VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chair
ABSENT: Ted Brumleve
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.
Referral from the Village Board for a Recommendation on a Proposed Rezoning of the Croton Colonial Diner Property at 6 Hudson Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 55) from RA-5 to C-1
Gerald Klein, attorney, Joel Greenberg, architect, and Peter Tsagarakis, owner of the property, were present for this application.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the first item is a referral from the Village Board for the proposed rezoning of 6 Hudson Street from RA-5 to C-1. This request for the rezoning of 6 Hudson Street is in conjunction with an application for a proposed expansion of the Croton Colonial Diner. The Village Board is required to refer this request for rezoning to the Planning Board for a recommendation.
Chairman Gallelli asked the Applicant to explain this request for rezoning. She stated that, once the Applicant has presented this application, the Planning Board would follow up with comments and/or a discussion. Finally, although this is not a public hearing, the Planning Board would provide an opportunity, at the end of the discussion, for those members of the public present to speak.
The Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Klein, stated that Mr. Tsagarakis consulted with Mr. Greenberg and himself as to what could be done to make the diner more handicap-accessible. He was concerned about the lack of accessibility from the exterior of the building to the interior. He was also concerned about the lack of accessibility in the inside. The interior aisles are not wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair. The bathrooms are too small. The current proposal would include a ramp that would run along the outside of the building. Also, the interior aisles and bathroom facilities would be expanded. Mr. Klein stated that the adjacent property, which is owned by Mr. Tsagarakis, would be made into a parking area. This would increase the parking area for the diner by four or five spaces.
There would be no increase in the seating capacity of the diner. Mr. Klein stated that the Applicant’s real interest is to come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Applicant’s plan would (also) provide screening of the commercial area(s) from Hudson Street and Elm Street.
Mr. Greenberg stated that the entrance to the diner would be as it is now off South Riverside Avenue. The shaded area shown on the site plan is the addition being proposed. Mr. Greenberg stated that the house on the adjacent lot, which belongs to Mr. Tsagarakis, would be demolished. The house next to the one being demolished, which also belongs to Mr. Tsagarakis, would remain intact.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she has prepared and distributed to the Planning Board and to the Applicant a written chronology of the applications, variances, approvals, etc., for the Croton Colonial Diner. These documents are in the property file for the diner. Chairman Gallelli stated that in 1967 the Planning Board was asked to make, at the behest of the Village Board, a recommendation regarding the rezoning of houses on Elm and Hudson Streets from C-1 to RA-5. The Planning Board recommended the rezoning of all nine lots to RA-5. The Village Board subsequently rezoned these nine lots to RA-5. Chairman Gallelli stated that the concept was that commercial (C-1) zoning be (only) one lot in depth on Hudson Street.
Chairman Gallelli noted that in 1985 the Applicant submitted a proposal, which is almost exactly like the one the Applicant has submitted now. At that time, the Planning Board felt that the proposal was excessive and that it was more than what was necessary to meet the problems the diner was experiencing.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant has recently attended a work session of the Village Board and is aware of the fact that the Village has recently adopted a Comprehensive Plan, which specifically recommends that residential lots not be rezoned to commercial lots.
Mr. Greenberg stated that the proposal in 1985 was for an expansion. The purpose of the new proposal is to provide handicapped accessibility. There would be no increase in the seating at all.
Mr. Klein noted to the Board members that his client, Mr. Tsagarakis, believes that his application does not “fly in the face of” the goal(s) set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Klein added that there are a number of elements involved with this particular request that make it unique. The diner is in a unique situation. Mr. Klein stated that the reason for this request is to be in compliance with the ADA. The Applicant is not increasing the seating. The diner would accommodate the same number of people before and after the expansion. Mr. Klein stated that this proposal is not for economic gain.
Mr. Klein noted that the addition being proposed is entirely within the commercial zone. The RA-5 lot was previously zoned “commercial.” The Applicant is asking that the lot be changed back from “residential” to commercial.”
