Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
 
 
Planning Board Minutes 2006 09-26

VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:                Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                Fran Allen
                                Vincent Andrews
                                Robert Luntz
                                Deven Sharma
                                                                                        
                ALSO PRESENT:           Ann Gallelli, Liaison from the Village Board
                                        Elvita Rhodes from the Water Control Commission
                                        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.  OLD BUSINESS:

a)  Galina Feit – 20 Prospect Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 24) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval to Construct a Second-Story Addition

Galina Feit, owner of the property, was present.

Chairman Kehoe noted that Ms. Feit’s architect, Michael Kolk, represented the Applicant at the last Planning Board meeting.  At that meeting, the Planning Board had questions regarding the height of the house and how the house, with the proposed second-story addition, would relate to the other houses on the street.  Chairman Kehoe noted that Mr. Kolk has since submitted a letter providing answers to the Planning Board’s questions and has also submitted revised plans.

The Village Engineer noted that he met with Mr. Kolk regarding the issues raised at the last meeting. Mr. Kolk has responded to the Planning Board’s concerns in a letter to the Planning Board dated September 18, 2006.   

The Village Engineer said that, based on a previous site inspection that he (the Village Engineer) performed, it looked as if there was habitable space in the basement.  According to Mr. Kolk’s letter to the Planning Board, a large basement window would be lost during the renovation, which would mean that there would be insufficient natural light and ventilation at this level (the basement level).  The basement would not meet code requirements and would therefore be considered non-habitable rather than habitable space.   

The Village Engineer stated that he raised the issue last time about whether the basement level should be considered a “basement” or a “cellar.” He (the Village Engineer) had determined that it is a “basement” based on the Applicant’s plans.  A basement is considered a “story,” which would mean that, with the second-story addition, the house would be a three-story house.  The maximum number of stories allowed is 2? stories.  The Village Engineer noted that in order to rectify this problem, the architect is (now) proposing to raise the finished grade along the front of the house and put in a retaining wall.  The space would then be a “cellar” rather than a “basement.” A cellar is not considered to be a “story.”  The Village Engineer noted that with the architect’s change(s), the house would be a two-story rather than a three-story house and would meet code requirements.  Mr. Sharma asked the Village Engineer if the basement level were considered a “story” by the state’s definition of what would constitute a “story.”  If the house were considered by the state to be a three-story house, it would need sprinklers throughout.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Sharma that this is a building code (rather than a Village Code) issue.  If a sprinkler system were required by the state building code, he would ask the Applicant to submit the necessary plans/materials at the time that the Applicant applies for a building permit.

The Village Engineer stated that a plan showing the east elevation has been provided.  

The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s plans submitted for the last meeting were not showing the windows on the west elevation.  All the windows on the west elevation are now being shown on the Applicant’s elevation plan.

The Village Engineer stated that the trees on the property have been surveyed.  All trees more than 8” in diameter are now being shown on the site plan.  The Village Engineer noted to the Planning Board members that no trees are being removed to complete the proposed addition.

The Village Engineer said that there is quite a bit of vegetation between the Applicant’s house and the neighbor’s house uphill.  This area is relatively dense with vegetation.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant has prepared a sketch entitled “Profile at Prospect Place” to give the Planning Board an idea of the impact(s) of the proposed addition on the neighboring property uphill.  The “dash” line shows the existing ridgeline and the new second floor.  Chairman Kehoe said that it would appear from this sketch that if there were a view of the river from this neighbor’s house, and a person were standing on the first floor, his/her view would be blocked by the Applicant’s house, as it exists today, without the second-floor addition.  Chairman Kehoe believed that the neighbor’s view of the river is also blocked by vegetation, to which Mr. Luntz agreed.  The Village Engineer noted to the Planning Board members that he has heard the neighbors say that they have a “small” view of the river in the wintertime when the leaves are off the trees.  

The Village Engineer stated that the existing rooflines are being shown on the Applicant’s east and west elevation plans.  Grade elevations are being shown.  The Village Engineer stated that, as he understands it, no site work is being performed other than the retaining wall.

The Village Engineer stated that an area tax map has been provided.  

Ms. Allen asked what the height at the highest ridgeline would be.  Mr. Luntz noted that this information on the height was on the plan(s) the Planning Board was looking at the last time.  He thought that it might have been cut off of the copies the Planning Board is looking at tonight.  The Village Engineer told Ms. Allen that with respect to the height the top of the ridgeline is 33 feet from the garage. The maximum allowable height is 35 feet. If one takes into consideration the calculation for the average height, the Applicant’s proposed second-story addition would be well within Village Code requirements.      

