Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Welcome to the website for the Village of Croton on Hudson, New York

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

Village of Croton-on-Hudson
1 Van Wyck Street
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Phone: 914-271-4781
Fax: 914-271-2836


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
Planning Board Minutes 2006 03-28

VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:                Ann Gallelli, Chairman
Fran Allen
Vincent Andrews
Chris Kehoe
Robert Luntz
                                                                
                ALSO PRESENT:           Richard Herbek, Village Manager
Sergeant Rich Corvinus of the Croton Police Department
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.  NEW BUSINESS:

a)  Edward & Eileen Clark – 143 Upper North Highland Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 35.03) – Application for an Amended Building Envelope to Construct a Swimming Pool

Edward & Eileen Clark, owners of the property, were present.

Mrs. Clark stated that she and her husband are before the Planning Board tonight with a proposal to construct an above-ground swimming pool on their property at 143 Upper North Highland Place.  They appeared before the Water Control Commission two weeks ago, and the WCC approved their wetlands permit application.  

Mr. Clark showed the Planning Board members photographs of the backyard where the pool would be situated.  He pointed to one of the photographs and stated that this particular photograph shows him standing directly in the center of the area where the pool would be.  The pool would be roughly five feet from their back deck.  

Chairman Gallelli asked if the WCC imposed any conditions on their approval.  Mr. Clark stated that the only condition was that the filter backwash for the pool should be properly drained.  Mr. Clark noted that they contacted the pool company after the WCC meeting and the pool company told them that there would be no backwash with a cartridge filter.  This is one of the big advantages of using this type of filtration system.  

The Village Engineer noted that there would be no excavation for the installation of the swimming pool because the pool is above ground.  The pool is more than thirty feet from the property line.  The pool has a relatively small footprint.

Mr. Luntz said that it is his understanding that a silt fence would be installed during construction and, once the pool is installed, the silt fence would be removed, to which Mr. Clark said that this is, indeed, the case.  

Ms. Allen asked if this lot is part of the River Landing Subdivision, to which Chairman Gallelli said that it is.  The subject property is Lot #3 of the River Landing Subdivision.     

Ms. Allen asked if there are any trail easements on this property, to which Mr. Clark said that the trail easement is located behind their fence.  Ms. Allen noted that there is a trail easement access from Upper North Highland Place, to which Mr. Clark noted that the trail access, to which Ms. Allen is referring, is in the marshy area on the property next to theirs. Ms. Allen said that it would have been useful to see more of the surrounding neighborhood on the plan(s) being presented tonight.  She would have liked to see the trail easement superimposed on a plan.  The Village Engineer told Ms. Allen that the Village has not reached a point yet with the GIS maps where trail easements are being shown.     

Ms. Allen asked if the proposal for the pool would involve the cutting of any trees, to which Mr. Clark said that it would not.  

Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this application for a modification to the building envelope to construct an above-ground swimming pool on Lot #3 of the River Landing Subdivision.  The condition of the Planning Board’s approval would be that the pool installation should conform to the conditions of the approval given by the WCC in March 2006.  

The motion to approve this application was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.  

b)  Croton Point DoneDeal, LLC – Croton Point Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 2 Lots 18, 19 & 20) – Request for an Extension of Site Plan Approval

Helen Collier Mauch, attorney with Zarin & Steinmetz, was present to represent the Applicant.

Ms. Mauch stated that her law firm represents DoneDeal, LLC, owner of the property at Croton Point Avenue and developer of the mixed-use project that received site plan approval from the Planning Board in April 2003.  She is present this evening on behalf of the Applicant to request an extension of the site plan approval.

Ms. Mauch said that the Applicant believes there are some extenuating circumstances that warrant this request for an extension.  These circumstances pertain to the parking on the site.  Ms. Mauch noted that in April 2002, the County DPW reviewed the project and “conceptually” approved it.  Since then, issues have arisen with the County DPW regarding the parking.  Ms. Mauch stated that Done Deal purchased the property in 2004.  DoneDeal has been going back and forth with the County DPW on these parking matters since August of 2005.  The Applicant is in the process of trying to work these matters out with the County.

