Planning Board Minutes 2006 05-09



A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                Fran Allen
Vincent Andrews
Deven Sharma

                        ABSENT: Robert Luntz
                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.


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 Mount Airy Woods

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

Chairman Kehoe stated that, before opening the public hearings, he would like to welcome the new Planning Board member, Deven Sharma.  Mr. Sharma has just recently been appointed to the Planning Board, and tonight is his first meeting.  

Chairman Kehoe stated that the two public hearings tonight are the Symphony Knoll site plan application and the Mount Airy Woods amended site plan application.  He told those present that, after an introduction by the Applicant, the Planning Board would open the public hearings and ask for comments from the public.

Ms. Shatzkin gave the history of how the Croton Housing Network (CHN) came into being and described to those present the affordable housing projects in the Village that are already in place.  

Ms. Shatzkin noted that, with respect to providing affordable housing, the CHN has done everything possible to give priority to people with a “Croton connection” while at the same time being open to people from other areas who might want to apply.    

Ms. Shatzkin told those present that the Village’s purchase of the McClure property, which “sits in the middle of” the CHN property, has made it possible for the CHN to move forward with the Symphony Knoll proposal.  The CHN has been working closely with the Village and the County and, with their help, has constructed a “package” costing just under $4,000,000 to create the affordable housing at Symphony Knoll.  

Ms. Shatzkin noted that, with respect to the design of the housing, the CHN decided after several meetings with the Planning Board to propose a single three-story building.  The design from the very beginning was meant for senior living.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that, from the County’s perspective, the need for senior housing is high on their (the County’s) list of priorities.  The building being proposed would make it possible for seniors to age in place.  The building would have an elevator rather than flights of stairs.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that the three-story building would house 11 apartments and 1 management office.

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 Stuart Markowitz is here tonight to present the architectural plans for the Symphony Knoll project, and Ron Wegner is here to present the engineering design(s).  

Ms. Shatzkin stated that the CHN believes it has done a good job siting the building so as to have a minimum impact on those residents, who use Mt. Airy Road.  It is the CHN’s intention, as part of the Symphony Knoll proposal, to widen the existing driveway into the Mount Airy Woods development to make it safer.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that the CHN has worked very hard to create a building design that is both attractive and affordable. In her view, the CHN has succeeded in creating something that the Village can be proud of and that is fitting to the Village.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that three apartment units would be 800 square feet in size and eight would be 650 square feet in size.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if Ms. Shatzkin could explain the relationship between the Mount Airy Woods and Symphony Knoll parcels.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that, before the change in the lot line took place, the CHN’s parcel on Mt. Airy Road was 8? acres in size and in the shape of a “U.”  It did not include the McClure homestead.  The Village purchased the McClure parcel.  The Symphony Knoll parcel was created through a change in the lot line that took place after the Village purchased the McClure property.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that the Symphony Knoll parcel is comprised of approximately 4 acres and Mount Airy Woods, 5 acres.  She explained to those present the land transfers that have occurred between the CHN and the Village and the Village and the County.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that the lot line change for the CHN has been filed at the County Office of Land Records.

Ms. Shatzkin reviewed for those present the funding sources for the Symphony Knoll project.  One funding source is the New Homestead Acquisition Fund.  This fund offsets the construction costs.  The CHN has also applied for Industrial Development Agency Bond funding, which makes the CHN eligible for 4% tax credits.  Ms. Shatzkin said that the last “piece” of the funding is the Federal Home Loan of the Bank of New York, which provides loans for affordable housing projects.  

Ms. Shatzkin stated that the rents would be varied.  There would be units ranging in cost from $600 (plus) to $900 (plus) a month.  The rents would be higher for the larger units.  Ms. Shatzin said that there has to be enough income generated to operate and maintain the building and make the loan payments.

Mr. Markowitz showed the members of the public present the elevation drawings.  He also showed a blown-up plan of the Symphony Knoll site and indicated to those present the location of the existing driveway.  Mr. Markowitz noted that the apartment building would be situated about 100 feet back from the McClure house and cottage, on the edge of the wooded area.  