Ms. Allen said that she noticed on the revised plans that there is a new deck being shown on the second floor, to which the Village Engineer said that this “new deck” is being referred to as a “balcony” rather than a “deck.”

Ms. Allen noted that on the revised plans there is a new facing being shown on the roof line section that juts out from the house.  She asked how this section of the roof that juts out from the side of the house is treated in the Zoning Code.  She noted that according to code there would need to be a certain number of feet from the neighbor’s property on that (the right hand) side.   Mr. Luntz stated that according to the plan there would be 28 feet on one side and 38 feet on the other side, which would be well within the side yard setback requirements.  Ms. Allen noted that the previous owner had been granted a variance for the deck, to which Mr. Luntz said that the new deck being proposed would not be any closer to that property line than the deck, which was granted the variance. Furthermore, the small roof would be well within the number of feet required on that side.

Mr. Luntz stated that he personally thinks the architect has done a nice job of bringing the “new” house into compliance.

Ms. Feit stated that with respect to the materials being used for the treatment of the facade, she intends to use natural cedar shake with white trim.  Stone would be used for the foundation.  The roof would be gray/green shingles, and the deck material would be cedar wood.   

Ms. Allen asked what the implications were of labeling the basement space as “uninhabitable,” to which Mr. Luntz replied that what this means is that the basement could not be used as living space.  The Village Engineer said that when the Applicant comes in with the building plans, he would make sure that the basement plan is labeled “non-habitable space.”  

Chairman Kehoe noted that on the Applicant’s new plan #2 entitled “Basement Plan – (Existing),” the big window behind the proposed retaining wall has been removed.

Mr. Andrews recalled that Ms. Allen had expressed concern about the proper protection of trees during the construction process.  Ms. Allen noted that indeed, with respect to the trees, there are some very old and beautiful trees on this property.  She would be concerned that the construction equipment and piles of dirt might destroy them.  She would ask that these trees be protected “to the drip line.”  Ms. Feit told Ms. Allen that she (Ms. Feit) does not anticipate having heavy equipment on the site, to which Ms. Allen said that she would assume, however, that the construction equipment would have to be put on the site.  Ms. Allen suggested that construction fence could be installed on either side of the driveway.  The Village Engineer agreed and reiterated that there could be a condition in the resolution that the driveway be lined on either side with a construction fence.

Chairman Kehoe noted that this project involves adding a second story to an existing first story.  He asked if there would be any implications for the Planning Board if, during construction, it were decided that the first story had to come down.  The Village Engineer said that they (the Applicant) are building on top of an existing foundation.  If there were an issue with the first floor, it would have to be corrected in such a way as to meet the project/building specifications shown on their plan(s).  The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant is not making any changes to the house footprint.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments, to which there were none.  Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution.  He stated that a condition should be added that, to protect the trees on the property, a construction fence should be placed on both sides of the driveway to ensure that the construction vehicles stay on the driveway.  

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this minor site plan application with the condition regarding the trees discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Sharma, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

b)  Arthur’s Home Improvement, Inc. (Ujlaki-Nagy, Arthur & Eva) – North Riverside Avenue – (Sec. 67.19 Blk. 2 Lot 20.01) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New One-Family Dwelling

Arthur & Eva Ujlaki-Nagy, owners of the property, and Peter Helmes, Architect, were present for this application.

Mr. Helmes noted that the last time this application came before the Planning Board an issue was raised regarding the storm drainage and how it would be handled.  The Applicant had done “perc” tests in the field.  The Village Engineer recommended that the Applicant make arrangements to do deep hole tests as well as “perc” tests.  There had been some concerns about what had been dumped on the site in the past.  The deep hole tests would help determine the soil content.  The result of the deep hole tests was better than what the Applicant had assumed it would be.  No rock was encountered.  There was no ground water observed on any of the tests.  Mr. Helmes noted that the results of the deep hole tests have been submitted.  

Mr. Helmes stated that there was another issue raised pertaining to an existing retaining wall and its distance from the property line.  The Applicant had the property surveyed.  A lot line adjustment has subsequently been made so that the retaining wall is now in conformance with the zoning requirements.  

