VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2004:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chairman
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.
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, P.E., engineer for the Applicant, was present.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the first item on the agenda tonight is a public hearing on a proposal to subdivide a previously approved lot (Velardo Subdivision Lot #3) into two lots.
Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant’s engineer, John Alfonzetti, has distributed additional application materials, including revised plans, to the Board members tonight. The Planning Board would (probably) be reviewing these materials during the course of the hearing. She suggested that, before the Planning Board or members of the public make their comments on this application, Mr. Alfonzetti could do a presentation on the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the previously approved Lot #3 consisted of approximately 4.95 acres. In the two-lot subdivision now being proposed, new Lot #3 would consist of 3.25 acres and new Lot #4 of 1.7 acres.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant has expanded one of the two lots and has created a flag lot toward the back of the property. He noted that there would be 20 feet of road frontage for Lot #4.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that there would be no incursion into the wetlands for Lot #4. Also, the Applicant has met the Village’s criteria for steep slopes. Dry well calculations have been submitted, and all the requirements for drainage have been met.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the last meeting, the Applicant proposed a storm water drainage system that would manage the flow off of the driveway. The filter system, which was proposed, was supposed to be replaced by a system that would be easier to maintain. Mr. Alfonzetti described to the Planning Board the new system being proposed. There would be two dry wells put in a series. The first one would accumulate the sediment and the next one would act as a “follow-up.” Chairman Gallelli thought that this type of filtering system would be easier for the homeowner to maintain. Mr. Alfonzetti noted that there would be no opportunity for water to run down hill into the stream from these dry wells.
Ms. Allen asked Mr. Alfonzetti if the new planting plan submitted tonight included the proposed plantings discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Alfonzetti replied that the wetlands remediation plantings for Lot #3 are listed on the plan. This list would be presented to the Water Control Commission (WCC).
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that, at the last meeting, Ms. Allen asked for the square footage of the setback area that was disturbed on Lot #3 in excess of the approved wetlands activity permit. He has calculated the square footage and has noted it on the plan.
Mr. Alfonzetti told the Board that, since the last meeting, the Applicant has consulted with an arborist, Kevin W. Wyatt, who has provided his recommendations on wetlands restoration and on the mitigation for the trees that were placed in the tree well.
Ms. Allen stated that there were trees, which were not in the wetlands buffer, that were compromised or cut down. She had expected that, for tonight’s meeting, the Applicant would provide the Planning Board with a proposal on the significant replacement trees that were to be planted. Mr. Alfonzetti told Ms. Allen that he does not have such a proposal tonight. The Applicant did ask the arborist to look at the trees in the tree well. The arborist has recommended a procedure to save these injured trees.
Ms. Allen stated that there were significant trees destroyed on the original Lot #3, which were not supposed to be destroyed. The Planning Board should be asking for mitigation to replace these trees. Chairman Gallelli noted that most of the significant trees that were taken down are on the newly proposed Lot #4. She assumed that Ms. Allen was referring to these trees on Lot #4. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board could ask for mitigation to replace these trees; however, she did not see how this mitigation could be tied in with the mitigation of the wetland area(s), required by the WCC, for the original Lot #3 as they are not in the purview of the WCC. Ms. Allen stated that she thought the Planning Board should be looking at the tree plantings overall (as a whole). She
thought that the suitable way to proceed with a planting plan would be “to look at the entire picture.” The Village Engineer noted that the WCC has already designated a mitigation area for tree plantings and has specified the trees that should be planted. The arborist was asked to space these trees, and he has done so. Mr. Alfonzetti noted that these trees have not yet been physically planted. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could (also) ask the Village’s environmental consultant, Bruce Donohue, to look into this matter of the remediation of significant trees.
The Village Engineer stated that the Planning Board could ask for mitigation in the area(s) outside the wetlands buffer. The Planning Board could make suggestions on the significant trees to be planted, and the arborist could then be asked to place/position the trees. Chairman Gallelli stated that, if the Planning Board makes the planting of trees on Lot #4 a condition of the approval, then the Applicant would have to consult with an arborist on the species of trees to be planted and on the placement of these trees.
Mr. Alfonzetti noted to the Board members that the majority of the land that makes up Lot #4 is going to “stay native.” The Applicant has created the lot and has positioned the house in such a way so as not to disturb the native species. The Applicant has allocated a tight envelope around the building. Mr. Alfonzetti expressed concern that the Applicant might have to cut some smaller trees down in order to fit the bigger ones in there. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant should ask the arborist to look at the property outside the wetlands buffer area and make suggestions on what trees could be planted and where they could be planted.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant would be meeting (again) soon with the WCC. At the WCC meeting, a discussion would take place on the as-built plan. The WCC would require remediation that would be applicable to that plan (the as-built plan). Chairman Gallelli stated that the appropriate time for the arborist to look at the remediation of Lot #4 for the Planning Board would be after the Applicant has met with the WCC.
