VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran Allen
ABSENT: Ann Gallelli, Chair
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Ted Brumleve acting as chairperson in Ann Gallelli’s absence.
Croton Enterprises, LLC (C/o Juster Development Co.) – 440-460 South Riverside Avenue – (Sec. 79.17 Blk. 2 Lot 2) – Application for an Amended Site Plan (Signage) for Shop Rite Supermarket
Sharlene DiNunzio from Lewis Sign Company was present to represent the Applicant. Ms. DiNunzio told the Board members that, late this afternoon, Shop Rite decided to make a change to its original application. In the original submission the circular logo was to be relocated onto the grid over the entranceway. Shop Rite has decided to leave it where it is. Ms. DiNunzio distributed to the Board members a revised rendering showing this change.
Ms. DiNunzio stated that the colors of the Shop Rite façade would be “cream linen” for the grid over the entranceway and “cobblestone” brown for the remainder of the facade.
Ms. DiNunzio stated that the electrical wiring for the logo sign, discussed at the last meeting, would no longer be an issue because the logo sign is not being relocated.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the script letters for the new Shop Rite sign are slightly smaller than the block letters of the existing sign. Ms. DiNunzio stated that, indeed the new sign is smaller. The present sign is 6’ x 38’ whereas the new sign would be 6’ x 30’.
Mr. Brumleve noted that, as part of its last Amended Site Plan application before the Planning Board, Shop Rite was going to modify the lighting under the canopy at the front of the store. He wanted to know if the modification to the lighting had been completed, to which Ms. DiNunzio said that she did not know. Mr. Brumleve asked Ms. DiNunzio if she could look into this matter and let the Planning Board Secretary know, to which Ms. DiNunzio said that she would.
Mr. Brumleve opened the public hearing on this application. He asked if there were any comments from the public, to which there were none. Mr. Brumleve closed the public hearing.
Mr. Brumleve asked if there were any further comments from the Board members. Ms. Allen referred to the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB) in which this application was discussed. The minutes state that the illustrations and other application materials submitted were inadequate for the VEB to properly assess this application. Ms. DiNunzio stated that she was present at the VEB meeting. She thought that the only problem the VEB had was with the electrical wiring for the logo sign. There was a question/concern about running the wiring through the grid. The VEB did not want the wiring to be visible. Ms. DiNunzio pointed out that the electrical wiring is no longer an issue now that the logo sign is staying where it is and not being relocated to the
grid. She added that the VEB did not seem to have a problem with the actual signs being proposed. Ms. Allen noted that, in the minutes of the meeting, the VEB also requested additional information including a true-to-scale elevation drawing.
Mr. Brumleve asked the Board members if there were any further comments, to which there were none.
Mr. Brumleve entertained a motion to approve this Amended Site Plan (signage) application. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano) – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval
Mark Giordano, owner of the property, was present.
Mr. Giordano told the Planning Board members that he brought with him tonight a revised set of drawings with some minor changes to the drawings submitted for tonight’s meeting. He distributed the new drawings to the Board members. Mr. Giordano stated that the only change is the location of the entrance door. The location of the door and the pane of glass next to it have been reversed. Mr. Giordano referred to the blow-up drawing of the inside corner where the proposed entrance door would be located. He said that he plans to extend the front wall of the existing CVS and keep the existing vacant “spot” for the new entranceway. The glass that exists there now would remain.
Mr. Giordano told those present about the recent changes to the parking limits at the shopping center. There would no longer be twelve-hour parking. The middle section of the shopping center, which consists of three groups of parking stalls, would be two-hour parking. Along Route 129, there would be twenty stalls, by permit only, for employees of the shopping center. Also, there would be thirty-minute parking in front of the Black Cow, Percio’s Cleaners and the Wachovia Bank. The parking at the shopping center is now going to be enforced by the Village. Mr. Giordano referred to the map and stated that “A” on the map is the two-hour parking; “B” is permit parking and “C” is the thirty-minute parking. He told those present that six more parking spaces are
being introduced at the entranceway on the northwest corner.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the parking limits for “A,” “B” and “C” on the Applicant’s plan are incorrectly annotated. Mr. Giordano stated that he would make the corrections on the plan.