Mr. Helmes stated that the Planning Board wanted it confirmed that the building height of the new house would be in conformance with the Zoning Code.  He referred to his elevation drawings #A-3 and #A-4. Mr. Helmes stated that the average grade is 33.6 feet to the peak, but the average mean height of the roof is 28 feet, which means that the Applicant is well within the building height requirements.  

Mr. Helmes stated that on the Applicant’s previous plan(s), there was a reference made to an easement for utility connections.  The Village Engineer has since come across land records showing that this easement had never “gone through;” so, the easement has been taken off the Applicant’s plan(s).  Mr. Helmes stated that the Applicant’s sewer line has also been revised.  He noted that North Riverside Avenue is a state road, and a permit had been obtained from the NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to do the required work on the sewer line.  The sewer line has been revised because it was discovered that the Applicant has the ability to connect to an existing manhole by gravity rather than using a pump-up system.

Mr. Helmes stated that the Applicant has located all the trees, which are 4 inches in diameter or greater.  These trees are indicated on the Applicant’s revised plan(s).  Mr. Helmes pointed out to the board members two significant maple trees which, he said, are going to remain.  He also mentioned two dead trees, which would have to come down.  Mr. Helmes said that, with respect to the trees in the vicinity of the new driveway, the trees would be removed where they would have to grade down to the driveway.

Mr. Helmes told the board members that the Applicant went to the NYSDOT regarding the driveway.  The state has a drainage easement on the Applicant’s property.  The NYSDOT would not permit the Applicant to put a driveway in the easement area.  Mr. Helmes pointed to an area on the Applicant’s site plan and stated that the Applicant is forced to use this section of the property for the new driveway.  Mr. Helmes noted that there would be no disturbance on the north end of the parcel.

Ms. Allen said that she has a question on the grade on drawing #A-3.  There is an existing natural grade, which is below what is labeled “average grade.”  Mr. Helmes said that the area at the front of the house is being filled in.  He referred to the Applicant’s plan and stated that the proposed grade is designated by a solid line and the existing grade by a dotted line.  The drop would be gradual.  Mr. Helmes noted that the area being filled would be the entrance to the front of the house.  A gradual elevation change from 75 to 73 would improve the appearance of the house in the front. Ms. Allen asked how much of the fill is being brought in.  Mr. Helmes said that the Applicant does not need to be concerned with the structural fill.  It is going to be “okay” to use on-site material to bring the grade up in the front. Ms. Allen said that the peak of the roof is 33.6 feet, but the measurement is taken from this average grade after the fill.  Mr. Helmes noted that, in calculating the grade, he was simply following the Village Code and doing what is allowed.  He said, “We can assume a line no more than four feet from what currently exists with respect to the grade.”    

Ms. Allen said, “This strikes me as a very tall house for that lot.”  Mr. Helmes said that he thinks it will be fairly attractive and in keeping with other homes in the area.  Ms. Allen noted that, if one takes into consideration the houses in the area as a whole, the other houses are much smaller than this.  Chairman Kehoe said that he shares the same concern with respect to the size of the house on the lot in question.  Chairman Kehoe noted that the lot is large but because of the NYSDOT easement on the property, the Applicant is using less than one-half of the lot for the house and driveway.  It would seem to him that the Applicant is “maxing out” the lot.  Chairman Kehoe noted that the FAR requirements are still being met even though the Applicant is using, for the improvements, less than one-half of the property.  Chairman Kehoe stated that the Applicant is putting a 3,000 square foot house on this lot. He reiterated that the FAR requirements are being met, but he still thinks the house being proposed is somewhat large.

Elvita Rhodes from the Water Control Commission was present.  Ms. Rhodes noted that this application came before the WCC because the house and driveway were within the 120-foot regulated wetlands area.  The WCC voted to approve this Applicant’s request for a Wetlands Activity Permit.  Ms. Rhodes said that she voted against this application.  Ms. Rhodes noted to the Planning Board that the other WCC members felt that the drainage system being proposed would be “okay” to mitigate the additional runoff.  She was concerned about the drainage because “the water is (being) expelled right next to the property line.”  Mr. Helmes noted that the drainage system was designed for the storm event requested by the Village Engineer.  When they assumed a 20-minute “perc,” it came out better than they thought it would.
Ms. Allen said that her recollection is that there was a stream on the property that was filled in.  The Village Engineer explained how the drainage works in this area of the Village, noting that the NYSDOT has easements on some properties for purposes of drainage.  The NYSDOT drainage system on the easement area of the Applicant’s property catches the stream and then goes down North Riverside Avenue past Wolf Road.  There is another drainage easement heading west.  The Village Engineer stated that the stream ends up in the same location but is being diverted along some of the houses, north of Stevenson Place, on Wolf Road.  The Village Engineer noted to the Planning Board that over a period of years the NYSDOT drainage system went from a simple box culvert to a storm water pipe system.   

