Planning Board Minutes 09/28/04
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004:

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:                Ann Gallelli, Chairman
Fran Allen
Tom Burniston
Joel Klein

                        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.

OLD BUSINESS:

Velardo Subdivision Lot #3 (M&A Real Estate Development Corp.) – 1214 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.19 Blk. 1 Lot 4.02) – Application for Final Subdivision Approval

John Alfonzetti, P.E. of MGM Burbon LLC was present to represent the Applicant.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant has submitted revised drawings that address the issues raised by the Planning Board at the last meeting. These drawings also address the items listed in the Village Engineer’s memorandum dated September 23rd.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that Mr. Alfonzetti could explain to the Board members the revisions that have been made to the Applicant’s plans.

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that there were discrepancies in the lot numbers, which have now been clarified.  A note has been added to the plans, which states that iron posts will be installed at the corners of the property by a licensed surveyor.  It has been made clear on the plans that land has been taken from Lot #2 and that Lot #2 still exists as a conforming lot.  As requested, the plans now show the house on Lot #3 as it was actually built. The revised plans reflect what is actually on the property including the retaining walls, which were discussed at the WCC meetings.  Finally, the house on proposed Lot #4 has been moved, along with the driveway.  

Mr. Alfonzetti referred to the remediation plan for Lot #3 and stated that, on the existing tree survey, the tree sizes have now been designated by Diameter at Breast Height (DBH).  The tree located in the tree well has also been designated, and the tree tag number has been indicated.   Mr. Alfonzetti stated that, should the tree in the tree well fail, the plan now indicates what size caliper tree should be planted in its place.  

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant has met twice in the field with Bruce Donohue, the Village’s environmental consultant.  Mr. Donohue has suggested changes in the location of some of the trees. Mr. Donohue walked through the rear section of the property and identified some of the invasive plants that should be removed.  He also has staked a location for the majority of the trees on the property.  The trees have been ordered and will be planted.  Mr. Donohue will come back to the site to inspect the tree plantings.  Mr. Alfonzetti noted that Mr. Donohue has been specific about the size of plants to be used e.g., the trees in the wetlands area should be 1?” to 2” caliper trees.  

Ms. Allen asked if, in the planting of these trees, the Applicant is using “caliper” or “DBH” to describe the size(s), to which Mr. Alfonzetti stated that they are using “caliper.”

Chairman Gallelli noted that Mr. Donohue’s visits to the site and subsequent field changes reflect the condition(s) set forth in the Water Control Commission’s latest approval.     

Chairman Gallelli stated that, in item #9 under the Construction Notes, the Applicant refers to the “Town Engineer.”  It should be changed to “Village Engineer.”  Ms. Allen stated that item #9 should also include the Village’s environmental consultant.  The wording should be changed to read:  “All work must be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and the Village’s environmental consultant.  No work shall be covered until inspected by the Village Engineer and the Village’s environmental consultant.”

Chairman Gallelli wanted to know if the actual signed and executed agreement between the parties involved in the Lot #2 land transaction has been filed with the Village.  She told the Applicant that she included a condition regarding the signing of the agreement(s) in the draft resolution.

Ms. Allen referred to the Applicant’s remediation plan and stated that she thought there was some ambiguity in the references made to the site in the Site Schedule table.  She asked if this Site Schedule is referring to Lot #3 or Lots #3 and #4, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that the Applicant’s remediation plan refers to existing Lot #3.  Ms. Allen thought that, in order to avoid confusion, Lot #3 should be specifically identified in the Site Schedule. Mr. Alfonzetti noted that the Site Schedule is referring to the original lot (Lot #3) before it was subdivided.  

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Section, Block and Lot number (SBL) for Lot #3 would remain the same.  Lot #4 would have a new SBL number.  Mr. Alfonzetti noted that there had been some confusion on the tax designation numbers, which has recently been straightened out.  Mr. Klein wanted to know if the SBL number for Lot #3 on the revised plan is, indeed, the correct SBL number, to which Mr. Alfonzetti said that it is.   

Ms. Allen noted that “Lot #3” has two different meanings on the two plans submitted.  She thought that for clarification purposes, the Applicant should be more specific in identifying Lot #3. Chairman Gallelli suggested that on the remediation plan the Applicant could say, “Site Schedule for Pre-subdivided Lot #3.”        

