Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
 
 
Planning Board Minutes 05/31/05
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2005


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 in the Municipal Building.


MEMBERS PRESENT:        Ann Gallelli, Chairman
Fran Allen
Tom Burniston
                                        Chris Kehoe

                        ABSENT: Joel Klein

                ALSO PRESENT:   Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
        

1.  Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Gallelli.

2.      OLD BUSINESS:

Sky View Rehabilitation and Health Care Center – 1280 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.18 Blk. 1 Lot 2) – Referral from the Village Board for a Request for an Amended Special Permit

John Cohen, Architect for the Applicant, was present.

Chairman Gallelli reviewed the history of this application stating that, during the course of reviewing the application at a previous meeting, the Planning Board became aware of the fact that the Applicant would have to apply for an Amended Special Permit from the Village Board.  The Applicant sent a letter to the Village Board to this effect.  The Village Board has since referred this application back to the Planning Board for a recommendation.  Chairman Gallelli stated that, if the Village Board grants the Amended Special Permit, then, the Applicant would have to come back to the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board asked Mr. Cohen to make changes to the plan(s).  Chairman Gallelli said that she thinks Mr. Cohen has addressed the issues that the Planning Board wanted to have addressed.

Chairman Gallelli asked the Village Engineer if he had had an opportunity to look at the relationship of the new (proposed) terrace to the existing water and sewer lines.  The Village Engineer stated that there are two utilities in the area in question, a storm drain and the sanitary sewer line.  The Village Engineer told those present that the existing storm drainpipe would have to be taken into consideration during the construction process.  If the Applicant runs into interference with the drainpipe, they would have to relocate it or they would have to design footings to go over it.  The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that they should not try to create a design for the footings right now.  They should wait until they have excavated the area and then develop the design.  There might be soil conditions that would also have to be addressed.  The Village Engineer stated that the matter of the drainpipe would be dealt with during the building permit process.  Mr. Cohen noted that, if there were interference with the drainpipe, it would be immediately apparent once the excavation begins.

The Village Engineer stated that the other issue would be with the sanitary sewer line and the easement area.  On the first set of plans submitted the steps were not shown.  The steps are now being shown on the Applicant’s revised plans.  The new terrace being proposed is located between the steps and the building.  The Village Engineer stated that he would like to visit the site again with the DPW.  He personally did not think it likely that the construction of the new terrace would cause problems to the sewer line.  The Village Engineer asked Mr. Cohen if he thought the steps would be damaged or would need to be removed during construction, to which Mr. Cohen replied that he thinks the steps are vulnerable and may have to be partially reconstructed.  He said that it is a tight situation, space-wise. As he noted to the Planning Board in his cover letter dated April 27, 2005, the construction of the new terrace would be difficult but doable.

The Village Engineer said that one of his initial concerns with this application was access to the sewer easement area.  As it turns out, the access road is between the steps and the control building, so access would not be an issue.  The Village Engineer stated that once the construction work begins, the Applicant would know whether or not the steps would have to be rebuilt.  The Village Engineer told the Applicant that on-site protection measures would be required to protect the sewer line.  He noted that the existing access road is large enough for vehicles to maneuver.  The Village would not want the road to be any smaller than it is right now.  Chairman Gallelli said that, as she understands it, as long as the steps do not become any wider, then the steps are not an issue, to which the Village Engineer said that this is, indeed, the case.

Mr. Cohen stated that the canopy being proposed has been reduced so that it no longer overhangs the roadway.  

Chairman Gallelli asked Mr. Cohen if he had had an opportunity to ask the owners of the property if they would consider putting a canopy over the terrace.  Mr. Cohen said that he asked them and they do not want a canopy over the terrace.    
     
