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

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

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

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


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
Planning Board Minutes 10/14/03
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003:


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 in the Municipal Building.


        MEMBERS PRESENT:        Ann Gallelli, Chair
                                        Thomas Burniston
                                        Joel Klein              

                         ABSENT:        Fran Allen
                                        Ted Brumleve
     
                 ALSO PRESENT:  Georgianna Grant, Member of the Board of Trustees
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.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano) – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval (Continued Public Hearing)

Mark Giordano, owner of the property, and Ender Ozgur, manager of the Zeytinia gourmet market, was present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the first item on the agenda is a continued public hearing for Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano). This Applicant proposes to make some changes to the existing site plan that would accommodate a new grocery store named “Zeytinia.”  

Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board requested some additional information/changes.  The Applicant was asked to submit a sign application.  More information was required on the parking at the shopping center. The Planning Board asked that the handicap parking spaces that were missing from the site plan be indicated.  The Planning Board requested that the six compact-car parking spots being proposed on the eastside of the parking lot be eliminated.

Mr. Giordano stated that he met with the Village Engineer this past week to discuss the handicap parking.  There are now two handicap parking spots being shown by Percio Cleaners.  Parking spot #11 has been eliminated.  The other handicap parking spots are shown on the site plan by parking stalls #16 and #23.  Mr. Giordano stated that the proposed new parking near the coffee shop has been eliminated.  The width of the parking spots for employee parking has been adjusted to 8 ?’ for each stall.  As a result, two extra parking stalls have been gained for employee parking.

Mr. Giordano stated that he has recalculated the parking on the site plan’s legend.  He is providing 143 spaces, and 148 are required.  Mr. Giordano explained that he obtained a variance from the Zoning Board in 1993 for 140 parking spaces.  Mr. Giordano stated that five handicap parking spaces are required, and six are being provided.  

Mr. Giordano stated that the gates by the coffee shop are now indicated on the plan.  The store sign for Zeytinia has been submitted.  Mr. Giordano noted that the sign company made a separate application for a sign permit; however, he wanted to show the Planning Board tonight what the sign would look like.  The sign application has to go before the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB).  

Mr. Giordano stated that the revised site plan shows a detail of the new railing that would enclose the corral where the shopping carts are going to be.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Brumleve was unable to be present at the meeting tonight; however, he has provided comments on the new (revised) plan.  Mr. Brumleve is of the opinion that the wall-mounted sign for Zeytinia should be red (instead of green) to be consistent with the signs for CVS, the cleaners, and the liquor store.  Also, he thinks that it would be more effective not to have so many words on the Zeytinia sign.  It would be better to say, “Zeytinia Gourmet” or “Zeytinia Market” rather than “Zeytinia Gourmet Market.”  Mr. Brumleve suggests that five additional parking spots could be gained by changing the width of the stalls in the two-hour parking area from 10’ to 9’.  He (Mr. Brumleve) is referring to the two-hour parking spots marked “Parking ‘A’.” Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Brumleve would like the Applicant to add a fourth signage example to the “Sign Data Chart” on the site plan.  The fourth example should state the exact wording of the sign at the gate going to the back.  The wording of this sign should be: “No Deliveries Prior to 7:00 A.M.”  Finally, the Applicant’s site plan should be revised to indicate the overhang over the new door area.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the site plan should be revised to show the correct zoning district information.  “C-l Zone” should be changed to “C-2 Zone” in two places i.e., the section of the plan showing the parking lot and the section showing the zoning data.

Mr. Klein stated that, with respect to the sign being proposed, he is not sure he would agree with Mr. Brumleve about the color.  He (Mr. Klein) thinks that the color green would be appropriate given the nature of the business.  He said that he would defer the matter of color to the VEB.  Mr. Klein stated that he agrees with Mr. Brumleve that the wording of the sign should say “Zeytinia Gourmet” or “Zeytinia Market” but not “Zeytinia Gourmet Market.”  He thought it would be easier to read with fewer words.

Mr. Klein noted that the sign shown in the photo simulation is in the wrong place.  It is too far to the left and is inconsistent with the sign shown on the Applicant’s site plan.  Mr. Giordano said that he would make this correction to the photo simulation.  

