VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chairman
ABSENT: Tom Burniston
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. PUBLIC HEARING:
Sky View Rehabilitation & Health Care Center – 1280 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.18 Blk. 1 Lot 2) – Application for an Amended Site Plan
Chairman Gallelli stated that before the public hearing on the Sky View application takes place tonight, she wanted to say a few words about Joel Klein who has just recently resigned as a member of the Planning Board. Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Klein has served as a member of the Planning Board for more than 10 years. She wanted to commend him for the fine service that he has provided to the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as well as to the members of the Planning Board. Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Klein’s vast depth of professional knowledge has been very useful to applicants coming before this board. The Planning Board members benefited greatly from Mr. Klein’s ability to distill the key issues in the sometimes very complex matters that come before the Board. The Planning Board
benefited from Mr. Klein’s professional experience and his familiarity with state and federal regulations as they pertained to historic preservation and the environment. Chairman Gallelli noted that, because of Mr. Klein’s professional background, which sometimes brought him in contact with the “Energy World,” the Village was able to have a “heads up” on issues relating to the Millennium Pipeline Project. Mr. Klein alerted the Village early on so that the Village was able to take preliminary steps and be prepared. Chairman Gallelli told those present at the meeting that she wanted the record tonight to reflect Mr. Klein’s contributions to the Planning Board and to the Village.
Ms. Allen stated that she would like to endorse all that Chairman Gallelli just said about Mr. Klein. She (Ms. Allen) viewed Mr. Klein as a wonderful colleague on the Planning Board. Ms. Allen stated that she could always rely on Mr. Klein for his insights and wise judgment on Planning Board issues. Ms. Allen noted as an example Mr. Klein’s work on the golf course project, stating that he used his professional knowledge of archeology to impact project outcomes. Ms. Allen stated that she considered Mr. Klein to be a co-leader in the Village’s efforts against the proposed Millennium Pipeline Project. Although Mr. Klein was not actually on the Waterfront Advisory Committee whose members had to provide the comments on the pipeline proposal to the state, he was the first person
that Ms. Allen, as chair of the committee, would contact for advice. Ms. Allen stated that, with respect to future projects coming before the Planning Board, she personally does not intend to “cut the phone line” to Mr. Klein and would continue to seek his advice. She concluded in saying that Mr. Klein would be sorely missed as a member of the Planning Board.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the public hearing tonight is for an Amended Site Plan for the Sky View Rehabilitation & Health Care Center. This Applicant had come to the Planning Board early on with an application and, during the review process, it became apparent that the Applicant would have to obtain an Amended Special Permit from the Village Board. The public hearing was held last week, and the Amended Special Permit was granted. The Applicant is back before the Planning Board tonight for the public hearing on the Amended Site Plan proposal. Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant has made the revisions to the plan(s), as previously requested.
John Cohen, architect for the Applicant, was present. He told those present that, if anyone from the Planning Board or the public has any questions, he would be glad to answer them.
Chairman Gallelli opened the public hearing on this application. She asked if there were any comments from the public, to which there were none. Chairman Gallelli closed the public hearing.
Ms. Allen stated that she visited the site before coming to the meeting tonight. She noticed that the outside patio area for smoking, which is between the building and the steps, is on an incline. She asked if this area is going to be leveled, to which Mr. Cohen said that it would be. The walk would be restored and the patio area would be made level.
The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board had indicated at the last meeting that this application should be sent to the Fire Department for review. The Fire Inspector for the Village, Peter Anfiteatro, looked at this application. He visited the Sky View site, and he did not have any concerns with what was being proposed. The Fire Inspector did say that he wanted the Chief of the Fire Department to write a letter confirming his (the Fire Inspector’s) position. The letter would go into the property file.
Chairman Gallelli read aloud the draft resolution. She asked the Board members if they had any comments, to which there were none.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this Amended Site Plan application. The motion to approve was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Kehoe and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
3. NEW BUSINESS:
American Building Technologies (Galina Feit) – Prospect Place and Old Post Road North – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval to Construct a Single-Family Dwelling on Lot #3 of the Hudson View Subdivision
Ron Wegner of Cronin Engineering and Galina Feit, owner of the property, were present.
