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 2006 04-11



A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
Vincent Andrews
Robert Luntz

                        ABSENT: Fran Allen
                ALSO PRESENT:   Ann Gallelli, Liaison from the Village Board
Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1.  Call to Order:

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


John Boulos – Piney Point Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 4 Lot 44) – Referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit

Joe Lippolis of 38 Thompson Avenue was present to represent the Applicant.

Chairman Kehoe noted to those present that tonight’s meeting is his first meeting as chairman of the Planning Board.  The former chairman, Ann Gallelli, is now a member of the Board of Trustees.

Chairman Kehoe stated that the first item tonight is a referral from the Village Board for a steep slopes hardship permit for a property on Piney Point Avenue.

Mr. Lippolis told the Planning Board members that the Applicant, John Boulos, submitted an application for a steep slopes permit in 2002.  He was told at that time that he was not eligible to apply for a steep slopes permit.  Since then, the Steep Slopes Ordinance has been amended, and Mr. Boulos is now eligible to apply.  

Mr. Lippolis stated that the purpose of his coming to the meeting tonight is to try to get some indication from the Planning Board as to whether it would be worth pursuing this application and doing the required site plan work.  Chairman Kehoe said that, having reviewed the materials submitted for this application thus far, he would think that the Planning Board would require a great deal more information. He said that, personally speaking, he would think that the Planning Board would need this additional information to be able to give any indication at all of what their views are. The plans that have been submitted thus far do not show enough.

The Village Engineer stated that the Planning Board would need to see a detailed site plan showing the grading, the retaining walls and the drainage.  

The Village Engineer said that the Planning Board would need to see more clearly how the proposed house is situated on the site.  He referred to the sketch of the sloped area and noted that the property slopes downward so that from the back, the house would look like it had four stories due to the exposed wall of the basement.   

The Village Engineer told Mr. Lippolis that the Planning Board would do the technical review of this application.  Once the Planning Board feels that the application is ready for the Village Board, the Planning Board would prepare the letter of recommendation, (either a positive or negative recommendation), and send the application back to the Village Board.  The Village Board would then hold a public hearing.

The Village Engineer noted again that from the back the house would look like a four-story house.  The Planning Board would want to know what kind of visual impact that would have on the neighbors.  How would the visual impact(s) be addressed?  For example, could the house be made smaller or could the height be lowered?  Could a landscaping plan be developed to lessen the impact?  The Planning Board would want to know how the visual impact(s) could be mitigated or reduced.

Mr. Lippolis said that it is his understanding that the Applicant would be within his rights to build a house on the property if he were to go through the steep slopes permit application process.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Lippolis that according to the code a person is allowed to disturb up to 10% of the slope area without a permit.  In this instance more than 10% would be disturbed, so a steep slopes hardship permit is required.  The Village Engineer stated that, from a construction standpoint, the Planning Board would need to know the method of excavation for the house foundation, where the soil is going to be stockpiled and what kind of drainage system is being developed.  Sedimentation and erosion control measures would need to be provided. The Planning Board would want to know how the contractor/builder would be handling construction on the steep slope.

The Village Engineer said that it appears from the sketch of the house and garage that the garage would be situated in the front yard.   This would not be allowed by code.  According to the Village Code, a detached garage must be situated to the side or to the rear of the house.

The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that they should try to save as many trees as possible during construction.

Chairman Kehoe noted that, procedurally, the Applicant could not obtain a “sign-off” from the Planning Board for a steep slopes hardship permit. The approval of a steep slopes permit is the jurisdiction of the Village Board.  If the steep slopes permit is approved by the Village Board, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for a minor site plan review.  Chairman Kehoe noted that, in order for the Planning Board to be able to make a recommendation on the steep slopes permit, the Applicant must provide all the detailed site plan information prior to any official recommendation.  The Applicant cannot wait for the next step, which would be the minor site plan review.   

Mr. Lippolis stated that there is an expense involved for doing the site work.  He would hate to see the Applicant go through this expense and then come back to hear the board say that they are not going to approve this application.

