Planning Board Minutes 2006 08-08

VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 in the Municipal Building.


MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fran Allen, Acting as Chairperson
Vincent Andrews
Deven Sharma

ABSENT:
Chris Kehoe, Chairman
Robert Luntz

ALSO PRESENT:
Ann Gallelli, Liaison from the Village Board
Thomas Brennan, Member of 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 Fran Allen, acting as chairperson in Chris Kehoe’s absence.

2.   NEW BUSINESS:

a)   M&A Real Estate Development Corp. – 1216 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.19 Blk. 1 Lot 4.03) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New Single-Family Dwelling

John Alfonzetti, P.E. of MGM Burbon LLC, and Angelo Cipriano, owner of the property, were present for this application.

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant came before the Planning Board two years ago and was granted subdivision approval for Lot #3 of the Velardo Subdivision.  The Applicant is before the Planning Board tonight for a minor site plan approval for construction of a house on new Lot #4.  Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the site plan for Lot #4 is exactly the same plan that was submitted for the subdivision.  The house has been twisted around slightly so that the front of the house is facing the driveway somewhat more than it was before.

Chairperson Allen noted that Messrs. Andrews and Sharma were not on the Planning Board when this two-lot subdivision was approved.  She suggested that Mr. Alfonzetti should provide background information on the site itself to these “new” board members.

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant spent a considerable amount of time obtaining approval from the Planning Board of the two-lot subdivision. There were steep slopes and tree issues.  The lot is essentially a flag lot.  Mr. Alfonzetti stated that, upon the recommendation of the previous board members, the Applicant rotated the house and moved the driveway.  The Applicant has the required amount of street frontage for a lot in this location.  There is a shared driveway that would service the entire subdivision.  The double curb cut onto Albany Post Road would remain the same.  

The Village Engineer stated that the initial Velardo Subdivision was a three-lot subdivision, which was approved with septic systems.  It was discovered after the subdivision was approved that the Velardo property could be connected to the Village’s sewer system.  The proposed house on Lot #4 is in the area where the septic system was going to be installed on the original (Velardo) subdivision plan. By pumping into the Village’s sewer system, this land (Lot #4) became available as a potential house/building lot.

The Village Engineer stated that the Planning Board was concerned about the visual impacts of the proposed house on Lot #4.  Balloon tests were performed.  The photos showed that the trees along the slope would block the view of the house from Route 9 and the Hudson River.

Chairperson Allen asked if the plan that the Planning Board is looking at tonight reflects the fill that was brought onto the property, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that the contours on the plan are as they exist today.  The Village Engineer explained to those present that last year he had given permission to the Applicant to bring some fill onto the site; however, they brought in more fill than he (the Village Engineer) had intended to have them bring in.  As a result the Village Engineer had to issue a Stop Work Order.  Chairperson Allen noted that there was concern at the time that the fill being brought in was not “clean” fill. She asked what the situation with the fill is now, to which Mr. Alfonzetti replied that he does not believe any additional fill has been brought in since the Stop Work Order was issued.  Chairperson Allen asked if the new driveway area is being constructed on top of “clean” fill, to which Mr. Alfonzetti said that, to his knowledge, it is.  

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the disturbance limit lines on Lot #4 are exactly the same as they were when the subdivision was approved.

Mr. Alfonzetti noted to the Planning Board that the majority of the trees that would have to be cut down for a house on Lot #4 had already been cut down.  They were cut down for the purpose of installing the septic system, which is no longer required.
 
Mr. Sharma asked if the drainage issues on Lot #4 have already been addressed.  He referred to the dry wells on the Applicant’s plan for storm water runoff.  Mr. Alfonzetti told Mr. Sharma that the drainage issues have, indeed, been addressed.  They have already calculated the quantity of dry wells required. The Village Engineer noted that these drainage calculations were done as part of the subdivision approval process. Mr. Sharma noted that putting a house on the property could impact the drainage.  The Applicant would want to keep the change in the storm water runoff to “zero.”   The Village Engineer explained the dry well system to Mr. Sharma and noted that, in his view, the dry well system on Lot #4 is satisfactory.  The Applicant has taken into consideration the impervious area(s).  