Mr. Giordano stated that, with respect to the discussion last time about relocating the mailbox drop-off, he and the Village Engineer visited the shopping center/Post Office site this past week. One thought was to relocate the drop-off near Percio Cleaners.  The area for the drop-off would be the area, which is adjacent to the paved island where the bollard is indicated.  Mr. Giordano noted that having a mailbox drop-off in this location might not work because the Post Office is so far away.  Chairman Gallelli stated that another alternative would be to eliminate the drop-off for cars altogether.  Mr. Burniston suggested that, perhaps, the drop-off could be located in the area on the plan where parking stalls #121 and #125 are shown.  The drop-off could be put on the parking island. The parking spaces could be eliminated so that a person could (just) drive through on that side.  Mr. Giordano stated that the area Mr. Burniston is referring to is reserved for Post Office employee parking.  He did not know if the Post Office would agree to such a change, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that, indeed, it would, ultimately, be a matter for the Post Office to decide.  She thought that Mr. Burniston’s idea was something for the Applicant to consider.  

Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board could discuss Mr. Brumleve’s idea about changing the width of the parking spots from 10’ to 9’.  Mr. Giordano told the Planning Board members that he would be willing to make this change in the width.  Mr. Burniston stated that he does not agree with reducing the width.  He thinks it would cause too many problems for people moving their vehicles in and out of the parking spots.  He noted that this area, and the area in front of the bank, is the most congested part of the parking lot.  Most people today have larger vehicles such as SUV’s.  People are jockeying in and out of these spots as it is.  Mr. Klein agreed and stated that, by reducing the width, the number of “fender-benders” might increase.  People are going to have to be more careful to maneuver their vehicles in and out of those spots.  Mr. Giordano noted to the Board members that the cars owned by employees of the shopping center would be gone, and they number quite a few.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the Village is in the process of working out an agreement with the Croton Commons management whereby the Village would take over the enforcement of the parking lot.  The same holds true for the VWI shopping center. She noted further that the employees of the shopping center would be parked off to the side, and there would be a two-hour parking limit for these parking spots.

Joann Minett of 5 Van Cortlandt Place was present. She expressed her concern about several issues including the parking places being proposed near the Black Cow coffee shop. Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Minett that these parking spaces have been eliminated.  Ms. Minett was concerned about the noise that would be generated from the refrigeration units that would be located outside.

Ms. Minett asked about the gate in the back.  She stated that it is her understanding that this gate would be locked at night.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, indeed, the gate would be locked at night.  The sign on the gate would say “No Deliveries Prior to 7:00 A.M.”  Mr. Giordano added that the gate would be locked at 9:30 P.M.

Ms. Minett noted that, at the last meeting, Mr. Brumleve mentioned that the Planning Board was going to reevaluate the 18-wheeler truck situation at the shopping center.  Chairman Gallelli stated that it is the Planning Board’s intention to have, as a condition, an established timeframe for the Applicant to come back to the Planning Board with information on the 18-wheeler trucks.  She thought, however, that the Planning Board would want to separate this issue from the issues relating to the current proposal for a gourmet grocery store so that this Applicant could move ahead with his proposal. The 18-wheeler situation has nothing to do with the grocery store.  It is a matter relating to the CVS drugstore.  Chairman Gallelli noted that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued for the renovations to the grocery store until the information requested on the 18-wheelers has been provided.    

Mr. Burniston told the Applicant that it is the Planning Board’s obligation to establish the conditions of the resolution, and it is the Applicant’s obligation to come back before the Planning Board with more information on the problem.  He noted that, at the last meeting, Ms. Minett expressed her concerns about the traffic congestion.  He (Mr. Burniston) was also concerned about safety issues relating to the 18-wheeler trucks.  

Mr. Klein stated that the Planning Board needs to have more information on the 18-wheeler situation before making a decision.  The Planning Board would need to know, for example, how the elimination of 18-wheeler truck deliveries would affect the CVS drugstore.  CVS might decide to come before the Planning Board to discuss this matter. Mr. Klein noted to Ms. Minett that the Planning Board’s decision might be to prohibit 18-wheelers from making deliveries to the back or, as an alternative solution, the Planning Board might require the Applicant to modify the driveway to make it easier (and safer) for these big trucks to maneuver.   The Planning Board intends to put a condition in the resolution to require that this information on the 18-wheelers be presented to the Board as soon as possible.     

