VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2003:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chair
ABSENT: Andrew Zelman
ALSO PRESENT: Trustee Georgianna Grant
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.
Chairman Gallelli welcomed Trustee Georgianna Grant to the Planning Board meeting.
111 Grand Street Corp. (Amy Cotton) – (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 26) – Site Plan Approval (Awning) – Preliminary Discussion, continued
Amy Cotton, owner of the property at 111 Grand Street, was present.
Chairman Gallelli stated that Ms. Cotton was before the Planning Board one month ago with a proposal for an awning. The Planning Board members thought at the time that the awning being proposed might not be wide enough to serve its intended purpose of reducing Ms. Cotton’s exposure to the sunlight. Chairman Gallelli stated that Ms. Cotton has come back tonight with a new proposal.
Ms. Cotton stated that the awning now being proposed would be mounted one foot above the garage door opening and would extend out 8’.
Chairman Gallelli asked if the Planning Board had any comments on this application. Mr. Brumleve asked if there is a restriction in the code on how far an awning can protrude out onto a sidewalk. The Village Engineer stated that the Village Code has no restriction on the projected dimension and an awning has to be 6 ?’ above the sidewalk. The 6 ?’ clearance would need to be retained. (7’ is the required New York State Building Code minimum.)
Mr. Brumleve wondered if the 6” face of the awning would be sufficient for graphics, to which Ms. Cotton stated that she does not plan to have any graphics on the face of the awning.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the 7’ dimension on the Applicant’s drawing was measured at the face of the building or out at the curb. He said that the 7’ dimension should apply at the face of the building as opposed to out at the street. Ms. Cotton told Mr. Brumleve that the sign company she hired to mount the awning is going to mount it 1’ above the garage, to which Mr. Brumleve said that this should then work out okay.
Ms. Cotton told the Planning Board members that she has been before the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB) for this application. The VEB expressed some concern about the awning extending out 8’. The VEB members were concerned about pedestrians walking on the sidewalk in front of her shop. The sidewalk is 13’ wide from the garage door out to the street. The awning would protrude 8’ out from the garage door. Part of the sidewalk in front of the garage door slants down toward the street. The VEB members were concerned that if the awning comes out 8’and part of the sidewalk slants downward, pedestrians might feel “squeezed out” onto the street. Mr. Brumleve asked Ms. Cotton how far out, toward the curb, she places her merchandise, to which Ms. Cotton responded that since
she has owned this business, there have never been any accidents in the front of her store. Children riding bicycles go by her shop all the time and do not seem to have a problem getting around her display of merchandise.
Ms. Cotton asked the Planning Board members if the 8’ extension now being proposed for the awning would be too much.
Chairman Gallelli wanted to know if this particular arrangement for extending the awning outward could be changed/adjusted. For example, if it were deemed necessary, could the awning extend outward 7’ instead of 8’. Ms. Cotton stated that the awning itself measures 10’, and the sign company was going to set it up so that it would come out 8’. She thought that it probably could be adjusted.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board could go ahead and schedule the public hearing on this application for the meeting of Tuesday, September 9th. By that time, the Planning Board will have had an opportunity to review the minutes from the VEB meeting. Chairman Gallelli noted that, according to what Ms. Cotton is saying, the awning could be adjusted as to how far it rolls out.
Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any other comments on this application, to which there were none.
The public hearing on this application was scheduled for Tuesday, September 9th.
Ms. Allen noted that she would be unable to attend the Planning Board meeting of the 9th.
Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano) – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Discussion, continued
Adam Arici, Pamela Leigh and Ender Ozgur from the Zeytuna gourmet market and Sam Villagomez from Van Wyck Associates, were present for this application.
Thomas Burniston, residing at 7A Wells Avenue, was present.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that the interested members of the audience could come forward to look at the plan being proposed.
Mr. Arici from Zeytuna stated that the market would offer fresh vegetables and fruits, olive oils and other gourmet foods.
Mr. Arici stated that the outdoor garbage container for the market is a refrigerated walk-in box with a closed door that stores the garbage at a temperature of 40 degrees F. The garbage is picked up six days a week. He noted that their grocery store in Long Island has a similar arrangement for garbage i.e., a cooler inside a walk-in box.