Chairperson Allen asked if the plans that show the trees are from the original survey, to which Mr. Alfonzetti said that they are.

Chairperson Allen said that a number of trees were buried by several feet when the fill was brought in.  She asked what the status of those trees is.  Mr. Alfonzetti noted that there was a 24-inch (DBH) tulip tree that was originally undisturbed that now is disturbed. He was not aware of any other trees that were impacted.  Mr. Alfonzetti said that there is going to be construction activity around this tulip tree. He noted to the board members that as an emergency precaution to protect this tree the Applicant is requesting that riprap be put around the driveway so as not to wash out the driveway.  

Mr. Alfonzetti referred to the Applicant’s plan and stated that the retaining wall that was situated along the driveway in the original subdivision went all the way up across the property line and into the curb area. They were able to eliminate a part of that wall.  They made the wall considerably shorter by twisting the house around slightly.  Mr. Alfonzetti said that he would think it would be more attractive to put a wood-type guardrail along that curb.  He would suggest that if a wall is put in that location, it could be a guardrail versus a retaining wall.  Mr. Sharma said that if the wall were extended in that location, it would channel the water more toward where the catch basins are. Mr. Alfonzetti suggested that they could look into that possibility or, perhaps, put a curb along there.  The Village Engineer noted that there is a steep slope beyond the driveway.  There would have to be a wall or guardrail installed. He added that, as far as the drainage is concerned, the Applicant could certainly put a curb in that location.

Chairperson Allen asked if there were any more comments on the site itself, to which there were none.  Chairperson Allen suggested that the Planning Board review the architectural elements of this application.  Mr. Cipriano showed the board members a sample of the stone for the façade of the house and the type of roofing material that would be used.   

Mr. Andrews asked what the height of the house would be.  The Village Engineer said that the ridgeline from the highest roof is 35.2 feet.  If the maximum height allowed is 35 feet, and one takes into consideration the average grade along the side of the house, the calculated height of the house would be 27 or 28 feet.  The Village Engineer noted that there is a typo on the Applicant’s plan about the height of the house. The chart information on the height should say “less than 35 feet” as opposed to “more than 35 feet.”    

Chairperson Allen said that she would like to see a new plan with an accurate tree survey on it.  She noted that when the Applicant’s tree survey was prepared, the fill had not yet been brought into the site.  The fill that was brought in impacted a number of trees.  She would like to see an updated tree survey showing the present condition of the trees on this property.  She would want to know the condition of each and every tree.  Chairperson Allen said that the Applicant’s plan should also show how these trees would be protected from harm during the construction process. The present plan shows a generic tree protection.   She would want the revised plan to be more specific in so far as the protection of the trees is concerned.  Mr. Alfonzetti said that he did not see any other significant trees that were tagged in the area where the fill was brought in.  He realizes that the tulip tree was impacted.  He would take another look at the trees in this area.

Chairperson Allen noted to the Applicant that only three members of the board are present tonight.  All three members would have to vote “Yes” for this minor site plan application to be approved. Chairperson Allen told the Applicant that under these circumstances the Applicant could choose to postpone the vote on this application. The Applicant could choose to have the Planning Board take a vote tonight or postpone the vote until the full board is present. Chairperson Allen clarified for the Applicant that she, personally, was not satisfied with this minor site plan application as currently submitted.  At a minimum, she would want to see additional information on the trees. After consulting with the Applicant Mr. Alfonzetti indicated that they would prefer that the vote on the application be postponed.

Mr. Andrews asked about the type of tree protection the Planning Board would want to see, to which Chairperson Allen said that the Planning Board would be looking at protection of the trees up to the drip line. The Village Engineer said that some trees would have armor protection along with the construction fence and others would just have the construction fence.  The Village Engineer said that the trees closest to the buffer should have wood armor protection.  Chairperson Allen suggested that it could be a condition of the approval that tree protection be entirely in place before any construction begins.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board might want to have an arborist visit the site to look at the trees that were impacted and come up with recommendations.