Mr. Markowitz stated that the CHN would grant an easement to the Village for the continuation of the walking trail.  He pointed to the site plan and stated that the trail would start at the street, go up the knoll, back towards the woods and up the hillside.

Mr. Markowitz stated that the utility lines for Symphony Knoll would come off of the existing ones from Mount Airy Woods.

Mr. Wegner pointed to the trail easement being proposed and stated that the trail would continue up the hill to Upper North Highland Place.  Ms. Allen noted that, with respect to the trail connection in this area, easements were established many years ago when the River Landing Subdivision was approved. The trail easements now being proposed on the Symphony Knoll site would provide a much desired trail connection from the River Landing Subdivision to the Village. Ms. Allen noted that the Village’s Trails Committee has wanted to make this trail connection for many years.  The proposed trail easements on the Symphony Knoll site would make it possible to go all the way from the River Landing Subdivision directly into the Village.  

Mr. Markowitz stated that the first-, second- and third-floor plans are identical, with four apartment units to a floor.  The management office on the first floor would be 650 square feet in size.

Mr. Markowitz referred to the Applicant’s plan showing the front elevation of the building.  He noted that different rooflines were used in an attempt to break up the mass.  

Mr. Markowitz noted that the building is quite a distance back from the road. “You are not going to be able to see [the new building] as much as you can see the existing McClure house.

Rick Wenacur of 4 O’Reilly Court was present.  He asked if there were any plans for further development going north on Mt. Airy Road.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Wenacur that the only projects that he is aware of are those being discussed tonight for Symphony Knoll and Mount Airy Woods.  He noted that the property further north does not belong to the Applicant.      

Chairman Kehoe suggested that Mr. Wenacur could view the site plan for Symphony Knoll prepared by Cronin Engineering and point out the subject property. The Village Engineer said that the property, to which Mr. Wenacur is referring on the site plan, is open space property.  Mr. Wenacur asked if there were any plans for this open space in the future, to which the Village Engineer said that he was not aware of any plans.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that this land to the north of the McClure house is dedicated open space, which was a part of the agreement for the River Landing Subdivision.  The Village Engineer said that he would have to look at this agreement to see just how the open space was dedicated.  He noted the existence of steep slopes, streams, etc. on the open space parcel.  The Village Engineer said that he does not think the Village has any intention of developing this area.

The Village Engineer reiterated that he would look at the open space agreement for the River Landing Subdivision to find out what its legal status is.  Mr. Wenacur suggested that he could come to the Village offices to review the open space agreement.  The Village Engineer said that, should Mr. Wenacur decide to come to Village Hall, he would make this document available for him to review.

Francine Kadish of 200 Upper North Highland Place was present.  Ms. Kadish said that the exit for the walking trail at River Landing is just off of the wall on her property.  She asked if there were Village trails that go through people’s properties in other neighborhoods, to which Ms. Allen said that, indeed, there are.  Trail easements exist in other neighborhoods.  It is a relatively common occurrence.  Ms. Allen noted that the goal of the Trails Committee is to connect as many trails as possible throughout the Village.  Ms. Kadish asked if there was a concern, now that these trail connections are being made, that anyone from the Village could be walking through these residential neighborhoods.  Ms. Allen told Ms. Kadish that such a concern having to do with the Village trails is not a part of tonight’s discussion.  Chairman Kehoe suggested that Ms. Kadish could keep in touch with the Trails Committee as the CHN project unfolds.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any comments from the public on the Mount Airy Woods amended site plan application.  He noted to those present that the Mount Airy Woods application is more of a procedural matter.  Ms. Shatzkin stated that the application for an amended site plan for Mount Airy Woods was triggered by the lot line change that has taken place. The Mount Airy Woods parcel has decreased in size.  Mr. Andrews noted that the widening of the driveway also constitutes a change to the previously approved site plan.  Ms. Shatzkin noted further that an amended site plan approval is also required for the proposed improvements to the trash area.