Ms. Allen suggested that on the remediation plan the table entitled “Buffer Disturbance Table” should be changed to “Wetlands Buffer Disturbance Table.”

Ms. Allen had a question about the clustering of trees in the fill area.  She wanted to know the composition of the soil in this area.  She noted that six to eight feet of fill was put in. Is the fill area composed of six feet of rock with topsoil? Ms. Allen questioned if the trees that are being planted there would survive given the nature of the fill.  Ms. Allen noted that some trees would have huge root systems.  She questioned whether the nature/composition of the topsoil and subsoil would be appropriate.  Angelo Cipriano, owner of the property, told Ms. Allen that he thought the trees being planted in this area would have ample room to grow.  Mr. Klein told the Applicant that he, too, would want to know the composition of the six to eight feet of fill. Mr. Alfonzetti told the Planning Board members that his guess would be that it is not solid rock.  Chairman Gallelli said that she thinks this matter concerning the composition of the soil and/or nature of the fill area is (would be) part of Mr. Donohue’s site work.  Mr. Klein stated that he thinks Ms. Allen’s concern is with the underlying soil and the conditions that would be encountered. Mr. Cipriano stated that the topsoil in this area was tested and found to be good for plant growth.  He noted to the Board members that the trees have been ordered and the planting is scheduled to start next week.  

Ms. Allen suggested that, to resolve this issue of the soil(s), perhaps Mr. Donohue could do some borings, to which Mr. Klein thought that it would be onerous on the homeowner to ask for borings. Ms. Allen stated that she was told that some of the fill is crushed granite. Mr. Cipriano told the Board that the fill comes entirely from their property. They are not using fill from other places.  Mr. Klein thought that, if the fill were coming entirely from their property, and the Applicant did not do any blasting, there would probably not be much rock in the fill.   

Ms. Allen noted as an aside that the fill composition details should be included in the revised environmental codes.

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Board members that they have, in their folders tonight, a copy of a draft resolution.  The draft resolution has four conditions.  She would add two more conditions based on tonight’s discussions.  

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the first four conditions of the draft resolution.  She noted that condition #3 should be changed to read:  “Prior to the signing of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Planning Board Chair, the developers shall have submitted to the Village the official signed copies of the common driveway access maintenance agreement and easement agreement.”

Chairman Gallelli suggested that “new” conditions #5 and #6 should read as follows:

5.  A change shall be made to the Site Schedule on drawing #030131.8 dated March 29, 2004, last revised September 23, 2004 to indicate that this Site Schedule is referring to the “pre-subdivided” Lot #3.  Also, on the same drawing, “Buffer Disturbance Table” shall be changed to “Wetlands Buffer Disturbance Table.”

6.  Changes shall be made to item #9 in the Construction Notes on drawing #030131.8 dated March 29, 2004, last revised September 23, 2004 to say, “Village Engineer and the Village’s environmental consultant” where it now says, “Town Engineer.”

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this application for Final Subdivision Plat Approval for Velardo Subdivision Lot #3 with the aforementioned conditions.  The motion was made by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

NEW BUSINESS:

Croton Enterprises, LLC (C/o Juster Development Co.) – 440-460 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.17 Blk. 2 Lot 2) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval for ShopRite Supermarket – Preliminary Discussion

Rand Rosenbaum, Architect, and Wilson Rugel of ShopRite Stores, Inc. were present for this application.

Mr. Rosenbaum told the Planning Board that, when he brought in the ShopRite plans for a building permit application, the Village Engineer explained to him that the changes being proposed to the exterior of the ShopRite store would require approval by the Planning Board.

Mr. Rosenbaum stated that ShopRite would like to set up a pick-up area in their Croton store for their new “at-home” shopping service.  Shoppers would be able to place an order for groceries on the Internet.  Orders would be ready for pick-up in the newly designated pick-up area inside the store.  

Mr. Rosenbaum noted that the interior changes to the store, which do not require approval by the Planning Board, would include a new exit door.

Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the Applicant is proposing a yellow canvas canopy/awning over the entrance to the “at-home” pick-up area.  The Applicant is also proposing to change the parking designation of four parking spaces for  “at-home” shoppers.

