VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran Allen
ABSENT: Ann Gallelli, Chair
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Ted Brumleve, acting as chairman in Ann Gallelli’s absence.
American Building Technologies (Galena Feit) – Prospect Place and Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19) – Application for Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Hudson View Subdivision
Ronald Wegner of Cronin Engineering and Galena Feit, owner of the property, were present for this application.
Mr. Wegner stated that he is here to represent American Building Technologies regarding the Hudson View Subdivision proposal. The property in question is a 4.2-acre parcel at the corner of Prospect Place and Old Post Road North. The Applicant is proposing a three-lot subdivision, which would be served by municipal water and the municipal sewer system. Proposed Lots #1 and #2 would gain access from Prospect Place while Lot #3 would gain access from Old Post Road North. Mr. Wegner stated that, since the last meeting on this application, some changes have been made to the Applicant’s plan(s). A curb has been added along the westerly side of Old Post Road North to allow drainage to flow into the new drainage improvement area(s). The sewer line has been rerouted from Lot #3. The lot
lines between Lots #2 and #3 have been straightened. The alignment of the drainage channel from Old Post Road North has been revised. The house elevation of the house on Lot #1 has been raised by 2 feet. The storm water area on the Applicant’s plan(s) has been redrawn in accordance with the study by Dvirka & Bartilucci, which was completed in February of this year. A means of access has been provided off of Prospect Place to gain access to the storm water management area being proposed. The cut and fill for the proposed storm water area has now been calculated.
Mr. Klein asked Mr. Wegner if the source for the fill has been identified, to which Mr. Wegner replied that it has not yet been identified. Mr. Klein asked how many truckloads of fill would be required, to which Mr. Wegner thought that approximately 50 to 60 truckloads would be required. Mr. Klein wanted to know how much time it would take to deliver the fill. Mr. Wegner thought that it could be delivered in approximately one month.
Mr. Brumleve wanted to know if the storm water detention area being proposed is going to be dry, to which Mr. Wegner responded that a dry area is what is being proposed now. Ms. Feit is considering making it a wet area; however, the current design is for a dry area. Mr. Brumleve noted that the design for the Applicant’s storm water system relates to the downstream design for storm water retention discussed in the Dvirka & Bartilucci report of February 2004.
Mr. Brumleve expressed concern about standing water in the storm water retention pond stating that, if additional runoff were to flow into the retention pond, the pond would already “be occupied.” Mr. Wegner told Mr. Brumleve that there would not be a reduction in capacity levels. Mr. Brumleve asked Mr. Wegner if the idea being proposed would be to dig a deeper hole to hold the water, to which Mr. Wegner replied that, indeed, this is the idea. Mr. Wegner noted that Dvirka & Bartilucci provided a design for a pond, which has a certain capacity, and the new design for a wet storm water area would simply allow for an additional (water) capacity.
Ms. Feit stated that a detention pond with 3 or 4 feet of water in it would be more aesthetically pleasing. She did not think that a dry pond would look good.
Mr. Klein wondered if a wet storm water area would create maintenance problems, to which Mr. Wegner stated that there would be 4 bays to collect sediments in addition to the wet area. Mr. Klein noted that, with standing water, there might be a problem with mosquitoes and other insects, to which Mr. Wegner replied that he would have to look into the problem of insects.
Mr. Burniston noted that the Applicant’s current plan shows the features/characteristics of a dry pond, to which Mr. Wegner stated that, indeed, the design being shown on the current plan is a for a dry pond. Mr. Burnison noted further that if the Applicant were asking the Planning Board to consider a wet pond, the Applicant would have to come back before the Board with a modified plan showing a design.
The Village Engineer noted that the Water Control Commission (WCC) would also have to review the change from a dry to a wet detention pond. He stated that a potential problem with a wet pond is weed growth. The Village would be responsible for the maintenance of the pond. He would not want the Village to have to be in a position to have to remove weeds. A dry pond is certainly easier to maintain. He (the Village Engineer) would need more information to make any more comments on this change from a dry to a wet detention pond. The Village Engineer noted that the next WCC meeting is Wednesday, May 5th. He suggested that the Applicant might want to ask the WCC for input.