Ms. Minett noted that the new tenant (grocer) is projecting eight to nine deliveries daily and one garbage pick-up per day.

Ms. Minett stated that, if the Planning Board were to decide to permit the 18-wheeler truck deliveries, she would (at least) like the Board to require the owner of the property to widen that turn.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the Board would probably want to know what the turning radius is and if the existing entryway would accommodate the maneuvering of these vehicles.  She noted to Ms. Minett that this is exactly the kind of information that the Planning Board needs to know.

Ms. Minett stated that, with respect to the noise issue(s), she would want to make sure that the Planning Board is considering the neighbors, to which Chairman Gallelli assured her that they were.

Ms. Minett asked if there was any public mention of tonight’s meeting.  She did not see it advertised.  Chairman Gallelli explained to Ms. Minett that there are municipal laws that govern the noticing of a public hearing. The public hearing has to be noticed in the “Legal Notices” section of the local newspaper(s).  Notices are also sent to the abutting and adjacent property owners.  This procedure on noticing takes place prior to the first public hearing.  There is no legal requirement to notice a continued public hearing.   Chairman Gallelli noted that the local newspapers receive agendas of the meetings; however, they are under no obligation to post these agendas.  Mr. Klein noted that agendas of the Planning Board meetings are also being posted on the Village’s web site.

Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Giordano to describe the refrigeration units being proposed.  Mr. Giordano distributed to the Board members the manufacturer’s specifications on the refrigeration units.  He stated that the unit being proposed is a typical air-cooled condensing unit that would be used on the roof.  Ten to twelve units would be located in the front close to the entrance.  Mr. Giordano stated that he has attempted to retrieve some information on decibel levels; but he was unable to procure this information for tonight’s meeting.  He would have it to the Planning Board by the next meeting.  Mr. Klein noted that the Planning Board would not want to see an increase in the nighttime ambient noise at the property.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would need to have baseline noise measurements taken.  

Chairman Gallelli pointed out that, in the event that the noise level does increase, then, baffling would have to be installed, as required by the Village Engineer.

Mr. Giordano told the Board members that he would do the baseline measurements and provide the Planning Board with these (noise) calculations by the next meeting.

The Village Engineer wanted more information on the structure and/or weight of the units. He told Mr. Giordano that he would want to see a layout of the rooftop to show where these units could go.  

Mr. Klein told Mr. Giordano that he should also supply information on the noise level(s) for the refrigerated unit for the garbage.     

Mr. Klein noted that the Applicant’s noise consultant would probably want to take measurements at the property line of residents who are the closest to the refrigeration units.  For example, these measurements should be taken at the property line facing Van Cortlandt Place and on the eastern side.

Mr. Giordano stated that, for purposes of discussion at the next meeting, he would do a blow-up drawing of the entrance where the 18-wheeler delivery trucks go in.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, with respect to the 18-wheeler trucks, she thinks it would be a good idea for a representative of CVS to attend the meeting.  Mr. Klein noted again to Mr. Giordano that the Planning Board would want to know why it would be a hardship for CVS to have these truck deliveries eliminated.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, at a previous Planning Board meeting, there was a discussion about a freestanding sign at the entranceway to the shopping center, which would identify businesses/stores in the center.  The thought was that the gourmet market might share this sign with some of the other tenants.  Mr. Giordano stated that there are no plans to install such a “shared” sign at this time.

Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any further comments from the public, to which there were none.  Chairman Gallelli closed the public hearing.

The Planning Board discussed the conditions of approval. Chairman Gallelli stated that she has developed a lengthy number of conditions, which she would read aloud.  These conditions are based on the drawings prepared by Cronin Engineering dated September 12, 2003, last revised October 7, 2003.

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the first condition which says, “No signage, either on the façade or freestanding, shall be erected until the signage has been reviewed by the VEB and approved by the Planning Board.  The sign application should show the sign at the entry, relative to the new entry configuration.”