Mr. Giordano stated that a separate application for signage would be submitted to the Planning Board subsequent to this meeting.
Mr. Giordano stated that, with respect to the handling of garbage at the grocery store, the Applicant is going to use a self-contained refrigerated walk-in box with a canopy over it. The dimensions of the walk-in box are 8’ x 10’ x 8’. Mr. Giordano noted that this is the way this grocer handles the garbage at his stores in New York City.
Mr. Giordano stated that the compressors for refrigeration are going to be located inside the store. He noted that the cooling tower that supports these compressor units does not make any noise.
Ms. Allen asked Mr. Giordano to explain what the cooling tower is. Mr. Giordano stated that the cooling tower helps to support the compressor units. It is like a radiator. The dimensions of the tower would be 3’ x 3’ x 6’.
Mr. Brumleve wondered if there would be some way to identify what the noise factor might be compared to other stores where these refrigeration units are located on the outside. Mr. Klein thought that the manufacturer should know what the decibel rating would be, to which Mr. Giordano replied that he would look into this matter.
Mr. Giordano referred to a plan showing the interior layout of the store. He asked the store manager, Mr. Ender Ozgur, if he would like to describe the interior layout. Mr. Ozgur pointed out the different sections of the store including the prepared foods, dairy and produce sections. He noted that the fish and the salads (salad bar) would be displayed on ice. Mr. Ozgur stated that the only seating area at the store would be 10 to 12 chairs (high chairs) at the bar/counter, which would be located by the window right next to CVS.
Mr. Ozgur stated that most of the deliveries for the grocery store would take place in the back. A few deliveries might take place at the front of the store e.g., bread and pastries. Mr. Klein asked how many deliveries he would anticipate would take place every week, to which Mr. Ozgur replied that deliveries of fresh produce would take place every day, as would meat and fish deliveries.
Joann Minett of 5 Van Cortlandt Place was present. She stated that she would not want delivery trucks coming to the back of the store before 7:00 A.M.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the doors being used to take in deliveries at the back are the existing doors, to which Mr. Giordano said that they are.
Ms. Minett wanted to know if there would be truck deliveries on Saturdays and Sundays, to which Mr. Ozgur stated that there would only be small deliveries on those days.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the driveway for the delivery trucks is not being reconfigured. Also, the lighting in the back of the store would stay the same.
Mr. Brumleve wanted to know how often the refrigerator for garbage would be emptied, to which Mr. Ozgur said that it would be emptied every day.
Mr. Ozgur stated that the trucks for deliveries to the grocery store are small – no tractor-trailers.
Mr. Brumleve noted to Mr. Ozgur that this shopping center has a traffic circulation problem in the front; so, the Planning Board would want to make sure that deliveries to the store would not interfere with the flow of traffic. Mr. Klein noted that when these deliveries to the grocery store take place (i.e., in the early morning hours), there would be no traffic.
Mr. Giordano distributed to the Board members some photographs of the interior of one of the stores in the City to show what the food display(s) would look like.
Mr. Klein stated that he appreciates Mr. Giordano’s attempt to add more parking spaces to the shopping center; however, he sees a problem with people backing out of the parking spaces proposed at the northeast driveway. He also sees a problem with delivery trucks entering the back area when these spaces are filled.
Ms. Allen stated that, having looked at the plan, it appears that the two handicap parking spaces at the bank and the dry cleaners, respectively, have been eliminated. Mr. Giordano told Ms. Allen that the Applicant’s plan would be amended to show these two handicap spaces.
Mr. Giordano noted that two additional parking spaces have been added in the area where the parking lot shopping cart corrals used to be.
Mr. Giordano stated that he has asked for the help of the Village Board in policing the parking lot at the shopping center. Also, the Village Board is going to determine where employees of the shopping center would park along Municipal Place and South Riverside Avenue. There are 40 to 50 cars belonging to employees. The Village is going to issue permits to the store managers to give to their employees.