Ms. Allen asked about fire equipment access to the back of the property and the need for fire equipment to get into the back, to which the Village Engineer replied that there is a fire hydrant out back that could be used for hoses.  The trucks would be set up in the front of the building.  Ms. Allen wondered if the Planning Board should find out from the Fire Department what the requirements are for fire equipment access to the building(s).  Chairman Gallelli noted that the steps are there already, so the issue of access was, in some sense, resolved at the point that the original approvals for the nursing home were granted. Chairman Gallelli noted that the fire lane is in the front of the building.  Ms. Allen said that she is surprised that the Fire Department would not want access to the back of the building on that side.  Chairman Gallelli thought that the Fire Department would tend to a fire on that side of the building with ladders and hoses.  Mr. Cohen noted that a sprinkler system has been installed in the building(s) so that the risks are greatly reduced.  Ms. Allen thought that it would be prudent for the Planning Board to ask the Fire Department to do a reassessment of the situation at this time.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the Planning Board could (still) make a recommendation to the Village Board and address the issue of fire equipment access when the Applicant comes back before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan Approval.   

Chairman Gallelli said that it is her understanding, given tonight’s discussion, the Planning Board would like to make a positive recommendation on this application to the Village Board.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that, due to the fact that the Planning Board has already discussed the site plan at a previous meeting, the Planning Board could (also) schedule a public hearing on the Amended Site Plan application at this time.  The letter of recommendation to the Village Board would be prepared and submitted in time for the Village Board meeting of June 6th.  The public hearing before the Village Board would most likely take place on June 20th and, if approved, the public hearing before the Planning Board could take place on June 28th.  It was the consensus of the Planning Board members that a positive recommendation on this application should be made. The Planning Board members all agreed with Chairman Gallelli’s suggestions on how to proceed with the Amended Site Plan application.   

The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing on the Amended Site Plan for the Planning Board meeting of Tuesday, June 28th.

3.     NEW BUSINESS:

a)      Laura & David Adler – 12 Franklin Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 4 Lot 22) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval to Construct a Second-Story Addition

Laura & David Adler, owners of the property, and Gary Yates, architect for the Applicant, were present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that this application for a Minor Site Plan Approval is for a second-story addition to a house in the RA-9 Zoning District.  The reason that Mr. & Mrs. Adler are before the Planning Board is that their proposed addition exceeds the 80% FAR requirement.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the Adlers were granted a side yard setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in October of last year.  They now must go back before the Zoning Board for an additional variance with respect to the FAR requirement. The square footage of the house, with the proposed addition, would exceed the maximum square footage allowed.   

Mr. Adler told the Board members that the square footage calculation submitted to the Planning Board was incorrect and had to be changed.  The new calculation shows that they only exceed the FAR by 10.1%.  

Mr. Adler showed the Board members photographs of the neighbor’s house across the street and the neighbors’ houses on either side of their house.  

Chairman Gallelli told Mr. & Mrs. Adler that she thinks they did a “very nice job” on the architectural design for the proposed addition.  The architectural style fits well in this neighborhood.  Mr. Adler stated that he and his wife wanted to maintain the character of the house.  They wanted to keep the roofline of the side bay window.  Mrs. Adler stated that they would probably keep the gray shingle siding and choose a blue trim.  

Mrs. Adler noted that the houses close to their house are in the RA-5 Zoning District. Their house is situated in the RA-9 Zoning District.  Their house, with the proposed addition, would be 500 square feet less in size than some of the neighbors’ houses.  Mrs. Adler noted that the houses in their neighborhood were built in the late 1920’s or early 30’s.  

Chairman Gallelli noted that the footprint of the house would not change.  The Adlers are adding a second-story addition, which is consistent with the houses in the neighborhood.

Chairman Gallelli told Mr. & Mrs. Adler that the Planning Board is aware of the fact that the Adlers must also go back before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the additional zoning variance.  She (Chairman Gallelli) would like to propose that the Planning Board approve this application with the condition that the required variance from the FAR be granted.

Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board could write a letter to the ZBA stating that the Planning Board looks favorably on this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that there is no requirement to hold a public hearing for a Minor Site Plan Approval.  She asked the Planning Board members if they had any comments on this application, to which there were none.