Mr. Wegner stated that he has prepared for tonight’s meeting a site plan for Lot #3. Mr. Wegner noted that the Applicant has maintained the limits of disturbance shown on the original subdivision plan. The Applicant, Ms. Feit, has also provided for the Planning Board’s review a set of architectural (house) plans.
Chairman Gallelli stated that she and the Village Engineer were looking at the plan(s) for Lot #3 earlier today. They noticed that the proposed residence is larger than what was shown on the subdivision plans. Chairman Gallelli noted that the site plan for Lot #3 shows that it (the house) has been extended in one direction by 7 or 8 feet, so that it encroaches that much further (7 or 8 feet) into the wetlands activity setback area. Chairman Gallelli stated that it is her understanding that the Water Control Commission (WCC) granted the wetlands activity permit to Ms. Feit based on the incursion that they saw on the plans at the time of their review. If the plans have changed and there is further incursion into the wetlands area, then she believes the Applicant would have to go back before the WCC.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that, to avoid having to go back before the WCC, another option would be to move the house back to where it was originally and/or make the house smaller.
Mr. Wegner stated that, because of the shape of the house and also, because of the decks, which are situated in the back, the house had to be pushed forward. It was the only way the house would fit.
The Village Engineer asked if the limit of disturbance, as shown on the current plan, is the same as was shown on the subdivision plans, to which Mr. Wegner said that it is the same. The house was shifted around, but it was kept inside the limit of disturbance.
Mr. Kehoe referred to the steep slopes analysis table shown on the Applicant’s plan. He asked what the situation would have to be for the Applicant to need a hardship permit. For example, if the area now being disturbed of 1,712 sq. ft. were to go beyond the allowable disturbed area of 1,999 sq. ft., would the Applicant need to obtain a hardship permit, to which Chairman Gallelli said that the Applicant would need to obtain the permit in this case. Mr. Kehoe noted that the way the house is now situated, if the house is pushed in the direction of the steep slopes, then the driveway is going to encroach further into the 15-20% slope area.
Ms. Allen noted that, at previous meetings, much work was done to situate the house on this lot. She expressed her concern to the Applicant about a change in the location of the house at this late stage. Ms. Allen said that, if the Applicant chooses to make the changes to the original plans, the Applicant would have to go back to the WCC for a wetlands activity permit and/or to the Village Board for a steep slopes hardship permit. She (Ms. Allen) would suggest that the Applicant try, if at all possible, to fit the house within the constraints that were previously approved by this board (the Planning Board). Chairman Gallelli reiterated that, with respect to the proposed changes, it would be a matter of having to obtain the proper approval(s).
Chairman Gallelli stated that, on a positive note, she likes the distance the Applicant maintained from the High Street houses.
Chairman Gallelli referred to the proposed stone wall on the far side of the driveway opposite the garage. She suggested that, for screening purposes, the Applicant should consider putting in a row of evergreen trees on the far side of the stone wall. She noted that the evergreen trees would help to screen the façade of the garage.
Chairman Gallelli asked the Applicant if it would be possible to see an actual sample of the stone being used for the façade of the house so that the Planning Board would have a more realistic idea of what the façade is going to look like. Mr. Kehoe noted that the details of the stone work and other materials being used for the house should be a part of the architectural plans. These plans would be signed and sealed by the architect. Ms. Feit showed Mr. Kehoe the set of signed and sealed architectural plans, which she brought with her to the meeting tonight. Ms. Feit asked if she could bring in a picture of a house, which has the same stone work as the one being built on Lot #3, to which Chairman Gallelli said that she should bring in whatever will actually show what the house would
Chairman Gallelli noted that another positive aspect of the house is that, relative to Old Post Road North, the house would be set down substantially lower than the road so that only 1? stories would be above the grade of the road.