Chairman Kehoe referred to the April 19th minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB).  At the April 19th meeting, the VEB reviewed the plans for the Symphony Knoll project.  The VEB expressed concern about pedestrian access to the Village from Symphony Knoll.  The VEB emphasized its opinion that “For a community that prides itself on attributes of ‘walkability’ and energy consciousness, the omission of pedestrian linkage is unacceptable.”  Ms. Shatzkin told those present that, with respect to pedestrian access, there would be a pedestrian walkway down the driveway, and the existing steps of the McClure homestead would remain in place.  Mr. Wegner indicated on the Applicant’s plan the trail connection being proposed.  The Village Engineer stated that, in so far as pedestrian access to the Village is concerned, the residents of Symphony Knoll could use the new trail system, or they could use the sidewalk.

Chairman Kehoe said that VEB member, Kevin McManus, expressed concern about the size of the parking lot and the visual impact of the lighting of the parking lot at night.  Ms. Shatzkin said that she thinks Mr. McManus has brought up a good point that should be carefully considered.  Ms. Allen noted that the light poles are 12 feet high.  She asked if there would be any fall out from these 12-foot high lights, to which Mr. Markowitz suggested that they could include in the model, which they would be submitting to the Planning Board next time, any fall out that might occur.  He noted that the lights are coming onto the property.  There would be only two lights on the stretch closest to Mt. Airy Road.  The lights in the parking island(s) are bollards.  Ms. Allen noted that, in the Planning Board’s review of applications, the Planning Board has taken into careful consideration the visual impact of the lighting on neighboring properties.  She was glad that the VEB brought up this issue.

Mr. Markowitz noted that there are large trees, which screen the lights between the parking lot and Mt. Airy Road.  He thought that the lights would be well screened given the combination of the existing trees and the “fill-in” trees being proposed.  These trees would be positioned between the parking lot and the street.  The “fill-in” trees would eventually grow tall to match the existing ones.  Ms. Allen said that she thought the trees, to which Mr. Markowitz is referring, were deciduous, to which Mr. Markowitz said that he does not think so.  He thinks they are evergreen trees i.e., hemlocks and spruces.  

Chairman Kehoe said that the CHN should provide the Planning Board with additional information on the lighting being proposed.  Mr. Sharma suggested that at the time the CHN selects the type of fixtures to be used, the Planning Board might want to take a look at them to make sure that the lighting does not spill over.

Chairman Kehoe remarked that the Applicant has provided the Planning Board with a lighting plan for the parking lot at Symphony Knoll showing a Luminaire Schedule and a Numeric Summary. Mr. Markowitz told the board members that he would make sure, at the next meeting, to provide the board with the additional lighting information requested tonight.  He would include, in the Numeric Summary, the numbers at a distance of ten feet off the parking lot.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments at this time, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant that, since the Applicant still has to go before the Zoning Board Appeals, it is the Planning Board’s intention to keep the public hearings open until the Planning Board meeting of May 23rd. The Planning Board would close the public hearings once the variance has been granted.  Chairman Kehoe reiterated that the Planning Board would continue the public hearings on the Symphony Knoll and Mount Airy Woods applications to the meeting of May 23rd.    


Sung Sing Realty Corp. – Clinton Street (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 1 Lots 74, 75 & 83) – Application for an Amended Site Plan Approval for a Dumpster Enclosure – Preliminary Discussion

The Village Engineer stated that the site for the proposed dumpster enclosure is at the intersection of Clinton and Wayne Streets.  The new dumpster enclosure would be for use by the restaurant, which is located on a parcel of land owned by Sung Sing Realty Corp.  The restaurant complex (building, parking lot and dumpster enclosure) is actually on three parcels owned by Sung Sing Realty.  The Village Engineer showed the board members an aerial map of Clinton and Wayne Streets and indicated on the map where the existing restaurant and parking lot are located.  The proposed dumpster enclosure would be on the small, triangular piece of land, which is now a vacant lot.