Mr. Alfonzetti asked the board if the Applicant could set a boundary area for the updated tree survey.  Chairperson Allen said that she would like to see a survey of every tree down to the property line.  They need to be surveyed so that the Planning Board would know what type of remediation measures should be taken, if need be.  

The Village Engineer reviewed the items requested for the next meeting.  The Applicant should look into a type of guardrail for the proposed driveway.  The issue of water runoff on the driveway should be addressed.  An arborist should be retained to look at the trees that were impacted by the fill, which was brought in.  An updated tree survey should be prepared and submitted.

Chairperson Allen told the Applicant that the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting would be held on Tuesday, August 22nd.

b)   Philip Spagnoli – 214 Grand Street – (Sec. 68.17 Blk. 3 Lot 32) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New Single-Family Dwelling

John Alfonzetti, P.E. of MGM Burbon LLC, and Philip Spagnoli, Contract Vendee for the property at 214 Grand Street, were present for this application.

Chairperson Allen said that this application is for a minor site plan approval for a new single-family house.  

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the lot in question is a pre-existing lot as opposed to being a subdivision lot.  The Applicant owns the two adjacent lots to the north.  The Applicant was granted a steep slopes hardship permit from the Village Board to build a house on this lot.  The Applicant has also obtained a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  The granting of this variance makes it possible to use an existing driveway for access to the property.  Mr. Alfonzetti said that the house is in the Colonial style with an open porch along the front.  

Chairperson Allen asked if there were any questions or comments on this application.  The Village Engineer said that he had a question about the front elevation of the house and the windows in the basement.  He asked Mr. Alfonzetti, “Are there wells there [in the front] (?),” to which Mr. Alfonzetti said that there will be.  Mr. Spagnoli noted that the grade drops off at the front of the house. The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that one of the issues raised in the Village’s Zoning Code is whether or not the bottom story of a house should be considered a basement or a cellar.  In order to make a determination one must consider the average grade along the wall that fronts the street.  Mr. Alfonzetti said that he has calculated the average grade in the front of the house at 130.  Mr. Alfonzetti said that the bottom of the floor joist is about 5 feet above the average grade level in the front, to which the Village Engineer noted that this would mean that, by code, this (the lowest floor) would be considered a basement. The Village Engineer noted that if the basement level is exposed by more than 4 feet, then it is considered to be a story.  If the lowest floor of the Applicant’s house were considered a story, then the house, as it is presently shown, would be a three-story rather than a two and a half story house.  A three-story house would not be in compliance with the Village’s Zoning Code.  Mr. Alfonzetti suggested that, to remedy this situation, they could bring more fill in and make the front elevation somewhat higher than it is now.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could either “drop the house or raise the grade.”  Mr. Alfonzetti explained to the board the reasons why dropping the house would not be an option.  The only option would be to increase the amount of fill.  He thought that there would be only one additional foot of fill required.

The Village Engineer noted that all of the utilities (gas, sewer, etc.) have already been installed for this house.  The Applicant intends to use an existing driveway for access to the property.  The Village Engineer noted to the board members that much planning was done for this (the subject) lot when the Applicant’s adjacent lot was being developed.

Mr. Sharma asked about the runoff onto Maple Street from this piece of property.  The Village Engineer said that the subject property at 214 Grand Street is having dry wells put in to deal with a ten-year storm.  The Village Engineer noted that Maple Street is a state road, and the state does not have a drainage system in place on this street. “You basically have to go with the curb flow.”  The Village Engineer noted that there is an oppressed area on the Applicant’s property, which would mean that any overflow of water would trickle down the slope.  The Village Engineer told the board members that it is unfortunate that the state does not have any catch basins on this road (Maple Street).