Chairman Gallelli read aloud condition #2 regarding the noise from the cooling/refrigeration units.  Mr. Klein thought that the wording of this condition should be more specific.  He changed some of the wording as follows: “Baffling of the cooling units may be required if, after two months of operation, the Village Engineer determines that noise from these units exceeds the baseline noise (nighttime ambient).  The allowable noise level(s) would be determined by a baseline noise measurement to be provided by the Applicant prior to the installation of the unit so that the post-conditions will equal the pre-conditions.”

Chairman Gallelli stated that condition #3 would read as follows: “The Applicant will work with the Post Office to relocate the mail drop-off point.”

Chairman Gallelli stated that the next condition pertains to the 18-wheeler truck situation.  This condition would say that, “The Applicant will return to the Planning Board within three months to show a plan for eliminating 18-wheeler deliveries or present evidence as to why it cannot be done.”  The Village Engineer noted that if 18-wheeler deliveries are needed, then, improvements to the site might be required.  Chairman Gallelli said that this is, indeed, true.  She told Mr. Giordano that if the 18-wheeler truck deliveries are to continue, it might result in a modification to the entranceway into the shopping center.  Mr. Giordano said that he would agree to such a modification, if required.  

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the next several conditions as follows:

The Applicant’s drawing should be changed to reflect the correct Zoning District information (i.e., C-2 instead of C-1.)

The Applicant’s drawing should be revised to show the overhang with dimensions to the new entranceway.  

The signage for the gate should be added to the Applicant’s site plan drawing. The sign on the gate should say, “No Deliveries Prior to 7:00 A.M.”

A note should be added to the site plan that the gate will be locked at 9:30 P.M.

The drawings should be modified to show the dimensions and location(s) of the cooling units.

The parking lot should be re-striped.

Mr. Klein thought that some additional wording should be put in the condition about the Post Office mail drop-off.  He thought that the condition should also say that the Applicant should report back to the Planning Board the status of the discussion(s) with the Post Office at the end of 30 and/or 60 days.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she would ask the Village Manager to write a letter to this effect on behalf of the Village.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the Planning Board could suggest either of the two sites for the mail drop-off discussed tonight.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Applicant should report back to the Planning Board within a three-month timeframe (instead of 30 or 60 days) to be consistent with the timeframe given to the Applicant to supply information on the 18-wheelers.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that she thinks that, with the conditions enumerated at the meeting tonight, the Planning Board would be able to provide the Applicant with the approval to move ahead with the site plan modifications for the proposed grocery store.  She noted that before the Village Engineer issues a building permit, the aforementioned changes/additions would have to be made.  Also, the Applicant has to come back before the Planning Board with the completed sign application.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that a condition should also be added to the resolution that says, “No new tenants, not already located in VWI plaza, can receive deliveries in 18-wheeler trucks.”  Mr. Giordano asked the Board if this matter about prohibiting 18-wheeler deliveries to any new tenant(s) could be addressed when he addresses the issue of the entranceway.  He personally thinks that this condition about prohibiting 18-wheelers from making deliveries is unjust.  After all, this is a commercial piece of property.  Mr. Burniston stated that the Planning Board has an obligation to protect the residents of the Village from a hazardous situation.  He expressed concern about accidents caused by these trucks.  He suggested that the Planning Board should ask the Police Department how many accidents have been caused in the plaza by 18-wheeler trucks.  Mr. Burniston stated that, indeed, he would have a problem restricting 18-wheelers unless there are facts before the Planning Board to make a decision one way or the other.  He would also want to hear what CVS has to say.  Chairman Gallelli noted that this use of 18-wheeler trucks has evolved over the years as a method of making deliveries.  She still thinks it would be appropriate to say in the resolution that tenants, who are not currently in the shopping center, could not receive deliveries from these vehicles.     

The Village Engineer noted that another condition should be added to the resolution which states that  “No Parking” signs should be located northeast of the Black Cow.

Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this Amended Site Plan application for the gourmet grocery store.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

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

Donald Swartz and Stephen Whalen of Cerniglia & Swartz Architects, and Michael Pascale, Director of Engineering for the Hudson Valley Hospital, were present for this application.  

Chairman Gallelli reviewed the status of this application stating that, at the last meeting, the Applicant presented a proposal to change the retaining wall in the back of the medical building. The existing wall is in bad condition and needs to be replaced.  As part of the application for the new retaining wall, this Applicant was also proposing to add some additional parking spaces in the back.  Chairman Gallelli noted that there were a number of issues raised at the last meeting.  Since the last meeting, the Applicants have revised what they want to do with the retaining wall.  Chairman Gallelli noted to those present that, as a result of this change to the Applicant’s proposal, the Planning Board would not be in a position to make a decision on this application tonight.  