Chairman Gallelli asked the Planning Board members if they would like to approve this application. It was the consensus of the Board members that this application for a Minor Site Plan Approval should be approved with the condition that the aforementioned zoning variance be granted.

The Applicant’s architect, Gary Yates, told the Planning Board members that he designed the second-floor addition to keep it in the same style as the bungalow house.  He said that he very much appreciates the positive comment on the architectural design of the house.  Ms. Allen asked Mr. Yates if he knew the history of this house, to which Mr. Yates stated that the house is one of the Sears houses built in the late 20’s and early 30’s.  He distributed to the Board members a piece of documentation describing the Sears’ “Hamilton” style bungalow house.   

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that a resolution of approval on this application would be prepared, and the resolution would be adopted with the minutes of tonight’s Planning Board meeting.

b)      Hans & Tara Toro – 3 Red Maple Ridge (Sec. 67.11 Blk. 1 Lot 19) – Application for an Amended Building Envelope to Construct a Swimming Pool

Ryna Lustig, landscape architect, was present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the next item on the agenda is an application to amend the building envelope on a lot situated in the Arrowcrest Subdivision.  The Applicant wishes to install an in-ground swimming pool, which extends beyond the building envelope.

Ms. Lustig stated that she has been hired by Mr. & Mrs. Toro to prepare plans for an in-ground pool. She told the Board members that the Applicant hopes to accomplish this pool project with the minimum amount of land disturbance. The pool being proposed is in a “tricky” location.  Ms. Lustig stated that she had representatives of the swimming pool company walk the site with her.  The selected area for the pool was deemed “easiest to manage.”  Both the pool and patio would extend beyond the envelope.  Ms. Lustig noted that they go “way beyond the envelope” because of issues involving the pool and the grading for the pool area.  The Applicant would need to extend the area(s) being disturbed both on the side and the rear of the property.  

Chairman Gallelli wanted to know what houses are adjacent to Mr. & Mrs. Toro’s house.  

Ms. Allen said that she looked at the subject site before the meeting tonight.  The Brinton Brook Sanctuary property is behind the house and to the north of it.  Chairman Gallelli said that she thinks the property behind the house is part of the open space that the Planning Board required at the time the subdivision was approved and not actually Brinton Brook.    

The Village Engineer distributed to the Planning Board members copies of plans showing the Applicant’s lot (Lot #14).  He noted that the “darker” copy is from the original Arrowcrest Subdivision map. The Village Engineer stated that he has shown on this map the approximate location of the pool.  On Lot #13 the shaded area is the conservation easement for the subdivision.  The dark dash line that runs through the house on Lot #14 is the wetlands buffer.  The Village Engineer stated that it appears the pool and patio would be in the wetlands buffer zone, so a Wetlands Activity Permit would be required.

Chairman Gallelli told Ms. Lustig that the plan she has prepared showing the house and pool location should show the wetlands buffer area.   Also, it would be helpful to the Planning Board to see where the adjacent houses are situated.  Chairman Gallelli noted that, in the past, when the Planning Board has reviewed applications to extend a building envelope, the Planning Board has generally required that the adjacent residents provide letters stating that they have no objections to the project being proposed.

Mr. Kehoe asked if the Applicant had considered putting the pool in the area on the other side of the house where the wood lattice and stone retaining wall are located.  Ms. Lustig said that she does not think the pool would fit into the area.  She referred to the map showing the pool location and stated that the area to the left of the dotted line is very steep.  There is also an outlet on that side of the property, which, she thought, was an outlet for drainage.  Ms. Allen noted that there was an important spring that ran through the Arrowcrest property in this area, to which Ms. Lustig said that perhaps the outlet could be the outlet for the spring.  Ms. Lustig told the Board members that she thinks that putting the pool in the area Mr. Kehoe is referring to would create more disturbance to the existing landscape.

Mr. Kehoe wanted to know if, by putting the pool on the other side of the house, the pool would be outside the wetlands buffer area, to which the Village Engineer said that, indeed, it would be. He noted that the wetlands buffer goes almost up to the edge of the patio where the existing wood deck is.  Moving the pool to the other (driveway) side of the lot would remove it from the wetlands buffer zone.  The Village Engineer said that he still does not know if it would be possible to construct a pool on this side of the house.  There may be an issue concerning the fill.

