VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chairman
ABSENT: Fran Allen
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:
Meredeth M. Glenn, DDS – 102 Grand Street (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 6 Lot 37.01) – Application for an Amended Site Plan Approval
Meredeth Glenn, DDS, the prospective buyer of the property at 102 Grand Street, was present.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the public hearing tonight is for an Amended Site Plan application, submitted by Meredeth Glenn, DDS, to open up a pediatric dental office at 102 Grand Street.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, at the last meeting, a number of suggestions were made as to how to address issues relating to the curb(s) in the front, the handicap parking space and the landscaping. Chairman Gallelli asked Dr. Glenn if she would like to explain the changes that have been subsequently made to her plan(s). Dr. Glenn stated that the curb cut in the front has been widened so that it is now 40 feet across. Two decorative bollards have been added at the handicap parking space and the new (proposed) tree has been repositioned. Chairman Gallelli noted that the curb cut, which was widened to 40 feet, would improve access to the adjacent property owner’s parking spaces, which, Chairman Gallelli noted, are situated partly on Dr. Glenn’s property. Chairman Gallelli asked Dr. Glenn if the color
scheme in the front would be carried all the way around the building, to which Dr. Glenn replied that they had intended all along to have this facing all the way around.
Chairman Gallelli opened the public hearing. She asked if anyone wanted to speak to this application. Thomas Schulze of 4 Beekman Avenue wanted to know if there were any changes being proposed to the rear of the property. He noted that there is an existing stone wall in the back, which has begun to deteriorate. Dr. Glenn stated that, with respect to the parking, they were not planning to put a parking lot in the back. Mr. Schulze said that he would be concerned about the integrity of the existing stone wall. He noted that the trees in the back are exposed. He suggested that, perhaps, he and Dr. Glenn could talk about this matter pertaining to the trees at a later time.
Chairman Gallelli said that there was some discussion at the last meeting about putting a small landscaped island between the two curb cuts. This idea has since been abandoned. She asked the Village Engineer to explain to the Board members the reason why. The Village Engineer stated that he visited the site with the DPW. They measured off Dr. Glenn’s curb cut, and they looked at the possibility of separate curb cuts with an island in between. The DPW was concerned that the island would not be large enough to hold a tree. The island would have to be 6 to 8 feet in width. Mainly, there would not be enough room with the telephone pole situated there.
Mr. Luntz wondered if the bollards at the handicap parking spot would prove to be an annoyance to people parking their cars. The Village Engineer responded that the bollards would be put there to keep people from parking on the sidewalk. Chairman Gallelli noted that it would appear from the Applicant’s plans that the bollards would be painted to match the building.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village Engineer had sent a letter to the Applicant’s architect suggesting that the Planning Board could make it a condition of their approval that cut sheets should be submitted for the catch basin, the grate and the dry well for the revised drainage system. Chairman Gallelli asked the Village Engineer if he would still want this as a condition, to which the Village Engineer said that it could, indeed, be a condition. He told the Planning Board members that this would allow the Applicant to do exploratory work on the existing catch basin and grates to see if any could be used, and, if not, new ones would have to be installed.
Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any further comments from the public, to which there were none.
Chairman Gallelli closed the public hearing.
Mr. Luntz said that it would appear that the changes that were made to the plans for this meeting address the Planning Board’s concerns. Mr. Andrews asked if, before he arrived at the meeting tonight, there had been a resolution offered regarding the shared parking lot with the neighboring property owner. Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Andrews that the curb cut would be widened to 40 feet for better access to the neighboring property owner’s parking spaces. Mr. Andrews asked if the issue regarding parking space #3 had been addressed. There was a discussion at the last meeting about parking space #3 being blocked in. Chairman Gallelli recalled that nothing (more) has been said other than the discussion last time that these parking spaces (#3 and two others) would be occupied by Dr. Glenn’s employees.