Chairperson Allen said that she visited the site tonight.  She thinks that what is being proposed is very reasonable.  The Applicant would have to address the issue about the height and number of stories brought up tonight by the Village Engineer.

Chairperson Allen recalled that, during the steep slopes review process, the Planning Board had discussed the possibility of the Applicant’s putting in a vegetative buffer along Maple Street.  Chairperson Allen noted that she did not think the house, situated in a wooded area on the hillside, would be that visible in the summertime when the leaves are on the trees.  Chairperson Allen noted further that much effort went into properly positioning the house on the lot and maintaining a reasonable house size.

The Village Engineer said that, according to the Village Code, the house could not be more than 2? stories in height.  By bringing the grade up one foot, this house would be in compliance.  The Village Engineer told the board members that he did not think that bringing the grade up by one foot would present any problems.  The disturbance to the lot is limited in terms of the overall house construction.  

Chairperson Allen said that she personally thinks this Applicant has presented a nice house plan.  She suggested that the Planning Board could approve this minor site plan application with the condition, discussed tonight, about the allowable number of stories.

Chairperson Allen read aloud the draft resolution for this minor site plan application.  She noted the following two conditions:

1.      that construction milestones be established by the Village Engineer at which times inspections by the Village Engineer shall be performed prior to construction proceeding further.

2.      that the grade level in the front of the house be raised such that the house complies with the maximum number of stories in the Zoning Law.  

Chairperson Allen entertained a motion to approve this application with the conditions discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

3.    OLD BUSINESS:

a)  Nextel of New York, Inc. – Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for the Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the Municipal Building

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

The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s consulting engineers, Pinnacle Telecom Group, has provided a new (and independent) assessment report, dated August 7, 2006.   

Mr. Gaudioso stated that the Applicant’s site plan (Drawing #Z2) has been corrected.  The wording “Existing UHF Antenna” has been changed to “Existing VHF Antenna.”  Mr. Gaudioso stated that he is in receipt of the Planning Board’s draft memorandum to the Village Board recommending the approval of Nextel’s special permit application for a proposed wireless services facility at the Municipal Building.  The Applicant has no objections to the conditions enumerated in the memorandum.

Mr. Gaudioso noted that Nextel’s facility would be equipped with a portable generator plug-in connection mounted on the exterior of the building in case of a power outage.  

The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that Nextel had their consulting engineers, Pinnacle Telecom Group, re-visit the site.  It was discovered during their site visit that there were existing antennas at the site, which were not included in their previous report.   Their new assessment report takes these antennas into consideration.  The Village Engineer stated that, having analyzed the “new” data, Pinnacle has concluded that the radio frequency emissions would still be in compliance with the FCC regulations.

Mr. Andrews asked if there had been any other revisions made besides the updated analysis on emissions, to which Mr. Gaudioso replied that the only other revision was to the site plan, which shows the change from “UHF” to “VHF.”

The Village Engineer stated that Nextel’s equipment room would be in the attic of the Municipal Building.  He (the Village Engineer) had expressed concern to Nextel about routine maintenance of the attic.  As a result of his concern, Nextel is designing a hallway in the attic to allow for maintenance.  

Mr. Gaudioso noted that the Nextel system would be installed with six to eight hours of battery backup power in case of an emergency.  

Chairperson Allen asked if the board members had all received a copy of the draft memorandum to the Village Board regarding the Nextel application, to which the board members all said that they had.  The Village Engineer noted that the only new condition that was added today to the draft memorandum was condition #6, which reads, “that Nextel is advised that the Village may switch to the Statewide Wireless Network system in the future and that the Nextel system must be operated to prohibit interference, including implementation of the FCC rebanding plan, to current and future Village wireless systems.”  The Village Engineer noted to the board members that it is written in the lease agreement between the Village and Nextel that there cannot be any interference.  In essence, the Nextel system cannot interfere with the Village’s system even if the Village switches to a statewide wireless network in the future.

