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 10/28/03
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003:


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 in the Municipal Building.


        MEMBERS PRESENT:                Ann Gallelli, Chair
                                        Fran Allen
                                        Ted Brumleve            

                         ABSENT:                Thomas Burniston
                                        Joel Klein
     
                 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 Chairman Gallelli.


2.      PUBLIC HEARINGS:

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

Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E., and James Foley, owner of the property, were present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that this application for an Amended Site Plan is for the installation of solar panels, which have already been installed on the canopy at the gas station.  There was a question as to whether or not the installation of these panels required an Amended Site Plan.  The matter was brought to the attention of the Village Attorney.  Also, the Village Engineer’s office asked some of the other local municipalities how they would have handled such an application.  It was determined that, indeed, this application does require an Amended Site Plan Approval.  

Chairman Gallelli noted that the Planning Board has already discussed the Applicant’s plan(s) at a previous meeting.  She asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application, to which no one from the public had any comments.

The Applicant’s engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, told the Board that he has brought with him tonight some additional materials on the solar panels (the manufacturer’s specifications), which he would like to distribute to the Board members.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that there was a discussion at the previous meeting about the Applicant providing some landscaping on the west side of the property.  As she understands it, the Applicant would be willing to provide this landscaping, to which Mr. Foley stated that, indeed, he would be willing.  He has spoken to Kieran Murray, the property owner next door, about the landscaping, and Mr. Murray has also agreed to it.  Chairman Gallelli noted again that the Planning Board members would be pleased to see some screening on that side of the property.  

Ms. Allen stated that she has reviewed the last set of minutes on this application, and there was something in the minutes that she wanted clarified.  There was a statement made that the Applicant purchased the property in July 2003 and, then, the panels were installed.  The minutes state further that the Applicant received support in the form of grant monies from NYSERTA for the installation of the panels.  Ms. Allen wanted to know if the Applicant received the support of NYSERTA after the solar panels were installed, to which the Applicant stated that he did not.  He applied for, and was awarded the grant monies before the panels were installed. The Applicant was leasing the property at the time he applied for the grant and purchased it later.

Chairman Gallelli closed the public hearing.

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the draft resolution.  She stated that she has added one condition about the landscaping on the westerly side, which would read: “Landscaping, consisting of trees and shrubs, shall be installed along the western perimeter, which would provide a visual screen between the Exxon Station and the adjoining property.”  

Mr. Brumleve suggested that, with respect to the landscaping, the Applicant should wait until after the neighboring property is developed to install these plantings. The other members agreed.  Chairman Gallelli added the following wording:  “…..at such time as the westerly neighboring property is developed.”

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this Amended Site Plan application.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Ms. Allen 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, continued

Phil Cerniglia 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 noted that, as stated by the Applicant at the last meeting, the Applicant is before the Planning Board tonight with a new plan for the retaining wall.  

Mr. Cerniglia stated that, in the new proposal, much of the existing parking lot is going to be revised.  The existing retaining wall will be left in place and will function as shoring for the construction of the new wall.  This alleviates the necessity to dig back into the slope.  Mr. Cerniglia stated that the new plan shows 42 parking spots, which is 6 short of the number originally proposed but 1 more than the property currently provides.  Mr. Cerniglia pointed out on the map the new fenced-in area for the trash container.  Mr. Cerniglia stated that, with respect to the drainage, the new footing drain being installed would tie into the existing catch basin.  He referred to the landscaping plan and stated that this plan shows some of the proposed landscaping with the new parking lot layout.  Some trees have been added.  The curbing in the back of the building will be redone.  As part of this project, the parking lot will be repaved and relined.

Chairman Gallelli stated that one of the Planning Board’s concerns is the phasing of the construction process.  The Planning Board would want to know how the traffic situation is going to be handled for clients and employees of the Croton Medical Building.  She said that it is her understanding that the project would take approximately four to six weeks to complete.  Mr. Cerniglia stated that the Applicant is proposing to do the project in three phases. He noted that during the construction process, the Medical Building would lose 11 parking spaces.  There will be a 10’ access area maintained around the site.  Mr. Cerniglia pointed to the area on the map where access would be provided during phase 1.  He stated that when phase 2 is in place, phase 1 parking would be available.  When phase 3 is underway, the other two phases of construction would be completed and the access aisle would be maintained as a means of exiting out of the parking lot.  Mr. Cerniglia added that the Applicant would have a full-time employee directing traffic during the construction phase(s).  

