Planning Board Minutes 2006 05-23
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                Fran Allen
Deven Sharma

                        ABSENT: Vincent Andrews
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.


2.  PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED:

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), and Stuart Markowitz of SMA Architecture Planning Interiors P.C., were present for the Symphony Knoll and Mount Airy Woods applications.

Mr. Markowitz noted to the board members that, at the last meeting, there was a question about the lighting fixtures to be used at Symphony Knoll. He distributed to the board members illustrations of the proposed bollards and 12-foot pole lighting.  Ms. Allen noted that on the pole light the light bulb is below the shield.  Mr. Markowitz referred to the revised lighting distribution plan and said that the revised plan shows that after 10 feet or so, the light being distributed is down to .1 foot candles.  

Ms. Allen had a question about the spillage of light off of the parking lot area.  It would seem from the lighting plan that it would be possible to see the parking lot area diffusely lit up at night.  Mr. Markowitz stated that the lighting would be similar to what is at Mount Airy Woods right now. Ms. Allen noted that the new information provided to the board members shows that there is light spillage beyond the parking lot; however, it appears to be relatively insubstantial. Mr. Markowitz said that this is, indeed, the case.  It would be .1 or less at a distance of 18 feet beyond the parking lot area.



Ms. Allen said that she also had a question about the wattage. She asked how bright the lights in the parking lot would be, to which Mr. Markowitz said, 100 watts. The Village Engineer noted that someone driving down Mt. Airy Road would perceive the lights in the parking lot but at very low levels. Very little light would “reach the eye.” Ms. Allen said that the area would still look different at night than it does now.  Even though the light is “not in your eyes,” someone driving down Mt. Airy Road could still see the lights from the parking lot.  The intensity of the light diffused in the parking area is dependent upon the wattage and the number of light fixtures. The number of fixtures is being increased.  Mr. Markowitz noted that the lighting would also be screened by the large trees that are situated between the parking lot and the street.  

Ms. Allen asked why this particular light fixture was chosen, to which Mr. Markowitz replied that this particular fixture is similar to what is at Mount Airy Woods.  They wanted them to match as much as possible.  

The Village Engineer noted that there is a house situated behind the Symphony Knoll site, but the three-story building would block the view of the parking lot.     

Ms. Allen referred to the revised lighting distribution plan and stated that the numbers inside the parking lot area are different from those on the original plan.  Mr. Markowitz replied that the reason the numbers are different is because they moved the parameters on the model somewhat.

Ms. Allen noted that there are plenty of parking lots, which are lit up enough to find one’s car, but the lighting is really low.  She hoped that at some point the Village would come up with a standard for lighting whereby the lighting would be adequate for finding one’s car and for keeping a parking lot safe, but low enough to be unobtrusive to the neighbors.  Ms. Allen thought that a different style of light fixture would probably have reduced the level of the lighting in the parking area at the Symphony Knoll site. Mr. Markowitz noted that, for a parking lot, 12-foot poles are relatively low.  Lowering the standards to 10 feet would probably create “dark spots” within the parking lot.  

Ms. Allen thanked the CHN for bringing in the revised lighting distribution plan.  She noted to the Applicant that, when reviewing lighting plans, the Planning Board wants to keep the focus on the impacts of the lighting on neighboring properties.  The Planning Board is concerned about light pollution in the Village.  Although the lighting has been kept at a relatively low level for Symphony Knoll, she is not sure if the lighting is as low as it could possibly be.  Mr. Markowitz assured Ms. Allen that, compared to other parking lots, the lighting at the parking lot at Symphony Knoll is relatively low.

Chairman Kehoe asked if the light poles at Mount Airy Woods are 12 feet high, to which Mr. Markowitz said that they are.

Mr. Sharma said that, generally speaking, the lighting should not spill out and/or illuminate neighboring properties and there should not be any glare.  He did not see these adverse impacts caused by lighting occurring in this situation.

The Village Engineer had a question about the front parking lot retaining wall.  He wanted to know if it would be possible to eliminate that retaining wall.  He noted that they have relocated the trail.  Mr. Markowitz said that they would not want to have to grade so heavily that the big trees would be buried.  They would (also) not want to have to make it so steep that it would become an issue for maintenance.  Mr. Markowitz suggested that, instead of eliminating the wall altogether, they could reduce the height of the wall.  The Village Engineer said that they should look into the possibility of reducing the height.  Mr. Markowitz noted that they would be using stone facing for the front retaining wall.  He did not know if they would be able to use the stone facing for the wall facing the building.  