Chairman Gallelli said that it is her understanding that the Applicant is asking for a year’s extension, to which Ms. Mauch noted to the board members that this request for a year’s extension has to do with the terms of the site plan approval.   She asked if the board could clarify to her exactly when the site plan expires.  Ms. Mauch referred to the condition in the site plan resolution pertaining to the three-year expiration date.  The resolution reads, “In the event that this site plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.” Ms. Mauch asked if this means three years from the time the construction begins or from the time it ends.  Chairman Gallelli said that it generally means three years from the time the construction begins.  Ms. Mauch said that, if this is, indeed, the case, then the Applicant might not require a whole year’s extension.

The Village Engineer asked Ms. Mauch if she could explain the County’s present position on the parking.  It seemed clear to him that the County is saying, “No, you can’t park in the right-of-way.”  He asked Ms. Mauch what she thought would make the County change their present position.  Ms. Mauch explained that the County started out by saying that there should be no parking in the right-of-way.  DoneDeal responded by saying that the project does not include parking within the right-of-way.  The County then changed its position from “no parking in the right-of-way” to “no infringement whatsoever in the right-of-way.”  Ms. Mauch noted that the County is now saying that if a car parked in the parking area were to back up into the right-of-way, it would not be acceptable.  Ms. Mauch stated that they have spoken to Ralph Butler of the County DPW to try to reach an agreement on this parking issue.  A question has arisen as to who owns the subject right-of-way. It might change the outcome on the parking issue, if the County does not own the right-of-way.       

Chairman Gallelli asked Ms. Mauch if she had a reason to believe that a resolution to this parking matter could be reached within the next few months, to which Ms. Mauch replied that she thought a resolution could, indeed, be reached.  They (the Applicant) are going to pursue this issue with the County and hopefully persuade the County that there is no reason to withhold their approval.  

Chairman Gallelli said that she thinks a year’s extension is too long.  She told Ms. Mauch that, since this application was approved, the Village has enacted new zoning legislation that would affect this piece of property.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the property in question is in a gateway overlay district. If the current owner/developer of the property has to come before the Planning Board with a new site plan, the application for site plan approval would be governed by the recently enacted gateway zoning legislation.  Chairman Gallelli said that the Planning Board would not want to extend the site plan for an indefinite period of time, given the change(s) in the law.  She suggested that a three- or four-month extension would be more to the board’s liking. Mr. Andrews proposed that if there is any progress or developments to be reported along the way, the Applicant should notify the Planning Board even if the three- or four-month extension is not up yet.

The Village Engineer asked Ms. Mauch if they were planning to do a deed search on the right-of-way, to which Ms. Mauch replied that they have started that process but have not yet found any conclusive information.  

Mr. Luntz said that he thinks it would be fair to give the Applicant a four-month extension.  If there were any developments or progress to report along the way, the Applicant should let the Planning Board know.   

The Planning Board agreed to extend the Applicant’s site plan approval for a period of four months – from April 1st to August 1st, 2006.  Any developments along the way should be forwarded to the Village Engineer for review by the Planning Board.

c)  Nextel of New York, Inc. – Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for the Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the Municipal Building
&
d)  Nextel of New York, Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC – Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for the Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the DPW Facility, Veterans Plaza

Robert Gaudioso, Esq., of Snyder & Snyder, LLP was present to represent the Applicant.

Chairman Gallelli told the Planning Board members that there are two separate applications from Nextel for wireless services facilities in the Village.  The first application is for antennas to be placed on the roof of the Municipal Building at 1 Van Wyck Street; the second is for a 140-foot monopole to be installed at the DPW site at Veterans Plaza.  Each application requires a Special Permit from the Village Board.  The Village Board has referred both applications to the Planning Board for a recommendation.  

Chairman Gallelli noted that two $5,000 escrow accounts have been established so that the Planning Board could hire a consultant(s) for the purpose of guiding the Planning Board through these applications.

Chairman Gallelli stated that Village Manager, Richard Herbek, and Sergeant Rich Corvinus of the Croton Police Department are also present tonight for this application.

Mr. Gaudioso told the Planning Board members that he is here tonight on behalf of Nextel.  Mr. Dan Leary from Cuddy & Feder, LLP is here to represent New Cingular Wireless.