Mr. Kehoe asked if there is on-street parking in the vicinity of the proposed dental office, to which the Village Engineer stated that on-street parking is permitted in this area. Dr. Glenn noted to the Board members how the six parking spaces would be designated. There would be two for the upstairs resident(s), three for employees of the dental office and one handicap space. Mr. Kehoe asked if Dr. Glenn’s patients would be parking along the street (except for those who are handicapped), to which Dr. Glenn said that this would, indeed, be the case.
Chairman Gallelli said that it would seem the heaviest business hours would be in the afternoon, to which Dr. Glenn replied that the heaviest hours would be “after school until dinnertime.”
Chairman Gallelli read aloud the draft resolution. She noted the following two conditions:
that all specifications for the new catch basin, grate and dry well be submitted and approved by the Village Engineer prior to installation and that all existing drainage be verified as functioning by the Village Engineer.
that a recommendation from the Planning Board for a street tree to be planted by the Village be forwarded to the DPW by a copy of this resolution.
Chairman Gallelli noted that this tree request should be highlighted to make sure that the DPW knows that the Planning Board is requesting this condition.
Mr. Kehoe noted that the Applicant’s sign proposal would have to go the VEB and come back to the Planning Board. According to the Applicant’s plan(s), it would appear that the wall-mounted sign would be illuminated. Chairman Gallelli said that, indeed, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board with her sign application.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this Amended Site Plan application subject to the conditions discussed tonight. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
3. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Mapleby, LLC – 173 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 78.12 Blk. 3 Lot 4) – Application for a Sign Permit (Memphis Mae’s)
Jeff Matros, owner of Memphis Mae’s restaurant, and Andre Nowara, the chef of Memphis Mae’s, were present.
Chairman Gallelli said that this application for a sign permit follows the previous application for an Amended Site Plan for the Memphis Mae’s restaurant.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant has been before the VEB with their sign application. She noted that, according to the minutes of the VEB meeting, an interesting discussion about some possible changes to the proposed signage took place between the Applicant and the VEB but in the end, the VEB had no reservations about approving the sign.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, as part of the Planning Board’s approval of the Amended Site Plan, the Planning Board has to sign off on the proposed signage.
Mr. Andrews asked if the “BBQ” lettering on the window is a neon sign, to which Mr. Matros said that it is. Mr. Andrews asked if, as a follow-up to the discussion with the VEB, there has been any modification to the style of the lettering. Mr. Matros told the Board members that they would make sure, before the signage is installed, that the “Q” in the neon window sign is identical in style to the “Q” in the light box sign.
Mr. Matros noted to the Board members that the color red being used for the restaurant’s signage is mandatory for a sign in Croton Commons.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this application. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Kehoe and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
b. Rakis Inc. (Peter Tsagarakis) – 215 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 54) – Application for an Amended Site Plan for the Croton Colonial Diner
Gerald Klein, attorney for the Applicant, was present.
Chairman Gallelli noted that this Applicant came before the Planning Board about a year ago with an Amended Site Plan application for an addition/renovations to the diner. This application represents another attempt at making some renovations to the diner.
Mr. Klein told the Board members that the new architect for the Applicant, Ed Gemmola of Gemmola & McWilliams, has submitted a new set of plans designed to address the steep slopes issue as well as issues regarding the overall site plan. Mr. Klein told the Planning Board that he would be happy to relay to Mr. Gemmola any feedback that the Planning Board might have.
Mr. Klein noted that the Planning Board had asked to be advised of the Applicant’s position on the two houses immediately to the rear of the diner property. The Applicant, Peter Tsagarakis, said that he would rehabilitate both of the houses or rehabilitate the one farthest away and demolish the one closest to the diner. The Village Engineer asked if a new house would be built to replace the demolished house, to which Mr. Klein said that he does not think Mr. Tsagarakis has planned that far ahead.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that Mr. Klein could explain to the Planning Board the changes that have been made to the Applicant’s plans since the last time the Applicant came before the Board. Mr. Klein stated that the parking has been modified slightly. Mr. Klein referred to the Applicant’s plan(s) and noted that the change in the parking can be seen from the intermittent lines that show the old parking arrangement as opposed to the fixed lines that show the new. Mr. Klein said that he thinks the Applicant now has a total of 46 parking spaces.