Mr. Markowitz referred to a condition in the draft resolution prepared by the Planning Board for the Symphony Knoll application.  The condition states that a note should be added to the plan requiring any continuous ground water to be diverted from the infiltration system and to be piped to a location downstream.  He asked the Village Engineer if he was referring to the drains that they have already located.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Markowitz that he (the Village Engineer) would want to prevent any water flowing downhill in the springtime from filling up the infiltration ditch. If there is something special that would be required to divert the water, then they (the Applicant) should look into it.         

The Village Engineer noted to the board that, since they received their copy of the draft resolution for Symphony Knoll, he has made a correction to the first paragraph.  The first paragraph identifies the section, block and lot number for Symphony Knoll.  As a result of the lot line change on the CHN property, Symphony Knoll and Mount Airy Woods now have two separate tax identification numbers.  Symphony Knoll is now designated as “Lot 2” and Mount Airy Woods as “Lot 36.”  He modified the resolution accordingly.   

The Village Engineer noted to the board members that the two “whereas” clauses in the Symphony Knoll resolution that deal with SEQR should also be incorporated into the Mount Airy Woods resolution.  The Village’s SEQR review combined the two projects; hence, these two “whereas” clauses should appear in both resolutions.   

The Village Engineer stated that the seventh “whereas” clause in the Symphony Knoll resolution should be changed to read:  “Whereas, on May 10, 2006, the Applicant was granted a new variance from the height and story requirement of the Zoning Law…”  

The Village Engineer said that condition #3 in the draft resolution should be modified as follows:  “that electronic versions (pdf) of all final plan sheets (with revisions noted herein) be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to a building permit being issued.”

The Village Engineer referred to condition #15 and stated that the word “should,” in the last line, should be eliminated.

The Village Engineer stated that, in condition #16, the wording “…and be piped to the downstream…” should be changed to “…and be piped to a location downstream…”

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Village Engineer had mentioned in an email that the Planning Board might want to include a condition in the Symphony Knoll resolution regarding PILOT (“pay in lieu of taxes”).  The Village Engineer suggested to the board members that a condition could be included whereby the CHN agrees to negotiate an agreement with the Village on a PILOT or equivalent.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that the CHN realizes that such an agreement must be negotiated.  The CHN has not yet scheduled a visit with the Town Assessor.  She told the Planning Board that the CHN would be working out the agreement.   

Chairman Kehoe noted to those present that, in his experience at the Town of Cortlandt, the Town would require from an Applicant a bond(s) or money held in escrow in case the landscaping/plantings being proposed were to fail.  He asked if this was also the policy in the Village.  The Village Engineer told Chairman Kehoe that a bond would be required if, for example, the Applicant was doing improvements to public utilities.  He noted that the Village might be taking over the water and sewer at some point; however, at this point in time, the County owns these utilities.  Mr. Markowitz noted that, with respect to the plantings being proposed, the specifications that he would prepare would include a warranty on the plantings.  There would be a maintenance clause in the contract to guarantee the plantings for the first year.  

Ms. Allen asked if there was going to be a note on the site plan regarding the arrangements for the walking trail.  Ms. Shatzkin pointed out to Ms. Allen that, with respect to the walking trail(s), the first condition of the draft resolution pertains to the trail easement(s).  Mr. Markowitz asked if Ms. Allen was, perhaps, looking for a note that covers the maintenance or the construction of the trail. Ms. Shatzkin pointed out that the CHN would not be responsible for either the construction or the maintenance of these trails.  Ms. Allen suggested that words to that effect be in the Symphony Knoll resolution.  

Mr. Sharma noted that there should be conditions in the resolution regarding maintenance of the various site features being proposed.  There should be conditions stating that the landscaping is to be done in a certain way, the lighting is of a certain kind, etc.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Sharma that the Planning Board would be approving the Applicant’s landscaping plan by making reference, in the Planning Board resolution, to this plan.  Mr. Markowitz pointed out that the site features, to which he has been referring tonight, are actually already noted on the plans.  He just wanted to be able to show the board members tonight what these features would look like.

Ms. Allen stated that, with respect to the trail, the Planning Board might also want to say in the resolution that the liability of people using the trails is covered under the standard Village arrangement for trail usage.  The Village has insurance (liability insurance) to cover people using the trails.  The Village Engineer agreed with Ms. Allen that such a condition should be included. He would check with the Village Clerk about the exact wording to be used.

