr. Phelan said that they also had concerns about the
neighbors on that side of the property and would be glad to move the house.
Mr. Phelan asked what the next step in the approval process would be assuming that the Planning Board is satisfied with the drainage system being proposed. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant would have to provide all of the information that is necessary for preliminary subdivision approval. A public hearing would, then, be scheduled. After preliminary approval, the Applicant has 60 days to return with a final plan. The Planning Board can use its discretion as to whether or not to hold another public hearing. The Planning Board might decide not to hold a public hearing on the final plan if there are no substantial changes.
The Village Engineer suggested that the meeting with Dvirka & Bartilucci could take place at Village Hall. He further suggested that the Applicant’s engineer could contact him regarding a possible meeting date.
Chairman Gallelli reiterated that the Planning Board would be asking Dvirka & Bartilucci to review the drainage system and provide advice to the Planning Board, and this would be at the Applicant’s expense.
Mr. Phelan stated that the Applicant does not want to be responsible for calculating the size of the pipes, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that she thought the Village’s consultants would have to provide advice on the size of the pipes. The Village Engineer stated that a design has to be provided, either by the Applicant’s engineer or possibly Dvirka & Bartilucci, for the drainage channel. Mr. Phelan stated that the Applicant would not want to be liable for a design that would probably not be implemented until long after the subdivision is built. Chairman Gallelli stated that, the way she sees it, the construction of the drainage system goes hand in hand with the development of the houses. She told the Applicant that, when a subdivision is being proposed, the Applicant has to take into
consideration any adverse effects and/or environmental impacts. It is incumbent upon the Applicant to make these improvements. It is not just a question of building houses.
Ms. Feit asked if she would still need subdivision approval if she were to build only one house on all four acres of land, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that she would not.
Ms. Feit asked if she could apply for a subdivision approval after the drainage improvements have been implemented, to which Chairman Gallelli said that she could. Ms. Feit stated that she would want to build stone houses that would match the houses in the area.
Mr. Phelan wanted to know what the Planning Board’s position is about putting in place some of these drainage improvements. Chairman Gallelli stated that her position is that the drainage improvements would have to be installed by the Applicant. The Village Engineer stated that it is already known that there is a problem with the channel running through the Applicant’s property. This problem with the drainage would have an impact on the houses being built. The Applicant would have to address this issue. Chairman Gallelli stated that this area along Prospect Place is a critical drainage area. These drainage problems have been a source of concern for the Village. As part of the approval of this subdivision, the Planning Board would have to look into this matter of the drainage.
Ms. Feit wanted to know whether or not she would still have to improve the drainage system if she decided to build only one house. The Village Engineer told Ms. Feit that he would want to see the house out of the 100-year flood zone. He noted that there was a discussion in the Dvirka & Bartilucci report about curbing being needed to direct sheet flow back into the channel. Ms. Feit would still need to look into such matters about the drainage even if only one house were being built.
Ms. Feit did not request a specific date for this application to come back before the Planning Board. She would be in contact with the Village Engineer to schedule a meeting with the Village’s consultants about the drainage issue.
Hudson National Golf Course – Discussion of Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Amendment Recommendations from Stuart Cohen of Environmental & Turf Services (ETS)
Greg Stanley, Superintendent of Grounds at the Hudson National Golf Course, was present.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, on Thursday of last week, the Village Engineer, Fran Allen and herself had a conference call with Stuart Cohen and Stephen Reid of Environmental & Turf Services (ETS). The issues on the proposed EMP amendments, which came up at the Planning Board meeting last Tuesday, were discussed. Chairman Gallelli asked Ms. Allen to report on the discussion that took place.
Ms. Allen distributed to the Planning Board members a memorandum regarding the EMP amendments that she had e-mailed to the Board members earlier in the afternoon.
Ms. Allen stated that the first six amendments were discussed at the Planning Board meeting last Tuesday. There were a number of questions raised. The conversation with ETS on Thursday resulted in two additional amendments. Amendment #7 calls for an Annual Review and Modification of Approved Pesticide List. Amendment #8 calls for a Final Report after the Water Quality Monitoring Program is completed.
Ms. Allen stated that one of the questions raised at the meeting last week was how to keep the pesticide list up to date as older pesticides are eliminated and new ones are added to the approved list. During the conference call with ETS, Dr. Cohen told them that this list is updated on a regular basis. Another question posed at the Planning Board meeting was which chemicals in Table 12 of the EMP have been applied and at what rate. Dr. Cohen pointed out that, with respect to the application of chemicals, exceedances are more related to weather conditions than the rate of application. Ms. Allen noted that HNGC had said at last week’s meeting that they have been staying within the recommended limits. The golf course provides the Village with an annual report on the chemicals/pesticides being used.
Ms. Allen stated that the chemicals in Table 12 are the ones that are being monitored. Appendix 1 lists those chemicals that are approved. All in all, the EMP is very specific about the monitoring program.
Ms. Allen stated that she would recommend that Amendment #1 be approved, as stated in the memorandum from Stuart Cohen dated June 19, 2003.
Ms. Allen stated that Amendment #6 had to do with modifying station-specific Response Thresholds (RTs). It was decided that the Planning Board would discuss the modifications to RTs during its field trip to the golf course. The Planning Board would look at each of the four monitoring stations of concern (SW-1, SW-2, SW-3A and SW-5) and discuss possible changes in sample locations. Ms. Allen stated that she recommends that Amendment #6 be approved, as is.
Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Zelman had a question at the meeting last week about the effect(s) of increasing the rate of application of a chemical at the end of the five-year monitoring period. He wanted to know if it would make any difference, to which Dr. Cohen stated that exceedances have more to do with the weather than the rate of application. Mr. Stanley stated that, as noted in the annual report, the usage patterns have not changed at all.