Mr. Kehoe asked if the proposed location for the pool is close to the adjacent residence(s), to which Ms. Lustig said that it is not.  The next house is farther up the hill.  She did not think that these residents could see down that far.  The two houses are totally screened from each other.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board needs to see a new plan showing the wetlands activity setback line.  She told Ms. Lustig that, if Mr. & Mrs. Toro choose to move ahead with this proposal, they would have to apply to the Water Control Commission for a Wetlands Activity Permit.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Toro’s should apply for this permit before the Planning Board proceeds any further with this application.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she thinks the Planning Board members would also want to make a site visit to the property.

Ms. Allen mentioned again the spring, which runs through the Arrowcrest property.  She noted that the outlet for drainage that Ms. Lustig was referring to earlier could very well be where this spring is situated.  She did not think the outlet is just for drainage.  Ms. Allen noted that, when the Arrowcrest Subdivision was approved, this spring was considered to be an important spring for the Brinton Brook.  The Planning Board took measures at the time to ensure that the spring would be retained. Ms. Lustig pointed out that a drainage pipe is also situated on this (the outlet) side of the property. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would need to look more closely at this area.  She thought that the location of the spring would probably be documented in the Arrowcrest Subdivision plan(s).  The Planning Board needs to look further into this matter.    

Mr. Kehoe stated that the Applicant’s revised plan should show the neighboring houses on both sides.  

Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board and the Water Control Commission could schedule a joint site visit to the property.

The Village Engineer referred to Note “B” of the Arrowcrest Subdivision map.  This note specifies that the disturbance to Lot #14 is limited to 15,000 square feet.  The Village Engineer pointed out that, if the Planning Board were to approve this application, the Planning Board would not only be modifying the building envelope but also modifying Note “B”.  The Village Engineer told Ms. Lustig that in order to determine the total amount of disturbance on Lot #14 the Planning Board would need to know how much additional disturbance would be created by the pool/patio.    

The Village Engineer told Ms. Lustig that steep slopes calculations should also be submitted.  The area for the pool is steep. The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant should do the calculations to determine the total amount of disturbance to the lot as well as do the calculations specifically for the steep slopes area(s).  It has to be determined whether the Applicant is under the threshold for steep slopes.   Steep slopes calculations would need to be based on pre-construction contours.

Ms. Allen suggested that Ms. Lustig should relay to the homeowners the issues that were raised at the meeting tonight.  She should say to the homeowners that this project might not be feasible to do.  There are so many “unknowns” at this point. Ms. Allen said that the Planning Board might not consider this project to be a reasonable one based on the amount of disturbance involved. Ms. Lustig asked if she should consider the option, discussed earlier, of putting the pool on the other side of the property.  Chairman Gallelli said that there would still be the problem with the steep slopes, the disturbance limitation issue(s), etc.  She suggested that Ms. Lustig should discuss these matters with her client and let the Planning Board know how they wish to proceed.    

c)      Brian & Lori MacKay – 153 Upper North Highland Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 35.05) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval to Construct a Single-Family Dwelling

Brian MacKay, owner of the property, was present.

Chairman Gallelli stated that this Minor Site Plan application is for a new one-family dwelling in the River Landing Subdivision (Lot #5).  

Chairman Gallelli noted that the Village’s environmental consultant, Bruce Donohue, has been working fairly extensively on the plan(s) for the Applicant’s driveway.  

Mr. MacKay showed the Board members a series of photographs that he took of his property and stated that the photographs are numbered to show how his house would be situated relative to the other houses in the neighborhood.  

Chairman Gallelli asked if the residence being proposed falls within the building envelope, to which Mr. MacKay said that it does.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the building envelope seems large enough to accommodate an accessory structure, such as a swimming pool, should an accessory structure be proposed in the future.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant has also included in his submission a picture showing the style of the house.