The Village Engineer told the board members that the dumpster had been situated in the parking lot, which was a problem for the residents living close by.  These residents voiced their complaints.  The Village Engineer noted that, from an aesthetic standpoint, the dumpster in the parking lot was (also) an “eye sore” for the restaurant’s patrons.   The Village Engineer told the board members that, in order to solve their dumpster problem, the tenant (proprietor of the restaurant) moved the dumpster to another location.  The tenant did not submit an application to the Planning Board to change the location of the dumpster at that point in time and was, therefore, in violation of the previously approved site plan.  

The Village Engineer stated that the Village is working on a plan with the County to improve the landscaping and sidewalks along Clinton and Wayne Streets.  This dumpster area has been a “problem area.”  The Village Engineer told the proprietor of the restaurant that they have to clean up the dumpster area or the Village will be forced to issue a violation.

The Village Engineer referred to the site plan showing the proposed dumpster enclosure. He indicated on the plan an existing concrete pad situated just off the road. The Village Engineer stated that this pad would be used as part of the driveway.  The area next to it would be reserved for possible future parking spaces. The Village Engineer noted that, if the parking lot for the restaurant were to become overcrowded in the future, the Applicant would have an option to come back to the Planning Board for an amended site plan for a few additional parking spaces in this area.  

The Village Engineer stated that there would be some screening in the front of the dumpster enclosure.  He has spoken to the DPW regarding the proposed dumpster.  The DPW has requested that two gates be installed in front, one on each side.  Also, the DPW would want the asphalt pavement to be squared off.

The Village Engineer noted that the trash area would be enclosed to keep it hidden from view.  It would also be screened by the plantings proposed in the front.

The Village Engineer showed the Planning Board the County’s conceptual plan for the Clinton and Wayne Streets CDBG sidewalk improvement project.  He told the board members that the County is now in the process of working on more detailed plans.

Mr. Andrews pointed out that the dumpster area being proposed is quite a distance from the restaurant.  He wanted to know what the tenant’s obligation would be to maintain their “garbage trail” to the dumpster area.  Mr. Sharma noted that, by having to lug the trash bags for this distance, there would be more of a likelihood of the trash spilling out of the bags.  He thought this was a matter to be concerned about.  Mr. Sharma asked how many times a day the garbage from the restaurant would be taken to the dumpster area, to which the Village Engineer said that he did not know.  He pointed out that the restaurant is open for lunch and dinner only.  The Village Engineer noted further that the Village (DPW) picks up the garbage in this area twice a week.  If garbage pick-up were required more often than twice a week, the tenant would have to hire an outside (private) garbage collector.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if there was an approved site plan for the existing restaurant, to which the Village Engineer said that there was.  Chairman Kehoe noted that the new dumpster is being shown on a different (separate) plan from the restaurant plan. He would want to make sure that it is clear in the property files that this application is an amended site plan for the restaurant, to which the Village Engineer said that he would make sure that this is clear.

Mr. Sharma asked if the Village’s environmental board would have an opportunity to review this application, to which the Village Engineer stated that, indeed, the application would be submitted for review to the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB).

The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing on this application for Tuesday, June 13th.


a)  Nextel of New York, Inc. – Discussion of the Hiring of Consultants to Assist the Village in the Review of Nextel’s Proposal for a Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the Municipal Building
b)  Nextel of New York, Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC – Discussion of the Hiring of Consultants to Assist the Village in the Review of Nextel’s and Cingular’s Proposal for a Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the DPW Facility, Veteran’s Plaza

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Village proposes to hire experts to aid in the review of the personal wireless services facilities applications for the Municipal Building and the DPW Facility, Veteran’s Plaza.   Proposals have been submitted by planning consultant firms with an expertise in planning, historic preservation and the visual and aesthetics aspects.   Proposals have also been submitted by radio frequency engineering firms.

The Village Engineer stated that Nextel had recommended to the Planning Board two names of radio frequency engineers.  They were Ronald E. Graiff and RCC Consultants, Inc., respectively.  The Planning Board requested that he (the Village Engineer) should come up with some additional names of consultants.  He e-mailed other local municipalities for suggestions.  An engineering firm that some other municipalities have used is HDR/LMS.  Mr. Sharma noted to the board members that, in his capacity as building inspector for the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, he has worked with Michael Musso of that engineering firm.