Ms. Allen stated that, with respect to the species of trees, she would like to have chestnut oak trees planted, where possible.
Thomas & Leslie Britton of 1223 Albany Post Road were present. Mr. Britton told the Board members that he and his wife live across the street from the subject property. He asked why another house was now being proposed. Chairman Gallelli explained that in the original Velardo Subdivision proposal, it was thought that a septic system would be required for Lot #3. It was then discovered that Lot #3 could connect with the Village’s municipal sewer system. A septic system for the house on Lot #3 would not be required. A lot is now being proposed where the septic system was supposed to go.
Mr. Britton stated that the house on Lot #1 of the Velardo Subdivision is on 1 acre of land and the house in back of that one is on 2 ? acres of land (or more). He questioned the propriety of building four houses on this piece of property. Chairman Gallelli noted that the property is zoned RA-40, which means that the minimum lot area has to be 40,000 square feet or slightly less than one acre. The lots being proposed meet the zoning requirement(s).
Mr. Britton asked if there was a problem with the steep slopes on this property, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant had to demonstrate for the Planning Board that he has met the requirements of the Village’s Steep Slopes Ordinance. The requirements have been met.
Mrs. Britton asked if there would be any blasting for the construction of the house on Lot #4, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that there would be no blasting.
Mr. Alfonzetti told Mr. & Mrs. Britton that they would probably not be able to see the new house on Lot #4 from the main road.
Mr. Britton recalled that the construction crew chipped away at an outcropping of rock when the house on Lot #1 was built. The Village Engineer told Mr. & Mrs. Britton that, to his knowledge, the only blasting that took place on the Velardo property was for Lot #3. Mrs. Britton recalled that there was also blasting during the construction of the house on Lot #2. The Village Engineer did not think that the house on Lot #2 had required any blasting. Angel Cipriano, the current owner of Velardo Subdivision Lot #3, stated that the blasting company notified the neighbors, in writing, about the blasting that would take place on Lot #3.
Mr. Britton stated that he thought that four houses seemed like too many houses for the property in question. Mr. Alfonzetti noted again that the Village’s area requirements are being met for new Lot #4. The lot would be 1.7 acres in size.
The Village Engineer noted that, given the total amount of acreage, Lot #4 is, indeed, a small lot as is Lot #1 of the previously approved Velardo Subdivision. He stated that the size of these subdivision lots is (was) somewhat dictated by the steep slopes regulations. There are limitations in the code on the amount of slope that can be disturbed. In the case of the Velardo Subdivision, and in the case of the new subdivision being proposed, a certain amount of land had to be added to Lot #2 and Lot #3, respectively, to meet the steep slopes requirements.
Ms. Allen stated that, at the last meeting the Applicant told the Board members that the house on Lot #4 would be at the same level as Route 9. This is not the case. The lot line is at least 10 feet above Route 9. The house on Lot #4 would be at an even higher elevation. Ms. Allen expressed concern about the visibility of the house from the Hudson River. She noted that the floor of the walkout basement is at elevation 83. The house has two stories. She asked what the roofline of the house would be, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that the first floor of the house is at elevation 95. Ms. Allen noted that, if this were the case, the two-story house being proposed would be at elevation 125. It seemed very likely to her that, given the elevation of the house, the house would be visible from
the Hudson River.
Mr. Klein recalled that it was acknowledged at the last Planning Board meeting that the house on Lot #4 would, indeed, be visible from the Hudson River.
Ms. Allen stated that the house would also be visible from Route 9, to which Chairman Gallelli noted that there is a state right-of-way on the edge of Route 9 that has a lot of trees, and these trees could act as a buffer.
Ms. Allen asked if there was any construction activity taking place on Lot #3 right now, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that, at the present time, no construction is taking place. The property owners are looking for a buyer for the house on Lot #3. Mr. Cipriano noted that there is construction going on across the road from their property. Sewer and water lines are being installed for the house on top of the hill.
Mr. Klein suggested that the recommendations for saving the trees in the tree well, outlined in the letter from the Applicant’s arborist, could be incorporated into the Planning Board’s resolution of approval. It could be a condition of the approval that the Applicant must comply with these recommendations. Ms. Allen thought that Bruce Donohue should (also) be asked to look into the problem of these trees. The trees in the tree well will probably not survive. The Planning Board should require remediation/mitigation to make up for the loss of these trees. Chairman Gallelli noted that the situation regarding the trees in the tree wells is one of the key reasons why the Planning Board is asking for the replacement of significant trees. The Applicant must provide replacements for all of the significant
trees that were damaged, including those in the tree well.
