Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Follow us on Social Media
  • Freedom of Information
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Public Documents
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
Planning Board Minutes 09/27/05


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:                Ann Gallelli, Chairman
        Fran Allen
                                                Chris Kehoe
                 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.


a)  Gerald Weinstein – 1339 Albany Post Road – (Sec. 67.10 Blk. 2 Lot 6) – Application for Minor Site Plan Approval for a Detached Accessory Apartment

Chairman Gallelli stated that before the discussion on the Weinstein application takes place tonight, she wanted to say a few words about Tom Burniston who, due to personal considerations, has just recently resigned as a member of the Planning Board.  Chairman Gallelli stated that Mr. Burniston was an invaluable asset to the Planning Board.  His incisive way of thinking helped the Planning Board immeasurably.  Chairman Gallelli said that Mr. Burniston is also to be thanked for his years of service as a member of the Village Board of Trustees.  Chairman Gallelli expressed her gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Burniston for his many years of service to the Village.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the first item on the agenda tonight is the Weinstein application for a detached accessory apartment. Rene Mueller, Architect, is present to represent the Weinstein’s.  Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant has received variances from the Zoning Board Appeals to allow a detached accessory building to be constructed on the property.  The Applicant has also been granted a Special Permit for the detached accessory apartment from the Village Board.  The last step, before the building permit can be issued, is the Minor Site Plan Approval.  

Chairman Gallelli noted that, when the Planning Board reviewed this application for the purpose of making a recommendation on the Special Permit, the Planning Board covered most of the issues that would need to be addressed for a minor site plan review.   She asked Mr. Mueller if he had anything new to add to the discussion on the proposal for the accessory apartment.  Mr. Mueller said that he had nothing new to add.  Nothing has changed since the meeting with the Planning Board.  Chairman Gallelli noted that a public hearing is not required for a minor site plan approval.

Chairman Gallelli asked the Board members if they had any comments on this application.  Ms. Allen noted that, in the Village Board’s resolution of approval it states that, “the proposed structure will be located approximately 1,560 feet from the nearest property line.”  She questioned if this number (1,560) was correct. Ms. Allen noted that “1,560 square feet” is the number given for the size of the new building being proposed. She thought that an error might have been made regarding the distance to the property line.  Mr. Mueller stated that, indeed, the distance given (1,560 feet) is incorrect.  He noted to the Board members that the closest distance from the apartment to the property line is 127 feet.     

Ms. Allen referred to the conditions of the Village Board resolution and stated that she thinks the condition pertaining to the renewal of the Special Permit needs to be clarified. It should be made clear in the wording of the condition that the Special Permit is (only) valid for three years at which point the Applicant would have to go before the Village Board to renew the Special Permit.  Ms. Allen referred to the last condition in the resolution regarding new property owners and the age requirements for an accessory apartment.  She noted that, regardless of the age requirements, if the property were sold before the expiration of the Special Permit (in three years), the new property owner would have to re-apply for a new special permit.  Chairman Gallelli agreed and suggested that she (Chairman Gallelli) could write a letter to the Village Board regarding the problems and/or inaccuracies in the wording of the conditions pointed out by Ms. Allen tonight.  

Mr. Kehoe asked if the Village would notify an Applicant that his/her accessory apartment is up for renewal, or is it solely the Applicant’s responsibility.  The Village Engineer stated that it is up to the Applicant to come before the board for a renewal of the Special Permit.  He (the Village Engineer) suggested that, as a courtesy, the Village could send a letter reminding the Applicant that it is time to renew the Special Permit.

Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any other comments on this application, to which there were none.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this application.  The motion was made by Mr. Kehoe and seconded by Ms. Allen.  

Chairman Gallelli read aloud the draft resolution.  She asked the Planning Board if there were any conditions to add to the resolution, to which there were none.

Chairman Gallelli called for a vote on the Minor Site Plan application.  The Planning Board approved the application for a Minor Site Plan by a vote of 3 to 0.

b)  Mapleby, LLC – 171 So. Riverside Avenue – (Sec. 78.12 Blk. 3 Lot 4) – Application for an Amended Site Plan at Croton Commons

Neil Carnow, Architect, Charles Weinberg and Michael Sullivan, owners of the property, Jeff Matros, owner of the restaurant being proposed (Memphis Mae’s) and Andre Nowara, chef of the restaurant, were present.