Mr. Klein asked Mr. Giordano if the plan for the parking indicates what is being proposed or what exists there now. He noted that in parking area “C,” the stalls are 8 ?’ wide, and one of these spaces is a handicap parking space. There is also a handicap parking space that should have been indicated in front of the Black Cow. Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Giordano that he needs to discuss the parking situation with his engineer. The plan should show, with a higher degree of accuracy, what exists and what is being proposed. Mr. Brumleve added that the revised plan should also show the pylon sign being proposed.
Ms. Allen stated that she would like to see on the revised plan what currently exists. She would also like to know what the requirements are for handicap parking. There is no indication on the present plan of what these requirements are.
Mr. Brumleve stated that, in his view, the six spaces being proposed at the entrance off Route 129 to the Black Cow would create a dangerous parking situation. Maneuverability of cars and trucks in this area would be difficult, if not impossible. He added that the aisle width for these parking spaces would not be sufficient. Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Giordano that his civil engineer needs to come back with a code-compliant plan for the parking.
Ms. Allen asked where the gate by the Black Cow is, to which Mr. Giordano replied that the existing gate would remain and is (also) missing from the plan.
Mr. Burniston stated that the Applicant’s plan shows parking spaces situated behind the Post Office. He thought that these spaces belonged to the Post Office for their delivery trucks, to which Mr. Giordano said that this is true. The whole area is designated for the Post Office; however, the Post Office does not use all of it. Mr. Burniston asked if Mr. Giordano would be changing where the Post Office drop-off is located. Mr. Giordano said that he heard that this matter was brought up at the meeting that he missed. Unfortunately, there appears to be no other area that would accommodate the drop-off. The box needs to be centrally located so that it does not interfere with on-going traffic. He would continue to look into this matter.
Mr. Klein asked what the new tenant’s hours of operation would be, to which Mr. Ozgur stated that the store would probably open at 6:30 A.M. and close at 9:30 P.M. He might stay open later (11:00 P.M.) on Friday nights and on Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Klein wondered how truck deliveries to the market would be held off until 7:00 A.M., if the store were to open at 6:30 A.M. He did not see a problem with deliveries at 6:30 A.M. at the front of the store; however, anything before 7:00 A.M. in the back would be a problem. Mr. Burniston asked how many deliveries would take place on an average day, to which Mr. Ozgur said eight deliveries. Mr. Ozgur stated that, with respect to garbage, the daily pick-up would either take place in the evening before 9:00 P.M. or in the morning between 7:00
A.M. and 9:00 A.M. The pick-up at most of their stores takes place at 9:00 P.M.
The Village Engineer asked how the gate in the back has been operating. Mr. Giordano stated that he has employees who police the gate. One of their duties is to make sure that this gate is closed. The gate has a lock on it. The Village Engineer asked if there was a sign on the gate pertaining to delivery times, to which Mr. Giordano replied that he thinks there is a sign saying no deliveries before 7:00 A.M.
Mr. Klein asked if there has been any discussion with the bank about installing a pylon sign at the entrance to the shopping center, to which Mr. Giordano said that no discussion has taken place yet. Mr. Klein thought that, besides being included on this pylon sign, the grocery store would also want another sign on the front of its store. Mr. Brumleve recalled that signage for the gourmet market was discussed at the last meeting. The Planning Board members talked about the fact that an Amended Site Plan application had to include the signage.
Mr. Brumleve asked the store manager if he could insure that deliveries would not take place at the back of the building before 7:00 A.M., to which the Mr. Ozgur said that he could.
Mr. Brumleve stated that at the last meeting, the Applicant mentioned putting up an awning in the front, to which Mr. Giordano replied that they (the gourmet market) do not intend to put up an awning at this time.
Mr. Giordano stated that, with respect to employee parking, there is going to be a growing number of cars with the coming of this gourmet market. He and the Village Manager have discussed the parking situation. They concluded that the area in front, along Route 129, is “a given” for people who cannot walk too far. Mr. Burniston asked the store manager how many employees he would have, to which Mr. Ozgur said thirty to forty employees. Mr. Klein noted that this number would translate into the (same) number of cars. This is the type of information that the Planning Board needs to know. Mr. Klein said that it would also be important to know how many truck deliveries there would be to the site. The neighbors need to be able to make comparisons between deliveries to the
gourmet market and the old Grand Union store.