Chairman Gallelli noted that, according to the Applicant’s steep slopes calculations, the Applicant still has a steep slopes problem. She referred to plan “SY-l” and stated that the Applicant has 11.42% of slopes disturbed, and a maximum of 10% is allowed. This issue would have to be addressed. Mr. Kehoe asked Chairman Gallelli if the Applicant would be eligible to apply for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit, to which Chairman Gallelli said that he would be. Chairman Gallelli explained that the lot is partly developed as a parking lot and, because it is considered to be a partly developed lot, the Applicant would be eligible to apply. Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant has come a long way in terms of reducing the amount of steep slopes disturbed.
Mr. Andrews asked how high the retaining wall in the back of the property is, to which the Village Engineer said, 12? feet at the peak. Mr. Luntz noted that a retaining wall already exists in that location, so the retaining wall is not a completely new creation.
Chairman Gallelli noted that, at the last meeting, Mr. Gemmola was proposing to do terracing on the hillside in the rear. Mr. Luntz said that, with respect to the stability of the hillside, the more the Applicant could break it down and structure it, the better. Mr. Klein told the Board members that he would speak to Mr. Gemmola about the terracing. The Village Engineer pointed out that, instead of terracing, the Applicant could fix the slope by putting fabric down or by putting in vegetation. He thought that the Applicant should look at various options for stabilizing the slope. Chairman Gallelli said that the Planning Board needs to know more about the methodology of putting in the retaining wall, which would help the Planning Board to understand how well the terracing (as opposed to some
other method) is going to stabilize it.
Mr. Luntz noted that on the new plan(s) the Applicant is showing an “in only” entrance off of Bungalow Road and an “in and out” entrance/exit on Albany Post Road (South Riverside Avenue). Suzanne Lewis of 9 Hudson Street reminded the Planning Board that there is a playground situated close-by. Mr. Kehoe questioned why the architect created the “in-only” entrance off of Bungalow Road. He noted that, if someone is entering the parking lot from Route 9A, he/she is going to use the existing main entrance on Albany Post Road. He suggested that the Planning Board could ask the architect to explain why the new entrance is laid out this way. Chairman Gallelli thought that most of the traffic in and out of the diner would be from South Riverside Avenue. Mr. Kehoe stated that he would think there
would be almost no left turning movement into the proposed new entrance off of Bungalow Road.
Mr. Andrews asked if there is a proposed scheduling for the demolition of the house, which would coincide with the diner construction. Mr. Klein said that the Applicant could develop (refine) the timetable for the Planning Board. They do not have a timetable now.
Chairman Gallelli noted to Mr. Klein that the Applicant has to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for renewal of the Special Permit. Also, the Applicant has to go before the Water Control Commission for a Wetlands Activity Permit due to the diner’s proximity to the duck pond. The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that the 120-foot wetlands buffer should be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s).
The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant’s plan(s) should be revised to show the difference in the zoning districts. Also, the Applicant should list both zoning districts, C-2 and RA-5, in the zoning table and show how these districts are broken up between the three (tax) lots. Chairman Gallelli noted that, on the different plans submitted, different lots are being shown. The old subdivision lots are numbered 94 to 105. The “new” tax lots are numbered 52, 53 and 54. Different lot lines are being shown on different plans. Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Klein, that these lots need to be consolidated so that the Planning Board is looking at the same lot definitions on each plan. Chairman Gallelli noted that, at the last meeting, Ms. Allen expressed concern about
which lots were being used to calculate the steep slopes. Chairman Gallelli told the members that she (Chairman Gallelli) has before her tonight a map, containing a steep slopes analysis, which was not submitted to the other members. She noted that what it shows is the three tax lots #’s 52, 53 and 54. The Village Engineer said that the old subdivision lots need to be uniformly shown. Also, the tax lots and the tax map designations need to be shown.