Ms. Allen asked what the square footage of the existing diner is and what the square footage of the addition would be. Mr. Greenberg stated that the existing diner is 3,000 square feet and the addition would be 1,200 square feet. Ms. Allen noted that this Applicant is proposing a 40% expansion, to which Mr. Klein remarked that none of the proposed addition would be in an area to serve customers.
Ms. Allen noted that the Applicant’s site plan does not show the concrete barrier that exists between the two parts of the parking lot in the back of the building.
Board member, Joel Klein, asked where Mr. Tsagarakis’ employees, who live in his house on 6 Hudson Street, presently park their cars. Mr. Tsagarakis replied that they park their cars in the back of the house. Mr. Klein noted that, if this house were demolished and these employees of the diner moved away, they would still need to park their cars in the back. He pointed out that there would not be the increase of four or five parking spaces as represented; the net increase in parking would be only one or two spaces. Chairman Gallelli noted further that, if the square footage of the diner were increased by 1,200 square feet, additional parking spaces would be required by Code, to which Mr. Greenberg replied that this is, indeed, the case.
Mr. Burniston asked the Applicant to explain what areas of the diner are being expanded. Mr. Greenberg replied that additional square footage would be added to the aisle space to accommodate handicapped persons. The counter would be moved further back. The kitchen would also be moved further back. Finally, the bathroom would be made larger to conform to ADA standards.
Mr. Burniston noted that this application includes a wrap-around handicap access ramp. He wanted to know if the Applicant looked at any alternatives for handicapped accessibility using the existing space. He wondered if there would be a way to provide this accessibility without the expansion. He suggested that perhaps the ramp could be taken around the front to the side. The proper grade exists in the front, and the expansion would not be required. He noted that, since the main purpose of this application is to provide better access to the handicapped, then, it would be important to look at alternatives within the existing space. Mr. Greenberg told the Planning Board members that, if the space were left as is and handicapped accessibility were provided, the Applicant would have to reduce his
present seating capacity.
Mr. Tsagarakis told the Planning Board that there is no alternative to the proposal for putting in the ramp. He suggested that the Board members should visit the diner. He said, “If you come to the diner, you will see it is impossible to service the handicapped without doing something to the diner.”
Mr. Burniston noted that two applications for an expansion of the diner, very similar if not exactly like this one, were disapproved in the past. He personally will vote “no” on this application. Mr. Burniston pointed out that it would be difficult to keep track of the number of seats in the diner to be sure that no additional seating were being provided. The Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Klein, suggested that the Planning Board could count the number of seats at the diner now to be sure, in the future, that none were being added. Mr. Burniston reiterated that some other means for providing accessibility, other than an expansion, should be explored.
Board member, Joel Klein, referred to the chronology prepared by Chairman Gallelli for use at tonight’s Board meeting. He noted that there is a daunting record of violations in the property file for the Croton Colonial Diner. He read aloud examples of these past violations. Mr. Klein pointed out that assurances from this Applicant regarding the seating do not carry much weight, given this Applicant’s past record of violations.
The Applicant’s attorney, Gerald Klein, noted to the Board members that, as a local businessman, this Applicant has made contributions to the Village over the years. He is a good citizen of this community. Mr. Klein noted further that the Applicant has submitted, as part of this application, a list of signatures of people living in the community who believe that this proposal is a positive one for the community. Board member, Joel Klein, asked if the Applicant had taken into consideration the opinions of the neighboring residents living on Elm and Hudson Streets. These residents are in opposition to the expansion being proposed.
The Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Klein, stated that, should this proposal be approved, a positive result would be that fewer cars would be coming in and out of one of the areas where residents live. There would also be some screening provided on Elm and Hudson Streets. Finally, the Applicant would be removing an existing house, which is in ill repair at this time. Board member, Joel Klein, questioned why the house, which belongs to the Applicant, is in a state of ill repair. He noted that this Applicant claims to be a good citizen; however, his property is not being properly maintained. Maintaining one’s property so that the neighbors do not have to look at an “eyesore” is a way of being a good citizen. Mr. Greenberg noted that, should this request for a change in the zoning be approved by the
Village Board, this Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan approval. The Planning Board would have an opportunity at that time to carefully scrutinize this application.