Ms. Allen asked what the height of the building would be from the ground level to the ridge in the back, to which the Village Engineer said 31 feet. Mr. Wegner stated that from the rear at the basement door to the roof it is approximately 40 feet.
Mr. Kehoe asked what the treatment of the railings is going to be, to which Ms. Feit said stained mahogany. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would like to see samples of the finishes being used for the house and deck(s). Ms. Feit noted that, in her experience, the prospective homeowner is usually left to do the choosing of details such as these. Chairman Gallelli said that, with respect to these details, the Applicant should still show the Planning Board what her intentions are for this house. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could provide a generalized description of the treatment of the building (house) but more specific details on the stone work. Ms. Feit said that she would bring in samples of the stone.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, once the Applicant has obtained a minor site plan approval, the next step would be the building permit. At that stage, the Applicant would have to have an environmental site plan prepared and work with the Village’s environmental consultant on construction-related matters, such as stockpiling of materials and tree preservation.
Mr. Kehoe noted that the retaining wall for the driveway is extremely close to the limit of disturbance line. He asked if the limit of disturbance is marked in the field or if the Village’s environmental consultant would let the contractor know where the limit of disturbance line is situated. Chairman Gallelli said that she thinks the environmental consultant would usually be responsible for letting the contractor know where the limit of disturbance is. The Village Engineer noted that the silt fence, which is put in place during construction, could provide the outline of the limit of disturbance. Ms. Allen noted that the Village is now considering a more active involvement of the environmental consultant with the actual execution of a project in the field. Chairman Gallelli added that there would
be key times identified as to when the environmental consultant would be at the site to supervise the construction.
Mr. Kehoe asked if the clearing required for the easements is already done, to which Mr. Wegner said that it is not done. The Applicant is still working on the matter of obtaining an easement agreement with the downstream property owner.
The Village Engineer asked if the retaining wall alongside the driveway is going to be above the driveway surface, to which Mr. Wegner said that it would be. The Village Engineer stated that some type of drain should be put in that location. He noted that the Applicant is proposing to put in a curb at the driveway. He would like to see the curb work continue because there will be quite a lot of runoff in this area. The area between the curb and the stone wall around the road has a flush height with the road. Mr. Wegner recalled that there could be some rip-rap in that location. The Village Engineer suggested some type of soil treatment (topsoil and seed) between the curb and the wall.
Ms. Allen said that she noticed that some of the trees are getting tree wells, some are to be saved and others are to be removed. Mr. Wegner replied that the tree wells, to which Ms. Allen is referring, are not actually tree wells. He said that it is just “tree protection” and is only a temporary measure being taken. Ms Allen asked if these protective measures were being taken because the trees are close to the construction being done, to which Mr. Wegner said “Yes.” Ms. Allen said that more than just armoring should be done to the 30” maple tree near the driveway. Chairman Gallelli recalled that the Planning Board had asked the Applicant to move the driveway in order to save that maple tree. Ms. Allen wondered if there might be other plantings that would be
appropriate along Old Post Road North. Chairman Gallelli pointed out to Ms. Allen that the Applicant is not proposing to take down that many trees. Ms. Allen noted that there are large trees that are being replaced. She thought that there could be some additional screening of the house from Old Post Road North. Chairman Gallelli stated that the house is not going to be as imposing from Old Post Road North as from the back. There is quite a drop off from the road. Mr. Wegner stated that the road is at 90 and the first floor elevation of the house is at 80 so that passers-by would essentially see “one story and a roof.”
Ms. Feit wanted the house to remain the same size as is shown on the current plan(s). She was concerned that shifting the house around would mean that the house would have to be made smaller. Mr. Wegner thought that it might help if they took off the three-car garage and made it into a two-car garage.
Ms. Allen noted that another positive aspect of the house being proposed is that the homeowner would have a river view without intruding on anyone else’s view.
The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant has provided him (the Village Engineer) with a set of original plans from the architect. Mr. Kehoe stated that, for the next meeting, he would want to have more information on house elevations as well as more details on the colors and types of materials being used.
Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant to let the Planning Board know when she would like to come back before the board.
Ms. Allen asked the chairman if, while Mr. Wegner is still present at the meeting, she could bring up another matter regarding Symphony Knoll. Ms. Allen stated that the Trails Committee wants to visit the Symphony Knoll site for the purpose of staking out the public walking trail. The Trails Committee needs to know where the proposed building would be sited. They would need to see markings in the field. Mr. Wegner asked Ms. Allen if the Trails Committee would like to have a member of the Cronin Engineering staff go with them to the site, to which Ms. Allen said that this would be helpful. She told Mr. Wegner that she would have the chairman of the committee, Jan Wines, contact him to set up a time.
4. OLD BUSINESS:
Philip Spagnoli – 214 Grand Street (Sec. 68.17 Blk. 3 Lot 32) – Referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit
John Alfonzetti, P.E., of MGM Burbon LLC, was present to represent the Applicant.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, before beginning the discussion of the Spagnoli application, she wanted to let Mr. Alfonzetti know the status of the DDR Construction Steep Slopes Special Hardship referral. The Planning Board had some concerns at a previous meeting about the fact that the lot in question is not a separate lot but part of the Velardo Subdivision, Lot #2. The Steep Slopes Law states that the lot must be a separate lot. The Planning Board referred this matter to the Village Attorney, and it was determined that because the area being considered is not a separate lot and is still a part of the Velardo Subdivision, Lot #2, it is not eligible for an application for a permit. Chairman Gallelli stated that she is going to send a letter to the Village Board to this effect. The Planning Board
will recommend that the application be rejected. Chairman Gallelli noted to Mr. Alfonzetti that the Village does not yet have the written opinion from the Village Attorney on this matter. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that, once the written opinion has been prepared, he would like to forward a copy of it to his client.
Mr. Alfonzetti explained to the Board members the revisions to the plan(s) for the Spagnoli Steep Slopes Hardship Permit application. The dry wells and grading have been moved closer to the house. The Applicant has taken into consideration the rip-rap overflow. Mr. Alfonzetti noted that they could probably discharge any overflow from the drywells to a depressed flat area. Mr. Alfonzetti said that there is a maple tree, 10 inches in diameter, near the driveway. They have taken the tree out of the tree well. They have moved the driveway away so that, now, there is a considerable distance from the trunk of the tree to the driveway. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the covered porch in the front has been made narrower in order to save the two 14-inch in diameter maple trees. There is a
retaining wall being proposed near the black birch tree. The wall has been pulled in to take it further away from the tree. Mr. Alfonzetti stated that, at the last meeting, there was a question about qualifying some of the quantities that he was referring to. He has since prepared a table for the Planning Board to review. Mr. Alfonzetti distributed to the Board members a table showing the progress of slope disturbance reductions since the onset of the project. In the beginning, the Applicant had 72% of slopes greater than 20% being disturbed. This figure has been reduced to approximately 50%.
Ms. Allen reminded Mr. Alfonzetti that the Planning Board had also asked the Applicant to provide calculations for the minimum size house so the Planning Board could make a comparison. How would the minimum size house reduce this percentage (50%)? Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the square footage of the proposed house is 2,400 sq. ft. of habitable space. The house footprint is approximately 1,200 sq. ft., which is very close to the minimum required house footprint of 880 sq. ft. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Alfonzetti that it was not so much that the Planning Board was asking the Applicant to build a house with an 880 sq. ft. footprint. The Planning Board wanted to have a means (some sort of measurement) to compare the amount of disturbance between the two house sizes. Chairman Gallelli noted that,
theoretically, there might not be that much more disturbance with a 1,200 sq. ft. house. Mr. Kehoe stated that, as he understands it, the question being raised is whether it is acceptable to go from 72% of slopes greater than 20% to 50% of slopes greater than 20% or does the reduction have to be greater still, e.g., from 72% to 39%? Mr. Alfonzetti stated that overall they have reduced the amount of disturbance by about 2,400 sq. ft.