The Village Engineer noted to the Board members that Mr. Donohue has been involved with this application for a considerable amount of time.  He (Mr. Donohue) has been out in the field to help the Applicant determine the best driveway location.  Mr. Donohue started reviewing this project two years ago.  The Village Engineer noted that Mr. Donohue has in mind to make a slight adjustment to the driveway to reduce the impact on the existing trees.    

The Village Engineer stated that there are seepage pits out back to capture the drainage water.  There is also one in the front to capture the water before it goes out into the road.  

The Village Engineer noted that there are steep slopes on the property; however, the house is being constructed on the flat portion of the property.  The Village Engineer stated that tree wells are being installed in the front of the house.  The grade is not that extensive.  Ms. Allen noted that, judging from the Planning Board’s past experience in reviewing other applications, trees in tree wells do not survive.

The Village Engineer distributed to the Planning Board members a copy of a map showing a portion of the River Landing Subdivision.  He referred to the 10-foot wide public walking trail being shown and stated that, originally, on the old subdivision map, it is shown running continuously along the boundary line of the Applicant’s property. Now, the location of the trail has changed.  The Village Engineer noted that the trail is supposed to be on the property line.  He asked the Board members if the trail was ever modified or if it was ever relocated to the adjacent lot.  Chairman Gallelli said that she remembers that the Planning Board altered the trail at some point but does not recall exactly why.  The Village Engineer told the Board that he would do some further research into this matter.  He just wanted the Board members to know that, with respect to the location of the trail, the original subdivision map is different from what the Board is seeing now.

The Village Engineer noted that, even if the trail is still situated on the Applicant’s property line, there is no construction that would take place in this area.  It is simply an issue of the trail being accurately shown.

Chairman Gallelli suggested to the Board members that this application could be approved with the condition that the location of the public trail be accurately determined, to which the other Board members agreed.

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that a resolution of approval on this Minor Site Plan application would be prepared and adopted with the minutes of tonight’s Planning Board meeting.  The condition of the resolution would be that the accuracy of the location of the public walking trail should be determined, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

d)      Margo Francy – 57 Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lot 27) – Referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit

Ron Wegner of Cronin Engineering was present to represent the Applicant.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Board has referred this application for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit to the Planning Board for a recommendation.   The Village Board would hold a public hearing once they receive the comments from the Planning Board.

Chairman Gallelli briefly summarized for those present the regulations that govern the requirement to obtain a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit.  She noted that a permit is not always required when there are steep slopes on a piece of property.  It depends on the amount of steep slopes and the amount of land disturbance.  In order to determine whether or not a permit is required, the Applicant must perform the required steep slopes calculations. If the result of doing these calculations is that there is less “buildable” land on the lot than the amount of disturbance for the proposed building, the Applicant must apply for a hardship permit.

Ms. Allen wanted to know the status of this lot, e.g., the history of ownership, etc.  Chairman Gallelli stated that in 1929 this lot was part of the Hessian Hills Subdivision.  The section of the subdivision, which includes more than this lot, was just marked “reserved.”  Chairman Gallelli noted that the subdivision “predates” the Village’s zoning law, which came into effect in July 1931.  Chairman Gallelli stated that in 1964 there is a record of a subdivision of the “reserved” lot, which identifies four different lots:  “75,” “75A,” “75B,” and “75C.”  Now, there is a “75D” as well.  It is not known when this lot (“75D”) was created as a lot.  

Richard and Janet Regis of 63 Old Post Road North were present.  Ms. Regis stated that, with respect to the creation of Lot “75D,” she believes it was established in 1987.  The owners of the property were the Jacobs’.  Ms. Regis noted that the Jacobs’ owned two pieces of property, which their children eventually inherited.  The Jacobs (jointly) owned one of the lots with their daughter and the other with their son, respectively.  

Mr. Wegner noted to the Planning Board members that Margo Francy received the lot, as a trust, in 1996 or 1998.  