Mr. Burniston asked Mr. Tsagarakis what the capacity of the diner was when it was built, to which Mr. Tsagarakis said that the capacity was 116.
Mr. Burniston stated that, according to this Applicant, the purpose of this application is to provide adequate handicapped accessibility. The Applicant has told the Planning Board tonight that this goal could be reached using the existing space. Mr. Burniston questioned why the Planning Board should approve such an expansion of the space when accessibility could be provided using the existing space. Mr. Greenberg stated that, indeed, it could be done using the existing space. However, the Applicant would have to reduce the size of the kitchen and remove one-half of the seats. The diner could no longer accommodate the Friday and Saturday seating. It could be done but would no longer be economically feasible.
Board member, Joel Klein, also questioned why a 40% expansion of the existing space would be required to meet ADA requirements.
Mr. Greenberg suggested that, for the next Planning Board meeting, he could bring in a floor plan.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that there is a sense tonight that what is being asked for goes beyond the particular problems the Applicant is faced with.
Chairman Gallelli asked the Applicant if he had considered a lift as opposed to a ramp. Mr. Greenberg stated that the problem they face is how to get people from the parking lot into the diner. He pointed to the eastside of the building where the proposed addition would be and stated that a small section of the ramp would be located on this side. He (Mr. Greenberg) had not explored the possibility of putting in a lift as an alternative to a ramp but personally thought that a lift would be more cumbersome.
Chairman Gallelli asked how many hours a day the diner was opened. Mr. Tsagarakis said 19-20 hours a day. Chairman Gallelli expressed concern about the parking situation. She noted that the owner of Croton Cleaners & Launderers had recently been before the Planning Board and had told the Board that his parking spaces are oftentimes taken up by customers for the diner. The Applicant is proposing additional parking spaces on Hudson Street, which is a residential area. Chairman Gallelli stated that she would be concerned about an increase in the noise level(s). Customers for the diner would be moving about early in the morning in a residential area.
Ms. Allen did not think that a commercial lot should be added to this particular area. She recalled what Chairman Gallelli had stated earlier that the Village’s intent for Hudson Street was for commercial lots to be only one lot in depth. This zoning change would go against that (the Village’s) intention. Ms. Allen expressed concern about the tendency for commercial zones to “creep;” it might happen more readily if the Village was to approve this change from a residential (RA-5) lot to a commercial (C-1) lot. The Village might be setting an undesirable precedent. Ms. Allen reiterated that she would be opposed to changing a lot from a RA-5 to a C-1 in this area.
Mr. Burniston noted that the Applicant also owns the house next to the one being demolished. He raised the question, what would prevent this Applicant from coming before the Village in the future for another zoning change from “residential” to “commercial,” should the present rezoning be approved? Mr. Burniston agreed with Ms. Allen that one of the important issues to be addressed here is gradual commercial expansion.
Mr. Burniston brought up the issue of the dilapidated house. He expressed concern that this house had not been maintained over the years. He noted that the Village expects its residents to maintain their properties for themselves and for their neighbors. This Applicant did not do so. Now, the Applicant wants to be allowed to demolish this house and use the lot for another desired purpose. Mr. Burniston did not think that it would be fair or proper for the Village to “reward” the Applicant in this way.
Mr. Burniston stated that he does applaud Mr. Tsagarakis’ service to the community. Mr. Tsagarakis has oftentimes over the years provided food for organizations that help the needy.
Mr. Burniston reiterated that, if handicapped accessibility for the diner could be provided using the existing space, then that is what should be done.
Board member, Joel Klein, did not think that the Applicant has shown the Planning Board tonight that this proposal is the least intrusive way to meet the ADA standards.