Ms. Shatzkin told the board members that she has looked into the matter, discussed at previous meetings, of assuring the funding for the Symphony Knoll project.  As she understands the funding process, the funding from one source is contingent upon the funding from all of the other sources being in place.  Each one of them (the funding sources) looks at the total funding package.  Ms. Shatzkin noted that this is a natural part of the funding process.  The Village Engineer said that the Croton Housing Network would not be signing a contract with a builder until the funding is in place. He suggested that if the Planning Board wants a condition in the resolution regarding the funding, it could say, “letters of intent to issue funding from all agencies be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.” Ms. Allen said that she did not think this matter regarding the funding related to the site plan per se.  She questioned the appropriateness of putting such a condition in the Planning Board resolution.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would not mind leaving this condition in the resolution if it is not greatly onerous to the Applicant.  He noted that board member, Vincent Andrews, had brought up this matter a few times at previous board meetings.  Mr. Sharma did not think that this condition regarding the funding should be in the resolution.  He did think that it could be a condition that, if the Applicant does not obtain the funding within a certain period of time, then the resolution of approval would expire.  The Village Engineer noted to Mr. Sharma that a site plan approval is good for three years anyway.  The Planning Board ultimately decided that this condition about assuring the funding should be eliminated.

The Planning Board decided to eliminate condition #8 regarding the lighting at Symphony Knoll.  This matter pertaining to the matching of the lights was resolved at the meeting tonight.

The Village Engineer stated that condition #13 should be modified to read “that stone facing be used for the retaining wall facing Mt. Airy Road…”

The Village Engineer suggested that condition #14 should read “that the Applicant reanalyze the design of the retaining wall facing Mt. Airy Road to determine if the height of the wall can be reduced, at the same time protecting the existing trees on the site.”

The Village Engineer suggested that the following “whereas” clause be added to the Symphony Knoll resolution:  

“Whereas, a property lot line alteration has been completed which reduced the Mount Airy Woods parcel (#67.20-3-36) from 8.5 acres to 4.99 acres and which increased the Symphony Knoll parcel (#67.20-3-2) from 0.58 acres to 4.09 acres, which resulted in two compliant four-acre or greater lots in the RC Zoning District.”

The Village Engineer noted that this “whereas” clause pertaining to the lot line change should also be inserted into the Mount Airy Woods amended site plan resolution.

The Village Engineer referred to condition #2 of the Mount Airy Woods draft resolution and stated that this condition should be eliminated and replaced with the following:  “that electronic versions (pdf) of all final plan sheets (with revisions noted herein) be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to a building permit being issued.”

Ms. Allen noted to those present that in the past the Planning Board has always given an Applicant a choice of postponing the vote if the full board is not present.  The Planning Board is missing two of its members tonight.    Ms. Shatzkin said that, rather than waiting for the full board to be present, she would be willing to “take a chance” and have the two proposals voted on by tonight’s three-member board.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve the site plan for Symphony Knoll, as described in the resolution, with the conditions discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve the amended site plan for Mount Airy Woods, as described in the resolution, with the two conditions discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Sharma, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.


3.  NEW BUSINESS:

a)   Sky View Rehabilitation and Health Care Center– 1280 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.18 Blk. 1 Lot 2) – Referral from the Village Board for a Request for an Amended Special Permit

Michael Bergen, Superintendent of Grounds at Sky View Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, was present for this application.

Mr. Bergen stated that last fall [actual date: April 2005] the Applicant obtained the necessary approvals for adding a smoking room and patio to the southern side of the building.  The Applicant is back before the Village Board and Planning Board to seek approval(s) to extend the patio area by approximately 650 square feet.  The patio is on the same grade as the front entrance.  The proposed patio area would serve as a connection between the main building and the new 10’ x 40’ terrace (patio) so that the residents of the nursing home could walk all the way around.  The Applicant is also proposing a 6’ to 8’-high stockade fence (privacy fence) to screen from the residents’ view the sewer pump station situated in that area of the property.  Two 7’6”-wide gates would be provided for access to the pump station.  