Mr. Whalen stated that the original proposal called for removing the existing retaining wall and replacing it with a Concorde modular wall system.  The Applicant would still use this same modular system.

Mr. Whalen stated that some of the comments/concerns from the last meeting have been addressed. For example, the Planning Board wanted information on the phasing of the construction.  Drawing SP1.30 shows the Phasing Plan.  It is thought that the construction could be completed in three phases.  Any overflow of parking during the construction process could be relocated onto Riverside Avenue.

Mr. Whalen noted that there were concerns expressed about shoring.  The contractor for this project has hired an engineer to provide signed and sealed shoring drawings.  

Mr. Whalen stated that drawings have now been provided which show the swale on top of the wall and the drain line that would tie into the existing catch basins.

Mr. Whalen stated that, with respect to the impact on existing trees, any large mature trees would be replaced.  A fence would be provided on top of the wall.  An enclosure for the dumpsters at the end of the parking area would be provided.  This new enclosure would consist of a 6’ high chain link fence.  

Mr. Whalen stated that the excavation materials would be removed from the site.

Mr. Whalen explained to those present the change now being proposed to this application.  He noted that the Applicant recently met with his contractor, and the price of the project has tripled from the original (quoted) price. Efforts have been made to try to bring the cost down and, at the same time, address the concerns expressed by the neighboring property owners.  The result of the Applicant’s recent discussions with the contractor led to this current proposal.  In the new proposal, the wall would be built in front of the existing wall, which, according to Mr. Whalen, would eliminate shoring and sheet piling. No new parking spaces would be installed; however, the Applicant would be able to maintain the number of parking spaces that exist on the site now.  Mr. Whalen reiterated that the wall being proposed would be the same wall that was originally proposed (i.e., the Concorde modular system).  The only change is that it would be moved out 5’.     

The Village Engineer asked if the old retaining wall would be left there (as is), to which Mr. Whalen replied that the contractor has assured the Applicant that he could remove the rotting boards from the existing retaining wall.  

Mr. Burniston wanted to know if the space where the new wall is situated would be where the drainage is going, to which Mr. Whalen replied that the drainpipe is located behind the wall.  The new wall would take the entire surcharge of the hill.  

The Village Engineer stated that ripping out the old wall would have to be done little by little and very carefully.  He stated that, as the old wall is being taken down, the Applicant would need to have someone at the site observing the work and checking the condition of the existing wall.  

Mr. Klein asked if the old wall had to be taken down first, to which Mr. Pascale explained the process of constructing the new wall.  Mr. Pascale stated that, as the new wall is going up, there would be temporary shoring put in place.  Then, the contractor would backfill between the new wall and the existing wall.  Mr. Pascale noted that the vertical sewer line coming down would not be touched at that point.  

Mr. Pascale stated that when the Applicant originally considered replacing this wall, the price was $800,000.  The expense was too exorbitant for the hospital to incur.  The question that had to be answered was how could the Applicant replace the old wall more economically and still satisfy the Village, the neighbors, etc.  The Applicant has come up with the solution being presented tonight.  Mr. Pascale stated that the same modular wall system is being used.  The Applicant would make sure that there would be no sliding of earth behind this wall.     

Mr. Klein said that he understands the Applicant’s financial concerns.  However, he is sorry about the loss of the additional parking spaces resulting from this new proposal.  Mr. Klein stated that, aesthetically, he is concerned that, in the new arrangement, the Applicant would be creating an “alley-like” feel to the space in the back parking lot. The wall would be closer to the back of the building than it is now.  He would be afraid that this wall would “loom down on the building.”  Mr. Swartz stated that the existing building is about 10’ high.  In the revised location, there is a distance of about 44’ off the existing canopy to the edge of the wall.  Mr. Swartz said that the situation is “not as drastic as you would think.”  Chairman Gallelli noted that this new wall would be 5’ farther away from the property line.

Robert Sochurek of 8 Barton Place was present.  He asked if there is a drainage plan for this project, to which Mr. Whalen showed him the drainage plan(s).