Ms. Allen stated that part of the Applicant’s parking lot is in a RA-5 district. The Applicant was granted a Special Permit to operate a parking lot in this zoning district. She wanted to know if the status of this Special Permit to operate the parking lot could change at any point. Chairman Gallelli replied that the Special Permit issued by the Village Board had a one-year renewal that was attached to it. She did not find, in the property file, any actions that showed it was ever renewed.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she, personally, would not be in favor of this rezoning application. Her position on this particular matter is, for the most part, based on the recommendation(s) set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tsagarakis told the Board members that he thought they should take a “hard look” at this application. He would not want the Planning Board to make a decision too quickly. He would appreciate it if the Board would spend more time on it. He personally thought that his proposal would be a benefit to the whole community. Perhaps, there would be a way to satisfy the neighbors’ concerns and still go ahead with his proposal. Mr. Tsagarakis stated that he has tried over the years to be a decent citizen of the community. He noted that he has never asked a Village politician to do any special favors for him. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Tsagarakis that the Planning Board has to try to do what is best for everyone in the community. The Planning Board has to consider the interests of all.
Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that she thinks the Planning Board members have come to a conclusion on this rezoning application. The Planning Board feels that the method being proposed to solve this problem of handicapped accessibility exceeds what the problem demands. She added that the encroachment of a commercial zone into a residential neighborhood is not a solution to this problem.
Jeffrey Mills, a neighboring resident living at 7 Hudson Street, said that he would question the motives of this Applicant. He asked why, when the ADA regulations have been in effect for a long time, would the Applicant need to implement, right now, the necessary changes for handicapped accessibility. Mr. Mills noted that, even though there might not be any more seats added at this point in time, the expansion/addition being proposed would make the diner a more valuable piece of property. A potential buyer of the diner could try to get more seats in the dining room area(s) later on.
Suzanne Lewis of 9 Hudson Street expressed concern about the encroachment of a commercial enterprise into a residential area. She said that the fact that the back parking lot of the diner is zoned “residential” bothers her. Now, the Applicant is proposing a zoning change, from “residential” to “commercial,” to create another (commercial) parking lot.
Ms. Lewis noted that, last year, Mr. Tsagarakis assured the neighboring residents that the rental house next to the diner would be repaired, but nothing has been done. She expressed frustration that he does not follow through with the promises he makes.
Chairman Gallelli told the Board members that she would like to have some direction from the Board as to how to proceed. Mr. Burniston stated that the Planning Board should send a recommendation to the Village Board rejecting this proposal. He cited several reasons why the rezoning proposal should be denied. Mr. Burniston noted to those present that it could be denied just on the basis (alone) of taking over a residential property for commercial use. Mr. Burniston stated that the purpose of this application, which involves significantly expanding the diner, is supposedly to provide handicapped accessibility; however, the Applicant has acknowledged that it could be done using the existing space. Mr. Burniston noted that this application goes against one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
in that, if approved, a commercial property would be expanded into one of the Village’s residential areas. Mr. Burniston stated that the granting of this rezoning would set an undesirable precedent. The Applicant owns the house next door and, should the first house be rezoned to a commercial use, it would be much more difficult to refuse a request to rezone the second house someday. Mr. Burniston stated that the granting of this application would improperly reward a property owner for the on-going neglect and misuse of a piece of residential property. Mr. Burniston stated that, as noted earlier, there was a Special Permit granted for part of the diner parking lot. The Special Permit has long since expired. He would urge the Village Board to look into this matter. He would also recommend that the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer be asked to visit the existing houses to see if they are in compliance with the Village Code.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that the letter to the Village Board should (also) say that the Planning Board would welcome a proposal to provide handicapped accessibility that would not involve encroaching onto residential properties.
Board member, Joel Klein, stated that he would be concerned about the impact(s) of this rezoning on the neighboring residents, especially the residents living on Elm and Hudson Streets. He stated that, in this instance, the community would suffer disproportionately with the proposed rezoning, and he could, therefore, not vote for it.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to recommend that the Village Board deny this rezoning proposal. The motion was made by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she would prepare the recommendation letter for the Village Board.
Referral from the Village Board for a Request from Hudson National Golf Club for a Special Permit
Chairman Gallelli suggested that, with respect to this referral from the Village Board, the Planning Board should state in its letter to the Village Board that the Planning Board is currently processing this Applicant’s Amended Site Plan application. The Applicant has to prepare a DEIS. The Planning Board would need the information provided in the Applicant’s DEIS to make its recommendation to the Village Board. Chairman Gallelli stated that she would also let Mr. Saunders know that the recommendation to the Village Board regarding the Special Permit application would not be forthcoming within the usual 30-day time frame but rather at the completion of the environmental review. The Planning Board members all agreed with Chairman Gallelli’s suggestion on how to proceed.