The Village Engineer gave a brief history of the nursing home application. The Village’s Zoning Code states that a nursing home is only allowed in the RA-40 Zoning District by the granting of a special permit from the Village Board.  An amendment to the special permit requires Village Board approval.  The Applicant was before the Village Board and the Planning Board about a year ago to put a canopy over the entranceway and to build a terrace along the side of the building.  A new smoking room was also proposed and approved.  The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant is back before the boards for an amendment to the amended special permit. The patio now being proposed would connect the previously approved site improvements (terrace and smoking room).  The Village Engineer said that even though the amendment being proposed is rather minor in scope, it requires the approval of both boards.  In his view, the Village Board would likely issue the amendment to the amended special permit, based on what they did the last time.  The Applicant would then be required to go before the Planning Board for the amended site plan approval.

Chairman Kehoe noted that tonight’s discussion is a referral from the Village Board for an amended special permit.  He questioned the procedure to follow for the referral.  Should the Planning Board do a thorough site plan review now or hold off until the Applicant comes back before the Planning Board for the amended site plan approval?  The Village Engineer told Chairman Kehoe that, in so far as the procedure for the referral is concerned, the Planning Board would (also) want to give substantial comments on this application to the Village Board.

The Village Engineer told the board members that the Applicant has been issued a building permit for the previously approved work (terrace, smoking room and canopy).  The Applicant would like to expedite the amended special permit/site plan approval process because the construction on the previously approved work has already begun.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if there is a detail sheet on the stockade fence now being proposed, to which Mr. Bergen replied that the architect for the project, John Cohen, is still working on the details for the fence.

The Village Engineer stated that, with respect to the location of the fence, one option would be to put the fence on the easement boundary line.  He would meet with the DPW to sketch out exactly where the fence would have to go so as not to infringe upon the maintenance, required to be carried out by the Village, of the sewer pump.  

Ms. Allen said that she would like to go on a site visit before making any comments on this referral application.  She would also want to have the Fire Department review the application for issues relating to site access.  Chairman Kehoe asked if these matters relating to the site plan should be reviewed now, in conjunction with the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Village Board, or if they should be looked at during the site plan review process.  Ms. Allen said that she would want to have answers to the site plan issues now.  Mr. Sharma asked if there were any zoning issues to be discussed with regard to coverage, steep slopes, wetlands, etc.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Sharma that the zoning setback requirements have been met.  The disturbance to the site would be minor.  There are no wetlands or streams on site.  The Village Engineer stated that the drainage from the site travels down the slope to Route 9, continues down into a NYSDOT culvert and into the Hudson River.  Ms. Allen said that there would be an increase in the impervious surface, and some grading would be required, to which the Village Engineer said that there would be very little grading required.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that, should the Village Board grant a special permit, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for an amended site plan approval.  By doing a thorough review of the site plan issues in conjunction with the Village Board’s referral for the special permit, the Planning Board would have accomplished much of its site plan review in advance of receiving the amended site plan application.  

Mr. Sharma said that, with respect to the Applicant’s proposal for the patio addition, he, personally, would not have any problem recommending to the Village Board that the special permit be amended to do this kind of work.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would agree with Ms. Allen that, before making a recommendation to the Village Board, the Planning Board should do a thorough review of the site-related issues.

Ms. Allen recalled that the last time Sky View’s special permit was amended, the Village asked that improvements be made to the sewer system. The Village Engineer told Ms. Allen that, indeed, the Village requested that Sky View install a grinder system. The system has not been installed. Ms. Allen said that the Village might want to make the grinder installation a condition to granting the amended special permit.

The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board should schedule the site visit to the nursing home.  The Planning Board would have to let Messrs. Andrews and Luntz (the two members absent tonight) know the date of the site visit.  Chairman Kehoe suggested that he could email the Planning Board regarding the site visit, and they could make a decision by the end of the week.  Ms. Allen noted that the Planning Board would want to be prepared to discuss this application by the next meeting on June 13th.  Mr. Sharma wanted to know if he could go by himself on a site visit, should he be unable to make it on the selected day, to which Chairman Kehoe said that he could.  

The Village Engineer asked that the Applicant provide a detail of the fence for the meeting of June 13th. The architect should choose a design that he deems suitable and provide cut sheets for the Planning Board to review.

Chairman Kehoe noted to the Applicant that there are new members on the Planning Board who did not take part in the review of the previous Sky View application.  They would want to familiarize themselves with the project and have an opportunity to see the site firsthand.  Chairman Kehoe reiterated to the Applicant that this application would be back on the agenda for the meeting of Tuesday, June 13th.
b)   Leonard Amicola – 119 Grand Street (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 24) – Application for a Change of Use – Preliminary Discussion

Leonard Amicola, owner of the property, and Lisa Primeggia and Andrea Andrews, owners of the prospective business (children’s clothing store), were present for this application.