Mr. Brumleve opened the public hearing on this Amended Site Plan application.
Ms. Minett of 5 Van Cortlandt Place stated that the back of her house faces the area in the back of the grocery store where deliveries would take place. She noted that delivery trucks have a difficult time getting into the driveway. There are traffic tie-ups. This area is unwatched by anyone. The delivery trucks line up along the houses and take up space. Ms. Minett stated that she finally managed to get them (the trucks) to stop doing that.
Ms. Minett stated that, up until last week, there were garbage pick-ups in the back at 5:00 A.M. Now, it has stopped. Ms. Minett stated that her main concern is the garbage situation. Items such as meat and fish would have to be refrigerated. She expressed concern about odors caused by the garbage.
Ms. Minett stated that she would prefer a green grocer to this type of store. She would also prefer smaller stores for this area.
Ms. Minett stated that the gate to the back is supposed to be closed. There should be a sign saying that no one can enter the area until after 7:00 A.M. Ms. Minett stated that the big Grand Union trucks used to shake her house. As for refrigeration for this grocery store, she would want to make sure that these units are quiet. They cannot be “a hammer banging against metal.” Ms. Minett stated that 18-wheeler trucks should be prevented from making deliveries in the back.
Mr. Klein stated that he did not think there would be enough room for deliveries if parking spots were installed in the area by the Black Cow. He stated that garbage pick-ups for the grocery store could not take place before 7:00 A.M.
Mr. Burniston asked which of the lots shown on the map was Ms. Minett’s, to which Ms Minett said that she resides at Lot 8B.
Edith Scott of 33 Ridge Road was present. She stated that the back of her property borders on the shopping center parking. Mr. Giordano noted that the Scott’s property is just opposite the loading dock of the Post Office.
Ms. Scott stated that, as long as the parking at the shopping center is being changed, she would hope that all the lines would be repainted. She stated that fresh paint should be applied to the “No Parking” as well as the designated parking areas.
Ms. Scott stated that she remembers when the garbage disposal at the south end of the yard was put in. She recalled that Mr. Giordano had said at the time that the garbage could be camouflaged with plantings. Also, there would be a fence around it. Ms. Scott stated that this fence only comes up a little more than half way so that it does not completely hide the garbage. Ms. Scott stated that the gate is left open half the time. In no way is it hidden by plantings or by the gate, which was promised. The garbage leaks out of the container and smells badly when the wind blows.
Mr. Giordano noted that he has had other establishments in the Village, besides the stores that are located at the southerly shopping center, use the garbage compactor. He stated that there have been problems with people illegally dumping their garbage at both shopping centers. He has had the police do night watches. He is trying to get a handle on the problem. Mr. Brumleve stated that the Planning Board is aware of the problem. Ms. Scott reiterated to the Board members that Mr. Giordano claimed that the garbage would be camouflaged, and it is not.
Ruth Waitkins of 1 Wells Avenue was present. Ms. Waitkins stated that this shopping center, where the proposed gourmet market would be, is unique in that it is surrounded by residential areas. She said that she feels that previous Village planning boards made the mistake of not taking the residents into consideration. For example, the Planning Board did not take into consideration issues such as traffic, garbage, etc., when the Dunkin’ Donuts was put in. She said that her main concern with the gourmet market would be the garbage. It should not be allowed to accumulate. Ms. Waitkins stated that a lot of people thought that this store was going to be a mini-market selling produce. Instead, it is going to be a “glorified delicatessen.”
Ms. Waitkins thought that there should be restrictions on deliveries to the gourmet market. She thought that the proposed parking on the left hand side of the lot where the delivery trucks come in should not be allowed.
Ms. Waitkins stated that the Village garbage trucks pick up the garbage in front of the Black Cow. They already have trouble getting to the garbage containers. The newly proposed parking would exacerbate the problem.
Ms. Waitkins stated that the area in question is considered a gateway area. The Planning Board should take into careful consideration matters such as garbage, parking, traffic, etc.