Chairman Gallelli noted that the handicap access would be maintained on the left-hand side of the parking lot.  Mr. Cerniglia told Chairman Gallelli that, as part of this project, handicap accessibility would be brought up to current code requirements.

Mr. Cerniglia stated that the Applicant hopes to start this project as soon as possible.  If approved tonight, the Applicant would like to have the contractor begin the work within the next week or so.

Mr. Brumleve brought up the matter of using the existing wall for shoring purposes.  He asked the Applicant’s architects if they were satisfied that the foundation, which holds up the existing timber wall, would remain intact.  He wondered if the act of constructing the new wall would undermine the old (existing) wall.  Mr. Cerniglia replied that, until the construction begins, they are not going to be able to answer that question completely.  He suggested that he could add a note on the drawing(s) that if a problem occurs, the Applicant’s engineer for the project must develop an alternative plan.  Mr. Brumleve added that one of his main concerns would be the safety of the construction workers and public should the existing wall collapse during construction.

The Village Engineer asked for (further) clarification as to whether or not, in the new proposal, the existing wall would be left in place, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that the gap between the old wall and the new wall would be filled and compacted.  The existing wall would be “filled in.”  Mr. Whalen noted that his architectural firm has talked to people who have built a retaining wall in this way.  The old walls have been left in place.  It is true that the old wall may continue to decay.  However, the new wall being constructed is designed to take the full surcharge of the existing hill.

Ms. Allen said that she had a question about the parking situation in the back along the new wall.  She wanted to know how long or deep the parking spots would be, to which Mr. Whalen said that they would be 18’ deep with a 2’ overhang.   Ms. Allen said that, according to the Applicant’s plans, it appears there would be room for cars to back up and turn around, to which Mr. Whalen said that, indeed, there would be.

Ms. Allen asked about the plantings in that area (in the back), to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that the Applicant intends to clean up the back area and provide some landscaping.  Ms. Allen expressed concern about access to the building for people who are handicapped and/or for people who have babies in strollers.  She asked if it were necessary to have a curb situated at the turn angle of the parking lot, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that the curb helps to define the access way through the site.  Ms. Allen noted that most of the parking for the building is in the back.  She expressed her concern that people have to walk in the road to reach the entrance to the building.  There is no delineated walking area.  Mr. Cerniglia suggested that, perhaps, instead of installing plants, they could put in a sidewalk.  Ms. Allen thought that this might be helpful.  It is such a busy traffic area.  Mr. Brumleve noted that, in any parking lot, people have to walk through the parking lot (aisles) to reach their destination.  He would be sorry to lose the landscaping in that area of the back.  Chairman Gallelli noted that this area behind the building is a “hidden” area; so, from an aesthetic standpoint, losing the landscaping might not matter that much.  She, too, thought that it might be useful to have a walkway back there.  Mr. Cerniglia said that the Applicant would construct a sidewalk along the back of the building.

Mr. Brumleve noted that a handicap ramp would have to be installed at the rear building exit where the curb cut is shown.  The path would have to be a “rollable” path from the south end of the building all the way around.  Chairman Gallelli said that she did not know if a handicap ramp would also be necessary for people pushing a baby stroller.

Ms. Allen stated that she did not find indicated anywhere on the plans how high the wall is going to be.  Mr. Whalen stated that the height of the wall is shown on the engineering drawings, which were submitted to the Board for review at a previous meeting.  Mr. Whalen stated that the wall is approximately 13’ at its highest point.   Ms. Allen thought that the dimensions of the wall should be indicated on the site plan that the Planning Board approves.  Mr. Cerniglia told the Board members that he would be willing to transpose these dimensions from the engineering drawings to the site plan drawings.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she would add a condition to the resolution that the proposed “top of wall” elevations should be indicated on the approved plan.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, during construction, the contractors would be parking their vehicles on the Village’s Brook Street lot.  Also, the medical center will have additional parking spaces available for its clients and employees on South Riverside Avenue.  Chairman Gallelli noted that an issue has been raised as to whether these parking spaces should be striped or not.  It would be a question of 9 spaces, or 18, if there were to be designated parking on both sides of the street.  Chairman Gallelli wanted the Board to discuss whether these spaces should be striped.  She noted that parking on the eastern side is now permitted, and she thought it would be worthwhile to have those striped.  For the time being, the Village is allowing parking on the western side of the street “as an experiment.”  She questioned doing striping on the western side if the parking on this side is only temporary, and the possibility exists that it might be eliminated later on.  She suggested that the Planning Board should “take the offer” for striping, but only on the eastern side.  Ms. Allen asked if there would be a ‘parking’ sign on the western side of the street for people going to the medical center, to which Chairman Gallelli said that she did not know.  She suggested that the Planning Board could ask the DPW to put up temporary ‘parking’ signs.