Mr. Amicola stated that the space at 119 Grand Street was formerly occupied by an accountant.  There have been various tenants over the years including a beauty parlor/hair salon.  A shoe repair shop occupies the other part of the building.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that the use of this space is changing from a “service” to a “retail” use; hence, the Applicant is required to come back before the Planning Board for a change of use approval.

The Village Engineer noted that a major concern in the Upper Village is parking.  There is no on-site parking for this building.  The Planning Board has the right to waive the parking requirements.  The Village Engineer stated that, when the previous tenant (the accountant) came before the board for a change of use approval, the Planning Board waived the parking requirements.  In this particular case, two parking spaces are required, so the Planning Board would be waiving two spaces.

Chairman Kehoe noted that there would be different impacts to consider for a retail (clothing) store as opposed to an accountant’s office.   The Village Engineer said that, in the review of a change of use application, the Planning Board has to consider any impacts relating to the new use.  If, for example, the new proprietors of the business say that they are going to have six employees and these six employees all have cars, then the Planning Board would be concerned about the parking situation.  Ms. Andrews told the board members that, as stated in their letter to the Planning Board dated May 17, 2006, there would only be two employees in the store, she and her partner, Ms. Primeggia.

Chairman Kehoe stated that, generally speaking, parking is the main issue with a change of use application.  Other site plan-related issues to be considered are any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, signage, etc. Ms. Andrews stated that the only change to the façade that they intend to make is to paint a sign on the store window.  They would bring the artwork for the sign to the next meeting.  Ms. Andrews said that the interior space is “brand new,” and they would not be changing the interior at all.  The Village Engineer noted that another matter to be considered for a change of use is the business’s hours of operation.    

The Village Engineer stated that, with respect to the signage, if the signage is part of a change of use application, then the Planning Board is the approval authority for the sign(s); otherwise, the Village Engineer’s Office (Assistant Building Inspector, Joseph Sperber) approves the sign application.  Signage applications are (also) referred to the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB) for a recommendation.  

The Village Engineer asked Ms. Andrews how they would be bringing the merchandise into the store, to which Ms. Andrews replied that their store deliveries would be made by Federal Express. She anticipated receiving merchandise twice a week.  All casual garments of the type they would be selling are flat-packed in a box.

Chairman Kehoe brought up the matter of scheduling a public hearing on this application.  He asked the Planning Board secretary if there would be enough time to notice the newspapers, should the board decide to schedule the public hearing for June 13th.  The Planning Board secretary told Chairman Kehoe that there would be enough time.  The meeting on June 13th is three (rather than two) weeks away.

Chairman Kehoe asked the Applicant if they would have the sign application ready by the June 13th meeting, to which the Applicant said that they would.  The Village Engineer told the Applicant that, according to the Village Code, the sign on the window could only be 25% of the window area.  Ms. Allen asked if the VEB would have an opportunity to review the sign application before the next Planning Board meeting, to which the Village Engineer said that they would not.  The VEB meeting is held on the third Wednesday of the month.  The Planning Board meeting would be held on June 13th.  Ms. Andrews stated that, with respect to the proposed sign, they would need to have a graphic design of the sign created by a professional design company.  She noted that they did not want to go to the expense of having this done until they came before the Planning Board.  They wanted to discuss their proposal with the Planning Board first.

The Village Engineer noted that, if the Planning Board were to decide to approve this application for a change of use, they could approve the sign proposal at a subsequent meeting.  He offered the following scenario: The Planning Board could approve the change of use application on June 13th. The design/artwork for the sign could be reviewed at that meeting.  The VEB meeting in June is scheduled for June 21st.  The VEB could review the sign application at their meeting of the 21st and provide their comments to the Planning Board in time for the Planning Board meeting of June 27th.  The sign could be approved at the meeting of the 27th.

Ms. Andrews asked, if the Planning Board were to approve the change of use application at their meeting of June 13th, could they begin setting up their store immediately after they obtain the approval.  Chairman Kehoe told Ms. Andrews that they would have to contact the Village Engineer’s Office as to exactly when they could begin setting up their store.  Mr. Amicola wanted to know if it would be possible for his tenants to begin setting up even earlier.  He had hoped that they could begin moving in by June 1st.   The Village Engineer said that they could put up shelves, but they would not have their change of use approval yet.                