Chairman Gallelli noted that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board held a preliminary discussion with the Applicant(s) on the proposal for the restaurant.  

Mr. Carnow stated that in 1986 the property owner of Croton Commons Shopping Center received site plan approval for modifications to the building and site.  The site plan proposal at that time included the construction of an atrium on the main level of the building and offices on the lower level.  The space on the lower level was never used for office space and has been used for storage space, and the atrium was never built. At the time of the approval, there was a stipulation in the resolution requiring amended site plan approval for any additional restaurant use in the building.  The application before the Planning Board tonight is for a second restaurant known as Memphis Mae’s in space formerly occupied by Kelleher’s Appliance.  

Mr. Carnow stated that he has recalculated the parking requirements tonight.  The Village Engineer provided him tonight with additional information, which modifies the parking tabulation on the Applicant’s current plan.  The parking calculation should have included the service floor area.  The number of required parking spaces increases by 7 spaces (i.e. 84 to 91 parking spaces).    Mr. Carnow stated that there are presently 113 parking spaces on the site, so the Applicant still meets the parking requirement.  Mr. Carnow noted that even if the number of seats in the restaurant were to increase to a maximum of 56 seats, the parking requirements would be met.  

Mr. Carnow stated that the restaurant would employ 8 people.  If these people all parked in the permit parking area, then there would be 8 additional parking spaces available on site.  Chairman Gallelli noted that employees from the other stores at Croton Commons could also use this permit parking area.  Mr. Kehoe noted that the Applicant’s plan shows parking behind the nail salon.  He asked if there is parking on site designated for employees, to which Mr. Carnow said that there is.  

Mr. Carnow stated that another issue raised at the last meeting pertained to garbage pick-up.  The “wet” garbage associated with the kitchen would be picked up on a daily basis.  An arrangement would be made with a private carter.  The dumpster has a lid on it and would be kept closed.  The non-food trash would be put in a different dumpster and would be picked up by the DPW on their regularly scheduled pick-up days.  

Mr. Kehoe asked if Bagels on Hudson needs a special dumpster for food waste, to which Mr. Carnow said that he does not know. The Village Engineer asked if there is room in the dumpster area behind the building to install another dumpster, to which Mr. Carnow replied that the Applicant would replace one of the non-food dumpsters, if necessary.  He did not believe that there would be a problem with rodents behind the building because the “wet” garbage from the restaurant would be picked up every day.   Chairman Gallelli asked if each individual store at Croton Commons has their own dumpster or if they all share the dumpsters, to which Mr. Carnow replied that he thinks they share the dumpsters for “dry” trash. Mr. Weinberg noted that, with respect to food garbage, there is very little food waste generated by the bagel store.  He noted further that they (the owners of Croton Commons) have hired an exterminator for the premises who treats the building for rodents and small insects.  The Village Engineer stated that the Village would ask that rodent traps be installed and maintained, if necessary.

Mr. Carnow stated that the other (final) issue raised at the last Planning Board meeting pertained to the rooftop equipment.  The restaurant expects to re-use the existing roof-mounted air-conditioning unit.  There would be additional exhaust ducts on the roof for the cooking hood and proposed smoker unit.  Both have filters.  The ductwork pipe on the roof would be small in size i.e., 2- to 3-feet wide.  The exhaust equipment systems would be designed to meet the Village Code and Building Code requirements with respect to noise and odors.

Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Carnow that she had asked at the last meeting if the Applicant could provide specifications for any equipment to be installed on the roof. The manufacturer’s specifications would give information on air quality and emissions.  Mr. Carnow told Chairman Gallelli that he would provide the Planning Board with the manufacturer’s specifications.