Mr. Sharma noted that the letterhead used for the memorandum to the Village Board has Marianne Stecich as Village Attorney.  Ms. Stecich is no longer the Village Attorney.  The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that he would correct the letterhead and put the new Village Attorney’s (James Staudt’s) name on it.

The Village Engineer said that the only other item to discuss tonight would be the replenishing of the escrow accounts for the Nextel applications.  Nextel needs to provide an additional $6,000 in escrow monies for the Municipal Building project and an additional $5,000 for the DPW monopole project.  Mr. Gaudioso told the Planning Board and the Village Engineer that Nextel would submit the requested escrow amount(s) as soon as possible.

Chairperson Allen entertained a motion to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board on the Nextel personal wireless services facility application at the Municipal Building as per the Planning Board’s memorandum to the Village Board reviewed and discussed tonight.  The motion was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

b)    Referral from the Village Board for an Amended Special Permit for 1A Croton Point Avenue – Review and Recommendation of a Consultant to Village Board

Chairperson Allen noted that at the last meeting on this application the Planning Board discussed a wide range of topics to be considered in the review of this application.  The last meeting was attended by representatives of the Applicant and the special counsel to the Village, Michael Gerrard.   Chairperson Allen stated that it was decided at the last meeting that the Planning Board would hire a consultant(s) to aid the Planning Board in their review.  It was thought that the Planning Board would probably decide to hire AKRF Environmental and Planning Consultants as this firm has worked with the Village on previous actions concerning this site.  

Chairperson Allen noted that on July 31, 2006 Judge Nicolai granted the Applicant a time extension with respect to the matter involving the lapsing, on August 31, 2006, of the pre-existing legally non-conforming use.  This time extension provides some relief from the time constraints formerly imposed on this Applicant for the review of their amended special permit application.  

Chairperson Allen noted to those present that the Planning Board received in their packets a proposal from AKRF and individual resumes from their (AKRF’s) group of consultants. The Planning Board has to decide whether to “go with” AKRF or consider other consulting firms.  Chairperson Allen said that it occurred to her, now that this time extension has been granted to the Applicant, that the Planning Board might want to take time to look afresh at other planning and environmental consultants.  She realizes that the Village Board would have to approve the Planning Board’s recommendation on the consultants.  She would not want to “drag this [the process] out” too long.  She is left in a quandary as to whether to go ahead with AKRF or pursue other candidates.

Mr. Andrews asked if, at this point in time, the Applicant has completed their application.  It is his understanding that they have not done so.  Since the Applicant has not submitted a complete application, he would think that it would be fair, in the meantime, for the Planning Board to consider other consultants.  Mr. Andrews stated that Planning Board members, Chris Kehoe and Robert Luntz, were unable to make the meeting tonight.  He would like their input on the hiring of the consultant(s) as well.  Mr. Andrews suggested that the Planning Board could contact other consulting firms and evaluate them in time for the next Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Sharma asked if the consultants would report on the completeness and merits of the application, to which Chairperson Allen said that they would.  She added that there would be other aspects of the application that might need to be looked at in more detail; the consultants would be asked to review the various aspects of the application and make recommendations.   

Mr. Sharma asked for an explanation of Judge Nicolai’s decision regarding the granting to this Applicant of the 90-day extension. The Village Engineer explained that the renewal of the old special permit for the Metro Enviro C&D (construction and demolition transfer) facility was denied.  The legally non-conforming use ceased last year, on August 31, 2005.  The use of the property loses its legally non-conforming (“grandfathered”) status if the use is not resumed in a year’s time.  The legally non-conforming status would expire on August 31, 2006.  Judge Nicolai granted an extension of 90 days following the final determination (approval or denial) by the Village Board of the special permit.  Chairperson Allen stated that the Applicant’s 90-day extension begins after the Village Board has taken action.  She reiterated that the 90 days would start after the approval or denial of the special permit by the Village Board.