Mr. Gaudioso said that the twelve antennas to be installed on the roof of the Municipal Building are small in size. They are 72 inches long x 12 inches wide.  They would not extend above the height of the chimneys.

Mr. Gaudioso stated that they have submitted a site plan and a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) for both applications.  They have already received comments from the Village Engineer on the FEAF’s.

Mr. Gaudioso stated that they did an independent review of radio frequencies. They hired a firm to do an independent inspection of the cumulative impacts and found that they are (would be) well within the standards for compliance.  They have submitted, as part of their packet of materials for each application, a structural certification letter.  Mr. Gaudioso stated that they have performed a visual impact analysis.  They have (also) included in their packet of materials an affidavit from their radio frequency engineer.  The site plans for the two applications have been prepared by the firm, Herbst-Musciano, Architects/Planners.

Mr. Andrews asked Mr. Gaudioso if Nextel and New Cingular Wireless have merged, to which Mr. Gaudioso said, “No, they are [two] separate carriers.”

At this juncture, the Village Manager, Richard Herbek, provided the Planning Board with some background information on the Nextel applications.   Mr. Herbek stated that in early 2005 the Croton Police Department, Fire Department and DPW came to him to express concern about the cellular coverage in the Village.  Residents of the Village have also expressed their concerns.  Mr. Herbek noted that, in this day and age, people rely much more heavily on their cell phones than in the past.  Cell phones operate from radio frequency transmissions.  The present coverage in the Village is poor due to Croton’s geography (hills and valleys).  Mr. Herbek stated that he, the Village Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works reached out to Nextel to meet with them on how cellular communications in the Village might be improved.   They have identified as a potential location for a cellular tower an unused area on the DPW site near the salt storage shed facility.  This particular location was chosen because it is sufficiently distant from private residences, and it would not take away any parking spaces.   Mr. Herbek stated that Nextel ran some tests and came to the conclusion that the location selected would be suitable for a cellular tower.    

Mr. Herbek said that the other Nextel application/proposal is for the installation of antennas on the roof of the Municipal Building.  These antennas would provide coverage to areas that would not be covered by the monopole (tower).

Sergeant Corvinus stated that, from the Police Department’s standpoint, the most important aspect of the Nextel proposal(s) would be the improvement in communications within the Police Department and with the public at large. Sergeant Corvinus stated that, at this point in time, cell phone coverage is such that if someone has an accident on Route 9A, he/she would not be able to get through to the local (Croton) police.  As far as the Police Department is concerned, better cell phone coverage is required for reasons of public safety.  Sergeant Corvinus noted that cellular lines now outnumber wire lines in the USA.  Cell phones are commonplace today. The technology has advanced and the Village has to “go [along] with it” in order to accommodate the greater number of cell phone users.

Chairman Gallelli asked Sergeant Corvinus how else the Police Department would be using cell phones other than what he just mentioned about residents trying to reach the police.  Sergeant Corvinus told Chairman Gallelli that the police have to communicate with other departments and agencies and among themselves. There has to be anonymity for people who do not want to put personal information over a police radio.  The cell phone provides that anonymity.  

Mr. Luntz noted that once the tower is built, the Village could potentially have other carriers/service providers collocate with Nextel on the roof of the Municipal Building.   

Ms. Allen asked if, in terms of usage in the Village, anyone has any idea “who has subscribed to what [service],” to which Sergeant Corvinus stated that only the carriers themselves would be able to answer that question.  Each of the carriers would be able to give what percentage of the coverage in the Village is theirs.  

Mr. Herbek noted that the reason for using Nextel is the walky-talky feature.  He explained to the Planning Board that the emergency operation center for the Village is the Village Manager’s office.  Village staff would want to be able to use their cell phones in case of an emergency, e.g., a severe storm, a problem at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, etc.  Mr. Herbek told the board members that the Village is taking part in NIMS (the National Incident Management System).  The Village is currently putting together a plan.  He (Mr. Herbek) thinks it is critical to take this next step for the overall safety of the community.  Mr. Corvinus noted that, in so far as NIMS is concerned, there is federal funding available; however, in order to be eligible the Village would have to meet the federal standards for compliance and go through the training requirements involved.   