The Village Engineer noted that he had asked at the last meeting about the grease dumpster, to which Mr. Carnow replied that there would be a grease trap inside the building.  Mr. Matros added that there would be a grease dumpster in the dumpster area.  The Village Engineer said that, as he understands it, the restaurant would have a food dumpster as well as a grease dumpster, to which Mr. Matros replied that they are going to have to swap out one existing dumpster to fit their two new dumpsters in the area in the back.  Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Matros that the Planning Board would want to see how the dumpsters are going to fit into this area.  Mr. Carnow said that he would revise the Applicant’s plan(s) to show how the dumpsters would fit.  The Village Engineer told the Applicant that they could probably use a portion of the striped area in the back for a dumpster.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the next step would be to call for a public hearing on this application.  The public hearing could take place at the Planning Board meeting of Tuesday, October 25th.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should provide more details on the dumpster site and provide the manufacturer’s specifications on the rooftop equipment.  

Mr. Kehoe asked (generally speaking) where the employees of the various retail spaces at Croton Commons park their cars, to which Mr. Sullivan said that they park near the gas station.  Chairman Gallelli added that they park in the “slanted” area that backs up to Dom’s.  Mr. Weinberg noted that this area is laid out for permit parking.  Ms. Allen asked what the striped area in the back of the building at Croton Commons is for, to which Mr. Carnow replied that this area is a designated parking area for emergency vehicles.

Ms. Allen said that it is her understanding that the proposed restaurant is going to use the storage space downstairs, to which Mr. Carnow replied that, indeed, they would be using the downstairs (basement) space for storage. He (Mr. Carnow) noted that, to get inside the basement, one would go down the steps in the back.  Ms. Allen asked where the deliveries would take place, to which Mr. Carnow said that they would take place in the back, and the delivered goods would be brought down the stairs.

Mr. Kehoe noted that if the Planning Board is going to allow the Applicant to create a space in the striped area for a dumpster, then the Planning Board would need confirmation from the Fire Department that they (the Fire Department) are satisfied with the space in the back.  

Mr. Kehoe asked if there would be a problem building a dumpster enclosure in the back, to which Mr. Carnow replied that he thinks it would be a problem for the Fire Department.    

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that the Planning Board has not yet seen the traffic study prepared by Bernard Adler, to which Mr. Carnow said that he would obtain copies of the traffic study for the Planning Board members.  

The Planning Board members agreed to call the public hearing on this application for Tuesday, October 25th.


Croton Housing Network, Inc. – Mt. Airy Road (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lots 2 & 36) – Application for Site Plan Approval for Symphony Knoll Affordable Housing Project – Design Discussion

Nance Shatzkin, President of the Croton Housing Network, Kenneth Bingham of SMA Architecture Planning Interiors, and Rick Turner, Esq., of Turner & Turner, were present for this application.

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Croton Housing Network (CHN) is present tonight to show the Planning Board some potential designs for the Symphony Knoll affordable housing project on Mt. Airy

Ms. Shatzkin noted that, since cost estimates are critical to the overall project, the CHN wanted to move forward with the design elements and details of the building while, at the same time, dealing with the administrative and legal requirements.  The CHN is before the Planning Board tonight to share ideas and get feedback from the Planning Board on the building’s design.  Ms. Shatzkin noted to the Planning Board members that the CHN is getting ready to discuss the project with potential contractors.  

Mr. Bingham presented to the Planning Board members a plan showing a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed three-story building.  Mr. Bingham stated that the first level would have a stone façade, and the facade of the upper two levels would be clapboard siding.  There would be two housing units per floor on each wing.  The building would have a total of 11 units. The building would have an elevator and two flights of stairs.  Each of the upper level units would have its own balcony.  The first floor would have a small terrace area in the front of the building.  The laundry room is on the second floor.  The office would be at the entry level in the back.  Mr. Bingham noted that the units on the ground floor are (still) one-bedroom units but they have been made somewhat larger.  Now, a den has been added to each unit.  

Mr. Bingham showed the Planning Board the proposed floor plan for Symphony Knoll.  He noted that everything has been designed for accessibility.  Each unit has its own utilities (hot water and heat).  The second floor has a roofed terrace.