Chairman Gallelli referred to the Applicant’s plan and asked where the garbage container would be located. Mr. Arici pointed to the area in the back of the building where it would be located. He noted that the garbage would be picked up in the evening.
Chairman Gallelli noted that Mark Giordano, owner of the property, is not present at the meeting tonight. She stated that Mr. Giordano would need to provide the Planning Board with an amended site plan that shows the location of the garbage container and the awning over it. This amended site plan should also show the lighting being proposed.
Mr. Arici stated that he would like to put up a sign with the lettering “Zeytuna Gourmet Market” in the entranceway to the shopping center. The Village Engineer asked if there were any signs there now, to which Mr. Arici said that there were not. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Arici that the sign ordinance would allow him to have one freestanding sign. Mr. Arici said that he would like the sign to be 6’ x 4’. Chairman Gallelli suggested to the Applicant that the sign company preparing the signage plan should review the Village’s Sign Ordinance. She noted to the Applicant that, should the Applicant need a variance for a sign, he would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is not in the Planning Board’s jurisdiction. Ms. Leigh wanted to know if, as an alternative to putting up
a separate sign for Zeytuna, it would be possible to have one freestanding sign that lists all of the businesses in the shopping center, to which Chairman Gallelli thought that this was a possibility. She reiterated that the consolidation of the names of businesses on one sign would definitely be an option.
Mr. Arici stated that he would like to put up an awning in the front of his store so that, if it rains, his customers would not get wet. The Village Engineer stated that, in order to put up an awning in the front, he would need to know the width of the sidewalk in the front of the store. Mr. Brumleve stated that this information would have to be indicated on the Applicant’s site plan along with the color of the awning, location, size, etc.
Mr. Arici stated that the fish being sold at the market would be displayed on ice. The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that food storage at the market is regularized by the Department of Agricultural Markets. Chairman Gallelli added that these are state and not local regulations.
Mr. Arici stated that the market would also have a salad bar.
Ms. Allen asked where the deliveries to the market would be. Ms. Leigh stated that bread deliveries would take place at the front of the store. However, most of the deliveries (grocery items, produce, etc.) would take place in the back. Mr. Brumleve noted to the Applicant that this particular shopping center suffers from a shortage of parking. He said that the Applicant should have a strategy for deliveries. For example, any deliveries to the grocery store should not take place when the parking lot is full.
Mr. Arici showed on the plan where the shopping carts for Zeytuna are going to be. Chairman Gallelli noted that the Planning Board has had previous discussions on taking out the existing corrals, the disposition of which should be shown on the Applicant’s site plan. Chairman Gallelli stated that the proposed location for the shopping carts for Zeytuna should also be shown on the plan. Mr. Brumleve added that the Applicant should have a strategy for getting abandoned shopping carts out of the parking lot.
Chairman Gallelli asked if the façade of the grocery store would still be a continuation of the same brick with a glass sliding door as the entrance, to which Mr. Villagomez said that this is what is still being proposed.
The Village Engineer asked if there would be any new construction in the back, to which Mr. Villagomez said that there would not be.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, in terms of the overall parking situation at the shopping center, she would like to suggest that the owner of the property, Mr. Giordano, look into the possibility of changing the arrangement for dropping off mail at the post office. She thought that this would seem to be a good opportunity for Mr. Giordano to work out another arrangement. Chairman Gallelli noted that people going to the post office are coming around in the wrong direction. She told the Applicant that, when the public hearing takes place on the proposal for the grocery store, this issue would probably come up.
Mr. Villagomez stated that, with respect to the current parking situation at the shopping center, he and Mr. Giordano met with the Village Manager last week. The time limits for parking at the shopping center are going to be changed. In areas where the parking limit is now 12 hours, the limit is going to be changed to 2 hours. Chairman Gallelli noted that, indeed, the Village is negotiating an agreement with Mr. Giordano for the Village to take over enforcement of the parking at the shopping center. The Village Board plans to introduce a local law, which would limit most of the parking to 2 hours. This part of the parking lot (the post office) would remain 30 minutes. There would be some parking spaces on the outside edge that would be limited to 20 minutes.