Mr. Wegner stated that the Applicant is proposing a 1,500 square-foot footprint.  The total square footage with the second floor included would be 3,000 square feet.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant’s plan(s) should show the location of the surrounding houses.  

Chairman Gallelli noted that there is a wetlands that runs across the Lipton’s lot.  The Lipton’s house is in the middle of a wetlands activity area.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Wegner that he might want to show on the plan(s) that the wetlands buffer is right over the property line.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that some of the drainage is going to be directed into the street and the rest is going back down toward the Lipton property, which is the way it goes now.

Mr. Wegner stated that the 6-foot high retaining walls are being proposed to make a more level area for the construction of the house.

The Village Engineer noted that, according to the Village Code, the total square footage of a house in a RA-9 District has to be a minimum of 1,000 square feet.  The main floor has to be at least 880 square feet.

Ms. Allen expressed concern about the amount of land disturbance being proposed.  She wondered if, in this particular situation, the Planning Board could simply say that the square footage of the house should be the minimum allowed.  Or, could the Planning Board just say, “No?”  The Village Engineer reminded Ms. Allen that the Planning Board could only make a recommendation to the Village Board on this application.   The Planning Board could recommend that a house not be built on this lot.  It is up to the Village Board to say, “Yes” or “No.”

The Village Engineer stated that a garage would not enter into the calculation for “habitable floor area.”  

The Village Engineer noted that two off-street parking spaces are required for a single-family dwelling.  

Ms. Allen expressed concern about the extensive amount of land disturbance involved with this application as well as other steep slopes applications that have come before the Planning Board during the last several months.  She thought that, as a board, the Planning Board should try to develop some understanding or insight into possible ways of handling these applications.  She said that, “It can’t be that an Applicant can come in with the biggest possible house that they want.”  She was concerned about the environmental impacts of a large house, e.g., the potential damage to steep slopes, trees, etc.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Applicant could provide an alternative plan showing the minimum size house allowed on the lot.  The Planning Board could then compare the environmental impacts of the two proposals.  By doing a comparison, the Planning Board would have a better sense of the potential impacts of the larger house.  Chairman Gallelli noted that it is possible that a smaller house might have substantially less impacts on the environment than a larger one.  Mr. Wegner stated that he would not want to show a house that is drastically smaller than the other houses on the hillside(s) in this area.  Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Wegner that the reason for doing this exercise would be to compare the environmental impacts of the two houses.  At this point in time, the Planning Board is not looking at the way the house would look in the neighborhood.    

Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Wegner that he would need to do soil tests in the drainage area.

Mr. Burniston questioned whether the subject lot is a legal lot.  He said that it is possible that the flag lot and this lot were, at one time, one lot and were illegally divided by deed(s).  He stated that it is the Applicant's obligation to determine whether the lot was ever legally created.  Mr. Burniston noted to those present that a property owner could hire an attorney to draw up two deeds to divide the land, but this does not mean that a lot is a legal lot.  He personally had difficulty believing that the Village would have ever approved such a lot, given the extent of the steep slopes.  He thought that the lot in question could still be part of the other (flag) lot.   Mr. Burniston stated that the Planning Board would obviously need to know that this lot is legal before it could make a recommendation on the Steep Slopes Hardship Permit application.  

Mr. Burniston had a suggestion for the Applicant on how to lessen the amount of land disturbance.  The Applicant could obtain an easement to use the existing, adjacent driveway and thereby eliminate the driveway being proposed.      

Mr. Wegner asked how one would demonstrate that the lot is a legal lot.  The Village Engineer stated that there is a 1964 deed listing four parcels.  Lot “75A” is parcel “4” in the deed.  In 1964, this lot was a larger lot.  The Village Engineer stated that one would have to “go along with” (follow) the deed history and look at the metes and bounds descriptions.  Mr. Wegner noted that, if it were a legally subdivided lot, there would have to be a filed map with the County, to which the Village Engineer said that, indeed, there would have to be.  