Mr. Brumleve stated that he thinks there might be a “typo” in detail 8 on Sheet No. SP1.20.  The wording, “minimum pitch 1 to 10,” should be “maximum pitch 1 to 10.”  Mr. Cerniglia said that this is, indeed, a “typo,” and he would have the plan corrected accordingly.

Chairman Gallelli asked when the Applicant anticipates starting the project, to which Mr. Pascale said that they want to start the project as soon as possible. They would like to have the job completed before the winter sets in.

Mr. Brumleve asked the Applicant if the issue regarding the private sewer line had been resolved, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that a structurally designed sleeve is being provided during construction.  If the sewer line is damaged during construction, it will be repaired.

Ms. Allen had a question about the parking requirements.  The Applicant is proposing 42 parking spaces.  She wanted to know if this number (42) included the ones on the street, to which Mr. Cerniglia replied that it does not.  This number (42) just represents the on-site parking.  Ms. Allen thought that it should be noted on the Applicant’s plan that a variance was granted “at such and such a time” for the on-site parking.

Marc Shenfield of 4 Hamilton Avenue was present.  He stated that he was pleased that, in the current proposal, the existing retaining wall would be left in place.  At the last meeting, there was talk of taking down the wall after the new one was built.  Apparently, it is no longer going to be done that way.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, indeed, in the current proposal, the existing wall would remain in place.  However, it has been suggested that a plan be worked out to take out the higher railroad ties for visual purposes.  Mr. Shenfield told the Planning Board members that he hopes the ties will not be removed. He noted that the point where the sewer line comes near the wall is at this highest point.  Damage might be done to the line in the process of removing these ties.  Mr. Shenfield thought that, from a visual standpoint, it would be meaningless to remove the ties.  No one can see them.  Chairman Gallelli assured Mr. Shenfield that the ties would not be removed if, indeed, there were any risk involved of damaging the sewer line.  It was a suggestion only.

Mr. Shenfield asked if the Village Engineer would be inspecting the sleeve for the sewer line, to which the Village Engineer stated that he would.  He explained to Mr. Shenfield that the Applicant would have to obtain a building permit to construct the wall.  During construction, there will be inspections from the Building Inspector.  

The Village Engineer requested that a “No Parking Anytime” sign be installed between the two parking spaces in the handicap parking aisle.  He explained that this is mandated by the State.  Mr. Cerniglia told the Village Engineer that he has put signs in the handicap spaces in the past, but never in the parking aisle. Chairman Gallelli suggested that the sign in the handicap parking area could say, “No Parking in Aisle.”  

The Village Engineer asked if there was any landscaping being proposed around the dumpster area.  Mr. Cerniglia stated that there is some existing vegetation in that area already.  The Applicant does not intend to plant anything else in that area.  Mr. Cerniglia said that he would be concerned about the vegetation at the edge of the road obstructing a person’s view up the hill. Chairman Gallelli said that she tended to agree and would not want a person’s view to be obstructed by shrubbery at the road’s edge.  She added that there is already some existing vegetation on the hillside.

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

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the draft resolution. She asked if a Short Environment Assessment Form (EAF) had ever been submitted.  If not, the Applicant would need to do so.

Chairman Gallelli read the conditions of approval as follows:

There shall be striping on the east side of South Riverside Avenue for the parking spaces.

The area to the rear of the building and adjacent to the building shall be made into a sidewalk.

The “top of wall” elevations shall be indicated on the final plan.

Pre-construction drainage flow(s) shall be maintained after re-paving.