Mr. Andrews asked the Village Engineer how the law has changed to make it possible for Mr. Boulos to be eligible to apply for a permit.  The Village Engineer explained to Mr. Andrews that the way the old law was written was that a person could only apply for a permit if he/she had owned the lot prior to the date the Steep Slopes Ordinance went into effect, which was January 1988.  Mr. Boulos purchased the lot right after the law went into effect, which means that he was ineligible to apply for a permit.  The law has since changed and this threshold no longer exists.  The Village Engineer said that, now, approval of a steep slopes hardship permit is based strictly on the “merits” of the application.  The Village Engineer noted that, in one sense, the current law is more restrictive in that performance bonds and sedimentation & erosion control bonds are required.  The sedimentation & erosion control bond is held for a year to make sure that the contractor’s work on the slope has been done properly and that the slope has been stabilized. The Village Engineer noted that the Steep Slopes Ordinance is undergoing review once again.  The revisions will be significant as compared to the last time the law was changed.  The Village Engineer noted to those present that the Village’s policy is that once an application is made, it is covered under the regulations in effect at the time.  Therefore, the Boulos application would be covered under the current regulations.

The Village Engineer told Mr. Lippolis that, on the site plan to be provided, the Planning Board would want to see where, and how high, the retaining walls are going to be.  The plan should include a zoning analysis and a steep slopes analysis.  The Village Engineer noted that there are certain details on the retaining wall, which would not have to be provided until the building permit is applied for.  The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant should provide to the Planning Board elevation views of the proposed house and photo imaging of the house from the street.  

Mr. Lippolis thanked the Planning Board and the Village Engineer for their input on this application.  He would let Mr. Boulos know what would be required of him to proceed with the application review.


a)  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
b)  Croton Housing Network, Inc. – 21 Mt. Airy Road (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 36) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval for Mt. Airy Woods

Nance Shatzkin, President of the Croton Housing Network (CHN), and Stuart Markowitz of SMA Architecture Planning Interiors PC were present for the Symphony Knoll and Mount Airy Woods applications.

Ms. Shatzkin gave the board members some background information on the Symphony Knoll project.  Symphony Knoll represents the sixth project to create affordable housing in the Village.  This project was conceived as housing for seniors.  

Ms. Shatzkin referred the board members to the map showing the Symphony Knoll property.  The McClure parcel “sat in the middle of” the property owned by the CHN.  Ms. Shatzkin said that the Village “picked up on” the opportunity to purchase the McClure parcel and by doing so, it is now possible to build Symphony Knoll.  

Ms. Shatzkin stated that the CHN wanted to build something designed for seniors. They settled on the concept of a single, three-story building with an elevator.  

Ms. Shatzkin stated that the CHN had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from the height requirement in the RC (multiple family) district.  They were granted a variance, which has since expired.  They will be going before the ZBA tomorrow night to renew their variance.  

Ms. Shatzkin stated that the first of the funding application deadlines has been met, and this application is in place.  The County will be processing three separate funding applications.  The CHN would also receive tax-free bonding.   Ms. Shatzkin stated that the CHN has had a positive response from the County Legislature.  

Ms. Shatzkin noted to the Planning Board members that the CHN does not have a significant amount of money to spend on this affordable housing project.  The CHN would want to create something that the community would be proud of.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that they took the Planning Board’s comments on the design from the last meeting and made changes to the plan(s) accordingly.  She thinks they have come a long way from where they were then.

Chairman Kehoe asked if Ms. Shatzkin could explain in more detail the funding sources for this project.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that one source of the funding is the Housing Implementation Fund (HIF).  This is a County fund that requires the approval of the County Legislature.  Another source is the New Homes Land Acquisition (NHLA), which helps offset the high price of acquiring land.  A third source is a federal grant program (she believes it is called “HOME”) that is administered by the County.  This grant money is used to serve those with low incomes.

Ms. Shatzkin stated that the proposed three-story building would have 11 units and a management office.  They also hope to have some part of the basement to use as common space.

Ms. Shatzkin noted that the CHN also qualifies for Industrial Development Agency bonds.  

Ms. Shatzkin said that the CHN already has a waiting list of seniors who were on the list for the affordable housing at Discovery Cove.  Mr. Markowitz stated that other applications for the affordable housing would come to the CHN by mail and are written down and identified.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that the people on the waiting list from the Discovery Cove project would have to re-qualify for the affordable housing at Symphony Knoll.