Chairman Gallelli noted to the others that the plans provided for the previous proposal included a landscaping plan due to the fact that trees were to be removed.  It is her understanding that there would be no tree removal in the new proposal, and the vegetation would remain as is.  

Mr. Sochurek noted that Barton Place is a “paper street.”  He expressed concern about the drainage and asked where the water would flow.  Chairman Gallelli noted to Mr. Sochurek that his house is situated uphill from the Applicant’s building.  If anything, the water runoff would flow downhill onto their (the Applicant’s) property.  

Chairman Gallelli wanted to know what the color of the wall would be, to which Mr. Whalen showed the Board a picture of the wall.  He said that the color selected is a brown “earth” color.

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that the Planning Board could not make a decision tonight.  Once the new plans are ready, the Planning Board would need to have these new plans reviewed by the Village Engineer.  

Chairman Gallelli wanted to know how wide the one-way-traffic driveway in the back of the building would be now that the wall is being brought out 5’, to which Mr. Whalen replied that some angled parking spaces are being provided at the narrowest point.  He indicated on the plan the handicap parking spaces and said that these spaces are angled at 75 degrees “to make it gentle.”  At the tightest spot, this driveway is 19’ 3”, but it widens out to 23’.  Mr. Klein wanted to know what the distance is now with the parking in the back, to which Mr. Whalen replied that it is hard to say because nothing is striped out. Mr. Klein pointed out that, with respect to the parking spaces, the Applicant is losing 3 ?’ to 4’ from the depth of the stall.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she would want to know if the distance between the new wall and the parking aisles is adequate for cars to get through.  Mr. Klein thought that in some situations a person would have to pull over really close to the parked cars to get through.  He referred to an area in the back and said that if someone parks 1’ away from the wall and 1’ away from the cars parked (here), a vehicle cannot get through.  He would want to know how the new driveway situation in the back compares to the existing situation.  Mr. Swartz told the Board that, for the next meeting, his firm would revisit the matter of the parking. They will try to maximize the aisle width of the parking spaces without losing the parking count.  

The Village Engineer stated that he has been looking into the parking situation in that area of the Village with the Village Manager and the Superintendent of Public Works.  He thought that it would make sense for the Croton Medical Building to have (access to) parking on South Riverside Avenue.

Mr. Pascale noted that, with respect to the parking, the new plan would simply revert back to the same number of parking spaces that exists today.  No parking is being taken away.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, after the last meeting, the Village Engineer, Joel Klein, Fran Allen and herself visited the site.  The issues discussed at that time included the parking and traffic situation during construction and protection of the sewer line.  Chairman Gallelli said that it is important that the neighboring property owner, Marc Shenfield, is comfortable with the approach that is being taken with respect to the sewer line.  Mr. Whalen stated that there would be something put over it (the sewer pipe) to protect it from heavy weight.  The Village Engineer recalled that a discussion also took place on the possibility of having the contractor park his vehicles on the Village’s vacant lot on Brook Street.

Marc Shenfield of 4 Hamilton Avenue was present.  He told the Planning Board members that he thinks the Applicant’s new proposal for the retaining wall is a tremendous improvement over what had been presented in the past.  The new proposal addresses all of his concerns, and he is looking forward to seeing the plan(s) at the next meeting.  

Chairman Gallelli adjourned the public hearing and told the Applicant to resubmit their plans for the meeting of the 28th.

Mr. Sochurek asked the Applicant to delineate on the plans the property lines of the adjacent property owners, to which Mr. Whalen stated that he would put this information on the (existing) survey map.  

The Village Engineer asked the Applicant if the dumpster in the back had a leaking problem, which would require installing a drain below it.  Mr. Pascale told the Village Engineer that the medical center does not put any infectious waste materials in these dumpsters.  There are three small dumpsters in the back.  They have never experienced any problems with them.

The Planning Board continued the public hearing on this application to Tuesday, October 28th.

OLD BUSINESS:

JPJ Enterprises, Inc. (Croton-on-Hudson Exxon) 67 Croton Point Avenue – (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 2 Lots 21, 22 & 22.01) – Application for an Amended Site Plan for the Croton-on-Hudson Exxon Station

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Engineer has written a letter to the Applicant regarding the solar panels.  These panels have already been installed on the canopy at the Exxon gas station.  The Village Engineer states in his letter that the Applicant is required to come before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan approval.