Chairman Gallelli asked what kind of stone would be used for the façade, to which Mr. Bingham replied that they would be reworking the site and would use stone found on the site.  He said that if this does not work out the way they expect it to, they would (still) have plenty of options to obtain the stone.

Chairman Gallelli asked if the building being shown meets the height variance, which was granted by the ZBA, to which Ms. Shatzkin replied that it does.  Chairman Gallelli recalled that it was discussed at one of the previous meetings that the building would achieve a more desirable look if it were made taller, to which Mr. Bingham told the Board members that the highest point of the building now is 39 feet in the center.  

Chairman Gallelli said that the second and third floor is proposed to be clapboard siding.  She asked what the actual material would be, to which Ms. Shatzin replied that the clapboard would be Hardie plank.  Chairman Gallelli asked if the glassed area in the front would be clear or tinted glass, to which Mr. Bingham replied that it would probably be clear glass.  

Ms. Shatzkin noted that they hope to be able to put umbrellas on the outside terrace to provide another recreational space for the Symphony Knoll residents.  This terrace would not be used in the wintertime.

Mr. Kehoe asked what the two bump-outs on the first floor are, to which Mr. Bingham replied that they are the den areas.  Ms. Shatzkin noted to the Board members that they wanted to have some units that were really workable for a senior couple.  The idea was to create another living space (den) so that the two people living there would have some optional (private) space.

Mr. Kehoe said that, as he understands it, this would all be affordable housing, to which Ms. Shatzkin said that, indeed, this is the case.  She noted that a “senior” is defined as anyone 55 years or older.  This project would meet the County guidelines for affordable housing and would (also) count toward the Village’s achieving the County’s suggested number of affordable housing units.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that the plan tonight shows a white façade.  She asked if this is the color being proposed.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that they have been looking at different shades of gray and beige for the clapboard facade.  She (Ms. Shatzkin) thought that the color of the clapboard might be “driven by” the color of the stone.        

Chairman Gallelli asked if Ms. Shatzkin could describe for the Planning Board some of the features of the designs for Symphony Knoll that were discarded.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that one of the designs they looked at was an asymmetrical design for the building. They “played with” moving the terraces around and changing the rooflines somewhat.  Ms Shatzkin noted that these designs did not work out because they would have had to make sacrifices in the living space(s).  They also tried to “shrink” the common area, but they could not “get around” requirements, such as elevator and stairs.

Ms. Allen asked if the common space in the middle of the building is angled, to which Mr. Bingham replied that it is slightly angled.  He said that the angle is very subtle – enough to create a perspective but not too much.  

Ms. Allen noted that the elevations are such that, essentially, they would be building on a flat space.  She asked if there is a rise in elevation in the back, to which Mr. Bingham told Ms. Allen that they are going to be doing excavation work in one corner of the back.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that there is (would be) a wall around that corner but it is not very tall.  Mr. Kehoe said that, as he understands the plan, the rear façade would have windows on the first floor, to which Mr. Bingham said that the arrangement of the windows in the rear would be the same as in the front.

Ms. Allen asked how deep the overhang is in the front, to which Mr. Bingham replied that it is 18 inches beyond the face of the building.  It is enough to create a shadow and a horizontal plane.  The Village Engineer asked if the overhangs would be larger where the terraces are, to which Mr. Bingham replied that they would be.  The terraces are recessed on the first floor.  Ms. Allen questioned if the overhang would give the feeling of the bottom floor being a basement apartment. Mr. Bingham said that he does not think so because of the stone treatment of the façade.  The roof is a sloped roof so it would be more like a lower level that has a porch on it.  

The Village Engineer referred to the two building extensions on the first floor that make up the den areas and asked if they had considered putting the den areas anywhere else.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that there were issues to be considered of “what needs to be where.”  They had to line up the plumbing.  They needed to provide wall space for people to put their furniture, yet they needed to provide ample windows, etc.  Mr. Bingham added that one of the reasons for locating the den areas the way they did was to have, for privacy purposes, more distance between the bedroom and the den.          

The Village Engineer asked if there were going to be any chimneys on the roof, to which Mr. Bingham said, “No.”  