Mr. Klein wanted to know how these changes to the site would affect parking and the flow of traffic.  He was concerned about how this new shopping service would function “in reality.”  If he were to use this service, how would he get the groceries from the pick-up area to his car?  Mr. Rosenbaum told Mr. Klein that the groceries would already be in a shopping cart waiting for him at the pick-up area.  Mr. Klein asked if there would be a corral for the shopping carts, to which Mr. Rosenbaum said that there would not be.  Mr. Klein noted that people might leave the shopping carts in the parking lot, to which Mr. Rosenbaum replied that the employees of ShopRite would remove these carts from the parking lot. Carts are removed from the parking lot, on a regular basis, throughout the day.

Chairman Gallelli stated that it is unclear to her from the plan(s) being presented where these four parking spaces are, relative to the other parking spaces at ShopRite.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that one of the notes on the plan says that there will be 10-minute loading.  She wanted to know what would happen, if she put in an order for groceries and then thought of something she wanted to add.  Mr. Rosenbaum told Chairman Gallelli that she could add the item to her existing order.  She would not have to go through another checkout.  Mr. Rosenbaum noted that people usually want to select their own fruits and vegetables.  They can still do so and use this “at-home” service.  The ShopRite clerk would put the items already selected in bags while the person finishes his/her shopping.

Mr. Rugel of ShopRite Stores, Inc. told the Planning Board that ShopRite has five stores in New Jersey that currently have “at-home” shopping.   He noted that, in one of these stores, there are 150 “at-home” orders placed each week.  So far, the four parking spaces have been sufficient.  Mr. Rugel stated that, at one of the stores, customers can pull up next to the building to pick up their orders.  Another store operates from a “bell and camera” system.  The camera lets the ShopRite employee know that someone is there.

Chairman Gallelli thought that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to see a drawing showing where the four parking spaces are, relative to the other spaces in the parking lot.  She asked if any of these spaces are handicap spaces, to which Mr. Rosenbaum said that they are not.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant should provide the Planning Board with a letter from the owner of the property authorizing the work being proposed.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the last time this Applicant (ShopRite) came before the Planning Board, there was a discussion about the handicap parking spaces at ShopRite.  The discussion had to do with the overall distribution of handicap parking in the ShopRite parking lot.  Chairman Gallelli thought that it might be an appropriate time for the Planning Board to address the issue of the configuration and/or location of the handicap parking spaces.  Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that it seems that some people who are handicapped think that it would be better to have a few handicap parking spaces at the end where the bottle return area is located because they would not have to cross traffic in this location. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that it was his understanding that this matter of the handicap parking was going to be taken up with the landlord. Chairman Gallelli stated that now that ShopRite is planning to make a change in the parking anyway, she thought it might be an appropriate time to consider this matter.  Mr. Rosenbaum pointed out that ShopRite is not changing the size or location of the parking spaces.  It is simply re-designating four parking spaces.

Chairman Gallelli noted that, as part of this application, the Applicant is proposing to add another crosswalk.    

Mr. Rugel told the Planning Board members that he does not see a problem with adding another parking space for the handicapped in the cul-de-sac area.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that, for the next meeting, she would like the Applicant to provide a plan showing the parking configuration.  The Applicant could identify on the plan the handicap parking spaces. By doing so, the Planning Board might be able to come to a satisfactory solution.

Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board could schedule a public hearing on this application.  Before the public hearing takes place, the Applicant could provide to the Planning Board the revised drawing(s) showing the parking.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the public hearing could take place the last meeting of October.

Chairman Gallelli asked if the ShopRite logo would be on the new canopy being proposed, to which Mr. Rosenbaum said that it would be.

Mr. Rugel told the Board members that he would be in touch with the landlord about adding the handicap parking spaces and, if the landlord agrees, they would show these parking spaces on the revised plan(s).  Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Applicant could discuss the parking situation with the Village Engineer.  She recalled that a variance was granted to allow less than the required number of parking spaces at ShopRite.  She would not want the Applicant to have to go back before the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, rather than adding two parking spaces, the Applicant should just relocate two of the handicap parking spaces.   

Mr. Klein noted that shoppers might be coming to ShopRite “in clumps” when the trains come in, to which Mr. Rugel replied that this “at-home” service has been geared toward commuters.  Their store in Clark, New Jersey is very convenient to commuters.  Mr. Klein reiterated that when the trains come in, as many as fifty people might be pulling into the parking lot all at once.  Chairman Gallelli noted that not everyone using this “at-home” service has to park in the four designated parking spots.  They can park anywhere in the ShopRite lot.

Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that the public hearing on this Amended Site Plan application would be scheduled for Tuesday, October 26th.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Chairman Gallelli stated that the site visit at Symphony Knoll is scheduled for this Saturday at 9:30 A.M.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the Village Board meeting last night, the Village Board received a letter from the attorney, Maria Modica-Snow, recommending a change to the Steep Slopes Ordinance. The Planning Board will be asked to review the proposed change at an upcoming meeting and make a recommendation to the Village Board.   

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, August 24, 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.

The minutes of the Tuesday, September 8, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:18 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY       



RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A
TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF M&A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP.

        WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted a Resolution at its regular public meeting held on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, on the application of M&A Real Estate Development Corp. (the “Applicant”) which granted Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval of certain property located at 1214 Albany Post Road, in a Residential RA-40 District, which property consists of approximately 4.95 acres identified as Section 67.19 Block 1 Lot 4.02 on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, on the terms and conditions more particularly set forth in said Resolution; and

        WHEREAS, the recitals in the June 8, 2004 Resolution summarize the proceedings on the application of M&A Real Estate Development Corp. to and including the date thereof; and

        WHEREAS, on September 24, 2004, the Applicant submitted a proposed Final Subdivision Plat to be considered by the Planning Board at its regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 28, 2004; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed Final Subdivision Plat at its September 28, 2004 meeting and deemed same to be officially submitted; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its September 28, 2004 meeting, determined that the proposed Final Subdivision Plat was in substantial agreement with the approved Preliminary Subdivision Plat, and that no public hearing was required pursuant to Village Law Section 7-728 6.(b); and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Board carefully considered all comments received during the course of the Planning Board’s consideration of the application up to and including the date hereof, including those received during the public hearing held on Tuesday, June 8, 2004; and

        WHEREAS, the Final Subdivision Plat which is the subject of the following resolutions is entitled “Velardo Subdivision, Re-Subdivision of Lot #3 into Lots #3 and #4 and Lot #2 Property Line Alterations,” dated June 28, 2004, last revised September 24, 2004, prepared by MGM Burbon LLC.

        NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved:  (i) That the foregoing recitals are incorporated in the resolution of approval, (ii) That the Final Subdivision Plat hereinbefore referred to is approved subject to the conditions set forth below; and

        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of the Planning Board are authorized to endorse the Final Subdivision Plat subject to the following conditions:

1.      The Applicant shall have received all the following permits, approvals, or letters, and shall have delivered to the Planning Board a copy of each of them certified by the Applicant to be a true copy thereof:

Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Westchester County Department of Health as required by the County Sanitary Code.

2.      This approval of the Final Subdivision Plat may be rendered void if the Applicant shall fail to file, in the Westchester County Clerk’s Office, Division of Land Records, the approved Final Subdivision Plat within 62 days from the date of final approval, as final approval is defined in Village Law Section 7-728 11.  

3.      Prior to the signing of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Planning Board Chair, the developers shall have submitted to the Village the official signed copies of the common driveway access maintenance agreement and easement agreement.

4.      The Applicant shall have satisfied all of the conditions of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval dated June 8, 2004.

5.      A change shall be made to the Site Schedule on drawing #030131.8 dated March 29, 2004, last revised September 23, 2004 to indicate that this Site Schedule is referring to the “pre-subdivided” Lot #3.  Also, on the same drawing, the table entitled “Buffer Disturbance Table” shall be changed to “Wetlands Buffer Disturbance Table.”

6.      Changes shall be made to item #9 in the Construction Notes on drawing #030131.8 dated March 29, 2004, last revised September 23, 2004 to say, “Village Engineer and the Village’s environmental consultant” where it now says, “Town Engineer.”

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a public meeting of the Planning Board in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson held on the 28th of September, 2004.

                                        THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF
                                        CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK

                                        ________________________
                                        Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson

                                        Fran Allen
                                        Ted Brumleve
                                        Thomas Burniston
                                        Joel Klein

The motion to approve was made by Mr. Burniston, was seconded by Mr. Klein, and was carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Planning Board member, Ted Brumleve, was absent from the meeting.  The Resolution was accepted with the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting held on September 28, 2004.