Mr. Villagomez stated that there is also a plan being proposed to provide employee parking along Riverside Avenue. He told those present that Mr. Giordano is in the process of preparing a list of the employees at the shopping center. Employee parking along Riverside Avenue would open up some additional parking spaces for people using the shopping center. Chairman Gallelli noted that this proposal for employee parking would have to come before the Village Board.
Chairman Gallelli asked the Planning Board members if they had any additional questions/concerns. Mr. Brumleve recalled that at a previous meeting on this application there was talk of having tables on the premises. He asked if dining was going to be available on the premises, to which Mr. Arici replied that, due to the limitations on parking at the shopping center, dining would not be available. He stated that he does plan to have bar stools inside for coffee.
Chairman Gallelli thought that, at this juncture, it would be useful to receive input from the public on this proposal. She suggested that the Planning Board could schedule the public hearing for the next meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 9, 2003.
Mr. Brumleve stated that, for the public hearing, the Applicant should supply additional information including the location and pick-up times for garbage, times and locations for deliveries to the market, and the signage and lighting plan(s) being proposed.
Ms. Allen stated that, with respect to the lighting, the Planning Board would be concerned about off-site glare. The Planning Board would not want the lighting to leave the premises.
Ms. Allen stated that she would want to be sure that the owner of the property, Mark Giordano, could be present at the public hearing.
Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Arici what the hours of operation would be, to which Mr. Arici replied that the store would be open between 7:00 am and 10:00 or 11:00 pm. He might stay open until midnight on Fridays or Saturdays. He noted that the store would be open on holidays as well.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, with the two-hour parking limitations now being proposed, there is going to be new parking signs put up in the parking lot. The Planning Board would like to see where the signs are going to be located and what they are going to look like.
Mr. Villagomez told the Board members that the Applicant wants to be open for business before the holidays.
Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that, for the public hearing, some of the issues of importance would be the garbage situation, deliveries to the market and noise. Parking may also be an issue. She thought that the problem with the parking for post office drop-off would certainly be raised.
Chairman Gallelli said that she believes that Trustee Wiegman has provided the owner of the grocery store with a list of all the media outlets in the area. She noted to the Applicant that there is (also) a local cablevision network.
A discussion ensued on a date for the public hearing. Ms. Leigh expressed some concern that the Applicant’s architect might not have enough time to prepare the plans for the meeting of the 9th. After some discussion, it was decided that the public hearing would take place on Tuesday, September 23rd.
The Village Engineer reminded the Applicant that, for the Building Permit application, the Applicant would need to provide more detailed plans of the interior renovation including the plumbing work, electrical work, etc.
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
Timothy Cronin of Cronin Engineering, Galena Feit, owner of the property, and Bob Phelan were present for this application.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board has already had a few opportunities in the past to discuss this subdivision application. There was also a meeting held on July 15th with Tim Cronin, Galena Feit, Tony Conetta of Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, Fran Allen, Ms. Gallelli and some members of the Village staff to discuss the drainage issues.
Mr. Cronin stated that the Applicant’s plans were revised based on the comments from the meeting on July 15th and the review memorandum, dated July 2003, prepared by the Village Engineer. The lot layout had to be reconfigured to meet the standards of the Village’s Steep Slopes Ordinance. Mr. Cronin stated that the Village Engineer’s memorandum suggested that the Applicant should look into the possibility of connecting to the Village’s sewer line. He thought that the Applicant would still have to go with pump systems but to simplify the matter of connecting to the Village’s sewer line, manholes would be proposed so that there would be no force line in the Village’s right-of-way.