Sergeant Corvinus told the Planning Board that the Police Department has a tower antenna on the roof of the building now.  It is stated in the lease agreement with Nextel that Nextel’s system must not interfere with the Police Department’s existing communication system.  Sergeant Corvinus noted to the Planning Board that there would be more of a chance that the existing communication system would interfere with Nextel’s.

Mr. Gaudioso stated that, with respect to the DPW site, there would be a new cell tower (monopole) installed at that location.  Nextel would be collocating with Cingular Wireless.  They have submitted a letter of intent to make the tower available to other carriers.  They are presently reviewing local and state wetlands ordinances because of the cell tower’s proximity to water bodies.    

Ms. Allen recalled that there was a question previously raised about the cell tower’s proximity to Van Cortlandt Manor.  Chairman Gallelli stated that Van Cortlandt Manor is on the National Register of Historic Places.  There are certain requirements that have to be met.  Forms have to be filled out and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).  Mr. Gaudioso noted to the Planning Board that they (Nextel) have to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  They have recently received a letter from SHPO stating that this project will have no adverse impact(s).

Mr. Andrews referred to Page 16 of 21 of the FEAF for the cell tower (monopole) installation. The answer given to Question 12 – “Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?” – was “No.”  Mr. Andrews asked if this answer was based on the State’s response, to which Mr. Gaudioso stated that they made a submission to SHPO and SHPO concurred with their analysis that there would be no adverse impact(s).  Mr. Gaudioso noted to the board that Nextel hired a professional architectural historian to look into this matter.   

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Applicant has provided escrow monies for the purpose of hiring a professional consultant to aid the Planning Board in their review.  Once the professional consultant has had an opportunity to work with the Planning Board on these applications, the Planning Board would be in a better position to ask “more intelligent” questions regarding the cellular installations.  Mr. Gaudioso asked which board, the Village Board or the Planning Board, would be conducting the review of these applications, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that the Planning Board would be doing all of the “leg work.”  Mr. Gaudioso asked which board would act as the Lead Agency under SEQRA, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that the Village Board would probably act as the Lead Agency.  The Village Board would be issuing the Special Permit, which is the first in the sequence of permits/approvals required.  After the Planning Board has made their recommendation on the Special Permit, the Village Board would hold a public hearing.  Chairman Gallelli noted to Mr. Gaudioso that, as one of the involved agencies under SEQRA, the Planning Board would be asked to make findings.  

Mr. Gaudioso asked the Planning Board if the Applicant could be involved with the process of selecting the pool of potential professional consultants.  It is the Applicant’s belief that if the Village were to hire a qualified engineer, then it would be in the best interest of all.  Chairman Gallelli did not see any problem with the Applicant submitting some names of engineers.  

Chairman Gallelli stated that, if the Village Board approves the Special Permit, then the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board with an application for Site Plan approval.  

Mr. Gaudioso asked if he were correct in assuming that the Applicant would need to go before the Water Control Commission (WCC) for a Wetlands Activity Permit.  The Village Engineer said that, under the existing regulations, a permit is required if the activity is taking place within the 120-foot wetlands buffer.  The Village Engineer noted that the Village is at least three months away from enacting the new wetlands law.  Mr. Gaudioso asked what the Planning Board would like the Applicant to do in terms of this wetlands issue, to which Chairman Gallelli stated that, in her view, the Applicant should apply for a permit under the current law.  She said that the Village does not know exactly when the new law would go into effect.  The Village Engineer noted that the timeframe might end up being six months rather than three months.  

Chairman Gallelli noted that the Applicant had scheduled a crane test at the DPW site, but the crane never came.  Mr. Gaudioso told the board members that this crane test was rescheduled.  Chairman Gallelli stated that she never received any word of the re-noticing of the crane test.  Ms. Allen stated that she, too, did not hear about the change in the test date.  She went down to the site on that very windy day when the test was supposed to take place.  The person she spoke to in the Village Engineer’s office did not know of any change in the test date.  