Marc and Lauren Shenfield of 4 Hamilton Avenue were present. Ms. Shenfield asked if there was a reason why people in the Village do not know the name of this store. Mr. Brumleve told Ms. Shenfield that this gourmet market has a positive reputation in Manhattan in both residential and commercial areas. Mr. Ozgur told Ms. Shenfield that the name given to the stores in Manhattan is “Zeytuna.” In the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, the store would be called “Zeytinia.”
Ms. Minett stated that, if this store is opening up at 6:30 A.M. and closing at 9:30 P.M., it would mean a lot of activity in close proximity to her house early in the morning and late at night. She did not think that a store staying open after 9:00 P.M. was in keeping with the Village.
Marianna Ciraulo of 2 Wells Avenue was present. She expressed concern about the parking spaces being proposed on the left hand side of the driveway near the Black Cow. She thought that these parking spaces would create a dangerous parking situation. Ms. Ciraulo stated that, overall, the large trucks, such as the ones making deliveries now to CVS, should not be allowed in the back area. Previously, these large trucks were parking on Route 129, but they are not doing that any more. Ms. Ciraulo was concerned about the people who do not pull their cars straight into the parking spaces. She did not see how the Village could control how people park their cars. She noted that some people who take the train into Manhattan come early in the morning and leave their cars parked at the shopping
center all day long.
Ms. Minett stated that she was (also) concerned about the exhaust fumes from all these delivery trucks making deliveries to the back of the shopping center.
Mr. Brumleve stated that, as a result of the discussions that have taken place tonight, the public hearing would have to be adjourned until the next meeting. He told Mr. Giordano that his engineer would have to make the revisions to the site plan discussed tonight. A signage plan should be submitted. There are corrections to the parking that must be made on the plan(s). Mr. Brumleve stated that he thought that re-striping the parking lot could yield the required number of parking spaces and that Mr. Giordano’s civil engineer should look into this matter and make changes accordingly. Mr. Brumleve stated that the parking on the driveway at the northwest corner of the property near the Black Cow is of concern to the residents who live at Van Cortlandt Place. The Planning Board
members have also expressed serious concerns about parking in this area. Mr. Brumleve noted that the issue raised about the trucks making deliveries to CVS is not a part of this Amended Site Plan hearing, but should be looked into as a separate matter.
Mr. Brumleve said that it is his understanding that the residents of the Village would welcome having a gourmet market such as this one in the Village. From all that he has heard, the overall public sentiment is that this type of gourmet food store would be appropriate. He told the Applicant that the issue, raised tonight, is how to get it to properly fit into the neighboring community.
Mr. Klein asked the Applicant to provide the manufacturer’s specifications on the refrigeration units. The Planning Board would want to know if there were going to be an increase in the nighttime ambient noise levels at the property. Mr. Brumleve stated that the Board would want to know what kind of noise levels the neighbors could expect. Mr. Klein stated that the Planning Board would not want an increase in noise levels at the property lines.
Mr. Brumleve summarized the items required for the next meeting. The site plan needs to be corrected/updated. A signage application needs to be submitted. If an awning is being proposed, it should be shown on the plan. The gate to the back of the property should be shown. If there is any re-striping of the parking lot, this should be indicated. There should be a note on the plan indicating the hours of operation.
Ms. Allen expressed concern about the garbage issues raised earlier in the meeting. She noted, in particular, Ms. Scott’s concerns about the garbage. She said that these problems with the garbage are solvable and must be resolved. She did not want these issues about garbage to have to be raised again by any neighbor of the shopping center.
Ms. Waitkins stated that she thought there was a formula for the regulated number of handicap parking spaces. She wanted the Applicant to look into this. Also, if the gourmet market is going to have an eating place, there is a formula for parking spaces that has to be considered. Mr. Brumleve stated that there is, indeed, a code requirement for handicap parking and that when Mr. Giordano’s engineer corrects the site plan, he must provide the required number of parking spaces.