Mr. Klein noted that the Applicant has completed the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey, to which Mr. Wegner replied that test pits were proposed in two high areas on the site to test for prehistoric artifacts.
Mr. Brumleve stated that he is in favor of rerouting the sewer line.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the rear yards for Lots #1 and #2 are limited in size. He suggested that the Applicant should retrace the property lines of Lot #2. Mr. Wegner told Mr. Brumleve that, when he looked into the matter of drawing the property lines for Lot #2, he was restricted by the existence of sloped areas. The lot lines for the subdivision ended up the way they are on account of steep slopes. Mr. Wegner noted that he does have some flexibility on Lot #3. Mr. Brumleve noted that Lot #2 is an odd shaped lot (geometrically). Mr. Klein stated that the back yard space for Lot #3 would be increased if the lot line for Lot #2 was moved. He would prefer leaving the lot lines the way they are currently drawn.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the Applicant is proposing to replace a concrete curb on the westerly side of Old Post Road North. There are a number of sidewalks in discontinuous patterns in this area of the Village. He suggested that a sidewalk from the Village center should be considered. He thought that the sidewalk should be installed on the easterly side of Old Post Road North and should tie into the sidewalk at Lounsbury Road. Mr. Klein also thought that installing a sidewalk in this area would be a good idea. He noted that there is a gap in the sidewalk between Mt. Green Road and Old Post Road North. Mr. Wegner suggested that, in looking at the site conditions, a sidewalk would have to be installed on the easterly, as opposed to the westerly side of Old Post Road.
A discussion ensued on the drainage channel(s) being proposed. Mr. Brumleve wondered if the easterly side of Old Post Road North already had some form of drainage channel. The Village Engineer stated that Dvirka & Bartilucci recommended a curb on the westerly side to take care of sheet flow. This firm also recommended catch basins along Mt. Green Road. Catch basins would come down the full length of Mt. Green Road and hook into the drainage channel. Ms. Allen recalled the discussion that the Village had with Dvirka & Bartilucci on the water system for the Old Post Road North/Mt. Green Road area. According to Dvirka & Bartilucci, there were various amounts of water containment that could be provided along this route. The Village Engineer stated that Dvirka &
Bartilucci recommended that a storm water channel on the Hudson View property should be approved to eliminate soil erosion. Check dams to capture sediment were recommended for the water course. The restructured pond would also decrease the downstream flow.
Mr. Brumleve wanted to know if the Village would maintain the detention pond, to which Mr. Wegner said that the Village would maintain it.
The Village Engineer stated that Dvirka & Bartilucci should review the Applicant’s current design for the drainage flow.
Ms. Allen stated that she thought there was a low point on the right hand side of Old Post Road North to capture the sheet flow. The Village Engineer noted that, with respect to storm water runoff, he has not seen any water in the ravine off of Old Post Road North under normal circumstances. Ms. Allen expressed concern about the drainage flow during a major storm event. She noted that, during a major storm, she has seen water come down Mt. Green Road, and she does not think that the 6” curb being proposed could contain the flow of water. The Village Engineer suggested that, perhaps, the curb could be made slightly higher in that particular location. Ms. Allen thought that the storm water plan for this particular area needed further analysis.
Mr. Brumleve asked the Applicant if the houses being proposed are two-story houses, to which Mr. Wegner replied that they are. Mr. Brumleve asked if they were above grade, to which Mr. Wegner said that they are.
Mr. Brumleve noted that the Applicant has proposed a 60-foot driveway for Lot #3. He wanted to know if it was reasonable for a driveway to be 60 feet in length. Mr. Wegner stated that the length of the driveway was dictated by the existence of steep slopes. The Village Engineer noted that there is a 50-foot offset requirement for the driveway entrance from the intersection.
Mr. Klein wondered if the driver of a vehicle coming out of the driveway on Lot #3 would experience sight distance problems entering onto Old Post Road North. He noted that a vehicle would be going up hill. Mr. Wegner responded that he does not see a problem with the sight distance to the left. He would have to look into the matter of there being adequate sight distance to the right. Mr. Brumleve wondered if there could be a flatter area at the top of the driveway so a driver of a vehicle entering onto Old Post Road North could see more clearly to the right to make a left turn. He reiterated that cars heading north on Old Post Road might create a dangerous situation for people leaving Lot #3. Mr. Klein stated the Applicant might want to refer this matter to the State for review as well.