The Village Engineer stated that he does not think the smaller footprint for the house would have much impact on the drainage. No matter what the size of the house, the dry wells are designed to accept the runoff. The Village Engineer stated that, from a visual standpoint, he does not know what the difference in the impact would be.
Ms. Allen said that she visited the site tonight. She stated that, with respect to the adjacent lot (Lot #2), the original intent was to put a tree well around the very significant tree near the proposed driveway. Ms. Allen stated that the driveway does not exist yet but when it is built, the driveway will go on the other side of the tree. The tree is armored but there is no well. Ms. Allen noted that the roots of this tree need to be protected. The Village Engineer stated that the Village’s environmental consultant, Bruce Donohue, told the property owner, Mr. Spagnoli, to put a layer of material there. Ms. Allen asked if the beech tree, which is 24 inches in diameter, is still there. Chairman Gallelli stated that this matter concerning the trees on Lot #2 is not a part of this
application and should be handled with the Village Engineer. Mr. Kehoe referred to the Applicant’s plan and noted that the heavier solid lines, indicating the grading, go into Lot #2. He asked if there was a relationship between the two properties, to which Mr. Alfonzetti stated that his client, Philip Spagnoli, owns both properties.
Ms. Allen stated that there are two matters that would keep her from making a positive recommendation on this application: The first is that the disturbance of slopes greater than 20% is still substantial (50%). The second is that she (Ms. Allen) does not consider this application to be a hardship. The Village Engineer stated that the reason for the hardship is that the lot is a separate lot that was created a long time ago.
Ms. Allen noted that an issue the Planning Board is struggling with is the purpose/intent of the Steep Slopes Law. Ms. Allen stated that she personally finds a disturbance of 50% of slopes greater than 20% to be “a bit on the edge.” Chairman Gallelli stated that the purpose of the law is to look at individual lots on a case by case basis. In her reading of the law, it is not so much the amount of disturbance, percentage-wise, that is the issue.
Chairman Gallelli asked the other members if they think the Planning Board has enough information to make a referral to the Village Board. If it were a positive recommendation, would there be conditions that the Village Board should consider? The Village Engineer stated that a condition could be that Mr. Alfonzetti should calculate the disturbance level(s) for an 880 sq. ft. house and provide these calculations to the Village Board. Mr. Alfonzetti had a question about doing these calculations. He asked, if he were to do that comparison, what size garage would he put in? What kind of spaces for other structures/surfaces (garage, patio, etc.) would be considered equivalent to an 880 sq. ft. house? Chairman Gallelli stated that she is somewhat wary about asking the Applicant to supply those
numbers if the Planning Board is not going to require the Applicant to build an 880 sq. ft. house. Ms. Allen asked, if the house were moved further down the hill, would that lessen the disturbance, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that moving the house in this direction would increase the visual impact from the road. It would also create a problem with setbacks.
Mr. Kehoe wanted to know when the Village’s environmental consultant, Mr. Donohue, would become involved with this project. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board could suggest, as a condition in their letter of recommendation to the Village Board, that an environmental site plan should be prepared and reviewed by the environmental consultant. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board would have the Village Engineer set certain times in the construction phase when Mr. Donohue would be at the site. The Village Engineer noted that, in the past, he and Mr. Donohue have walked the site to mark the trees. Ms. Allen said that she thinks the process has to be tightened up. She thinks it would be valuable to have someone monitoring the project in the field when any excavation work is
being done, for example. There should be more monitoring activity in the field. Ms. Allen stated that the alternative would be bonding, to which Chairman Gallelli noted that if the Village Board were to approve this application, bonding would be required. The bonding would be in two parts: one for the construction and the other for the improvements.