Mr. Cronin stated that the subject property is located in the middle of the Village’s basin #9, which is the High Street basin. The property is part of a primary conveyance system for water to drain from the golf course area to the Hudson River. Mr. Cronin pointed out that there has been litigation recently brought forth by some Village residents due to the flooding that has occurred downstream. He expressed concern that if the Applicant were asked to design a drainage system, this system would undoubtedly fail due to the inadequate size of the downstream drainage structure(s). Mr. Cronin stated that he would not want to design a detention pond that has failure “built into it.” Mr. Cronin stated that the Applicant would be willing to allow the Village and its consultant(s) to design and build
a basin, of modest size, on the Applicant’s property. The Applicant would be willing to cooperate with the Village in this regard in order to move the subdivision project forward. Mr. Cronin noted to the Planning Board that he could design seepage pits to accommodate the increase in runoff created by the subdivision; however, this would not solve the Village’s overall drainage problem.
Chairman Gallelli stated that part of Dvirka and Bartilucci’s study for this particular drainage system #9 offered some options for solving the drainage problem. Both upstream and downstream options were considered. Any of the options being considered would involve some work that would have to be done on the Applicant’s property. Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that she has taken the liberty of placing this item on the Village Board’s next work session agenda. The meeting will take place on Monday, September 8th. The Applicant could take this opportunity to discuss their concerns/needs with the Village Board. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Board could, then, decide whether it wants to undertake the design of a drainage system for the Applicant’s piece of
property and the Mt. Green property, respectively. Mr. Phelan stated that he thought this solution seemed like a reasonable one.
Mr. Cronin stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Conetta of Dvirka and Bartilucci would actually design the drainage system. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Cronin that if the Village does engage Mr. Conetta to do the design work, then, the Village would seek the cooperation of the Applicant to do the construction of the drainage system.
Mr. Cronin pointed out to the Board members that if this primary drainage system for the Village were not running through the Applicant’s property, the Applicant would not have to address these larger drainage issues. The Applicant would only have to address the runoff created by the subdivision. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Cronin that the Applicant’s concerns about the drainage/design should be raised at the Village Board’s work session on September 8th. The Planning Board cannot address these matters since the Village Board must make the decision to proceed with the design of a solution. Chairman Gallelli stated that, ultimately, the Village Board would probably request a design from Dvirka and Bartilucci, which would have to meet the requirements outlined in their (Dvirka and
Bartilucci’s) previous study. Chairman Gallelli reiterated that the Village would be seeking the Applicant’s help to construct the drainage system.
Mr. Cronin stated that the Applicant and the Water Control Commission (WCC) met at the site in June of last year. The WCC told the Applicant at that time that they were waiting for a report from Mr. Conetta, which arrived in the spring of 2003. Mr. Cronin expressed concern about the time involved for Dvirka and Bartilucci to do the design work for the drainage system. He thought that it could take four to six months. He was concerned that if the Village goes forward with this project, it may take up to two years to complete. Chairman Gallelli said that it is her understanding that, if a design were to be created for the whole drainage system, it would be clear from the design what would be required to complete each individual part. She thought that the part of the drainage system, which
pertains to the Feit property, could be completed without the whole system having to be completed.
Mr. Phelan wanted to know if the Applicant’s subdivision application would be held up if the Applicant does not move forward with the Village Board on this matter concerning the drainage. Chairman Gallelli said that she did not know. She stated that the Planning Board would have to consider the Applicant’s proposal(s) to see if it would be possible to move along. She reiterated that the first step in this process should be to get together with the Village Board to discuss these drainage matters. She asked if the Applicant would agree to attend the Village Board work session on September 8th, to which the Applicant agreed. Chairman Gallelli asked if she could send the Applicant’s plan to Tony Conetta for review, to which the Applicant said that she could. Chairman Gallelli suggested
that the Applicant should arrive at the Village Board work session around 8:00 pm on the evening of the 8th.
Chairman Gallelli stated that there were other issues besides the drainage that she wanted to address tonight. She referred to the Applicant’s revised plan and stated that she does not think the house on Lot #3 has been moved further away from High Street, to which Mr. Brumleve replied that the house has been moved further away. “They are about 15’ off the property.” Mr. Cronin stated that, to keep the house further away from High Street, he could move the house to an area closer to the wetland area(s). He noted to the Board members that the Applicant appeared before the WCC in June of last year. Ms. Allen told Mr. Cronin that the plan now being presented is different from the one the WCC saw last year. The Applicant would have to go back to the WCC with the latest (new) plan.