Mr. Brumleve summarized the items discussed so far tonight stating that, in the continuing review of this application the Applicant, Ms. Feit, should work with the Village relative to the sidewalk(s) and crosswalk. The Applicant should make a decision as to whether she wants to pursue a wet versus a dry retention bond. Mr. Brumleve noted that the Planning Board would want to review the aforementioned Cultural Resources Report. Dvirka & Bartilucci should receive copies of the revised site plan. The proposed homes should be noted as two-story structures on the Applicant’s revised plan(s).
Mr. Klein wanted to know at what point the Planning Board would review the draft of the easement agreements. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant should show these easements on the subdivision plan. Mr. Klein added that the establishment of easements would be a condition of the resolution as well. Mr. Brumleve added that the drawing up of these agreements between the Applicant and the Village should be running concurrent with the Planning Board’s review of this application.
Ms. Allen brought up the issue of visual impacts, to which Mr. Wegner recalled to those present that there was a discussion at a previous meeting involving the visual impacts of the new house(s) on the neighboring Stevenson house.
Mr. Wegner told the Board members that there is a 36” Maple tree which, upon laying out the plans for the Applicant’s sewer line, he realized might have to be removed. He noted that this tree does not appear to be in very good shape. Mr. Wegner wanted the Board members to be aware of the fact that this tree might have to come down. He told the Board members that if they strongly objected to the tree being removed, he would try to save it. Mr. Klein said that he thought, eventually, the tree in question would have to come down anyway. Ms. Allen suggested that it would be worthwhile to have an arborist look at the condition of the tree.
The Village Engineer noted that there are some dry wells shown on the plan. He wanted to know how these dry wells would be incorporated into this subdivision project. He told Mr. Wegner that the WCC would probably recommend that these dry wells serve the function of catching potential polluted runoff, to which Mr. Wegner replied that, indeed, they would function in this way. The Village Engineer stated that he would need to see the calculations for these dry wells. He noted that some of these dry wells are located quite a distance from the driveway being proposed.
Eleanor Soderlund of 57 High Street was present. Ms. Soderlund expressed concern about the impact of the proposed subdivision on drainage downstream. She was concerned about potential flooding. She noted that, during some storm events, water flows “like Niagara Falls” over the top of Old Post Road North and into a culvert. The Village has made some improvements to the drainage in this area but at this point in time, the area around the culvert is still “pondy.” She has written the Village a letter expressing her concern about the drainage. Ms. Soderlund noted that there has been a problem for many years with drainage in the High Street area. She would want to make sure that the drainage for the proposed subdivision is done in a proper way.
Ms. Soderlund expressed concern about the visual impacts of the house on Lot #3 on residents living on High Street. She would hope that the proper amount of shrubs could be installed for screening purposes.
Mr. Klein suggested that Ms. Feit could flag the property line between Lot #3 and the properties on High Street so that the people living on High Street could see where there houses are in relation to the house on Lot #3. Mr. Brumleve stated that, at the very least, the Applicant should stake the corners of the proposed residence on Lot #3. Mr. Klein thought that Ms. Feit should flag the entire property line. Ms. Allen stated that it would be useful to visualize the height of the house being proposed on Lot #3 so as to understand more clearly the visual impact(s). Mr. Brumleve stated that, not only should the Applicant stake the corners of the property, but also flag the trees that are to be preserved.
Dennis Carroll of 55 High Street expressed concern about the visual impact(s) of the house on Lot #3. He and his wife would be “staring into the windows of the house on Lot #3 from their deck.”
Mr. Carroll also expressed concern about potential flooding problems. He told the Board that there is always water going through the Feit property during a storm event and, even when it is not raining, there are wet areas (spots) on the property that are easily discernable. He mentioned an illegally dug retention pond that the storm water flows into. Mr. Carroll was concerned that cutting down more trees to build the subdivision would have an impact on the drainage, making the flooding problems in this area even worse. He pointed out that he and his neighbors already have a problem with flooding that was exacerbated by the clear cutting of trees for the golf course. He is afraid that, with the cutting of more trees, the problem will worsen.