Mr. Andrews stated that on the Applicant’s plan, under the Zoning Tabulation, it says “Not Applicable” for the rear yard. He wanted to know why this was so, to which Mr. Klein told Mr. Andrews that he would find out and let him know. The Village Engineer said that the question is, “Do they have a rear yard?” He noted that they (the Applicant) have three front yards, and when there are three front yards, the rear yard is opposite the street line. The Village Engineer said that the Applicant would probably have to ask the ZBA to make a determination on this. The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that what the Applicant has to do is to label all street yards, rear yards and side yards for zoning compliance. The Applicant would have to go before the ZBA to determine which yards are which. Chairman Gallelli noted that the determination as to whether it is a rear or side yard has to be within the context of/relative to the diner and not the house on the side.
Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that the Planning Board has not looked into any of the details of this application because there are other overriding issues that still have to be resolved. She thought that progress had been made in terms of pulling back on cutting into the hillside and improving the parking layout.
The Village Engineer told the Applicant that the house footprints of the neighboring houses should be shown on the plan.
Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Klein that the Applicant has to go before the ZBA for a renewal of the Special Permit for the parking and for an interpretation on the rear yard. An interpretation has to be made on what the rear yard is for the diner and whether it could be the line between the back of the diner and the first house on Hudson Street.
The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant should look at Chapter 230-49C with respect to the prohibition on driveway access to a lot in another zoning district. The Applicant needs to see if this matter pertaining to the driveway would be covered under the ZBA Special Permit for parking.
The neighboring resident, Ms. Lewis, stated that, when the Applicant came before the Planning Board in February of 2004, they said that they would rehabilitate the old house on Hudson Street. To date, nothing has been done. Chairman Gallelli noted to Ms. Lewis that a house in a deteriorated state is a property management issue, which is a matter for the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer and not for the Planning Board.
Michael Calcutti of 10 Hudson Street expressed concern about the stability of the hillside and losing some of his land to erosion. He said that it was all sand back there. Harold Lockwood of 11 Hudson Street expressed his concern about the stability of the slope and the new retaining wall being proposed. He said that the hill behind the diner is 65 feet high, and that size wall – 12? feet at the peak – is not going to support the hillside. He said that the sand is going to fill up behind that wall before it (the wall) is even built.
Mr. Lockwood told the Board members that, even though the Applicant, Mr. Tsagarakis, did not end up demolishing the house on Hudson Street to expand his parking, he is already using 6 to 10 feet on that side (the Hudson Street side) for diner parking.
Chairman Gallelli explained to the neighboring residents, present at the meeting, the steps that need to be taken before any construction at the diner could take place. The Applicant would need to obtain a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit for the retaining wall. The Applicant has to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the renewal of the Special Permit for the parking and the determination on the rear yard. The Water Control Commission has to approve a Wetlands Activity Permit. Finally, the Planning Board has to approve the Amended Site Plan.
Matt Mozzor of 1 Ridge Road asked if the Applicant’s plans are available to review, to which Chairman Gallelli said that the plans are available for the public to review in the Village Engineer’s office.
Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Klein that the Applicant should contact the Village Engineer’s office when they are ready to come back before the Board.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
Referral from the Village Board for a Recommendation on Zoning Amortization
Chairman Gallelli told the Planning Board members that Trustee Charles Kane has done research on the concept of zoning amortization and is proposing that amortization be considered by the Village Board as a possible way to eliminate non-conforming uses in the Village. The Village Board has referred this matter to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Comprehensive Plan Committee for recommendation and review.
Chairman Gallelli noted that amortization is already part of the Village zoning code, but it exists for non-conforming uses that preceded the 1960 Zoning Code, and the timeframe for amortization has expired.
Chairman Gallelli stated that amortization is a way of phasing out non-conforming uses. One approach is to adopt a flat, fixed period of time for the amortization of all non-conforming uses or structures. Another approach is to base it on the type of use where the timeframe that was applied would be determined on a case by case basis.