Chairman Gallelli agreed with Mr. Klein that a condition should be included in the resolution that the Applicant must comply with the arborist’s recommendations for saving the trees in the tree well, to which the other members concurred.
Mr. Klein told Mr. Alfonzetti that the word “represents” is misspelled in the engineer’s certification on the Applicant’s latest Drawing No. 030131.3.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she thought it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to move toward preliminary plat approval tonight. The Applicant has provided answers to almost all of the Planning Board’s questions/concerns. The Applicant would still have to come back before the Board with an application for Final Subdivision Plat Approval. The Applicant would have to submit at that time, updated plans addressing the remaining issues, which were discussed tonight.
Ms. Allen said that she would prefer not to proceed tonight. The Planning Board has just received, at the meeting tonight, the Applicant’s latest set of plans. She would want to have time to thoroughly review these plans. Mr. Klein said that he would defer to Ms. Allen on this matter even though he does not necessarily agree that the approval of this application should be postponed. He did think that the Planning Board should take some time to go over the new material. Mr. Burniston stated that he has looked briefly at the Applicant’s new materials and has listened to the comments tonight. He understands Ms. Allen’s concerns about remediation/mitigation to offset any environmental damage that has already been done on this property; however, he did not see any reason to delay the
preliminary plat approval. Mr. Burniston added that he did not see anything significant on the Applicant’s plan to warrant any further delay.
Chairman Gallelli reiterated that she thought the Planning Board could move ahead with the approval tonight. The questions relating to the subdivision of this property have been answered. The issues remaining are not going to affect the basic outline of this subdivision.
Ms. Allen told the others that she was not prepared to work through the conditions of the resolution tonight. The Planning Board has discussed some new conditions tonight that do not appear in the draft resolution. She would want to have sufficient time to formulate the wording of these conditions.
Mr. Klein wanted to know how (in what ways) the Applicant could move forward, should the Planning Board ultimately decide to approve the preliminary plat tonight. Chairman Gallelli stated that approval of the preliminary subdivision plat would allow the Applicant to move ahead with the final development of the subdivision plan (metes & bounds, etc.). Also, the Westchester County Department of Health must approve all subdivision proposals. In order to submit an application to the Department of Health, the Applicant would need preliminary plat approval from the Planning Board.
Ms. Allen wanted to know if it would be possible to add conditions to the resolution at a later date. Mr. Burniston told Ms. Allen that once the Planning Board closes the public hearing and votes on a resolution, the only way to amend the resolution would be to call a new public hearing.
The Planning Board members continued their discussion on whether or not to delay the vote on this application. Mr. Klein noted that this application has been before this Planning Board for a very long time. However, should the Board deem it necessary to delay the approval to have more time to review the new materials and also to receive the comments from the WCC, he did not think that a three or four week delay was unreasonable. Mr. Burniston questioned why it would necessarily have to be a three or four week delay. Why not a two-week delay? Ms. Allen stated again that she was not prepared to vote on this application tonight because she had not had sufficient time to review the new materials. Mr. Burniston asked Ms. Allen if a two-week delay would be enough time. He noted that the next
Planning Board meeting is scheduled for the 22nd of June. He thought that a 30-day delay – to the July 6th meeting – would be onerous on the Applicant.
Mr. Alfonzetti stated that, with respect to the plantings for the property, it was his understanding that the arborist should provide a list of plantings for the wetlands remediation. The arborist should also look at the condition of the trees in the tree well and provide recommendations. Ms. Allen stated again that, at the last meeting, there was also a discussion about the other significant trees to be replaced. The arborist should have looked into this matter and he did not.
Chairman Gallelli pointed out that, even if the Planning Board were to grant the preliminary approval tonight, the Applicant would still have to come back before the Planning Board for the final approval. The additional information requested by the Planning Board on the replacement of significant trees could be provided at that time (or even before).
Mr. Klein decided to modify his position on postponing the vote on this application. He thought that the Planning Board should vote on this application tonight. He stated that there would be ample opportunity for the Planning Board to review the arborist’s proposal on the significant trees and also to look at any changes that the WCC might propose. Mr. Klein noted that the granting of the preliminary approval does not necessarily ensure the final approval. By postponing the approval of this application, the Planning Board would be burdening this Applicant for no purpose.