Mr. Carroll said that he agrees with the Planning Board about the problem of sight distance from the driveway on Lot #3. Mr. Brumleve noted that the house and the garage on Lot #3 might be “flipped” so that the garage and driveway are on the south side. The house would be moved to a location within the wetlands buffer area but farther away from the houses on High Street. Mr. Klein noted that, should the Planning Board decide to pursue this idea of moving the house farther into a wetland area, the Planning Board would ask for comments from the WCC.
Mr. Carroll asked if it would be possible to install a pipe to drain the water off the property. Mr. Brumleve told Mr. Carroll that he did not think the Planning Board was equipped to comment on what would be the best drainage solution (pipe vs. a stream). He noted that Dvirka & Bartilucci have performed a storm water study for the Village. The study focused on the drainage problems in this area as well as other areas of the Village. As far as this application is concerned, the Planning Board will have to have Dvirka & Bartilucci comment on the storm water management plan being proposed.
Stanislaw Kotowski of 55A High Street was present. Mr. Kotowski told the Board members that his deck is much closer to the proposed house on Lot #3 than what is being shown. He said that he thought it would be more effective, from a visual standpoint, to move the house on Lot #3 farther away from the properties on High Street than to try to create a visual buffer.
The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant should try to come up with a few alternative designs for the location of the house on Lot #3 and see which one the WCC might be agreeable to.
Mr. Brumleve stated that the Applicant should note the minimum disturbance line on the preliminary subdivision plan.
The Planning Board tentatively scheduled the public hearing on this application for Tuesday, May 25th. If the Applicant is not ready to come back by the 25th, the public hearing could take place at the following meeting on Tuesday, June 1st.
Mr. Brumleve thanked the neighbors for coming to the meeting tonight and providing comments. He told the neighbors that before the public hearing on this application takes place, the trees to be saved would be flagged, and the house locations would be marked.
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 for the Applicant, was present.
Mr. Alfonzetti noted that, since the last meeting, the Planning Board has been on a site visit to the property. As a result of the site visit, some revisions have been made to the plan(s). The driveway layout for the new house has been slightly changed. The proposed house has been lowered so as not to need as much fill. An additional tree survey has been prepared.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the trees that have been added to the tree survey are labeled. On the original tree survey, the trees were numbered. Mr. Brumleve added that the Applicant has noted the species and size of the trees instead of identifying them by number. Ms. Allen stated that she thought it was easier to have a list of the trees to refer to, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that he could generate such a list. The only difference would be that the additional trees would be labeled rather than numbered. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that it has been shown on the Applicant’s revised plan that trees #2758 and #2759 are to be protected.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the stone wall on Lot #3 was shown on the revised plan. This stone wall has since been extended. Mr. Alfonzetti explained that the reason the stone wall was put in this way was for running utilities to the house.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the steep slopes have been recalculated. He adjusted the lot lines between Lots #3 and #4 so that the requirements for steep slopes would be met.
Ms. Allen stated that she thought the Planning Board had asked the Applicant, at the last meeting, to provide an overlay to show where the stone wall was on the approved plan and where it is now on the as-built. Ms. Allen noted that an overlay would help to show the changes to the site plan, which have taken place. She would definitely want to see an overlay. Ms. Allen stated that she would also like to see a profile of the previously approved stone wall and the newly proposed one. Finally, she would like the Applicant to show on the plan(s) where the gas lines are.
Ms. Allen stated that the changes to the previously approved site plan seem significant. She would want to see mitigation (measures) taken to offset the changes that were made. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant will be before the WCC in one week, to which Ms. Allen replied that she thinks it would also be helpful for the WCC to have in front of them the previously approved site plan.
Ms. Allen expressed concern that some of the trees, which were to be saved, were cut down. There was a 34” chestnut tree and several maple trees that were cut down. Mr. Alfonzetti noted that he was not working on this project when these trees were removed; however, it is his understanding that the reason these trees were cut down was for the installation of the septic system. There was an engineering decision made in the field to straighten out the sewer line, and the trees were cut down. Ms. Allen pointed out that the original placement of the septic line was done to avoid the trees. Mr. Alfonzetti told the Board that he was quite sure that his clients would try to mitigate any negative environmental impacts caused by these changes.