Chairman Gallelli said that it is difficult to tell how the building is going to appear from the front because “you don’t know what trees are going to be appearing in front of it.”  Ms. Shatzkin said that the trees are behind the building.  Mr. Bingham referred to the three-dimensional rendering of the building and told the Board members that where there is now a solid corner, there would be trees.  Ms. Allen questioned if the building would have a massive feel to it, to which Mr. Bingham replied that it would have a more massive feel than a single-family home would have.  The building is (would be) 87 feet in length.  Ms. Allen said that, possibly, the glass on the upper two stories would break up the massiveness somewhat.  Mr. Bingham noted to the Board members that one of the objectives of putting in the glass on the upper two stories was to separate the two sides (wings).

Ms. Allen noted that the original idea for the roof was to have the roof be more angled to give it a more soaring effect.  Chairman Gallelli said that, indeed, the Planning Board saw a more angled roof on earlier renderings.  Ms. Shatzkin told the Board members that the roof has not been shifted that much, but it does not look as peaked as it did before.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that, on the present plan, they tried to have a variation in the peaks so as not to have one continuous roofline.  They made efforts to try to break up the volume.  Chairman Gallelli said that she thinks there was “more happening” in the front of the building in the previous plan.  There were elements in the design that broke up the front somewhat more than what the Planning Board is seeing now.  

Chairman Gallelli said that she is sensing that the Planning Board has some reservations about the proposed building design.  She asked the Applicant how soon they would need to have the design in place.  She noted that, at this point in time, the Planning Board is short two members.  It would be beneficial, for both the Planning Board and the Applicant, to have the input of a full five-member board.  In the interim, she thinks that it would be worthwhile for the members present tonight to have more time to think about the design being proposed.    
Ms. Allen said that she would like to see an existing building that has an overhang of the sort now being proposed.  She asked if there were any buildings in the area with a similar overhang.  Mr. Bingham said that he would try to think of where he could send the Planning Board for a reference(s).  He would look into it and let the Planning Board know.

Chairman Gallelli stated that, because the current plan does not show any landscaping, she is having difficulty envisioning what the building would look like from down on the street.   Mr. Bingham referred to the rendering of the property showing an island with a gazebo at the front.  He noted to the Board members that no one would ever be able to see the building as it is shown in the three-dimensional rendering presented tonight.  There would always be “things in the way” to break up the view from the front.

The Village Engineer stated that the adjacent house would be affected the most during construction, to which Ms. Shatzkin replied that there are a great number of trees between the adjacent property and the CHN property and they do not intend to disturb that area at all.

Chairman Gallelli reiterated that she thinks the Planning Board members need more time to absorb what they have seen tonight.  Ms. Shatzkin said that, as far as the design is concerned, it would be hard for her to imagine that there would be such a huge shift in the design that the CHN could not begin to get prices from contractors.  She noted that, from a construction point of view, nothing is set in stone until they have dollar amounts.   They (the CHN) is dealing with a restricted budget for this project.

Chairman Gallelli suggested that, design-wise, it might look better and, perhaps, solve part of the problem to have the stone work come half way up and all the way around the building.  

The Village Engineer asked if it would be possible to “stack” the larger apartments in the rear, to which Mr. Bingham said that he foresees the day when the bump-outs of the larger apartments might enhance the building.  He said that he would not be willing to abandon the idea of the bump-outs just yet.

A resident of the Village, Barbara Tobey, thought it might be helpful to show a rendering of the building with shingles as opposed to horizontal siding.   It would also be helpful to see the colors being suggested.

Mr. Bingham told the Board members that, with respect to the terraces being proposed, he could do an architectural perspective at any point, if that would help the Planning Board visualize what each individual terrace would look like.

The Village Engineer noted that at previous meetings the CHN talked about putting in a basement for recreational purposes, to which Mr. Bingham said that, if at all possible, they would put in a basement.  Ms. Shatzkin added that the basement idea is “driven by the site.”  The tenants would have to be able to get to it.  There would be no gain, from the CHN’s point of view, if, for example, there were no elevator going to it.     

Ms. Shatzkin noted to the Planning Board that a single laundry room is being proposed.