Ms. Allen stated again that she thought the Planning Board should hold off on the approval. She would want absolute assurance that the environment is protected as much as possible, given the site plan violations that have taken place. If the vote were to take place tonight, she would not be able to approve this application. Mr. Klein agreed with Ms. Allen that the Planning Board would want assurance that these violations would be remedied before any construction takes place. However, he did not see any reason to delay the subdivision approval. By approving the preliminary plat tonight, the Planning Board would not be “giving anything up.” Mr. Burniston agreed with Mr. Klein that the approval should not be postponed. He pointed out that the issue brought up tonight by Ms. Allen regarding the
remediation plantings is not going to change the actual subdivision proposal.
Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any further comments from the public, to which there were none. Chairman Gallelli closed the public hearing.
The Planning Board reviewed the draft resolution and incorporated into the resolution the “new” conditions discussed. Chairman Gallelli suggested that condition #2 should read, “An arborist will identify significant trees both in species and size that would be suitable for the existing Lot #3 and locate the most desirable area for planting.” Mr. Burniston suggested adding at the end of the sentence the phrase, “…..which will include both Lot #3 and proposed Lot #4.” The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board might want to add, “…..with special consideration to one or more chestnut oaks…..” as Ms. Allen had suggested earlier.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that “new” condition #4 could read: “The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the arborist regarding the saving of the two trees in the well on existing Lot #3 and present to the Planning Board a replacement Wetlands Remediation Plan.”
Chairman Gallelli read aloud the conditions that were already in the draft resolution. In condition #1, the words, “or existing,” were added after the word, “subsequent,” to read: “…..to be incorporated in any subsequent or existing environmental site plan…..” In the third paragraph of condition #3, the word, “may,” was replaced by the word, “shall,” so that the sentence would read: “Any Wetlands Activity Permit issued for this lot shall contain a special provision…..”
The Planning Board changed the second “Whereas” clause on page 1 to read: “Whereas, this 4.95-acre parcel, which is part of the previously approved Velardo Subdivision (Velardo Subdivision Lot #3 and a small portion of Lot #2) is proposed to be subdivided into two lots.”
Ms. Allen thought that the Planning Board might want to put a condition in the resolution that would require more oversight by the Village’s environmental consultant, Bruce Donohue, during the construction process. Mr. Klein did not think that there was much more that the Planning Board could do to oversee an approved project beyond what has been done in the past. He noted that, even when there was more oversight, problems would still arise. Ms. Allen stated that, at the very least, she would hope the Planning Board could encourage Mr. Donohue to visit the site more frequently. Chairman Gallelli asked if the Planning Board would want to add a condition to the resolution to this effect, to which the Board members decided not to make it a formal condition of the approval. The Village Engineer
suggested that, once approved, the Planning Board could require Mr. Donohue to visit the site more frequently, perhaps once a week, during significant site work, to which the Planning Board members all agreed.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this preliminary subdivision application. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 3 to 1. Ms. Allen was opposed.
Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should provide a revised wetlands remediation proposal and a proposal for the replacement of the significant trees. The application materials must be submitted to the Planning Board Secretary on the Friday before the meeting.
Ten Old Post Road South Corp. (Richard Albert) – (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 7 Lot 5) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval for Houlihan Lawrence
William O’Neill of Hagele & O’Neill Architects was present for this application.
Mr. O’Neill stated that his architectural firm represents the tenant at 10 Old Post Road South.
Mr. O’Neill stated that his client, Houlihan Lawrence Real Estate, is before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval because the outside of the building is being modified. New storefront windows and a replacement door are being installed. This application also involves new signage.
Mr. O’Neill stated that the Planning Board has received in their packets the specifications for the windows and door. The windows being proposed are simulated divided light windows. The door is wood with glass panels above and recessed wood panels below. One of the signs being proposed would be located on the façade of the building above the new windows and new door. Another wall-mounted sign would be situated on the side of the building next to the “Municipal Parking” sign. Mr. O’Neill said that it is his understanding that the area requirements for signs have been met.
Mr. Klein asked if this application had been before the Advisory Board for the Visual Environment (VEB), to which Mr. O’Neill replied that the sign application has not yet been before the VEB. He thought that this Amended Site Plan application would have to come before the Planning Board first.
Chairman Gallelli thought that the application was fairly straightforward. The application had to come before the Planning Board because of the changes being proposed to the outside of the building. She suggested that the Planning Board could schedule a public hearing for the next meeting on June 22nd.
Ms. Allen noted that there is also a tenant who rents commercial space on the other side of this building. She wanted to know if the windows on that side of the building were staying the same, to which Mr. O’Neill said that they were. The changes to the windows would only be on the Houlihan Lawrence side. Ms. Allen raised the issue of how the building would look aesthetically with different windows on the two sides of the front of the building.