Ms. Allen stated that she would be interested to know who approved the tree wells in the back of the property on Lot #3. These tree wells were not shown on the originally approved site plan.
Mr. Brumleve stated that he would like to see floor elevations for the proposed residence on Lot #4.
Mr. Brumleve asked the Applicant to consider the problem of maneuverability of vehicles (cars) at the foot of the proposed driveway on Lot #4. He noted that the driver of a vehicle would be coming down a 16% (average) slope. The way the driveway on Lot #4 is laid out now, there is very little room to maneuver at the foot of the driveway. Mr. Brumleve wondered where guests/visitors to the residence would park their cars. Mr. Alfonzetti told Mr. Brumleve that he would look into this matter.
Mr. Brumleve noted that according to the plan(s) for the driveway on Lot #4, there is both a retaining wall and a guardrail along the “river” side of the driveway, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that the guardrail is really a stone wall.
Ms. Allen noted that there is a swale on the right hand side of the driveway. She wanted to know where the water would go that is being channeled down the driveway, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that the water would be collected into a catch basin. Ms. Allen wanted to know if, according to the Storm Water Best Management Practices, the drainage should be handled in this way. The Village Engineer told Ms. Allen that the water from the driveway would not be flowing into the pond. The water would be filtered into dry wells, and it would have a distance to travel through the soil to be treated. Mr. Brumleve referred to the Applicant’s plan(s) and stated that a drainage line is being created outside the disturbance area. A significant drainage area has been created on the north side of the
driveway. Mr. Alfonzetti told the Board members that, given the way the driveway is sloped, the water would flow into a substantial dry well and catch basin. This drainage system has to be designed, and calculations have to be run. Ms. Allen noted that she, personally, was impressed with the drainage system that was established for the newest house on Georgia Lane, to which the Village Engineer stated that for the property on Georgia Lane, the drainage was handled through a filtration trench. The Village Engineer told Mr. Alfonzetti that, in developing the drainage plan, he should consider the pollution aspects. He should also consider ways of getting the water off of the steep slopes safely. He (the Village Engineer) would want to see how the slopes would be stabilized.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the house on Lot #2 had been sold yet, to which Mr. Alfonzetti said that it has not yet been sold.
Mr. Brumleve asked if the Applicant had looked into the matter, discussed at the last meeting, of the views of the proposed house from the river. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that he intended to take the photos but he was delayed by rain. He said that he thought most of the house would be hidden from view. As far as the slope is concerned, he would seed it so that the view from the river would be a seeded (grassy) sloped area rather than a terraced wall.
Ms. Allen reminded Mr. Alfonzetti to show where the gas line is when he is preparing the overlay(s).
Mr. Brumleve asked if a public hearing should be scheduled tonight for this application, to which the Planning Board decided that this application was not ready yet for a public hearing. Mr. Alfonzetti said that he would like to come back with the revised plans as soon as possible. Mr. Brumleve stated that for the next meeting, the Applicant should try to take the photos of the proposed house from the river and also provide the other information requested tonight.
Ms. Allen stated that, with respect to the glacial erratic (rock) on the property that has been partially covered up during construction, she would like the rock to be made more visible. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant intends to expose the rock that was covered with dirt. The Applicant would excavate out and expose the lower curvature of rock. The Village Engineer asked that the Applicant provide the Planning Board and himself with a photo of the rock once the rock is uncovered.
The Planning Board scheduled the next meeting on this application for Tuesday, May 11th.
Van Wyck Associates (Mark Giordano) – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Discussion of Amended Site Plan-Related Issues (18-Wheelers)
William Null from the law firm of Cuddy & Feder and Patrick O’Leary from VHB Associates were present to represent the CVS drugstore.
Mr. Null stated that they were invited to the meeting tonight to address concerns that were expressed at previous Planning Board meetings about 18-wheeler truck deliveries for CVS at the Van Wyck Shopping Center.
Mr. Null noted that he and Mr. O’Leary are here tonight to represent CVS and not the landlord of the shopping center. He noted to the Board members that CVS did not need site plan approval to occupy space in the old Grand Union store. The reason for the discussion tonight about the 18-wheelers is that the Planning Board established a condition in the resolution of approval for the Zeytinia gourmet market to look into this matter.