Mr. Giordano said that he realizes there has been a problem with the gate. Locking the gate has been unsuccessful. People climb over the gate or break the lock. Mr. Burniston noted that video cameras have been installed at the shopping center where the Blockbuster Video is located. He wondered how successful this had been in monitoring the damage that was being done. Mr. Giordano stated that, indeed, this area was being monitored. Now, the problem has stopped.
The public hearing on this application was continued to Tuesday, October 14th.
Hudson Valley Ventures – 35 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 5 Lot 61) – Application for an Amended Site Plan for the Croton Medical Building, Preliminary Discussion
Philip Cerniglia and Stephen Whelan of Cerniglia & Swartz Architects, and Michael Pascale, Director of Engineering for the Hudson Valley Hospital, were present for this application.
Mr. Cerniglia stated that the purpose of this application is to replace the current retaining wall at the Croton Medical Building. The existing wall, which is made of railroad ties, has deteriorated. The railroad tie wall would be replaced with a more permanent material. This application was before the Planning Board several months ago. There were additional parking spaces in the original plan. In the new proposal, the number of additional parking spaces has been scaled back. The proposal for the retaining wall would utilize a modular concrete material. The low part of the existing wall would be eliminated to create a total of eleven parking spaces in the back area.
Mr. Cerniglia stated that this proposal includes additional landscaping to “dress up” the site. Planting materials would be put at the top of the modular wall system to help stabilize the hill.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the TOW + 124 indicates “top of wall” above the existing pavement, to which Mr. Cerniglia said that it does.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the construction of the retaining wall and the excavation were the limits of this project. He wanted to know if the Applicant intends to do any other work in conjunction with the project e.g., drainage, sewer, electrical, etc., to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that no other work is being planned. A sewer line exists, which comes from the neighboring properties. There would be no way of knowing where this sewer pipe is until the digging begins. When the existing pipe is found, efforts would be made to maintain it.
Mr. Burniston asked if, in the new modular wall system, there was cement holding together the blocks of the wall, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that the blocks are pinned together. There is no cement between them.
Mr. Cerniglia stated that the drawings would call for sheet piling. This is part of the OSHA regulations. If the Planning Board would like to know the phasing of the construction project, he would ask the contractor to provide this information.
Mr. Klein wanted to know how the sheet piling was going to be installed, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that this would be left up to the contractor. Mr. Klein noted that if sheet piling were required, then, there would have to be restrictions on when this work could be done.
Mr. Brumleve noted to Mr. Cerniglia that, with respect to the parking, Mr. Cerniglia’s client, Croton Medical, is going to want to know when the parking in the back would be disrupted. They are going to want to know how many spaces would be unavailable to people coming to the medical building when the construction project is underway.
Mr. Burniston asked if the Applicant’s plan would need to indicate the drainage, to which the Village Engineer replied that the drainage is being shown on the current plan. The Village Engineer noted that the plan needs to show the storm drains and where the pipe would be.
Mr. Brumleve asked Mr. Cerniglia how he envisions the finished surface of the wall. Mr. Cerniglia stated that there are three different colors to choose from. He brought in a sample of the split-faced surface in a brown color, which the Applicant thought would be attractive.
Ms. Allen asked how wide a block (unit) of the retaining wall would be, to which Mr. Cerniglia responded that the dimensions are 16” x 12” x 30”. The top cap is 12” thick. Mr. Brumleve said that, if this is a “Versa-Lok” unit as shown in the submitted information, it would not be 30” deep.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the plan does not show a swale at the top of the wall. He thought that the Applicant’s plan should graphically represent what the “built” condition of this retaining wall and hillside would be. Mr. Brumleve stated that there should also be some method for the Planning Board to see the existing versus the proposed grading. Mr. Cerniglia stated that they do not propose to change the grading. As far as the swale is concerned, they are proposing to have a swale on top of the wall for runoff and the drawings would be revised to show it.
Ms. Allen asked what kind of plantings would be put on the top of the wall, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that a type of juniper that would help to stabilize the soil would be planted there. Mr. Brumleve noted that on the Applicant’s plan, plants are indicated at the base of the wall, to which Mr. Cerniglia stated that these plants are being put at the bottom of the wall to “dress it up.”