Marc Anderson, the consultant for Nextel on the testing, was present.  Mr. Anderson told the board members that he had e-mailed the Village Engineer about the change.  He noted that they (the Applicant) took photographs when the crane was on site.  Chairman Gallelli suggested that Nextel should reschedule another crane test so that the Village residents could be present.  Ms. Allen told the Applicant that there are many people in the Village interested in being present for this test.  

Mr. Gaudioso showed the board members the photographs that were taken.  

Ms. Allen noted that the leaves are off the trees, which was one of the reasons for doing the test on the day that it was originally scheduled.  Ms. Allen said that she went to the bridge at Van Cortlandt Manor on that day; however, the crane never showed up. She had wanted to see what the cell tower would look like from that vantage point.

Mr. Gaudioso stated that one of the advantages of the monopole style is that it has a thin profile, and it is difficult to see from a distance.

Chairman Gallelli said that the most exposed (unobstructed) view of the cell tower would be from NYS Route 9 when a person is en route, coming from Ossining to Croton. She noted that the Applicant has no photographs tonight to show what it would look like from this angle.  Ms. Allen stated that there is a walkway down by the river that is oftentimes used.  She would suggest taking a photograph from that angle as well.

Mr. Andrews stated that, for the next meeting, he would like to see the application that was made to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).    

Chairman Gallelli told the Applicant that the Village would begin work on the list of engineering consultants.

Chairman Gallelli noted to the Applicant that the Planning Board meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month.  The next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting would take place on April 11th.    

Mr. Gaudioso stated that, with respect to the application for a cellular installation on the roof of the Municipal Building, the 12 antennas would be positioned on various chimneys on the roof.  They (Nextel) have reached a balance so as not to interfere with the existing antennas.  The Village Engineer asked if the system being installed would have to be turned off for the Village to do maintenance on the roof.  Mr. Gaudioso said that it would depend on the type of maintenance.  If the work to be done were directly in front of the antennas, it would be a good idea to contact Nextel.  The Village Engineer asked if Nextel could provide some guidelines for the Village, to which Mr. Gaudioso suggested that anytime the Village intends to do maintenance, they should contact Nextel. He would think that this would be the more cautious approach.  

The Village Engineer told the Applicant that some of the chimneys have loose mortar so that, prior to installation, Nextel would have to double-check the attachment(s) to the chimneys, to which Mr. Gaudioso told the Village Engineer that Nextel would work out these details during the construction stage.

Joel Klein of Old Post Road North was present.  Mr. Klein said that he does not object to either of the proposed facilities, but he has concerns about some of the “things” that he has heard tonight.  He is concerned about the integrity of the environmental review process.  Mr. Klein stated that, with respect to the hiring of a consultant, the Village is capable of making a decision on its own, to which Chairman Gallelli told Mr. Klein that the Planning Board would only allow the Applicant to contribute names, not make the selection.  Mr. Klein stated that he has concerns about historic preservation.  The Applicant has prepared a FCC form 621 for the Municipal Building.  This building is listed in the State Inventory of Historic Sites.  He would want to make sure that when the antennas are installed on the building, they are installed in a manner consistent with historic preservation concerns.  

Mr. Klein stated that he has not seen the visual simulations the Applicant has submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).  These simulations should be made available to the local land use authority prior to the SHPO.  Mr. Klein asked if Historic Hudson Valley was contacted at all.  Mr. Klein stated that he was a member of the Planning Board when the crane testing was being proposed.  He, too, was not notified of the test date.  Mr. Klein stated that Van Cortlandt Manor is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  It is also designated a National Landmark.  Given the close proximity of the proposed cell tower to Van Cortlandt Manor, he (Mr. Klein) would want to make sure that the integrity of the process is maintained.  Mr. Gaudioso told Mr. Klein that, in answer to his question about noticing, a public notice was prepared as was the notification to the SHPO.  Mr. Klein asked if the Croton Historical Society was noticed, to which Mr. Gaudioso said that he believes it was.  

Ms. Allen said that the crane test needs to be re-done with a notice sent out to the entire Village.  