Mr. Andrews asked if the site plan approval and the “go-ahead” were conditioned upon any verification of the funding being secured and in place, to which Mr. Markowitz replied that the project cannot start until the funding is in place.  Mr. Andrews asked if there was an over-arching agreement that the County has to verify for the funding, to which Ms. Shatzkin said that she could check to see what is actually in place to protect the Village.  Mr. Markowitz said that he knows there are layers of protection.  Mr. Andrews said for the Planning Board’s purposes he would like to know what they are.
Mr. Markowitz referred the board members to the map of the property.  He pointed to the three existing buildings and driveway for Mt. Airy Woods and noted that the same driveway would be used for Symphony Knoll.  He indicated on the map where they would be “picking up” the water and sewer for Symphony Knoll. They would not have to go down to the street for the water and sewer.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if they did a traffic study for Symphony Knoll, to which Ms. Shatzkin replied that Adler Consulting Traffic Engineers prepared the traffic study.  Chairman Kehoe requested that the Planning Board receive a copy of this study.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that Adler Consulting indicated to the CHN that there would be no significant impact on traffic resulting from the Symphony Knoll project.  However, as a safety factor, they thought the width of the driveway entrance should be increased.  Mr. Markowitz said that the parking area has been designed so that emergency vehicles, rather than pulling into a dead-end parking lot, can continue around and exit the lot.  Mr. Luntz asked if there were 20 parking spaces being provided at Symphony Knoll, to which Mr. Markowitz said, yes, there are 20 spaces being provided.  Mr. Luntz asked if the number of spaces meets the zoning requirements for that district, to which Mr. Markowitz said that it does.

Mr. Markowitz indicated on the map where the proposed trail easement through the Symphony Knoll property would be located. Ms. Shatzkin noted that this easement would include a potential trail connection, which would go down into the Village at Grand Street.   Such a trail that would go back down the hill and into the Village is an old idea. Ms. Shatzkin said that the CHN would like to grant that easement to the Village. The CHN thinks that now would be the time to do so.  The Village would, then, find the right time to actually implement the trail.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that hiring a surveyor to create a description of the trail easement would be costly.  The CHN hopes that the GPS/GIS systems, to which the Village has access, could be used for this purpose.

Ms. Shatzkin stated that the other application before the Planning Board tonight is the amended site plan for Mt. Airy Woods.  As a result of the lot line change that has taken place for the Symphony Knoll project, the Mt. Airy Woods lot is much smaller in size.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that an amended site plan approval is also required for the widening of the existing driveway.  The dumpster area for Mt. Airy Woods might also be modified.  

Ms. Shatzkin noted that the CHN is looking forward to some of the benefits that both sites – Symphony Knoll and Mt. Airy Woods – would have from their close proximity to each other.  She gave, as an example, CHN programming of various kinds.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that the CHN had thought originally that they might do a laundry to be used by both sites but they decided against that.

Mr. Markowitz described for the Planning Board members the lot line change that has taken place on the CHN property.  The entire CHN property is approximately 9 acres in size.  With the change in the lot line, Symphony Knoll comprises approximately 4 acres and Mt. Airy Woods, 5 acres.      

Chairman Kehoe asked if there would be a site plan provided for both properties, to which Mr. Markowitz replied that there would be two separate site plans.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that the lot line change has already taken place.  The maps have been filed with the County Office of Land Records.

Mr. Markowitz referred to the site development plan for Symphony Knoll and stated that the heavy dot-dash line represents the area of disturbance that is anticipated.  The Village Engineer asked if an erosion and sedimentation control plan was submitted, to which Mr. Markowitz said that he thought it was included with the set of plans from Cronin Engineering, however, it does not appear to have been included.  He will have Cronin Engineering provide it to the Village Engineer.   

The Village Engineer asked if Mr. Markowitz could describe to the board members the cross use easements that would be needed.  Mr. Markowitz said that the cross use easements between Mt. Airy Woods and Symphony Knoll would include the use of the dumpster area and access to the utilities. Cross-maintenance agreements would have to be drawn up.  

Mr. Andrews asked if there was a new dumpster area being proposed, to which Mr. Markowitz said, no, it would be in the same location that it is now.  Ms. Shatzkin said that they would not expect the seniors to lift the heavy lid off the dumpster container.  An arrangement would be made to pick up their trash.