Mr. O’Neill noted to the Planning Board that if the Planning Board wants the Applicant to consider this matter of changing the windows on the other side, he would have to raise this issue with the owner of the property. He works for the tenant, not the owner.
The Planning Board members thought that it might be helpful to see a rendering showing the new windows for Houlihan Lawrence “next to” the existing windows on the other side. The Planning Board suggested that, for the next meeting, Mr. O’Neill could bring in a rendering(s) showing the way the building would look with the different windows on the two sides. Mr. O’Neill told the Board members that he would see what he could do to provide these renderings.
The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing for Tuesday, June 22nd.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, April 27, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Burniston and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Chairman Gallelli abstained.
The minutes of the Tuesday, May 11, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Mr. Burniston abstained.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:02 P.M.
WHEREAS, M&A Real Estate Development Corp. has applied to the Planning Board for Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval on property which is located at 1214 Albany Post Road, in a Residential RA-40 District, and is designated on the Tax Map of the Village as Section 67.19 Block 1 Lot 4.02; and
WHEREAS, this 4.95-acre parcel, which is part of the previously approved Velardo Subdivision (Velardo Subdivision Lot #3 and a small portion of Lot #2), is proposed to be subdivided into two lots; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) dated 6/7/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board, having reviewed this Project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Village’s Environmental Quality Review act known as Local Law No. 7, 1977, thereby finds that the Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and issues a Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on this application on Tuesday, June 8, 2004; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, the public hearing was closed; and
WHEREAS, on Wednesday, May 5, 2004, the Applicant went before the Water Control Commission and was granted an Amended Wetlands Activity Permit; and
WHEREAS, on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, the Applicant is scheduled to go before the Water Control Commission for approval of an Amended Wetlands Activity Permit to reflect the changes to the original permit; and
WHEREAS, prior to a building permit being issued for Lot #4, an environmental site plan shall be prepared, meeting the specifications of such a plan as identified in Section 115-2 of the Village’s Environmental Compliance Law, to be reviewed by the Village Engineer and monitored by a consultant approved by the Village Engineer and paid for by the Applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board approves the application submitted by M&A Real Estate Development Corp. for a two-lot subdivision of property located at 1214 Albany Post Road, as shown on the plan entitled “Preliminary Proposed Subdivision of Lot #3,” dated January 28, 2004, last revised June 7, 2004, prepared by MGM Burbon LLC, subject to the following conditions:
1. Any mitigation required by the Water Control Commission for the amended permit for the current Lot #3 that affects the proposed Lot #4 shall be required to be incorporated in any subsequent or existing environmental site plan for a building permit.
2. An arborist will identify significant trees both in species and size, with special consideration to one or more chestnut oaks, that would be suitable for the existing Lot #3 and locate the most desirable area for planting, which may include both Lot #3 and proposed Lot #4.
3. The boundaries of the wetlands and water course buffer areas shall be shown on the Final Plat.
4. The following note shall be shown on the Final Subdivision Plat:
Any proposed construction, grading, filling, excavating, clearing or other regulated activity within the 120 foot wetland buffer area or the 100 foot watercourse buffer area as delineated on the Preliminary Plat dated January 28, 2004, last updated June 7, 2004, and approved on June 8, 2004 requires a permit from the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Water Control Commission prior to the commencement of work.
Any Wetlands Activity Permit issued for this lot shall contain a special provision requiring that the deed for the parcel contain a restriction as follows:
“For as long as any portion of the property described in this deed is subject to regulation under the Village of Croton-on-Hudson’s Wetlands and Watercourses Law, there shall be no construction, grading, filling, excavating, clearing or other regulated activity on this property within the wetland or watercourse buffer areas, as shown on the Final Subdivision Plat, at any time without having first secured the necessary permission and permit required pursuant to the above noted Law. This restriction shall bind the Grantee’s, their successors and assigns and shall be expressly set forth in all subsequent deeds to this property.”
5. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the arborist regarding the saving of the two trees in the well on existing Lot #3 and present to the Planning Board a replacement Wetland Remediation Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, as part of the Final Subdivision Plat approval process, the Applicant shall seek the necessary approval from the Westchester County Department of Health. Evidence of approval by the Westchester County Department of Health shall be in the form of the Department of Health’s endorsement of the Final Subdivision Plat.
The Planning Board of the Village of
Croton-on-Hudson, New York
Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson
The motion to approve was made by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 3 to 1. Ms. Allen was opposed. Mr. Brumleve was absent from the meeting.
The resolution was accepted with the minutes of the Planning Board meeting held on Tuesday, June 8, 2004.