Chairman Gallelli stated that she thinks the Planning Board should go ahead and schedule the public hearing for the 28th.  The Applicant would need to provide the information on the site plan that is being requested in the Village Engineer’s letter.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that she would like to ask the Applicant in advance of that meeting, or at the meeting, to include landscaping on the western side of the property.    

Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant’s engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, had questioned at an earlier meeting why this application required an Amended Site Plan approval.  The Village Engineer’s letter addresses the issue. Chairman Gallelli noted that any exterior changes to commercial lots requires Amended Site Plan approval.  Furthermore, the Village Engineer could not issue a building permit until the Amended Site Plan approval is granted. The Village Engineer told the Board members that, since the last meeting, his office has discussed this matter with other municipalities and, indeed, in instances such as this one, an Amended Site Plan approval is required.

The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing on this application for Tuesday, October 28th.

OTHER BUSINESS

Chairman Gallelli reviewed the items on the agenda for the next meeting.  There will be a continued public hearing for the Croton Medical Building.  A public hearing will take place on the Amended Site Plan application for the Exxon station.   Chairman Gallelli noted that the public hearing before the Village Board on the gateway overlay districts would take place on Monday, November 3rd.  The Planning Board would have to provide any comments before that date. Therefore, the referral from the Village Board on the gateway districts is being scheduled for the Planning Board meeting of the 28th.  Chairman Gallelli stated that Mark Giordano has asked to come back before the Board on issues relating to his recently approved Amended Site Plan. Finally, Hudson National Golf Club might be back on the 28th with their application for a ‘practice hole.’

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Tuesday, September 9, 2003 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Planning Board meeting was adjourned until the next meeting.


ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:05 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY




RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 and continued to Tuesday, October 14, 2003, for Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 40-50 Maple Street and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lot 30; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for alterations to accommodate a new gourmet market, known as “Zeytinia”; 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 plan SP-1.1 entitled “Amended Site Development Plan Van Wyck Shopping Center (New Retail – 6,930 Sq. Ft. & Parking Limits),” dated September 12, 2003, last revised October 7, 2003, prepared by Cronin Engineering P.E., P.C., be approved subject to the following conditions:

No signs, either on the façade or freestanding, shall be erected until the signage has been reviewed by the VEB and approved by the Planning Board.  The sign application should show the sign relative to the new entry configuration (show entry in application).

Baffling of the cooling units may be required if, after two months of operation, the Village Engineer determines that noise from the unit exceeds the baseline noise (nighttime ambient).  The Applicant must provide baseline noise measurements at points determined by the Village Engineer and provide decibel information on the proposed cooling units.  The baseline noise measurement is to be provided prior to the installation of the unit so that post-conditions will equal pre-conditions.

Applicant shall work with the Post Office to relocate the mail drop-off point.  The Applicant shall report back to the Planning Board the status of the discussions with the Post Office within a three-month timeframe.

Applicant shall return to the Planning Board within three months’ time to show a plan for eliminating 18-wheeler truck deliveries or present evidence as to why it cannot be done.  If 18-wheelers are to remain, it may result in further modification to the entrance.  No new tenants, not already located in VWI plaza, shall receive deliveries in 18-wheeler trucks.

The Applicant’s drawing should be changed to reflect the correct Zoning District information (i.e., C-2 instead of C-1).

The Applicant’s drawing should be revised to show the overhang with dimensions to the new entranceway.

The signage for the gate should be added to the Applicant’s site plan drawing.  The sign on the gate should say, “No Deliveries Prior to 7:00 A.M.”

A note should be added to the site plan that the gate will be locked at 9:30 P.M.

The Applicant’s drawing should be modified to show the dimensions and locations of the cooling units.

The parking lot should be re-striped.

‘No Parking’ signs should be located in the driveway by the delivery entrance.


In the event that this Amended Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.
                                                The Planning Board of the Village of
                                                Croton-on-Hudson, New York

                                                Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Ted Brumleve
                                                Thomas Burniston
                                        Joel Klein
                                                

Motion to approve by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 14, 2003.