The Village Engineer asked if the boring locations are shown on the plan. Mr. Whelan replied that they are not, but he could do so.
The Village Engineer asked if the walls being proposed would be maintaining the same height, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that they would be. He added that the only difference is that there would not be a terraced area at the bottom. This area would be utilized for parking.
Mr. Klein stated that, with respect to the borings, he would want to see a copy of the logs. Mr. Cerniglia said that he could provide a copy of the logs to the Board members. He noted that the Village Engineer probably already has a copy.
Marc Shenfield stated that his house at 4 Hamilton Avenue is situated directly above this site. The sewer line that he shares with his neighbor, Carter Funeral Home, runs through this property. The sewer line dates back to the 1870’s. He and his neighbor have an easement to use the sewer line. Mr. Shenfield expressed concern about the impact on the sewer line during construction of the retaining wall and even after construction. He asked Mr. Cerniglia if he had personally been to the site and if he had seen the sewer pipe(s), to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that, indeed, he has observed the pipe(s) that lay on the ground above grade. Mr. Shenfield stated that the green plastic pipe to which he is referring is not indicated on the Applicant’s site plan, and it should be indicated.
He reiterated that it is imperative that the sewer line be shown on the Applicant’s plan. Mr. Shenfield stated that he is also concerned about what the Village intends to do to insure continuous service of this line during construction. The Village Engineer stated that it would be a requirement that sewer service be continued and not interrupted. If it were interrupted, it would be fixed as soon as possible using the most current technology.
Mr. Cerniglia asked if there was a provision in the Code stating that a fence has to be installed on top of a retaining wall. The Village Engineer stated that when this application was before the Planning Board last year, the Planning Board asked for a safety fence to be put on top of the wall. Mr. Shenfield added that there is nothing on top of the wall now to stop someone from falling into the parking lot.
Mr. Shenfield said that he has heard that excavation would take place 10’ behind the current wall. There is a large tree near the exposed portion of the sewer line. He expressed concern that the excavation being proposed would come perilously close to that tree. The tree is fully mature and would probably have to come down.
Mr. Shenfield said that he was shocked to hear that it would be left up to the contractor to protect the hillside. He would want to have more (specific) information on how this hillside is going to be protected. Mr. Klein stated that if, indeed, a contractor has been selected, then, the Applicant should be able to provide this more specific information.
Mr. Brumleve stated that a performance bond should be required of (from) the contractor. The contractor would be linked to actions uphill as a result of work performed on this site. Mr. Burniston added that the Village has its own obligations as part of this site plan request. He agreed that more specific information on protecting the hillside should be supplied by the contractor, and a performance bond should be required. Mr. Cerniglia did not understand why a performance bond would be required. He said that, “We have spelled out what has to be done.” Mr. Klein told Mr. Cerniglia that it is written in the Village Code that the Planning Board is required to insure the safety of Village residents. A performance bond would allow the Village to intervene immediately and
repair and/or eliminate a potentially hazardous situation.
Mr. Pascale noted that the biggest breach in the existing retaining wall is where the effluent runs down. It is repaired right now (i.e., the sewer line has been repaired). Mr. Pascale stated that the Applicant (the hospital) just wants to get the wall fixed, and they obviously want to have the job done properly. He noted to those present that the retaining wall is very expensive to build; however, they have managed to get the price down so that it is somewhat more affordable.
Lauren Shenfield of 4 Hamilton Avenue pointed out that this is the third incidence of absentee ownership in this area. She was concerned that when problems arise, no one is there to witness the problem and take care of it.
Mr. Brumleve summarized some of the items required for the next meeting. The sewer line should be located. A proposal for a safety fence should be provided. More specific information on how the hillside would be protected should be submitted. The Planning Board needs to have more information on the phasing of the construction. Finally, more information is required on the parking strategy during construction.
Mr. Brumleve noted that he is familiar with the modular wall system being proposed and he believes it is an excellent system.