Mr. Andrews asked what mechanisms are in place in the Village Code now for uses that are “grandfathered.” Chairman Gallelli explained to Mr. Andrews the way the Code reads now. If the laws in a zoning district are made more restrictive, and the property and/or use of the property become non-conforming, the use is still allowed to exist. Chairman Gallelli stated that the property could be sold and the use continued; however, the property owner cannot expand upon the use. Chairman Gallelli noted that the objective has always been to eliminate non-conforming uses.
Chairman Gallelli told the Board members that some things the Village might want to consider are whether to use amortization to “force phase out” all non-conforming uses, narrow it (the usage of it) down to certain zoning districts or just apply it by identifying specific uses, such as ‘prohibited’ uses. Chairman Gallelli noted that certain uses are already prohibited in the gateway districts e.g., parking lots, waste transfer stations, car dealerships, etc.
Chairman Gallelli said that, in her view, amortization is a complicated issue. She personally thinks it would require an analysis of all of the existing non-conforming uses in the Village to make a judgment. Mr. Kehoe stated that if, as an example, an auto dealership is prohibited in the gateway district, and zoning amortization were to become law, then an amortization schedule for that particular district could lead to the dealership’s ultimate removal.
Chairman Gallelli explained to the Board members that zoning amortization is one way of eliminating non-conforming uses or structures. Another way is to execute Eminent Domain but that also requires identifying a ‘public good’ and may not be appropriate for all non-conformities.
Mr. Kehoe noted that the present Zoning Code mentions junkyards located in a residential district as one of the non-conforming uses to be eliminated through amortization. He thought that this was a logical use of amortization.
Mr. Luntz asked how this policy of zoning amortization would affect an existing non-conforming business. Chairman Gallelli gave an example of how the process might be implemented. A determination would need to be made about how long it would take the business owner to recover his/her investment, for example, five years. When the five-year timeframe is up, the business/property owner would have to end the non-conforming business, or bring it into conformity. Mr. Kehoe stated that an investigation could be performed to determine when a return on an investment is (would be) made. Chairman Gallelli noted that amortization has most typically been used for signage but has also come in to play for larger uses as well. She gave, as an example of a larger use, a chemical plant situated in a
residential area. Chairman Gallelli reiterated that one approach to amortization would be to create a straight (flat) schedule for eliminating uses based on their type; another approach would be to review the amortization of a use on a case by case basis.
Chairman Gallelli stated that if this law were passed and made a part of the Village Code, the Code would have to define what is eligible to be amortized. A decision would have to be made as to whether it would be all non-conforming uses or structures in the Village, just certain non-conforming uses in a particular district or perhaps only prohibited uses.
Chairman Gallelli noted that if amortization were to exist in the law, issues involving amortization would never come in to play with the Planning Board. It would be a matter to be worked out with the ZBA or the Village administration.
Chairman Gallelli said that, in her opinion, it (amortization) would require a careful analysis of the non-conforming uses to which it could be applied. It would need to be narrowed down to significant uses that are harmful or not “in sync” with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Andrews asked what the resources would be to track the unpopular non-conforming uses, to which Chairman Gallelli said that a possible resource could be the Village’s code enforcement records.
Mr. Luntz said that he would think that enforcing this law would be very difficult. Mr. Kehoe said that, should a non-conforming use be under consideration for amortization, the business/property owner would receive a letter from the Village saying that the Village is contemplating amortization. Mr. Andrews said there would be legal challenges to it (amortization). Chairman Gallelli noted that the Village has, already in place, some laws that have strong language on prohibited uses. The question is “What do you do about it? If you perceive it as a goal, do you take steps to get rid of these uses?” Mr. Kehoe pointed out that amortization gives a municipality the tools to start doing something about it.
Chairman Gallelli said that the issue before the Planning Board is a rather general one. We are being asked by the Village Board whether we would recommend pursuing the possibility of amortization in a more professional, detailed way and/or whether we feel it would have any usefulness in our zoning code to have an amortization law.
Mr. Kehoe asked if the Village would hire a planning consultant to do the study on amortization, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that the Village would have to hire a consultant.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Comprehensive Plan Committee has met on this already. The Committee has taken the approach that, although amortization has the potential to be a very valuable tool, the actual implementation of it warrants much more research. Chairman Gallelli noted that the Village already has a plan in place that calls for certain non-conforming uses to be eliminated, but a thorough investigation of existing non-conforming uses would still have to be performed by a professional consultant.