Velardo Subdivision Lot #3 (M&A Real Estate Development Corp.) – 1214 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.19 Blk. 1 Lot 4.02) – Application for Preliminary Subdivision Approval
John Alfonzetti, engineer representing the Applicant, was present.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the revised plan, submitted for tonight’s meeting, shows that the slope of the driveway has been increased slightly. The proposed house on Lot #3 has been brought farther back so that not so much fill would be required. The revised plan also shows an area for a future swimming pool or tennis court.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that, at the last meeting, there was concern about how this house would look visually. The difference in elevation between the residences on Lot #3 and Lot #4 is 68 feet. The upper house on Lot #3 would look well over the other house.
Ms. Allen noted that, when the Planning Board previously approved Lot #3, the house on Lot #3 was set in the hill so that it would be visually less intrusive from North Riverside Avenue.
Ms. Allen wanted to know how high the house would be after grading. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that it would be one foot above the established grade. He referred to the map and pointed to the 102-foot “topo” line, stating that the proposed two-story house would be at the 103-foot “topo” line.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the house would be visually set below some of the mature trees.
Mr. Klein stated that, clearly, the house is much lower down than it was before; however, now, it is closer to the river. He wondered if this would mean that the house would be more visible from the river. Mr. Alfonzetti replied that he thought the house could be shielded from the river by tree plantings.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would like to schedule a site visit.
Ms. Allen noted that, even though the house is lower down, the road to the house might be visible from the river. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that he could not get the snapshots from the river because of inclement weather. He would try to do so for the next meeting.
The Village Engineer stated that, with respect to the issue brought up at the last meeting about the septic system versus a municipal sewer line, this lot is in the sewer district, so the Applicant would not have to ask to be in it.
Ms. Allen stated that she has a problem with this issue concerning the septic system. The fact that a septic system was never really needed is a new development. Ms. Allen could not understand why, when the Velardo Subdivision was approved, no one knew that the house could be connected to the municipal sewer line. As it turns out, the municipal sewer line had been in this area for a long time. Ms. Allen noted that the Planning Board went through a great deal of trouble trying to find out where the septic system could go. A lot of trees were subsequently removed. Ms. Allen noted that even the size of this lot was determined by the area to be taken up by the septic system.
Mr. Alfonzetti told the Board members that a tree survey has been prepared. There was a tree that was scheduled to be cut that was saved. Chairman Gallelli noted that the Planning Board had asked the Applicant at the last meeting to prepare a tree survey so that the Board would have it for the site visit.
Ms. Allen stated that she found inconsistencies between the original map and the new tree map. She referred to the Velardo Subdivision map and pointed to the trees that were to be cut to provide the septic area for the house on Lot #3. She noted that there is a discrepancy in the area where the trees were to be protected. Mr. Alfonzetti said that he would look into this matter. He noted that, for the new tree survey, he took his information off of the site plan and not the subdivision map. On the site plan, the house was rotated, and a different set of trees was to be removed. Chairman Gallelli stated that, when the environmental site plan was prepared and the location for the septic system was determined, there was a decision made about trees to be protected. These same trees, that were to be
protected, have since been removed. She thought that the Planning Board should find out how these trees came to be removed.
Mr. Burniston stated that the edge of the 100-foot minimum wetlands setback comes to the corner of the proposed house. Most house construction has drainage around the house to pool the water away from the foundation. He noted that there would be no way, in this instance, to put in the foundation without disturbing the wetlands. Mr. Burniston wanted to know if the grading in that area could be limited or reduced. He questioned why this area within the wetlands setback had to be filled in. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant might want to shift the house somewhat to avoid the wetlands as much as possible. Mr. Klein noted that it is really the wetlands buffer which is being affected, and the Applicant would want to minimize the impact(s) as much as possible. Ms. Allen stated that she
would recommend that the Applicant stay out of the wetlands buffer area altogether. Mr. Alfonzetti said that he would try to shift the house to stay out of the wetlands. Mr. Klein told Mr. Alfonzetti that the WCC is going to ask him to do that.