Ms. Allen stated that she has looked at some of the past reports from ETS, and there does not seem to be a problem with chemicals. She noted that there has been a problem with certain fertilizers, but this problem is being worked through.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, as of tonight’s meeting, the Planning Board would endorse all six of the amendments as outlined in Dr. Cohen’s memorandum of April 16th, along with some minor changes that would enhance these amendments.
Ms. Allen referred to the “new” Amendment #7 pertaining to an annual review of the pesticides list. This annual review would be a way of regularizing what is on the approved list. Information on chemicals from various sources would be used to adjust this list, and a new list would be drawn up on an annual basis. There would be a small cost to the golf course associated with this report to the Village. Chairman Gallelli stated that it would be a relatively short report that would be based on the golf course superintendent’s findings on a yearly basis. The report might say that everything is the same, or it might say that a new chemical is being introduced or that one is being taken off the list. The Annual Review would be a way of keeping the EMP up to date on these matters. Ms. Allen referred
to Dr. Cohen’s memorandum dated July 1, 2003 and read verbatim Dr. Cohen’s wording of Amendment #7.
Ms. Allen stated that “new” Amendment #8 calls for a Final Report to be submitted once the monitoring is completed. Ms. Allen read aloud the text of Amendment #8. The report would be a way of “wrapping up” the monitoring program. Dr. Cohen thought that this report could be about eight pages long and would include 1) a review of the monitoring program since its inception; 2) a list of stations and parameters with required monitoring extensions due to RT exceedances; 3) a list of all reports submitted to date pertaining to the monitoring program and 4) a summary of trends analyses performed.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, with regard to Response Thresholds for SW-2, Dr. Cohen thought that it would be worthwhile for him to come to the audit in August of this year.
Chairman Gallelli reminded the Planning Board members that on July 15th, the Planning Board would be going on a site visit to Hudson National Golf Course to look at the plantings.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve the amendments to the EMP as outlined in the letter of Stuart Cohen and Stephen Reid dated June 19, 2003 and placed, as specified, in the EMP document, and the additional wording sent by Stuart Cohen and Stephen Reid on July 1, 2003 also to be placed, as specified, in the EMP document. The motion to approve was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Zelman and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she would work on (physically) putting these amendments into the EMP document.
Ms. Allen stated that the EMP for Hudson National has worked very well.
Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Stanley if he could meet at 6:30 P.M. on July 15th for the site walk, to which Mr. Stanley said that he could.
Chairman Gallelli reminded the Planning Board members of the joint-session with the Village Board and the Comprehensive Plan Committee scheduled for July 14th.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she recently spoke with Mr. Foley, proprietor of the Exxon Service Station in town, about coming before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval for the solar panels, which have been placed on top of the canopy at his gas station. Mr. Foley told Chairman Gallelli that he had hired Ralph Mastromonaco in March of this year to represent him in this matter. Mr. Mastromonaco was supposed to come to the meeting in March and “take care of” the Site Plan Amendment. He would contact Mr. Mastromonaco to find out why this has not been done.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Board has asked that the Planning Board and the Conservation Advisory Counsel review the proposed new site for the model airplane flying field at Croton Point Park. Chairman Gallelli stated that, having reviewed the documentation on this proposal that was sent to the Planning Board, she thinks the Planning Board would need more information than it currently has to provide the proper comments. There are too many unanswered questions. She said that there have been problems with the flying field in its current location. There will likely be more problems now that the new condominium units at Half Moon Bay are being built. The new (proposed) location for the flying field would be at the far side of the old Croton
Landfill. Apparently, the runway would be on top of the dome of the landfill where, at the present time, a bird habitat is located. She expressed her concern about the impact on this bird habitat. Chairman Gallelli stated that some people have expressed concern that the flying field would be too close to the ball field. She noted that ultimately, the decision about relocating the flying field is up to the County and not the Village.
Mr. Brumleve stated that he could not read from the diagram/map exactly where the perimeter of the overfly area is; but, the approach and takeoff path for the model airplanes is directly over the campgrounds. The flight path of the airplanes has changed, and the new runway would be on a North/South axis. Mr. Brumleve expressed concern about takeoffs and landings taking place directly over the campgrounds. It raises serious safety issues.
Besides safety, Mr. Brumleve had other questions/concerns. He was concerned about disrupting the wildlife habitats. There is no access route over the dome of the landfill. He would want to know what the scope of improvements would have to be, e.g., gravel driveway, picnic tables, etc. He would want to know more about the traffic that would be generated by the flying field. Mr. Brumleve asked if the members of the Miniature Aircraft Association of Westchester (MAAW) would have to pay to enter the park. In order to reach the new site, they would have to pass the gatehouse to the park. In the old location, they did not have to pay.
Mr. Brumleve suggested, and the other Board members agreed, that the Planning Board should write a letter to the Village Board in opposition to the new flying field location. Mr. Brumleve stated that he thinks it would have a negative impact on the public who use the park, and it would detract from any assets to the community at large.
The Village Engineer noted to the Board members that this proposal would have to go through the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process.
Chairman Gallelli mentioned again that, at the Village Board meeting last night, some people expressed concern that the relocated runway would affect the playing fields.
Ms. Allen suggested that the letter to the Village Board could say that the Planning Board feels that the proposed model airplane flying site is an inappropriate use of this public park.
Chairman Gallelli told the others that she would write a letter to the Village Board expressing the Planning Board’s opposition to the new location for the flying field and include in the letter the Board members’ concerns/questions raised tonight.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, June 3, 2003 Planning Board meeting was adjourned until the next meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:40 P.M.