Chairman Kehoe asked if the CHN knows yet what the light poles would look like, to which Ms. Shatzkin said that they (CHN) want to match the existing ones.  

Ms. Shatzkin said that, as part of the project, they would be demolishing the existing house, cottage and shed on the old McClure property.  Some of the existing stone walls would have to be removed, but they intend to re-use the stone as much as possible.

The Village Engineer noted to those present that, should the Village deem it appropriate one day to extend the water main further up Mt. Airy Road, the Village would want an easement through a portion of the CHN property.

Mr. Markowitz asked if there were any comments on Cronin Engineering’s storm water design.  The Village Engineer noted that the design includes a 5-foot X 5-foot trench that is 40 feet long.  He asked how the trench would be integrated into the storm water system.  He suggested that Cronin Engineering should provide additional details on how the water would go into the storm water system and then flow out of it.  The Village Engineer noted that, with the widening of the driveway, one of the catch basins would be sitting out on the pavement.  The water coming down Mt. Airy Road would miss that catch basin.  The Village Engineer suggested that they might want to put in another catch basin or relocate the existing one.

The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant has submitted a lighting plan and a landscaping plan.  Mr. Markowitz stated that drawing A-1 shows the lighting layout and foot candles.  Drawing A-2 shows details of the landscaping and planting plan.  Mr. Markowitz stated that the lighting plan being proposed ends at the entranceway.  The Village Engineer asked if the new lighting being proposed would “mesh” with the existing lighting for Mt. Airy Woods.  Mr. Markowitz stated that the existing lighting at the driveway would remain.  Their plan is to just augment the lighting at the entrance.  Mr. Markowitz noted that they also have lights planned for the balconies and terraces of individual units.  The Village Engineer asked if there would be any lights in the back of the building that would potentially affect the house in the back, to which Ms. Shatzkin said, no, there would just be the sconces.    

The Village Engineer asked if the Applicant could describe the landscaping being proposed. Mr. Markowitz stated that there are gaps between the trees along Mt. Airy Road, which the Applicant would recommend filling in with new trees.  These “new” trees would not match the existing full-grown trees but, over time, would fill in the gaps that currently exist there.  Mr. Markowitz stated that they also intend to plant a large tree at the west-end and in front of the stone wall.  Plants would also be installed in the green space (island) in the middle of the parking drive.  Bradford pear trees would be installed in front of the building.  The Applicant has chosen Bradford pears for the front because they flower in the springtime. They would also provide some screening for the apartment units.   The Village Engineer noted that the tree line in the back corner along Grand Street would provide some screening as well, to which Mr. Markowitz said that the new building would not be anywhere near there.  The building would be well inside that area of the property.

Ms. Shatzkin told the board members that Jan Wines from the Trails Committee is very happy with the trail that would run through the property from Mt. Airy Road.  A discussion ensued among the board members and the Applicant about a possible trail route that would be more accessible (easier to walk on) by avoiding steep slope areas. The Village Engineer suggested that they (CHN) should go out and mark the proposed trail using the GPS/GIS systems.

Mr. Markowitz described for the board members the layout of the new building.  There would be four units per floor.  Each floor would have one 800 sq. ft. apartment and three 650 sq. ft. apartments.  One of the 650 sq. ft. apartments would be used as an office.  All of the apartments would open onto a common hall.  There would be an elevator in the center of the building and fire stairs on either end.  The heating would be individual gas-fired heating furnaces with hot air.  

Mr. Luntz asked where the condensing units for each apartment would be situated, to which Mr. Markowitz replied that they would be situated on the sides of the building away from the outdoor space.

Chairman Kehoe asked how the residents would get their mail delivery, to which Mr. Markowitz replied that the CHN has a provision with the Post Office to deliver the mail into (inside) the building.  

Mr. Luntz said that it would be better, from an aesthetic standpoint, if the condensing units could be screened off.

Chairman Kehoe referred to the site plan for Symphony Knoll and stated that, according to the plan, the top of the retaining wall would be at 199 (contour line) and the bottom of the wall would be at 192.  He asked if this is going to be a 7-foot wall, to which Mr. Markowitz said that it would be a 7-foot wall at some point.  Mr. Markowitz noted to the board members that he has already spoken to the Village Engineer about designing a wall so that it would have a “shelf” to make it possible to do a stone veneer at a future time.  Mr. Markowitz said that the retaining wall out by the parking area would be a much lower wall.