“No Parking” signs shall be provided on the center aisle between the handicap spaces.

The sleeve for the private sewer line shall be inspected by the Village Engineer at the time of installation.

A Short EAF form shall be submitted.

Mr. Brumleve asked if the Applicant had removed from the new plan the reference(s) to supplemental shoring or sheet piling.  He said that it should be adequately noted, just in case the old wall fails to do what it is supposed to, that a supplemental plan for protecting the hillside and private sewer line is being provided.  

Ms. Allen stated (again) that a note should be added to the plan about the previously granted parking variance.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this application with the conditions discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

Mr. Cerniglia asked if the hospital could now apply for a building permit, to which the Village Engineer said that it could.  The Village Engineer stated that, along with the application, the Applicant would need to provide engineering plans and the appropriate building permit application fee.  An EAF would have to be submitted.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could call the Village Engineer’s office for information on how to apply for the building permit.

OLD BUSINESS:

Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano) – 50 Maple Street - (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Discussion of Amended Site Plan-Related Issues

The Planning Board tabled this application, as there was no one present to represent the Applicant.


NEW BUSINESS:

a)      Sky View Haven Associates – 1280 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.18 Blk. 1 Lot 2) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Discussion

Mike Bergen, Superintendent of Grounds for the Sky View Haven Nursing Home, was present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant is before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval for storage sheds that exist on the site already.  She noted to the other Board members that the Applicant’s submission to the Planning Board is in the form of a Building Permit application, which, it was thought, would be sufficient for this particular situation.

Mr. Bergen stated that the two 8’ x 10’ storage sheds are on concrete slabs.  

Mr. Bergen stated that the sheds are being used for storing the power lawnmower, ice removal equipment and other supplies for maintaining the property.  

Ms. Allen asked where the sheds are located, to which Mr. Bergen replied that they are alongside the dumpster.  

Mr. Brumleve referred to the Applicant’s plan and asked what the dashed line represents, to which Mr. Bergen replied that it represents the cement pad that the two sheds sit on.

Ms. Allen asked where the property line is, to which Mr. Bergen stated that the property line is the dark, solid line.  

Chairman Gallelli noted to the others that the reason that this issue of the existing sheds came up is that the property is changing hands, and a Certificate of Occupancy is required.  The Applicant must obtain an Amended Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board before a Building Permit can be issued.

Ms. Allen stated that, (as she understands it), the sheds are on a concrete pad and the concrete pad is sitting on asphalt, to which Mr. Bergen replied that the sheds are sitting on a concrete pad with the asphalt surrounding it.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board will have to schedule a public hearing on this application.

Ms. Allen stated that, for the public hearing, she would be raising questions about what is being stored in the sheds.  She stated that any runoff from this site goes into the Hudson River.  She would be especially concerned about spillage of chemicals, fertilizers or any other toxic materials that are, or might be, stored in these sheds. She suggested that the resolution could include a condition stating what materials would be allowed to be stored.  Chairman Gallelli said that it might be helpful, before the public hearing, for the Planning Board members to have a list of what is being stored in the sheds.  Ms. Allen stated that she thought it might also be useful for the Board members to go on a site visit to the property.

Chairman Gallelli wanted to know in what form the calcium chloride is being stored, to which Mr. Bergen replied that it is stored in a solid form.

Mr. Bergen told the Board members that gasoline for the chain saw is being store in one of the sheds.  He pointed out that it would be very dangerous to store flammable materials, such as gasoline, in the nursing home building itself; hence, it is in the shed.   

Ms. Allen thought that the Planning Board’s resolution should put restrictions on what can be stored in the sheds, or there could be containment capabilities placed on the stored materials.  Chairman Gallelli added that the Planning Board’s resolution might also want to place restrictions on the size of the containers.

The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant should submit a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).  He told Mr. Bergen that he could obtain the EAF form in the Village Engineer’s Office.

The Village Engineer referred to the plan and stated that the dotted (dashed) line is being “called out” as the concrete pad.  He asked that, for the next submission, the plan be revised to show the precise location of the concrete pad and the location of the fence.

Chairman Gallelli suggested again that the Applicant should provide a list of chemicals that would be stored in these sheds along with their specific quantities.  Also, the Applicant could provide a list of chemicals that would not be stored.