The Village Engineer told Mr. Gaudioso that Nextel should give the Village notice of the crane test in ample time to publish the test date in the local newspaper.  Chairman Gallelli stated that the local weekly newspaper, the Gazette, comes out on a Thursday.  The deadline for input is noon on Tuesday.  Mr. Gaudioso noted that, if there were inclement weather on the day of the test, then the test would be automatically rescheduled for the next day.  If the test was scheduled for a Saturday and it had to be postponed, the “next day” would be Monday.   

Ms. Allen stated that the hours of the crane test should also be included.

Mr. Klein asked if FCC form 620 was available for review, to which Mr. Gaudioso said that he would make sure that it was available.

Mr. Gaudioso said that the Applicant would be in touch with the Village regarding scheduling the next meeting.

e)  Gerard & Susan Browne – 6 Newton Court (Sec. 67.10 Blk. 2 Lot 4.20) – Application for an Amended Building Envelope to Construct a Swimming Pool

Kurt Dapson, landscape architect, was present to represent the Applicant.

Chairman Gallelli stated that this application is for an amended building envelope to construct an in-ground swimming pool, as shown on a plan provided by Manzer’s Landscape Design & Development. Chairman Gallelli stated that she has visited the site, which backs up to the Hendry Building.  There are no residences behind it.

Mr. Dapson noted to the board members that two letters of support from adjacent neighbors are included in the packet of materials.  

The Village Engineer stated that more information should be provided on the plans in terms of elevations.  Mr. Dapson noted that there was no topographical information provided by the surveyor, but he (Mr. Dapson) would be glad to provide this information.  

The Village Engineer wanted to know how much fill would be taken off site.  He asked Mr. Dapson if he had any idea whether he would run into bedrock during construction.  Mr. Dapson stated that the deep end of the pool would be farthest away from the visible outcrop of the ledge.  The exposed part of the ledge is 2? feet tall.  He was quite certain that they would hit bedrock.     

The Village Engineer told Mr. Dapson that the drainage on the property should be addressed.  He noted that there would be additional impervious surfaces on the site resulting from the pool construction.  He would want to see some type of drainage system to handle the additional surface runoff.  The Village Engineer said that it appears there is a drainage line coming from the house that empties into a storm drain system.  They should try to get some of the water into a kind of leaching chamber.  Mr. Dapson stated that the Applicant is not proposing to change anything in the front yard, but they would be adding a pipe, which would keep water from pooling in the back yard.  The swimming pool would be set at a relatively low elevation.   The Village Engineer told the Applicant that he would want to be able to see the location of the subsurface chambers.  The plan should have direction arrows indicating where the surface water is going to go.  

Ms. Allen asked what percentage of the lot would be impervious surface. Mr. Luntz said that he thinks it would be about 30%.  Ms. Allen said that it would appear the back of the lot would be mostly impervious surface after construction of the pool.  Ms. Allen noted that the Village has been actively involved in a storm water management program.  One of the purposes of Phase 2 of the program is to get water to flow into the aquifer as opposed to storm drains. She wondered if the Village Engineer’s comments on the drainage would lead to a method whereby water would flow into the aquifer as opposed to storm drains.  Mr. Luntz said that the Village Engineer is trying to keep the water on the Applicant’s property.  The Village Engineer noted that if there were ponding already taking place in the front, he would not want it to get worse; he would not want ponding areas to develop on the neighbor’s property.  

Mr. Luntz said that it is his understanding that the building envelopes from the original subdivision plan supercede setback requirements.  Chairman Gallelli stated that this is, indeed, the case.  The Baltic Estates (Westwind) Subdivision is a “cluster” subdivision, and each lot has a building envelope.

The Village Engineer asked if the outdoor shower could be plugged into the plumbing system, to which Mr. Dapson said, yes, it could be.

Mr. Dapson asked if it would be advisable to submit the application for a storage shed now or would it be better to do so at a later time, to which the Village Engineer said that it would be simpler to do it all at once.  Mr. Dapson noted that the homeowners have no intention of putting in the shed during the pool phase of construction.  They have not selected a shed yet.  The Village Engineer suggested that they could submit a catalogue showing the type of shed they would likely want to put in.