Mr. Klein thought that it might be helpful to have one more preliminary discussion on this application before the public hearing is scheduled. There was considerable information requested tonight. He would like to have an opportunity to review the Applicant’s revised plan before the public hearing. Mr. Cerniglia hoped that the public hearing could be scheduled for the next meeting. He expressed concern about the timing. He said that this Applicant wants to start construction of the wall before winter sets in, and he would not want to delay the process any further. Mr. Klein asked how quickly Mr. Cerniglia could get the information together, to which Mr. Cerniglia said one week. Ms. Allen stated that she would also like to receive a report on this application from the Village
The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing on this application for Tuesday, October 14th.
The Village Engineer stated that the area for the dumpster must be indicated on the Applicant’s plan. Mr. Brumleve added that the Planning Board would want the dumpster shielded from view.
JPJ Enterprises, Inc. (Croton-on-Hudson Exxon) 67 Croton Point Avenue – (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 2 Lot 22) – Application for an Amended Site Plan for the Croton-on-Hudson Exxon Station, Preliminary Discussion
James Foley, owner of the property, and Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E., were present for this application.
Mr. Mastromonaco stated that Mr. Foley has owned the property since July 2003. The solar panels have already been installed on the canopy at the Exxon gas station. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that he did not find anything in the Village Code that would require an Applicant to come before the Planning Board for this type of improvement (solar panels). The Applicant is before the Planning Board because the Chairman of the Planning Board, Ann Gallelli, said that an Amended Site Plan application is required.
The Village Engineer noted that, with respect to a Building Permit being issued, a Building Permit could not be issued until the Amended Site Plan is approved.
Mr. Mastromonaco told the Planning Board members that Mr. Foley has brought in pictures of the solar panels if the Board would like to see them.
Mr. Brumleve asked what the benefits of the solar panels were, to which Mr. Foley stated that the solar panels generate electricity and reduce his overall consumption of energy. The solar panels provide efficient alternative energy for the property.
Mr. Klein stated that he believes the Planning Board discussed landscaping on this property (the Exxon property) in conjunction with Kieran Murray’s application, to which Mr. Brumleve stated that the Planning Board did, indeed, discuss this. Mr. Brumleve stated that the side of Kieran Murray’s site that abuts the Exxon Station was the area in question. Mr. Brumleve recalled from the discussion that the landscaping, which would improve the looks of Mr. Murray’s property, would have to be installed on the Exxon Station property. Mr. Foley seemed receptive to the idea of putting in landscaping on that side of his property.
Mr. Burniston noted that the Applicant’s engineer, Mr. Mastromonaco, has expressed his view that these solar panels do not need the approval of the Planning Board. Furthermore, these panels have already been installed. Mr. Burniston stated that, unless the Planning Board were to take a position in direct opposition to these solar panels, he would not think that the Planning Board is in a position of approving something “after the fact.”
Ms. Allen told those present that, according to Chairman Gallelli, this application should come before the Planning Board because it constitutes a change to the exterior of the site. Ms. Allen stated that, before making any decision on this application, she would like to hear what Chairman Gallelli has to say. She would also like to hear from the Village Attorney, Seymour Waldman.
Mr. Brumleve agreed that it would be a good idea to wait to hear what Chairman Gallelli has to say.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the Planning Board needs to review the Code as to what constitutes an Amended Site Plan. The Board needs to know what triggers this type of application.
Mr. Klein asked Mr. Foley if he was awarded a financial grant from New York State (NYSERTA) to install the solar panels, to which Mr. Foley replied that he was.
Mr. Klein thought that, if the Village Code were not clear as to what constitutes a Site Plan, then, the Planning Board would want to address this issue.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the Planning Board would be in touch with Mr. Foley and let him know when this application would be coming back before the Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Tuesday, August 26, 2003 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Brumleve and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:06 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, September 23, 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 new signage on the façade 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 a drawing of the Shop Rite letters sign dated March 14, 2003, prepared by Sign Art Graphics; a drawing of the Shop Rite circular logo sign (undated); and a rendering of the façade showing the existing and proposed signage, updated as in attached exhibit, be approved subject to the following conditions:
Documentation be provided that the landlord is in agreement with the changes Shop Rite has proposed.
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
Motion to approve by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Ann Gallelli was absent.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003.