Chairman Gallelli asked the other members if they were prepared to make a positive recommendation tonight. Ms. Allen stated that she is not prepared. She believes the 50% incursion on this site is too much. Mr. Kehoe said that he would be inclined to make a positive recommendation. He noted his reasons for making a positive recommendation i.e. that this property is “a self-contained enclave” and the percentages of disturbance have gone down. Chairman Gallelli stated that she would also give a favorable recommendation at this point. She noted the serious effort that the Applicant has made to reduce the impacts. She said that she does not believe there is a “magic number,” percentage-wise. She also thought that there is an advantage of having the
driveway enter the property from the neighboring lot. Ms. Allen stated that she considers the proposal to be a massive change to the property. She is concerned about the overall environmental impacts.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that, in order to make a positive recommendation, all three members present tonight would have to be in favor of this application. If the Planning Board cannot come to an agreement tonight, the Applicant has the option of waiting until the full board is present.
Ms. Allen stated that she might consider going along with the other members tonight if the Planning Board were to recommend that the Village Board place significant conditions on this application. A condition would be that this application be subject to a full environmental review. The Village Engineer suggested that a condition could be that a copy of the Applicant’s plan(s) be sent to Mr. Donohue for review and comment. Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant would be required to pay for the environmental consultant’s review.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that, to build the house, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for a minor site plan review. The concept of the minor site plan review was to provide oversight but not to delve too deeply into a project. Chairman Gallelli stated that one possibility would be to suggest that, in this particular case, the Village’s environmental consultant be involved in the minor site plan review. The Village Engineer suggested that, if the Village Board were to issue the hardship permit, they could have as a condition that an environmental site plan should be prepared and reviewed by the Village’s consultant. He added that the condition could state that the environmental site plan should be prepared prior to the Planning Board’s minor site plan review.
Ms. Allen stated that she believes the Planning Board could move forward with a positive recommendation, if the letter to the Village Board contains this proposed condition about the early involvement of the Village’s environmental consultant. Chairman Gallelli stated that she will phrase it that, in this particular case, the Planning Board would have the environmental consultant review the minor site plan. The consultant would comment on the minor site plan before the application actually comes to the Planning Board. The Planning Board would have the benefit of the consultant’s review. A report from the consultant would accompany the minor site plan application. Ms. Allen stated that she thinks the condition should also say that the site plan could be considerably modified as a
result of the review by the consultant.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that the “yes” or “no” decision on the hardship permit is ultimately up to the Village Board.
Chairman Gallelli reiterated that the minor site plan application would be accompanied by a report from the Village’s environmental consultant. This report might result in some changes to the Applicant’s plan. Ms. Allen noted that there was no environmental site plan prepared for Lot #2. She would certainly expect that one would be prepared for Lot #3.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, based on the consensus reached, she would write the letter to the Village Board recommending that this application be approved subject to the conditions discussed tonight.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that, once this letter is received, the Applicant would be placed on the Village Board’s agenda, and a public hearing on the Steep Slopes Hardship Permit would be scheduled.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
The Planning Board discussed the August meeting schedule. The Planning Board members present decided not to hold a meeting the last week of August due to the fact that at least two of the board members would not be able to attend.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Kehoe and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
The minutes of the Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Kehoe, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on June 28, 2005 for Sky View Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property being located at 1280 Albany Post Road and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.18 Block 1 Lots 1 & 2; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of proposed changes at the Sky View Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, the Planning Board had previously recommended to the Village Board that they grant an Amended Special Permit to the facility; and
WHEREAS, the Village Board held a public hearing on the Amended Special Permit at its meeting of June 20, 2005 and subsequently approved the Amended Special Permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new smoking room, an outdoor terrace and an open entrance canopy; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), dated April 15, 2005, and under 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 Amended Site Plan application, as shown on Drawing #1 entitled “Skyview Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Croton-on-Hudson, NY, Amended Site Plan,” dated September 16, 1997, last revised April 27, 2005, and on Drawing #A1 entitled “Skyview Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Croton-on-Hudson, NY, Alterations & Additions,” dated November 22, 2004, last revised April 27, 2005, prepared by John N. Cohen, Architect, be approved.
In the event that this amended 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
Motion to approve by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Kehoe and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Mr. Burniston was absent from the meeting.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on June 28, 2005.