The Village Engineer stated that he would like to see how much fill is going off site.  The Applicant also needs to address erosion and sedimentation control.

Mr. Dapson said that the homeowners are looking for input as to what the extent of the screening of the pool area should be.  

The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant has provided letters from two neighbors. The Planning Board would probably want to have letters from all the neighbors.  Ms. Allen said that she thought the Planning Board had a policy of noticing the neighbors for an application to modify the building envelope.  Chairman Gallelli said that the Planning Board has occasionally asked for letters from neighbors, however, there is no policy for sending out notices.  Chairman Gallelli said that, in this case, she thinks there are three neighboring residences that would see the pool, to which the Village Engineer said that there are actually six. Mr. Kehoe said that when he visited the site he parked at the cul-de-sac and looked down at the property.  He could tell that there would be no way of screening the swimming pool from the neighbors.  Mr. Dapson noted that there are screening problems due to the change in elevation. “To expect even a screening of 2% would require a 30-foot tree.”

Mr. Kehoe asked what the Planning Board’s thought process was in approving a “cluster” subdivision with building envelopes.  Chairman Gallelli stated that a “cluster” divides lots up (in such a way) so that the lots do not necessarily all conform.  The lines are drawn to be “environmentally friendly.”  Mr. Kehoe asked if, in the case of this subdivision, the building envelopes were drawn the way they are due to environmental concerns.  Chairman Gallelli said that it is her understanding that the Planning Board was trying to site the lots in the most environmentally sound areas possible.  Chairman Galelli noted that, in the Baltic Estates (Westwind) Subdivision, the building envelopes are almost all the same.

The Village Engineer asked Mr. Dapson if the D.E. filter being proposed has a separation tank with a return to the pool, to which Mr. Dapson said, yes.  To his knowledge, the “specs” for swimming pools are all like that now.  He would double-check with the manufacturer to be absolutely sure.   

Mr. Dapson told the board members that, with respect to screening, the pool equipment would not be seen from any vantage point on the neighboring properties.

Chairman Gallelli noted that most of the issues raised tonight by the Village Engineer are of a technical nature pertaining to the building permit.  She suggested that the Planning Board could approve this application with a condition that all the required information should be provided, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.  The Village Engineer asked if the Planning Board would also require letters from the other neighbors, to which Chairman Gallelli said, yes.

Ms. Allen said that she was on the Planning Board when the subdivision was being planned.  The Planning Board took a site walk behind the Hendry Building.  The Planning Board was informed at that time that during construction of that area there had been a lot of organic materials buried there.  There were already existing sinkholes.  She just wanted to pass this information on that it was known that there were sinkholes in that area due to the organic materials.

Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve the modification of the building envelope for Lot #20 of the Baltic Estates (Westwind) Subdivision to accommodate an in-ground swimming pool and accessory pool shed, subject to the following conditions:

All information requested by the Village Engineer be provided, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Letters from the Applicant’s neighbors be obtained and submitted to the Village Engineer’s office.   

The motion to approve was made by Mr. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

f)  Zeytinia Gourmet Market – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Annual Report Submission of Deliveries by 18-Wheeler Trucks

Chairman Gallelli stated that the Planning Board has received the annual report on 18-wheeler truck deliveries that Zeytinia Gourmet Market was asked to provide.  The report shows that, for the most part, this grocery store has adhered to the “once a week” delivery by 18-wheelers required as a condition of the Planning Board’s resolution.  Chairman Gallelli noted that there were only a few times during the year when Zeytinia received two 18-wheeler truck deliveries a week.  The Village Engineer stated that they were “three over” for the whole year, which would mean that they were in substantial compliance.  The Planning Board was satisfied with Zeytinia’s report.    

3.  OTHER BUSINESS:

Ms. Allen noted to those present that tonight’s meeting is Ann Gallelli’s last meeting on the Planning Board.  Ms. Allen said that she has prepared a statement that she would like entered into the record. The following is Ms. Allen’s statement in its entirety:

“Ann Gallelli: Planning Board Chair Extraordinaire!  
 
Tonight, as Ann Gallelli, our Planning Board Chair ‘extraordinaire,’ leaves us to take a seat on the Village Board, I want to put a summary of Ann’s record on the record.