Mr. Kehoe stated that it would appear that the Applicant would need to hire an attorney to investigate the legality issue.  The Applicant would have to provide the Planning Board with documentation proving that the lot is legal. Chairman Gallelli noted that, in order to move forward, this issue on the legality of the lot would have to be resolved.

Ms. Regis told the Board members that, as a result of the last building permit that was issued to the Lipton’s, she has had much difficulty with slope(s) stabilization on her property.  She has had to spend a lot of money to rectify this problem.

Mr. Wegner noted that, as he understands it, the subdivision proposal for the creation of the subject lot would have had to come before the Planning Board between 1964 and 1985.

Mr. Wegner stated that, assuming the lot is legal and the Applicant decides to go forward with this application, the suggestion that Mr. Burniston made earlier regarding the use of the adjacent driveway might prove difficult.  There are steep slopes in this area.

Mr. Burniston said that he agrees with Ms. Allen’s earlier comments on this issue of approving steep slopes permits.  He thinks that there are properties in the Village that one should simply not attempt to build on due to the severity of the environmental impact(s).  Furthermore, the Village has the right to say, “No,” in these situations.  Mr. Burniston said that he thinks this is the case with this application.  He suggested that the Planning Board should recommend to the Village Board that this Steep Slopes Hardship Permit application should not be granted.

Chairman Gallelli noted that, even if the Planning Board recommends that this application not be approved, the Village Board is still going to hold a public hearing. She suggested that the Applicant should prepare plans, which show the two alternative house sizes, for the Village Board as well as for the Planning Board.  Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that just because the Planning Board says, “No,” does not mean the Village Board is going to say, “No.”

Chairman Gallelli noted that this application is not going to be processed in the required 30-day time period.  She told Mr. Wegner that the Planning Board would need the Applicant’s approval to extend the time period for review beyond the 30 days.  Mr. Wegner should let Ms. Francy know that the Planning Board would need a letter to this effect.  

4.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, April 26, 2005 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.  Mr. Kehoe abstained.

The minutes of the Tuesday, May 3, 2005 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Burniston and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

5.      ADJOURNMENT:

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

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY       





RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 for David & Laura Adler, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 12 Franklin Avenue, in the RA-9 Zoning District, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.13 Block 4 Lot 22 (formerly #9 123 2); and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a second-story addition; and

WHEREAS, a Minor Site Plan approval is required because the proposed addition exceeds the 80% FAR requirement; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minor Site Plan application as shown on Drawing 1 through 7 entitled “Second Floor Addition to 12 Franklin Avenue,” dated November 14, 2004, prepared by Gary T. Yates, R.A., be approved subject to the following condition:

1.      The Applicant shall be granted a variance from the FAR requirement from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

In the event that this Minor Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.

                                                The Planning Board of the Village of
                                                Croton-on-Hudson, New York

                                                Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Thomas Burniston
                                                Chris Kehoe
                                        Joel Klein
                
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, May 31, 2005.


RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 for Brian & Lori MacKay, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 153 Upper North Highland Place in the River Landing Subdivision (Lot #5) and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 3 Lot 35.05; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new one-family dwelling; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minor Site Plan application as shown on plans entitled “Environmental Site Plan,” dated January 25, 2005, last revised May 12, 2005; “Environmental Site Plan Details,” dated January 25, 2005, last revised April 15, 2005; and “Driveway Profile,” dated January 25, 2005, last revised April 15, 2005; prepared by Robert J. Cioli, P.E., Consulting Engineer, and a plan entitled “Sanitary Sewer Connection Plan,” dated April 12, 2005, prepared by Frank G. Fowler, III, Engineer & Land Surveyor, and house plans #A1 thru #A9, dated May 16, 2005, prepared by Mashiyat Ashraf, RA, AIA, be approved subject to the following condition:

1.      The accuracy of the location of the public walking trail shall be determined, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

In the event that this Minor Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.

                                                The Planning Board of the Village of
                                                Croton-on-Hudson, New York

                                                Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Thomas Burniston
                                                Chris Kehoe
                                        Joel Klein
                
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, May 31, 2005.