The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing on this application for Tuesday, November 18, 2003.


     Referral from the Village Board for a Recommendation on the Proposed Gateway Overlay Law

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board has been called upon, as required in the Village Code, to provide comments and/or a recommendation to the Village Board on the proposed Gateway Overlay Law.  The Planning Board members have received copies of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), which gives an evaluation of the proposal.  The Planning Board members also met with the Comprehensive Plan Committee and the Village Board last summer to discuss this matter.  The Village Board has declared its Intent to Act as Lead Agency.  The Planning Board has a 30-day timeframe in which to respond to this proposal.  The proposed law is on the Village Board’s agenda for Monday, November 3rd.  She noted that the public hearing would be on both the DGEIS and the proposed law.  

Joe Madden of Shamberg, Marwell, Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P.C. was present.  He told the Board members that he is at the meeting tonight because his firm is representing Irwin Katz, the owner of a piece of property, which is going to be affected by this law.

Mr. Brumleve asked why the Shop Rite area is not included in the gateway district, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that the Comprehensive Plan Committee did consider the Shop Rite area.  It ultimately decided that Shop Rite is not a gateway in the sense that it is not on the path/route for entering the Village.  The Shop Rite area is off to the side.  Chairman Gallelli noted that everything to the west of Route 9 is also not a gateway.  The Comprehensive Plan Committee wanted the gateways to be specific areas and not “all the Village.”  

Mr. Brumleve stated that he has some concerns about the North End Gateway.  The contents of the law address the “built” side of the road.  It does not address the open space on the east side.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the reason for this is that the east side is reserved open space under a conservation easement.  Mr. Brumleve stated that his concern would be that, in the future, the open space on the eastside of the road would not be given the same weight (importance) as the “built” side in terms of entering and leaving the Village. Mr. Brumleve stated that, in general, he would encourage the Village’s consultants, Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc., to be consistent throughout and consider that (basically) the gateways are on both sides of the road.

Mr. Brumleve noted that, in the South Riverside Gateway, there are varying locations of the line, which does not include the Shop Rite center. There is one situation in particular where the southerly line hovers over the fitness center.  He referred to the exhibit on page 12 of the DGEIS and stated that the line is clearly within private property over the New York Sports Club.  In other cases, it traces boundaries or lot lines.  

Mr. Brumleve stated that, in his way of thinking about the gateways, once a person elects to exit Route 9 for Croton Point Avenue, he/she is entering the gateway to the Village.  He stated that he therefore thinks the service yard, trash area, etc. behind Shop Rite is also within the gateway area.  

Chairman Gallelli referred to drawing 9a on page 35 and stated that, according to Mr. Brumleve’s earlier comment(s), this drawing should be revised to show the actual width of the green area on the south side of Croton Point Avenue.  Mr. Brumleve added that the corresponding green area in the small scale Figure 1 on page 3, which shows the Gateway Districts, should also be adjusted.

Mr. Brumleve referred to drawing 9c on page 37 and suggested that a note could be added, next to the words “sidewalk improvements,” that says, “existing trees and open space to be preserved.”  

Mr. Brumleve referred to page 7, Figure 4 “General Land Use” and stated that the color-coded area where the New York Sports Club is located is incorrect.  It is shown in a single-family zone when it should be shown in the commercial zone.

Mr. Brumleve referred to page 36, Figure 9b “Municipal Place Guidelines” and stated that, unlike the drawings on pages 35 and 37, this drawing has no notations of street tree plantings, street or sidewalk lighting, sidewalk features, etc.  Chairman Gallelli stated that this information is all included in the verbage (text) on the Municipal Place Gateway District.  

Mr. Brumleve referred to page 5 of the section of the DGEIS entitled “Local Law Introductory No. 3 of the Year 2003” and stated that, unlike the other two gateway districts, the South Riverside/Harmon gateway area does not have a section on landscaping.  He suggested that a paragraph on landscaping should be added accordingly, to which Chairman Gallelli agreed.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that she would draft a letter to the Village Board, which would incorporate all of the changes/additions discussed tonight.

Ms. Allen referred to Appendix E entitled “Common Species that can potentially be found in Urban/disturbed Settings.”  She asked what the purpose of this appendix is, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that, in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the Applicant has to identify the species that are common to the area.  