Chairman Gallelli noted that, in the American Planning Association’s (APA) information on amortization, the APA gives a number of examples of how amortization is used in various states. It points out where it has been successful and where it has not.
Mr. Andrews asked if, in the use of amortization, there is any obligation for the Village to compensate the property/business owner, to which Chairman Gallelli said that she is not aware of any such obligation.
The Village Engineer asked how the subject of amortization was approached in the Comprehensive Plan, to which Chairman Gallelli told the Village Engineer that, in one section of the Comprehensive Plan, it states that the Village should explore achieving its zoning goals through various mechanisms including amortization.
Chairman Gallelli read aloud from the Comprehensive Plan the section(s) on amortization. She noted again that the underlying groundwork is already in place if the Village should decide to move in this direction.
Chairman Gallelli asked the Board members how they thought she should word the recommendation letter to the Village Board. Mr. Andrews suggested that the letter could say that the Planning Board thinks it would be worthwhile to explore the use of amortization. Chairman Gallelli thought that, before the Village Board makes a decision on amortization, the Village Board would want to know where it might best work, what would be involved and what the “down side” (if any) would be. She suggested that the letter to the Village Board should say that the merits of this concept should be further explored to see if applicable to the Village and to see what the “up side” and “down side” of amortization would be, to which the other members all agreed. Chairman Gallelli said that she would prepare the
recommendation letter to the Village Board.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairman Gallelli informed the Board members of potential applications coming before the Planning Board. The Village Board would be referring to the Planning Board the special permit application for a cell tower from Nextel. This Applicant (Nextel) would also have to come before the Planning Board with a site plan application. Chairman Gallelli said that she anticipates that Washington Mutual Bank would be coming back before the Board. Chairman Gallelli stated that Arthur’s Home Improvement (Nagy) is going before the Water Control Commission for a wetlands activity permit and, if granted, the Applicant would have to come before the Planning Board with a minor site plan application.
Chairman Gallelli stated that Symphony Knoll will probably be back before the Board for the next meeting. This application involves a site plan approval for Symphony Knoll and an amended site plan approval for Mt. Airy Woods.
Chairman Gallelli stated that the Hudson National Golf Club would probably be back before the Board in the near future with their ‘practice hole’ application.
Chairman Gallelli noted that, should Metro Enviro have to go before the Village Board for a special permit, the Village Board would be referring this application to the Planning Board for a recommendation.
Chairman Gallelli noted to the Board members that the site plan approval for the property on Croton Point Avenue formerly owned by Kieran Murray expires in April. The new developer of the property has experienced some problems with the County with respect to parking on the County right-of-way. The developer will have to come back before the Planning Board with a revised plan.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, November 29, 2005 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
The minutes of the Tuesday, December 6, 2005 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Chairman Gallelli and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 for Meredeth M. Glenn, DDS, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 102 Grand Street and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.08 Block 6 Lot 37.01; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to establish a pediatric dental practice in the space(s) formerly occupied by an office and a retail store; 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 Amended Site Plan application as shown on plans entitled “Proposed Site Plan,” “Proposed Landscape Plan,” and “Site Work Details,” dated December 1, 2005, last revised January 3, 2006, and plans entitled “Proposed Front Elevation,” “Proposed East Elevation,” “Proposed West Elevation,” and “Proposed Rear Elevation,” dated December 28, 2005, last revised January 3, 2006; prepared by Valus and Carpenter Associates, Architects, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) All specifications for the new catch basin, grate and dry well be submitted to and approved by the Village Engineer prior to installation and that all existing drainage be verified as functioning by the Village Engineer.
2) A recommendation and request from the Planning Board for a street tree to be planted by the Village be forwarded to the DPW by a copy of this resolution with this tree request highlighted.
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 Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Fran Allen was absent from the meeting.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, January 10, 2006.