Mr. Luntz stated that, since the last meeting on this application, the Applicant has worked on the elevation(s).  Mr. Luntz noted that the scale seems more considered, and it would appear to him that the building is now more “residential” in its proportions.  Mr. Markowitz showed the board members a poster board rendering of the façade.  He pointed out the balconies, the entryway and the roof design.  Mr. Luntz stated that, in his view, the lower-most component of the entrance could look more “residential.”  Mr. Markowitz stated that they had to meet the minimum distance and stairway requirements. They wanted to show that the building is residential in nature.  The forms are “Americana” in design.  One element had to be different.  This is the design they came up with.  Mr. Markowitz noted that there would be stone work at the base, but only at the front elevation for now. Chairman Kehoe stated that the front entrance seems in some respects “traditional” in design and in some respects “modern.”  The front center doors would be of aluminum and glass. Mr. Markowitz stated that they wanted to do it that way so that if the money becomes available someday, they could add an automatic door operator.  This system works well with that type of entrance (storefront entrance).      
Mr. Luntz stated that he thinks the 5?-foot X 10-foot balcony size being proposed is reasonable.

Chairman Kehoe asked Ms. Shatzkin if she could tell him how the Village residents reacted to the Mt. Airy Woods affordable housing project. Ms. Shatzkin stated that there were problems in the beginning but now, ten years later, these problems seem to have subsided.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that, for Mt. Airy Woods, there was a need for a major retaining wall to be built and a number of trees on the hillside had to be cut down.  The CHN is particularly sensitive to the reaction of the Village residents and would want to create a positive response to Symphony Knoll. Ms. Shatzkin noted to the board members that, for Symphony Knoll, the CHN would want to have as little impact on the area as possible and still be able to provide these affordable housing units for seniors.    

The Village Engineer asked what the surface treatment of the building would be, to which Mr. Markowitz said, Hardy plank and clapboard siding.  The siding would be factory-stained for a long-lasting finish and low maintenance. The trim would probably be cedar, either painted or stained.  Chairman Kehoe asked what color the railings would be, to which Mr. Markowitz said, white.

Mr. Luntz asked what the treatment would be in the area where the stairs are situated, to which Mr. Markowitz said that the clapboard seemed to him to be “too much” for that area.  They are still working on the elevation drawing(s).

Mr. Luntz asked if the “V’s” on the balconies are supposed to represent sconces, to which Mr. Markowitz said, yes.  Ms. Shatzkin explained to the board that the exterior lighting being proposed around the building seemed to them to be a way to do down lighting. They want to keep the building dark.  Mr. Luntz thought that putting these sconces outside at all openings would have just the opposite effect.

Mr. Andrews asked if there were security measures that would have to be taken, to which Mr. Markowitz said that there would be a closed circuit TV camera in the vestibule.  There would be an intercom system, which would allow a resident to speak to whomever is in the lobby.  A resident would also be able see who is there by turning the dial to a specific channel on his/her television set.  Mr. Markowitz stated that the building would have a fire alarm system and sprinklers.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that the Chief of Police indicated to her that the Police Department would provide seminars for the seniors.  The police were satisfied with the security measures being proposed.

Chairman Kehoe said that he thought, based on previous discussions, there would be interior and/or exterior centrally-located meeting spaces for the residents to get together.  Ms. Shatzkin said that they hope to have some finished basement space for the seniors. There is also the green in the front, which they hope to have landscaped.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that the CHN would be reaching out to the community to make improvements to Symphony Knoll.  They would like to add benches someday or put in flower gardens. Ms. Shatzkin stated that the CHN does not yet know who the tenants are going to be for Symphony Knoll.  What they ultimately decide to do would depend on what the tenants want.  Mr. Markowitz stated that the front apartments have their own balconies.  There would also be two common balconies for the residents to use.  

Ms. Shatzkin noted that the starting area for the walking trail is not all that steep so that the seniors who are able could also make use of the trail.

Chairman Kehoe asked if the apartments were all one-bedroom apartments, to which Ms. Shatzkin said, yes.

The Village Engineer wanted to know if the walkway that extends on either side of the front door could, in some way, be linked to the trail.  Could some kind of surface be created for this purpose?  Also, could a link to the trail be provided from the back door?  