Ms. Allen stated that she recently attended a meeting with other municipalities having to do with establishing wildlife corridors.  The Wildlife Conservation Society has been doing a study on wildlife corridors, which will be published on Earth Day.  This study identifies potential places where land should be preserved for wildlife. Ms. Allen noted that, in the past, the Village has not been involved in these discussions; however, she believes the Village can get involved.  Chairman Gallelli noted that there is much discussion in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan about joining together and communicating with other towns on matters such as this.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, in the beginning of the letter to the Village Board, she would note that the Planning Board met last summer with the Comprehensive Plan Committee and the Village Board on the gateway overlay districts.  She would also include in the letter the points (changes/additions) that Mr. Brumleve made tonight.

Chairman Gallelli asked if, (generally speaking), the Planning Board would recommend the passage of the Gateway Overlay Law, to which all of the members present said that, indeed, they would.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board on the passage of the Gateway Overlay Law.  As part of this motion, the Planning Board would authorize the Planning Board chairman to write the letter of recommendation to the Village Board.  The motion was made by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

Chairman Gallelli noted to the others that Board member, Thomas Burniston, who was unable to attend the meeting tonight, has informed her that he favors the passage of the gateway law.

Mr. Madden asked Chairman Gallelli if there would be a resolution prepared on the Planning Board’s positive recommendation. Chairman Gallelli replied that a letter would be prepared.  On a referral from the Village Board, a letter, as opposed to a resolution, is prepared.  Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Madden that the letter would be included in the packets for the Monday night Village Board meeting.


Referral from the Village Board for a Recommendation on a Proposed Rezoning of Property at 23 Brook Street

Chairman Gallelli stated that Nancy Kennedy is acting on behalf of the property owner, Joan Dorien, for the rezoning of her lot at 23 Brook Street.  The property is currently zoned as C-2, and the property owner wants the zoning changed to RB.  Chairman Gallelli showed the others where the property is located on the tax map.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the zoned parcels in this area of Brook Street are a mixture of RB and C-2.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she, personally, thinks it would probably be beneficial to change the zoning of the property from a commercial use (C-2) to a residential use (RB). She pointed out that the Croton Housing Network built duplexes behind the property in question. If this house were to become a two-family house, it would add to the amount of available housing in the Village.

Chairman Gallelli noted that the Village might also consider rezoning other parcels on Brook Street in the future so that the zoning is consistent in this area.  She said that she sees no adverse impacts to this request for rezoning.

The Village Engineer noted that if all these parcels were zoned RB, some of the one-family residences would have the potential to become two-family residences.   

Mr. Brumleve asked if there was a parking requirement for the RB District, to which the Village Engineer stated that for a two-family residence in the RB District, two off-street parking spaces are required.   Mr. Brumleve suggested that, if the Planning Board recommends this change in the zoning, it should also take into consideration in its recommendation this off-street parking requirement, as curbside parking in the area is minimal.  Ms. Allen asked what would happen if the property were left as is. The Village Engineer told Ms. Allen that, if it were left as is, it could continue to exist as a one-family residence in the C-2 zone.  The property predates the Village’s zoning law, which was established in 1931, and is considered legally non-conforming.  He added that if this request for rezoning is not approved, the property owner has the option of seeking a variance from the ZBA.

The Village Engineer stated that the property owner is going to need a Building Permit for the conversion to a two-family house.  When he (the Village Engineer) is in the process of reviewing the application, he will ask that a second parking space be installed.  Overall, the Village Engineer did not think that this rezoning to a two-family would have much of an impact on the neighborhood.  He noted that the problem is that the RB area, in general, does not have enough parking.

The Planning Board decided to make a positive recommendation on the rezoning of the parcel to RB.  Mr. Brumleve suggested that the letter to the Village Board should mention that the parking requirement for a RB is one off-street space per unit i.e., two parking spaces for a two-family residence.  Mr. Brumleve suggested that the letter should also recommend that the interspersal of RB and C-2 properties in this neighborhood be reviewed in the Village’s upcoming zoning review.   Ms. Allen added that the letter should also mention that the mixture of the two zones reflects the historic nature of the Brook Street area.