Ann was appointed to the Planning Board in 1989 and became Chair in April 1990.  Earlier, in the late 1980’s, Ann had been on various citizen committees developing statutes and programs that help protect our environment today.  For example, Croton’s case against the Millennium Pipeline is built on the work Ann and others did 25 years ago.  

In retrospect, appointing Ann to the Planning Board and naming her the chair was a brilliant move on somebody’s part.  If you were anti-environment or a developer – and there were a lot of big parcels just waiting to be developed – it was like locking the barn door just before the horses were stolen – and assigning Ann to be chief guard!

When Ann joined the Board, River Landing was under development and plans were underway for housing on the waterfront.  Soon after Ann became Chair, Bus Associates arrived with their proposal to build the Prickly Pear Golf Course on 210 acres above the Village.  Arrowcrest was proposed soon after. A busy time.

Ann was elected to the Village Board in 1994 but returned after 3? years and became Chair again in April 1998.  More projects and a repeat of an old pattern: Develop the policies and laws then apply them.  This time she headed the Comprehensive Plan Committee and served on the Committee to update the environmental laws.  She now applies them to our Planning Board activities.  We have some new roles.

I want to conclude with a variant of a paragraph I wrote to the NYPA recommending that Ann receive an Award (Planner of the Year?) for her work on our Board.

        ‘Even after working with Ann for 14 (now 16) years, I continue to be amazed
        at her knowledge of the planning process and her skill at execution.  Under
        Ann’s guidance our very talented, diverse Board functions as a team, generally
        reaching consensus after extensive discussions which are never rancorous.
        Applicants are treated with great respect and projects moved through the
        process deliberately and as quickly as is appropriate.  The Board has made
        many tough decisions but they are made openly and carefully with due
        consideration of the options and laws.’

Thank you, Ann.  You’ve made a big difference to me and to the Village we love.

                                                Fran Allen
                                                March 28, 2006”
 
4.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, February 28, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Mr. Luntz abstained.

5.  ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:30 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY       

RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the River Landing Subdivision on October 2, 1990; and

WHEREAS, each lot in the River Landing Subdivision had a building envelope defined for it, beyond which no construction could occur without approval of the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, Edward & Eileen Clark, owners of Lot #3 in the River Landing Subdivision (143 Upper North Highland Place – Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 35.03) have requested an expansion of that lot’s building envelope for the purpose of building an above-ground swimming pool; 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 modification of the building envelope on Lot #3, as shown on the survey entitled “Survey of Property Prepared for Edward & Eileen Clark,” prepared by Riley Land Surveyors, LLC, dated December 23, 2005, received by the Planning Board on March 21, 2006, is hereby approved with the following condition:

1.      The pool installation shall conform to the conditions of the approval given by the Water Control Commission in March 2006.

Failure to implement this approval in three years will result in the expiration of this approval.

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

                                                Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Chris Kehoe
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                
                                                
Motion to approve by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on March 28, 2006.    




RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the Baltic Estates (Westwind Subdivision) on July 25, 1995; and

WHEREAS, each lot in the Westwind Subdivision had a building envelope defined for it, beyond which no construction could occur without approval of the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, Gerard & Susan Browne, owners of Lot #20 in the Westwind Subdivision (6 Newton Court – Sec. 67.10 Blk. 2 Lot 4.20) have requested an expansion of that lot’s building envelope for the purpose of building an in-ground swimming pool and an accessory storage shed; 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 modification of the building envelope on Lot #20, as shown on plan L1 entitled “Brown Residence, 6 Newton Court, Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520, Site Plan Pool Area,” prepared by Manzer’s Landscape Design & Development, Inc., received by the Planning Board on March 23, 2006, is hereby approved with the following conditions:

1.      All information requested by the Village Engineer be provided, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2.      Letters from the Applicant’s neighbors be obtained and submitted to the Village Engineer’s Office.

Failure to implement this approval in three years will result in the expiration of this approval.

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

                                                Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Chris Kehoe
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                
                                                
Motion to approve by Mr. Kehoe, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on March 28, 2006.