Ms. Shatzkin mentioned to the Board members the possibility of creating an outdoor patio for the residents of Symphony Knoll.  She said that it has been suggested that it could be a launching point for the trail.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that they (the CHN) are not pleased with the notion of an open patio, but building a roof is a complex design decision and an expensive budget issue.  An Adirondack-style roof would make the patio more attractive and functional, but a roof would also create a situation that would require maintenance.  Ms. Shatzkin explained the reasoning behind using the outdoor patio as a launching point for the trail. The way the path (trail) comes now, a person using the trail hits a change in elevation that would require steps or a circuitous way around.  It was thought that launching the trail from the patio might be a better way.

Chairman Gallelli asked Ms. Shatzkin when she thought the CHN would be ready to come back before the Planning Board, to which Ms. Shatzkin replied that she thought they would be ready to submit an application by mid- or late November.  

Chairman Gallelli suggested that the Planning Board members should spend some more time looking at the proposed design plan.  The Planning Board needs to convey its comments to the CHN.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that, if time permits, the Planning Board members could discuss any additional thoughts that they might have at the next meeting.  Ms. Shatzkin told the Board members that the CHN is open to any ideas that the Planning Board might have.


Chairman Gallelli noted to the Board members that, at this point in time, no materials have been submitted to the Engineer’s Office for the first meeting in October.  The next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting would take place on Tuesday, October 25th. The public hearing for Memphis Mae’s restaurant has been scheduled for the 25th. Chairman Gallelli noted that Washington Mutual Bank might be coming before the Planning Board on the 25th.  Before coming to the Planning Board, the bank has to go before the ZBA for an interpretation on whether an ATM window should be considered a “drive-thru” window.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the Bell family might be coming before the Planning Board in the near future with a subdivision proposal.  Also, Arthur’s Home Improvement will be coming to the Planning Board for a minor site plan approval for a single-family home on North Riverside Avenue.    

The Village Engineer stated that Mr. & Mrs. Nagy of Arthur’s Home Improvement have been granted a NYSDOT permit for a driveway cut.  They have other permit applications still pending with the DOT.  Chairman Gallelli noted another (pending) issue relating to this property that would need to be resolved.  Chairman Gallelli recalled that in the late 1980’s or 90’s, this piece of land, now owned by the Nagy’s, got filled in, and the owner of the property at the time did so without the benefit of a permit. The Water Control Commission became involved because of drainage issues. Chairman Gallelli asked the Village Engineer to check permits received at that time and determine if further WCC action is required. Chairman Gallelli stated that the Nagy’s could come before the Planning Board; however, the Planning Board could not approve the minor site plan application until these matters with the WCC are resolved.  


The minutes of the Tuesday, September 6, 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.


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


Sylvia Mills,


WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 for Gerald Weinstein, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 1339 Albany Post Road and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section  67.10 Block 2 Lot 6; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a detached accessory apartment; and

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2005, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a variance to Gerald Weinstein to allow a separate, detached accessory building to be constructed on the property; and  

WHEREAS, the Applicant went before the Village Board on August 15, 2005 to request a Special Permit for the detached accessory apartment; and

WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposal, the Planning Board recommended to the Village Board that they grant the Special Permit; and

WHEREAS, the Village Board held a public hearing on this application at its meeting of September 19, 2005 and subsequently approved the Special Permit; 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 two color computer renderings  of the proposed accessory apartment and, as shown on the Final Construction documents, dated June 10, 2005, entitled SY 100 “Site Plan,” SY103 “Partial Site Plan Proposed,” A101 “Main Floor Plan,” A102 “Upper Floor Plan,” A200 “Building Section A-A,” A300 “Front Elevation,” A301 “Rear Elevation,” A302 “Left Side Elevation,” A303 “Right Side Elevation,” prepared by Rene Robert Mueller, Architect, and a plan entitled C-1 “Cottage Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Plan,” prepared by John Meyer Consulting, dated May 13, 2005 and last revised June 30, 2005, be approved.

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
                                                Chris Kehoe

Motion to approve by Mr. Kehoe, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, September 27, 2005.