Chairman Gallelli noted that virtually all the yards on these subdivision lots are in the wetlands setback areas. A potential homeowner would need a Wetlands Permit to put in a swimming pool, tennis court, etc. Chairman Gallelli pointed out that, even to fertilize a lawn, a homeowner would need to obtain a Wetlands Permit. She stated that she would like to see the wetland limit lines delineated in some way so that a potential homeowner would be aware of the existence of wetlands in the area. Perhaps, a row of trees or a rock ledge could be installed. Ms. Feit suggested that some form of landscaping could be put in to delineate the wetland areas. Mr. Klein noted that the problem with delineating the wetlands in this way is, “You are relying on somebody knowing what those markers mean.” Mr. Phelan suggested as a solution putting in plantings and/or a split rail fence.
The Village Engineer stated that he would recommend that the property lines on Lots #2 and #3 be revised slightly to increase the amount of buffer on each lot in the steep slope area calculations.
Chairman Gallelli recalled that on the site visit to the Feit property, one of the items discussed was putting in or increasing the curbing along Old Post Road North.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the dialogue, which is taking place on a proposed drainage system/design, still includes the detention pond on the other side of the road from the Feit property. The Village Engineer told Mr. Brumleve that, with respect to the detention pond across the street, the next step would be to do a feasibility study.
Ms. Allen had a question about the construction access that runs through the middle of the property and goes into Lot #3, to which Mr. Cronin noted that the access route to which Ms. Allen is referring is actually a sewer easement. Ms. Allen wanted to know if there was any way of moving this sewer easement a little bit further north into Lot #2 so as to avoid having to cut through a great number of trees. Mr. Cronin noted that some of the trees have fallen down over the past year. Perhaps, some of these trees are no longer standing. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant should do a walk-through, and if there are trees that have been destroyed, these trees should be taken off of the Applicant’s plan. He reiterated that the tree survey should be updated. Ms. Allen asked again if it
would be possible to move this sewer easement to save some additional trees. Mr. Cronin suggested that, perhaps, this easement could be moved slightly. Mr. Brumleve said that, with respect to the tree cutting in this area, the issue is more a matter of seeing a mass of trees gone.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the Applicant’s most recently submitted plan is a significant improvement over what the Planning Board saw at the July meeting.
Mr. Klein asked what the cut and fill balance is going to be, to which Mr. Cronin replied that he has not yet analyzed the amount of fill that would be needed. Mr. Klein thought that, for this subdivision project, the Applicant would be looking at a lot of fill. Ms. Feit pointed out that a great deal of soil would be required to excavate the detention pond. The Village Engineer suggested that Mr. Cronin could look at the possibility of using retaining walls to limit the amount of fill.
Ms. Allen asked if there would be a way to keep Lot #2, as is, and still make some arrangement to provide an environmental/open space. Mr. Cronin referred to the Applicant’s plan and stated that the area to which Ms. Allen is referring is an area with significant slopes. Mr. Cronin pointed out that the proposed house is situated where it is because of the steep slopes and because the house on this lot (Lot #2) is restricted by the wetlands buffer and the road. There are very few flat areas for the placement of a house. He would really prefer not to make any changes on Lot #2. Chairman Gallelli stated that she did not think it would serve much of a purpose to create an open space in the area in question because there would be no accessibility to it.
Chairman Gallelli referred to Lot #3 on the Applicant’s plan and stated that, on the sewer easement at the north end, a slight uphill grade has been created to bring it (the sewer line) up to meet the street. She told Mr. Cronin that the Village Engineer had a suggestion regarding this sewer line. The Village Engineer explained to Mr. Cronin that the Village would not want a force main up to the gravity line. One option for Lot #3 would be to put a shallow pipe in the street. Mr. Cronin asked if a manhole would be put between the road and the sidewalk, to which the Village Engineer replied that the manhole could be put over the sewer line or in the street right-of-way. Mr. Cronin agreed to amend the Applicant’s plan(s) accordingly.