The Village Engineer said that, with respect to the sign application, the Applicant should decide what they want for a design and then explain to the VEB the reasons why they chose that particular design.  Chairman Kehoe said that the VEB would probably have some suggestions to make.  The Village Engineer said that, typically, an Applicant would take a digital photo of the front of the building and then superimpose the proposed sign onto the facade.  Ms. Allen noted that the VEB would be looking for consistency with signs on other (adjacent) buildings.  

Ms. Andrews noted that their store would feature apparel and accessories for pre-school age children and up (4- to 16-year olds).  She told the board members that they would not be selling clothing for infants.  They would not want to be in competition with the store across the street (Wondrous Things).

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


4.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the April 11, 2006 and the April 25, 2006 Planning Board minutes was adjourned until the next Planning Board meeting on June 13th.



5.        ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:50 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills, Secretary
                                                                                

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on a Site Plan application on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, continued to Tuesday, May 23, 2006, for the Croton Housing Network, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at Mt. Airy Road, in the RC (Multiple Residence) District, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 3 Lot 2; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for an affordable housing project known as “Symphony Knoll;” and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form to the Village dated October 13, 2005; and

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2006, the Board of Trustees adopted a Negative Declaration on the Symphony Knoll project; and

WHEREAS, a property lot line alteration has been completed which reduced the Mount Airy Woods parcel (#67.20-3-36) from 8.5 acres to 4.99 acres and which increased the Symphony Knoll parcel (#67.20-3-2) from 0.58 acres to 4.09 acres which resulted in two compliant four-acre or greater lots in the RC Zoning District; and

WHEREAS, on April 13, 2005, the Applicant was granted a variance from the height and number of stories requirement in an RC (Multiple Family) District from the Zoning Board of Appeals, to construct a three-story building; and

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2006, the Applicant was granted a renewed variance from the height and number of stories requirement of the Zoning Law; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Planning Board a Phase IA Archaeological Investigation of the Symphony Knoll Project Area dated July 21, 2005; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Planning Board a Phase IB Archaeological Investigation of the Symphony Knoll Project Area, dated April 21, 2006, in which it was stated that no additional archaeological investigations are recommended; 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 Site Plan application for Symphony Knoll as shown on S-1.1 entitled “Site Plan,” S-1.2 entitled “Existing Conditions/Site Constraints,” S-1.3 entitled “Grading and Utility Plan,” S-1.4 entitled “Erosion Control Plan,” S-1.5 entitled “Demolition Plan,” D-2.1 entitled “Details, Cross Sections and Profiles,” prepared by Cronin Engineering P.E., P.C., dated April 6, 2006, last revised May 4, 2006 and A-1entitled “Site Layout & Lighting Plan,” A-2 entitled “Landscape and Planting Plan,” A-3 entitled “Construction Plans – Basement Plan,” A-4 entitled “Construction Plans – 1st Floor Plan,” A-5 entitled “Construction Plans – Typ. Floor Plan,” A-6 entitled “Construction Plans – Roof Plan,” A-7 entitled “Exterior Elevations,” A-8 entitled “Exterior Elevations,” prepared by SMA Architecture Planning Interiors, dated April 25, 2006, last revised May 4, 2006, and D-1 entitled “Lighting Distribution Plan,” prepared by SMA Architecture Planning Interiors, dated May 18, 2006, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

1.      that trail and utility easements shall be granted to the Village of Croton-on-Hudson for a fee of $1.00.  The easement documents and map be submitted to the Village of Croton-on-Hudson in a form satisfactory to the Village Attorney and Engineer.  The signed easement agreements shall be filed by the Applicant with the Westchester County Department of Land Records.  A certified copy of the filed easements shall be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.  The Croton Housing Network is not responsible for the construction and maintenance of the trail.  The Village’s insurance shall cover use of the trail.

2.      that all cross easements and map and maintenance agreements between Symphony Knoll and Mount Airy Woods shall be submitted to the Village in a form satisfactory to the Village Attorney and Engineer.  The signed easement agreements shall be filed by the Applicant with the Westchester County Department of Land Records.  A certified copy of the filed easements shall be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.

3.      that electronic versions (pdf) of all final plan sheets (with revisions noted herein) be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to a building permit being issued.