The Village Engineer noted that there would probably have to be three consultants to the Planning Board on these projects.  The first would be for the environmental (planning) review, the second for the technical (radio frequency) review and the third for the structural review.

The Village Engineer stated that the Planning Board has received information from two planning consultant firms to review the environmental impacts.  Some additional information was received today from Frederick P. Clark Associates (FPCA). The FPCA information is included in the materials on the consultants distributed to the board members tonight.  The Village Engineer thought that both of these firms, FPCA and Ferrandino & Associates, are capable of reviewing the environmental/planning aspects of these projects.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board looked at two possibilities for radio frequency engineering firms at the last meeting.  Tonight, the Planning Board has three additional firms to choose from for the radio frequency review. They are: Center for Municipal Solutions Consultants, AKF Technologies and HDR/LMS.  The Village Engineer told the board members that, in his view, they all have a good background in reviewing cellular applications. They have all reviewed a number of projects.  The Village Engineer pointed out that the Center for Municipal Solutions sounded like they covered a larger territory than the other two.  The Village would be “just another municipality across the nation” that they do business with.

The Village Engineer described for the new member, Deven Sharma, the two Nextel projects being proposed.  He noted that the proposed monopole (cell tower) down by the river would be the more difficult of the two projects for the consultants to review. The issues surrounding the installation of the cell tower include the environmental, historic and visual/aesthetic impacts.  Chairman Kehoe noted that the Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) had expressed concern about the close proximity of the proposed cell tower to the new kayak launch.

Mr. Andrews noted that the cost of experts to review the two Nextel proposals is borne by the Applicant.

The Planning Board discussed some of the issues/concerns, which would need to be addressed.  Ms. Allen said that a question for the consultants would be, “Is there a better place for these [the cellular installations]?”  The Village has spoken to only one company, Nextel.  She would want to be assured that the Village was taking the right approach to upgrading and ensuring its cell phone coverage.  The Village Engineer noted that the Village has signed leases with Nextel, and Nextel knows that they have to go through the SEQR process and obtain the necessary Village permits.  Chairman Kehoe questioned what the scope of the consultants’ work would be once hired.  He wanted to know the parameters the consultants would be working under. “Is there some point where we need an explanation of how far down the path we have [already] come?” Mr. Sharma asked how the application process began.  Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Sharma that Nextel first came before the Planning Board in March thinking that they were ready, back then, to move forward with the application process.  

Trustee Gallelli explained to Mr. Sharma how the Nextel applications came about.  The Village was already using some of the features provided by Nextel’s equipment.  The Village went to Nextel to see if they could improve their facilities for the Croton schools, the Fire Department, the Police Department and the Village staff.  The Village’s constraint for Nextel was that the cellular facilities should be on Village property.  Nextel proposed the two sites now being considered.  Trustee Gallelli said that, in her view, the Planning Board does not have to feel restricted to the sites that were chosen.  If, for example, the Planning Board feels that it would be better to put the monopole in the middle of the parking lot or in the upper parking lot, the Planning Board could propose to Nextel that they look into these alternate cell tower sites.  Mr. Sharma said that, as he understands it, the Village’s consultants would review the cell tower application and would “check out” for the Planning Board Nextel’s proposed choice for a location.

Mr. Andrews said that the radio frequency consultant would verify that the coverage area is what Nextel says it is.  The environmental (planning) consultant would provide comments and/or its recommendation on the location of the cell tower being proposed.  It would be up to the Planning Board to pull this information together and provide a recommendation to the Village Board.

The Village Engineer said that the Planning Board would have to make sure that its consultants take the time to look at the alternative possibility i.e., collocating on other (local) cell towers.  This is standard procedure for this type of review.

The Village Engineer noted that putting the antennas on the roof of the Municipal Building would help provide coverage to the Upper Village.  The antennas would not be visible from the roof.  The cell tower down by the river’s edge is more problematic in terms of the visual impacts.  Many people would see a 140-foot tower.  A question for the consultants would be “What happens to the coverage if it [the cell tower] were 130, 120 or 110 feet high?”      