The Village Engineer stated that, if the manhole is in the street, the sewer line for Lot #2 could be brought down to the same cut so that there would be two force mains into that one manhole. Mr. Cronin stated that there could be three elbows in that manhole for each of the three subdivision lots.
Mr. Brumleve noted that, in the past, the Planning Board has seen applications for swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. on subdivision lots where these proposed accessory structures go beyond the building limit lines and/or disturbance lines. Homeowners on these properties have had to come before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval. Mr. Brumleve stated that if he were a potential homeowner purchasing a house on Lots #1 or #2, he would want to know, in advance, that he could put play equipment in his yard for his children. He expressed concern that homeowners living in these houses would end up having to come back before the Planning Board. He suggested that perhaps a way of handling the matter of disturbance/building limits would be to make note of these restrictions in the property
title (deeds). The Village Engineer suggested that, perhaps, a generic yard area could be designed.
Mr. Brumleve said that he applauds the Applicant’s efforts to simplify the driveway grading on the two lots on Prospect Street. He also applauds moving the sewer lines to avoid cutting trees, as discussed earlier.
Mr. Klein referred to the Applicant’s Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). He noted that an archeological study would need to be prepared and submitted. He referred to item #12 on page 4 of the FEAF and noted that the Applicant has answered “no” to this question. He told the Applicant that, in order to provide a “yes” or “no” answer to item #12 an archeological study would have to be prepared. Mr. Cronin noted to Mr. Klein that the FEAF document, which was submitted to the Planning Board, was prepared last year by the Applicant’s wetlands consultant, Stephen Gross. The Applicant is now in the process of undertaking a Phase 1A Study for this property. The Applicant has not retained an environmental consultant yet. Mr. Klein stated that it is not just a question of the archeological
study; the Applicant’s property is across the street from a group of structures that are listed on the State Building Structures Inventory. Mr. Klein stated that he would want the siting of these buildings addressed i.e., anything that would change the view along the street. The Planning Board would want this view to remain as near as possible to what it is now.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the Applicant might want to verify that the name given to this subdivision, “Hudson View Estates,” is not in use already.
Ms. Allen pointed out that the FEAF has been written as if there are four homes being built rather than 3, to which Mr. Cronin stated that the FEAF document would be revised accordingly.
Chairman Gallelli summarized the status of this application stating that, as it stands now, the Applicant would attend the Village Board work session on September 8th. Based on what transpires at the work session, the Applicant would determine when they are ready to come back before the Planning Board.
The Village Engineer noted to Mr. Cronin that an access easement to the detention pond area is needed. Mr. Cronin told the Village Engineer that, if the Village Board decides to undertake this particular design for the drainage system (a detention pond), a driveway exists there already.
The Applicant stated that they would be present at the Village Board work session on September 8th.
A discussion ensued among the members on the upcoming Planning Board meetings. Chairman Gallelli noted that the public hearing for Ms. Cotton’s awning would take place at the Planning Board meeting on September 9th. The public hearing for Zeytuna is scheduled for September 23rd. Chairman Gallelli noted that she would not be able to attend the meeting of the 23rd. It was decided that, in Chairman Gallelli’s absence, Mr. Brumleve would chair the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Brumleve noted that he was fairly certain that he would not be able to attend the meeting of September 9th.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would not be able to meet the first Tuesday of October because the Village Board is meeting that night. She suggested that the Planning Board could meet on October 14th. Mr. Brumleve stated that he would be unable to attend the meeting on that night. The Planning Board decided to hold off on making a decision on the October meeting date.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, on September 9th, Shop Rite is coming before the Planning Board with their sign application. Hudson National Golf Club would be coming before the Board for a preliminary discussion on a practice hole at their Finney Farm property. Chairman Gallelli stated that the golf club is proposing to put in a practice hole that would have aspects of a driving range but would look like an actual hole. The area that is now the practice range would revert back to meadow. She assumed that some of the items that the Planning Board would be discussing would be the drainage areas, wetlands, etc.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Chairman Gallelli and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Planning Board member, Joel Klein, abstained.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:40 P.M.