Mr. Alfonzetti gave to Mr. Burniston a copy of the recently signed agreement between the neighboring property owner and the Applicant regarding the purchase of land and the driveway easement.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that the steep slopes calculations on Lot #3 might require an adjustment. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that he took the information for the steep slopes calculations off of the site plan that was approved for that building lot. He would revisit this issue. He mentioned to the Planning Board members that a gas line has been brought in. Chairman Gallelli stated that this might “push it over the top” and, in order to meet the steep slopes requirements, the Applicant might end up having to make a lot line adjustment between Lots #3 and #4.
Chairman Gallelli referred to the glacial erratic on the Applicant’s property and stated that, as a result of the proposed change to the property line, this rock (glacial erratic) is now situated on two different pieces of property. When the lots are sold, two property owners would have possession of the rock. The glacial erratic was previously situated entirely on Lot #3. She wanted to make a point of bringing this up because this rock is important from an archeological standpoint. Mr. Cipriano, owner of the property, stated that a berm was put around this rock to protect it. Ms. Allen stated that she thought the Planning Board’s intention, when the Velardo Subdivision was approved, was to keep this rock just as it is. Now it is half buried. Ms. Allen stated that she would like the dirt removed so
that the rock would look the way it did before. Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board should take a look at the rock during the site visit.
The Planning Board discussed a date for the site visit. It was decided that there would be two site visits so that all of the members would have an opportunity to attend. The first site visit would take place on Saturday, March 27th, at 10:00 AM. The second would take place the following Saturday, on April 3rd, at 10:00 AM.
Mr. Alfonzetti asked what the next steps would be. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Alfonzetti that, for the next meeting, he would have to review the matter regarding a possible lot line change between Lots #3 and #4. The Planning Board would also like to see pictures of the proposed house from the river. Ms. Allen noted that this would be a good time of year to provide these pictures because the leaves are not yet on the trees. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant also has to schedule a meeting with the WCC. Finally, the Planning Board would like to know why the trees, which were to be protected when the septic system was put in, were removed.
The Village Engineer explained to the Board members how he came to realize that this Applicant could hook into the municipal sewer line and would not need a septic system. He was on a site visit with Bruce Donohue, and there were questions raised about the marginal septic area. He was concerned about the septic system going into a marginal area. He knew the force main was there. He later checked to see if this lot was in the sewer district and it was. The Village Engineer stated that, by the time he checked into the force main issue, the trees were already cut down for the septic system. Ms. Allen still questioned why this issue about the septic system/sewer line was not discovered when this application was first before the Planning Board. Chairman Gallelli stated that the presumption is that
no one is going to build a septic system when there is access to a municipal sewer line. The Applicant, Antonio Velardo, did not know that he had the ability to tie into a municipal sewer line. Chairman Gallelli noted that, if he had known about the sewer line at the time, he would most likely have applied for a four-lot subdivision rather than just a three-lot subdivision.
Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Alfonzetti that there might be modifications to the plan resulting from the site visits. Should there be changes, the Applicant should come back before the Planning Board with a plan showing these changes.
The Planning Board discussed the scheduling of future meetings. Mr. Klein stated that he would not be able to attend the meeting of April 6th. Chairman Gallelli noted that April 6th is Passover. At the last meeting, the Planning Board agreed to hold the meeting on the 6th; however, if there were a problem for any of the Applicants scheduled to attend that meeting, the meeting would be rescheduled. Chairman Gallelli stated that she would not be able to attend the meeting of April 27th. Finally, the Planning Board moved the meeting scheduled for May 4th to Tuesday, May 11th.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Board members that the Village Board would be referring an application to the Planning Board for the issuing of a Special Permit for a new school. The name of the school is “Something Good in the World.” This school was recently granted a zoning variance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, March 2, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Klein, seconded by Ms. Allen 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 10:25 P.M.