Village resident, Maria Cudequest, was present.  She said that it is assumed that there might be some appeal of Judge Nicolai’s decision.  It is possible that the Village might appeal that decision because it “sets a bad precedent.”  Mr. Andrews said that, if this is the case, it raises the point that the Planning Board needs to be informed of the status of the legal proceedings.  He asked who was the point person to keep the Planning Board informed of the status. Trustee Gallelli said that Chairman Kehoe should communicate with Special Counsel, Michael Gerrard.  Trustee Gallelli told the board members that, whether or not the Village Board decides to appeal Judge Nicolai’s decision, what the 90-day extension means for the Planning Board is that the Planning Board no longer has a specific period of time to review this application.  The onus is taken off of the Planning Board in terms of the time frame for the review.  Trustee Gallelli said that all the Planning Board has, as an obligation, is to “not introduce undue delay.”

Trustee Brennan told the board members that, with respect to the issue regarding consultants, AKRF is extensively knowledgeable about the matter(s) relating to1A Croton Point Avenue.  The Village has already spent $30,000 in payments to this consulting firm.  Trustee Brennan reiterated that the Village already has a consulting firm (AKRF) that is very knowledgeable in the field and has an investment in them on this particular endeavor. The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board had also discussed at the last meeting hiring a firm that has special knowledge about railroad operations.  He (the Village Engineer) would ask the Village’s special counsel, Michael Gerrard, for recommendations.  Ms. Cudequest noted that, to her knowledge, there are not a lot of consulting firms with a specialty in railroad operations, but those that exist are “coming up on the curb.”  She (Ms. Cudequest) also said that there are some environmental consulting firms that are questionable, so the Planning Board should do due diligence if they do not go with AKRF.

The Village Engineer noted that, in terms of the Village’s expenditure on AKRF, there would be an escrow account set up for the review of this application.  The expense of the consultant(s) would be “picked up” by the Applicant.  Ms. Cudequest said that the Village has had a number of bad experiences with Applicants that were supposed to post bond and escrow accounts.  The Village thought that these were put in place and found out that that was not the case.  The Village Engineer stated that the chapter on professional fees in the Village Code discusses the setting up of escrow accounts to pay for expenses incurred by the Village’s consultants.  The Applicant is required to provide the monies in escrow for payment of consultants.   

Chairperson Allen said that the Planning Board should move as fast as they can on the hiring of a consultant(s).  The Village Engineer told the board members that he would try to have resumes and proposals in place for review by the next meeting.  Chairperson Allen noted that if the Planning Board’s selection of consultants were to work out as planned, the Planning Board would be able to give their recommendations to the Village Board in time for the September 5th Village Board meeting.

The Planning Board scheduled the next meeting on this application for Tuesday, August 22nd.

4.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, July 11, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

5.   ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:32 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY       


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, August 8, 2006, for Philip Spagnoli, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 214 Grand Street, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 68.17 Block 3 Lot 32; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new single-family dwelling; 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 Minor Site Plan application as shown on Dwg. 060124.1 entitled “Site Plan for P. Spagnoli,” dated December 6, 2004; Dwg. 060124.2 entitled “Foundation Plan for P. Spagnoli,” dated June 26, 2005, last revised August 2, 2006; Dwg. 060124.3 entitled “Floor Plans & Elevations for P. Spagnoli,” dated July 18, 2006 and Dwg. 060104.02 entitled “Required Easement Plan for P. Spagnoli Contract Vendee,” dated May 24, 2006,  prepared by MGM Burbon LLC, and a complete set of elevation and construction plans (23 sheets) for the proposed modular house, prepared by Excel Homes Inc. and Avis America, received in the Village Engineer’s Office on July 19, 2006, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.      that construction milestones be established by the Village Engineer at which times inspections by the Village Engineer shall be performed prior to construction proceeding further.

2.      that the grade level in the front of the house be raised such that the house complies with the maximum number of stories in the Zoning Law.

In the event that this Minor 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, Chairperson
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                Deven Sharma

Motion to approve by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.  Messrs. Kehoe and Luntz were absent from the meeting.  
                
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, August 8, 2006.