The Village Engineer questioned how the seniors would exit the building from the rear in the wintertime. If there were two feet of snow on the ground and they could not exit from the front, how would they leave the property?  He would be concerned about a viable route from the rear of the building in case of an emergency.

The Village Engineer asked if the building had gutters, to which Mr. Markowitz said, yes.  The Village Engineer asked if the gutters would tie directly into the storm drains, to which Mr. Markowitz said that they would.

Mr. Luntz asked if the common areas have ventilation, to which Mr. Markowitz said, yes, there would probably be two ventilation systems for these common areas.

Mr. Markowitz stated that, with respect to drainage, they have added, for extra protection, a French drain that would tie into the storm system.  The Village Engineer asked Mr. Markowitz if he thought there might be ponding where the hill slopes down on the other side of the building.  Mr. Markowitz suggested that, for the next meeting, they could blow up that area of the plan to show the drainage.  Mr. Markowitz noted that they are trying to keep the grading around the building shallow so that it is easier for the residents to walk around the building.

The Village Engineer asked the Applicant if, with respect to the utilities for Symphony Knoll, there was sufficient capability to tap into Mount Airy Woods for gas, electricity and telephone (service), to which Mr. Markowitz replied that it is his understanding that there is sufficient capability for gas.  The CHN still needs confirmation from Con Edison on the other utilities.  They need to get the “load” letter from the engineer.  

The Village Engineer asked if the framework for the front of the building would be steel, to which Mr. Markowitz said that it probably would be, however, if at all (financially) possible, they would clad it in wood.  

Chairman Kehoe asked who would be setting the rent, to which Ms. Shatzkin replied that the Croton Housing Network sets the rent.  She noted that the CHN has spent a great deal of time working on the rent configuration(s).  There would be four different prices for the units.  The larger ones would be more expensive to rent.  The CHN’s goal is to hold the rents as low as possible, but the CHN has to have enough money to operate the building.  

The Planning Board decided to schedule a public hearing on the Mount Airy Woods amended site plan and the Symphony Knoll site plan for Tuesday, May 9th.  Chairman Kehoe noted that this would give the CHN an opportunity to come back to the Planning Board one more time on April 25th to present the project to board member, Fran Allen, who was unable to attend the meeting tonight.  

Chairman Kehoe reminded the Applicant that, for the upcoming meeting(s), the Planning Board would need to see the traffic study that was prepared for this project.  

The Village Engineer asked if the CHN would be bringing any materials to the ZBA, such as a view shed analysis, to which Ms. Shatzkin replied that the CHN had already provided all the required application materials to the ZBA.  The variance was granted.  This is a renewal application.  Ms. Shatzkin noted they the CHN would be showing the ZBA the new concepts for the building design.

Ms. Shatzkin said that she and Mr. Markowitz have made a note of the information requested tonight by the Village Engineer, and they would see to it that this information is provided. Ms. Shatzkin stated that, for the meeting of the 25th, the CHN would be bringing pictures of the building for Ms. Allen to look at.  She suggested that, at the meeting of the 25th, rather than repeating tonight’s presentation, she and Mr. Markowitz could address the issues raised tonight and also answer any questions that Ms. Allen might have.

The Village Engineer asked that the Applicant should provide a short EAF for the Mt. Airy Woods application.

Chairman Kehoe asked how far along the Symphony Knoll application was in the SEQRA process.  Village Board member, Ann Gallelli, stated that the Village Board has made its findings.  The Village Board has determined that this is a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.  Ms. Gallelli noted that the Village Board is the lead agency for this project and the Planning Board is an involved agency.  As an involved agency, the Planning Board could make its own separate findings. Chairman Kehoe said that he would have thought the Village Board could not make its decision on the “Neg Dec” until further along in the review process. The site plan has not been approved yet. Ms. Gallelli reiterated that, as an involved agency, the Planning Board could make its own separate findings. Chairman Kehoe asked to see a copy of the EAF and the Village Board’s findings.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that, for the meeting of April 25th, she would provide copies of the Phase 1A archeological study.  The CHN should also have by then the Phase 1B study.  

Ms. Shatzkin confirmed to the board that the CHN would be at the next Planning Board meeting on April 25th.


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


Sylvia Mills,