Ms. Allen said that if the carrier is going to be Nextel, then the Planning Board needs to be assured of what the options for Nextel’s coverage is.  The Planning Board should not be limited to what the existing proposal provides.

Mr. Sharma asked if, perhaps, the Planning Board could come up with a list of questions to ask Nextel.  The Village Engineer suggested that, once the consultants are hired, the Planning Board could have a joint meeting with the Village Board for the purpose of developing a scope of issues to bring back to Nextel.

Chairman Kehoe asked the board members if, with respect to the two planning consultant firms, the members had any opinions on which firm to hire.  The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board would want to make sure that there is no overlap in the review process.  The Applicant, Nextel, should not have to pay twice for the same type of review.  The Village Engineer noted that both planning consultant firms have reviewed numerous cell tower applications.  FPCA has been working with the Village on rewriting the Village’s environmental laws.  Mr. Andrews suggested that the Village might want to work with Ferrandino & Associates.  FPCA was too busy to respond until today, so this might be an opportunity to work with another planning consultant.  Ms. Allen said that she would favor working with FPCA.  They have worked with the Village on numerous projects.  FPCA has also worked with other local municipalities and is familiar with the local terrain.   They would have the necessary background information to review the Nextel applications.  Chairman Kehoe said that, having reviewed the resume sent by Ferrandino & Associates, it does not appear that their expertise would be specific to cell towers.  Mr. Andrews said that, perhaps, this is not the time to go with someone “new.”  He would be willing to go with FPCA.  Mr. Sharma said that, as he is new to the Planning Board tonight, he would let the other members decide.  The Planning Board decided that they would recommend FPCA to be the planning consultant for the Nextel projects.

Chairman Kehoe said that the Planning Board must also make a decision on the radio frequency engineer.  He noted that Mr. Sharma has worked with Mr. Musso of HDR/LMS, to which Mr. Sharma told the Planning Board that, indeed, he has worked with Mr. Musso but not on this type of project.  Mr. Sharma noted that Mr. Musso was very helpful and easy to work with.  Mr. Andrews said that he seems to have relevant experience.        

The Village Engineer suggested that McLaren Engineering Group could be the consultant for the structural review.  The Village needs a geo-technical engineer to review the piling design and the structural design for the tower.  He reiterated to the board members that the Planning Board needs to recommend a consultant for the structural aspects of the project as well.  The actual review would not take place until later on.  

The Village Engineer noted that, with respect to the radio frequency engineer, both HDR/LMS and AKF Technologies have had experience working with local municipalities.  The local towns that he contacted were satisfied with their services.  Ms. Allen noted that, having reviewed the “bio’s” of experience on HDR/LMS, she did not see any specifics on wireless communication facilities reviews.  She also reviewed the “bio’s” of the engineers working for RCC Consultants, Inc., which was the firm recommended by Nextel.  RCC sent the Village a complete package of information on their services.  The Village Engineer noted that the local municipalities he contacted all said that RCC was a good company.  Ms. Allen asked if RCC has a connection with Nextel at the present time, to which the Village Engineer said he does not think so.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could recommend RCC on condition that they do not have a current relationship with Nextel or Cingular Wireless.  Chairman Kehoe noted that, as part of their package of information, RCC provided a lengthy letter addressed to the North Salem Planning Board, in which they seemed fairly thorough.  The Planning Board decided to recommend RCC on condition that this firm does not have a current working relationship with Nextel or Cingular Wireless.

Chairman Kehoe said that he would draft a letter of recommendation and distribute it to the Planning Board members via e-mail.  Trustee Gallelli noted that it would be a good idea to get it (the letter of recommendation) going so as to have it ready by Thursday noon for the Village Board meeting on Monday.   

The minutes of the Tuesday, March 28, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Mr. Sharma abstained.

The approval of the April 11, 2006 Planning Board minutes was adjourned until the next Planning Board meeting on May 23rd.


There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:37 P.M.


Sylvia Mills,