Mr. Null stated that one of the concerns is the maneuverability of vehicles into the truck loading area at the rear of the CVS store. Mr. Null noted that it was reflected in the minutes of a previous Planning Board meeting that CVS would be willing to work with the Village to limit the times that trucks can make deliveries. Mr. Null stated that he spoke to the owner of the Black Cow. The traffic for the Brown Cow is around 7:00 A.M. in the morning. Deliveries to CVS at that point would not be advisable. A better time would be the middle of the day. Deliveries toward evening are not advisable due to rush hour traffic. Mr. Null stated that CVS would be willing to work with the Village on limiting the hours of delivery. Mr. Null stated that the reason for deliveries in 18-wheeler
trucks is to reduce, by a factor of three, the number of trucks needed to make deliveries to CVS. It is an efficiency issue. Mr. Null noted that CVS looked into the possibility of making a site modification at this location; however, this would be difficult to accomplish.
Mr. Brumleve asked where the distribution center for CVS is, to which Mr. O’Leary replied that the distribution location for this area is Lumberton, NJ, which is near Philadelphia, PA. Occasionally, there may be service out of Rhode Island.
Mr. O’Leary stated that WB62 tractor-trailers serve this area. He could try to get WB50 or WB55 tractor-trailers to make deliveries. A 50-foot box versus a 62-foot box would make a difference in the maneuverability of the vehicle.
Mr. Klein stated that, from what he is hearing tonight, there is no “ready” engineering solution to this problem. He wondered what the effect would be on CVS if the Planning Board were to determine that 18-wheeler truck deliveries should be prohibited. Mr. O’Leary noted to the Board members that, when the Grand Union was open, there were probably 2 to 4 tractor-trailers a day making deliveries. There is only one tractor-trailer per week making a delivery to CVS. This represents a significant reduction. Mr. O’Leary stated that many deliveries to CVS are made with single-unit trucks e.g., trucks delivering snack foods, cosmetics, etc. These deliveries are made to the front of the store.
Mr. O’Leary suggested that the Planning Board and CVS (together) could select a time for deliveries to occur during off-peak hours. He noted that commuter traffic and children coming to and from school should be taken into consideration. This would mean that no deliveries could take place from 7 A.M. to 10 A.M. and from 2 P.M. to 6 P.M. Deliveries could take place between 10 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. The Village could monitor the situation for six months and see how it works out.
Mr. Klein noted that, currently, children from the middle school and high school are let out for lunch, and the route they take for lunch is Maple Street. The fact that school-aged children are on Maple Street during lunchtime further constricts the potential timeframe within which these deliveries could be made. Mr. Klein noted that the Village Code places burden on the Planning Board to provide for maximum safety. The Planning Board must explore any option to increase the safety of its residents. He asked again how much of a constraint it would be on CVS to eliminate 18-wheeler truck deliveries altogether.
Mr. Null pointed out to the Board that CVS was (is) not before the Planning Board for site plan approval, and CVS has a right to continue the 18-wheeler truck deliveries. Mr. Brumleve stated that the Planning Board appreciates the fact that CVS has shown cooperation toward resolving this matter. The Planning Board is highly appreciative that this discussion is taking place tonight.
Ms. Allen wanted to know how it was determined that there is only one 18-wheeler delivery per week. Mr. O’Leary stated that, from an operational standpoint, one delivery per week would be a traditional use for this store. He told Ms. Allen that he could obtain for the Planning Board the exact number of runs for this particular store.
Mr. O’Leary suggested that the one delivery per week could take place on a Thursday between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. He thought that this four-hour “window” might work well for this community.
Mr. Burniston stated that, as he understands it, CVS is proposing tonight to reduce (if need be) the number of deliveries by 18-wheeler trucks to one delivery per week between the hours of 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. The deliveries would take place on Thursdays only. Deliveries would be made in 50 or 55-foot trucks. Both the Village and CVS would monitor the situation.
Mr. Null stated that Mr. O’Leary and himself would have to get back to their client, CVS, and to the landlord, Mark Giordano, on this issue. They would have to look into what the smaller truck sizes (WB50 or WB55) could do. They would want to avoid having to make more trips with smaller vehicles. Mr. Klein asked how many deliveries a truck makes when it comes out of Lumberton, N.J., to which Mr. O’Leary replied that there may be one or more deliveries for that truck. There may be minor deliveries to the CVS store in Yorktown Heights. He would have to look into it.