Referral from the Village Board for a Recommendation on a Proposed Amendment to Sec. 230-9.A(4) of the Zoning Law

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board is being asked to review a change in the wording of Section 230-9.A(4) of the Zoning Code pertaining to allowable uses in the RA-40 District.  

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Board members that this request for an amendment to the Zoning Law came from an educational facility for children known as, Something Good in the World, Inc.  This organization wants to operate a non-public pre-school and kindergarten facility at 138 Maple Street. Chairman Gallelli noted to the Board members that, in the Zoning Code, schools require a certain amount of space (acreage), which the subject property does not meet.  In order to be able to set up this establishment, the Applicant would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the property is in the RB District.  The Village Code states that the uses allowed in the RB District are those (uses) that are allowed in the RA-40 District.  


Chairman Gallelli stated that, in the current law, the allowable uses in the RA-40 District apply to Sunday schools and parochial schools (only) and not non-parochial schools.  The proposed amendment would take out this exclusionary wording so that non-parochial schools would be included.  If the law were changed, the Applicant would still have to go before the ZBA for a variance(s) and go before the Village Board for a Special Permit.  Chairman Gallelli noted that when the Applicant applies to the Village Board for the Special Permit, the Village Board would ask for a recommendation from the Planning Board.             

Ms. Allen stated that the way the law reads now with the wording, “Sunday schools and parochial schools,” the implication is that a school must be a not-for-profit organization. Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Allen that it is, indeed, written in the Code that a school must be a not-for-profit. She told Ms. Allen where it is written.

The Planning Board decided to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board to amend Section 230-9.A(4) of the Zoning Code pertaining to allowable uses in the RA-40 Zoning District. Chairman Gallelli would write a letter to the Village Board accordingly.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Brumleve, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:20 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY



RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 for JPJ Enterprises, Inc., hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property being located at 67 Croton Point Avenue, in a C-2 Zoning District, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.13 Block 2 Lots 21, 22 & 22.01; and

WHEREAS, the Amended Site Plan application is for the installation of solar panels on the canopy at the Exxon gas station; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) dated September 12, 2003; 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 the drawing entitled “Site Plan Prepared for JPJ Enterprises, Inc. Croton Point Avenue Village of Croton-on-Hudson Westchester Co., NY,” dated September 10, 2003, prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., P.C. Consulting Engineers, be approved subject to the following condition:

That landscaping, consisting of trees and shrubs, shall be installed along the western perimeter, which would provide a visual screen between the Exxon station and the adjoining property, at such time as the westerly neighboring property is developed.



                                                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. Brumleve, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.  Planning Board members, Thomas Burniston and Joel Klein, were absent.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on October 28, 2003.      



RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 and continued to Tuesday, October 28, 2003, for Hudson Valley Ventures (Croton Medical Building), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 35 South Riverside Avenue, in an O-2 Zoning District, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.08 Block 5 Lot 61 (formerly #23 211 73); and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is for the installation of a new retaining wall at the Croton Medical Building; 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 the coversheet of the site plan entitled “New Retaining Wall for Croton Medical Building c/o Hudson Valley Hospital Center Riverside Avenue & Grand Street Croton-on-Hudson, NY,” and sheets #SP1.01 (Demolition Site Plan & Notes), #SP1.10 (Site Plan, Details, and Notes), #SP1.20 (Add’l Notes Plan & Details), #SP1.30 (Phasing Plan and Notes) and #L1.10 (Landscape Plan, Details, and Notes), dated May 15, 2003, last revised October 21, 2003, prepared by Cerniglia & Swartz, Architects, Planners and Interior Designers, P.C., be approved subject to the following conditions:

There shall be striping on the eastside of South Riverside Avenue for the parking spaces.

The area to the rear of the building and adjacent to the building shall be made into a sidewalk.

The proposed “top-of-wall” elevations shall be indicated on the final, approved plan.

A note shall be added to the plan indicating the previously granted parking variance.

The sleeve for the private sewer line shall be inspected by the Village Engineer at the time of installation.

Pre-construction drainage flow(s) shall be maintained after re-paving.

“No Parking” signs shall be provided on the center aisle between the handicap spaces.

A Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) shall be completed and filed with the Village Engineer’s Office.



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. Brumleve, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.  Planning Board members, Thomas Burniston and Joel Klein, were absent.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 28, 2003.