4.      that all water distribution system components meet the requirements of the Village Water Department and Village Engineer.  Restraining system shall be Mega-lug or equal.  Four sets of shop drawings of all water distribution system components shall be submitted to the Village for approval prior to ordering.

5.      that a covenant be submitted restricting the number of units at Symphony Knoll to 12 units maximum.  The covenant shall be submitted to the Village in a form satisfactory to the Village Attorney and Engineer.  The signed covenant shall be filed by the Applicant with the Westchester County Department of Land Records.  A certified copy of the filed covenant shall be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.

6.      that Westchester County Health Department approval of the water and sewer main extensions be obtained, or a letter indicating that no approval is required, be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.

7.      that the proposed location of the gas, telephone, cable and electric services be shown on the site plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.

8.      that the trail locations shown on the architectural drawings A-1 and A-2 be revised to the new trail location.

9.      that the gravel drain trench (trench end invert is 188.0) to the west of the building be extended 30 feet +/- towards the trail.

10.     that the erosion and sediment control plan be modified to show a gravel construction entrance.

11.     that the site plan be modified to show a new valve at the end of the existing water main.

12.     that stone facing be used for the retaining wall facing Mt. Airy Road and that stone facing be used for the other retaining walls, if funding is available.

13.     that the Applicant reanalyze the design of the retaining wall facing Mt. Airy Road to determine if the height of the wall can be reduced, at the same time protecting the existing trees on the site.

14.     that the note on sheet S-1.5 (note is located on Mt. Airy Road), indicating  that “the concrete walkway leading to the existing residence is to remain” be deleted.

15.     that a note be added to the plan requiring any continuous ground water flow (base flow) to be diverted from the storm water infiltration system and be piped to a location downstream from the infiltration portion of the system.

16.     that yard drains have sumps and that the catch basin with a rim elevation of 186.6 have a 24-inch sump.

17.     that one 12-inch minimum observation port with manhole cover at grade be located on the 36-inch infiltration pipe.

18.     that a stop sign (36 inches) be installed at the exit of the Symphony Knoll parking lot prior to the Mount Airy Woods access road.

19.     that the Croton Housing Network shall negotiate with the Village Board on a PILOT or equal.

In the event that this Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.

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

                                                Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                        Deven Sharma
                                                
                                                
Motion to approve by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.   Messrs. Andrews and Luntz were absent from the meeting.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, May 23, 2006.

                                                        
RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, continued to Tuesday May 23, 2006, for the Croton Housing Network, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 21-49 Mt. Airy Road and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 3 Lot 36; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for modifications to the Mount Airy Woods site plan, including the widening of the entrance driveway and changes to the dumpster enclosure at the trash collection area; and

WHEREAS, the modifications to the site plan for Mount Airy Woods are in conjunction with the development of the Symphony Knoll Affordable Housing Project; and

WHEREAS, a property lot line alteration has been completed which reduced the Mount Airy Woods parcel (#67.20-3-36) from 8.5 acres to 4.99 acres and which increased the Symphony Knoll parcel (#67.20-3-2) from 0.58 acres to 4.09 acres which resulted in two compliant four-acre or greater lots in the RC Zoning District; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form to the Village dated October 13, 2005; and

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2006, the Board of Trustees adopted a Negative Declaration on the Mount Airy Woods project; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amended Site Plan application for Mount Airy Woods as shown on S-1.1 entitled “Site Plan,” S-1.2 entitled “Existing Conditions,” S-1.3 entitled “Grading and Utility Plan,” D-2.1 entitled “Details,” prepared by Cronin Engineering P.E., P.C., dated April 6, 2006, last revised May 4, 2006, and S-1.4 entitled “Demolition Plan,” prepared by Cronin Engineering, P.E., P.C., dated April 6, 2006, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.      that the covenant for Mount Airy Woods be amended with respect to the new Mount Airy Wood property boundary description.  The covenant shall be submitted to the Village in a form satisfactory to the Village Attorney and Engineer.  The signed covenant shall be filed by the Applicant with the Westchester County Department of Land Records.  A certified copy of the filed covenant shall be submitted to the Village engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2.      that electronic versions (pdf) of all final plan sheets (with revisions noted herein) be submitted to the Village Engineer prior to a building permit being issued.

In the event that this Amended Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.

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

                                                Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                        Deven Sharma
                                                
                                                
Motion to approve by Mr. Sharma, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.    Messrs. Andrews and Luntz were absent from the meeting.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, May 23, 2006.