Mr. O’Leary stated that he would like to come back in a month with a proposal in hand. This would allow him time to identify which truck size would minimize the number of trips to CVS. He could provide the Planning Board with more substantive data.
Mr. Klein stated that it is his understanding from the discussion tonight that, as a general rule, there is one large truckload per week to this CVS store. If the 18-wheelers were eliminated, then the number of deliveries would have to be increased. Mr. Klein noted to those present that this is one of the key pieces of information that he was looking for.
Mr. Burniston stated that, with respect to the turning radius of different size trucks, the smaller the truck, the faster and easier it is going to be to back that truck into the loading area. He would be more inclined to look at it this way. If by increasing the number of deliveries to 2 per week it would be faster and safer than it was before with one (larger) truck, then this would be an important consideration for him.
Mr. O’Leary reiterated that he would need a month to gather the necessary data. He would need to call the Croton Police Department to find out the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for this area. He noted that he would have to look at the “economics” for the store as well.
Ms. Allen stated that it would also be interesting to know the times that these deliveries to CVS have been made in the past, to which Mr. O’Leary told Ms. Allen that, if available, he would provide the Planning Board with this information.
Mr. Brumleve stated (on behalf of the Planning Board) that the Planning Board applauds Mr. O’Leary’s efforts to come to a solution to this problem. Mr. O’Leary did an eloquent job in describing a possible solution.
Mr. Brumleve thought that Mr. Burniston’s earlier suggestion that two deliveries in smaller trucks might actually be better (faster and safer) is a good suggestion.
Tracey & Michael Frazzetta – 133 Scenic Drive West (Sec. 67.10 Blk. 2 Lot 4.17) – Application for an Amended Site Plan Approval
Tracey & Michael Frazzetta, owners of the property, were present.
Mrs. Frazzetta stated that she and her husband are before the Planning Board tonight to request a modification of their building envelope to incorporate an existing shed in the backyard. The shed is situated in the back corner of the property and is 5 feet from the property line. The shed is on a wood platform. The Planning Board has received a copy of the site plan and specifications for the shed, which was built in 1998. No trees or shrubs were removed to build the shed. Some shrubs were installed around it to block the view from the street. No change in grading was required.
Mr. Klein wanted to know if the Village’s setback requirements apply to outbuildings, to which the Village Engineer stated that they do. An accessory structure must be a minimum of 5 feet from the property line.
Mrs. Frazzetta noted that she and her husband are selling their house, and they are trying to rectify this situation concerning the shed for the potential buyer(s).
Mr. Brumleve stated that he has visited the site and, in his opinion, the location for the shed is the best that the property owner could come up with.
The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could modify the building limit line by putting a circle around the shed or, in the alternative, the Planning Board could make an exception in this case. Should the Planning Board decide to approve this application, the Planning Board could resolve that the shed is acceptable in this location on this particular lot.
The Planning Board members decided to approve the application and make an exception for the shed rather than to modify the building envelope.
Mr. Brumleve entertained a motion to approve this Amended Site Plan application and accept (make an exception for) the shed in its present location outside the building envelope. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Scheduling of Joint Site Visit with Village Board to Something Good in the World School
The Planning Board Secretary noted to the members that she has discussed with Barbara Sarbin of Something Good in the World school two possible dates for the Village Board and the Planning Board to go on a site visit to the school. The dates are Tuesday May 18th at 7 P.M. or Saturday, May 22nd at 1 P.M. The Planning Board suggested that the Secretary should go ahead and contact the members of both boards to see if either one of these two dates are acceptable.
Noise Study for Zeytinia Gourmet Market
The Village Engineer stated that the noise report for Zeytinia is in the Planning Board’s packets tonight. He noted that it was a condition of the Amended Site Plan approval for Zeytinia that the Applicant should perform a pre- and post- noise survey of the compressors, which have been installed on the roof of the store. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could accept this report with the caveat that should complaints from neighbors be received, the Applicant would have to install baffles to reduce the noise level.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Brumleve and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
The minutes of the Tuesday, April 6, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Board member, Joel Klein, abstained.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:33 P.M.