Ms. Allen stated that the ground in this area is mostly sand.  Mr. Helmes noted that if one were to look at the deep hole test results, one would find that it (the soil) in this area is “bank run” gravel, which is good.  The Village Engineer noted that the soil in this area is a very nice sandy, gravel material.   

Mr. Luntz asked the Village Engineer if he was comfortable with the drainage solution being proposed.  The Village Engineer said that the seepage pits being proposed would be very large.  The pits would be 6? feet deep.  There are four being shown as part of the Applicant’s drainage design. The Village Engineer said that the Applicant’s drainage system is a very large infiltration-type system for a house.  Mr. Helmes said that being that they did not encounter any ground water in the seven-foot deep hole tests, they would not anticipate that there would be anything coming from the foot drains.  Mr. Sharma stated that, as he understands it, not too much of an overflow is expected except in a very bad storm situation.  The Village Engineer stated that if there were a 100-year storm event, then there would be water, which would overtop Wolf Road; but, at least there is an outlet for the water to go over Route 9 and toward Wolf Road.

Ms. Allen stated that it is her understanding that there has been serious flooding at the Horowitz property at 2 Wolf Road.  The Village Engineer stated that he does not know if Ms. Horowitz’ house ever got flooded.  Ms. Allen said that she is wondering if any part of this (the Applicant’s) project would make the situation worse.  Mr. Helmes noted to the board members that the drainage had to be designed so that there would be no change(s) in the present conditions resulting from the impervious structure(s).  There is a swale at the edge of the driveway.  The drainage would be directed around the house and then farther away to the edge of the property.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the retaining wall is 6? feet at the highest point and 1 foot at the lowest point.  He wanted to be sure that there would be no pooling of water in that area between the end of the driveway and the retaining wall, to which Mr. Helmes said that there would not be.

Ms. Allen expressed concern about runoff onto the neighbor’s (the Horowitz’) property. She would want to make sure that this project would not make it worse for the neighbors.  She asked if the Applicant’s proposed drainage system were based on a 10-year storm event, to which Mr. Helmes said that it was.  The Village Engineer said that there would be slightly more runoff during a 100-year storm event.  The Village Engineer noted that he and Ms. Horowitz have discussed her drainage situation.  He had suggested to her a good spot to put a seepage pit if she were concerned about ponding.  Ms. Allen asked if perhaps, as part of this application, the Applicant should be offering to help Ms. Horowitz rectify her drainage problem(s), to which the Village Engineer noted that this would only be “discussable” if this project were to make the Horowitz’ drainage situation worse.  Mr. Helmes said that he would think that the Applicant’s proposed drainage solution would significantly help out this neighbor.  The new drainage system would eliminate the runoff that is currently going onto her property.  A good portion of the runoff would be brought to the Applicant’s seepage pits.

Chairman Kehoe referred to the corner of the Applicant’s property between the house and North Riverside Avenue and asked if it would be possible to put another drainage structure in that area to help with the runoff. Mr. Helmes said that there would be no need because of the vegetation at this corner, which would help slow down the runoff.

Mr. Sharma referred to the Applicant’s proposed system of dry wells and stated that there would be less surface water running onto the neighbor’s property because “all that water is being captured and retained in these dry wells.”  Mr. Sharma said that he would expect to see an improvement in terms of the surface water runoff onto the neighbor’s property.   Ms. Rhodes suggested that perhaps Ms. Horowitz could mitigate the problem of the ponding during heavy rain by planting more trees rather than putting in a seepage pit.  Mr. Helmes noted that the whole area to the south of the Applicant’s property is fairly heavily wooded.  It is actually hard to see that (Ms. Horowitz’) property.

The Village Engineer noted to the board members that the watershed is fairly limited with respect to any water that would be discharged onto the Horowitz’ property.  The water up above the Applicant’s piece of property is going into the pipe system.  The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s driveway is such that the water would stay on North Riverside Avenue.  There is a watershed coming off of Cook Lane, but there are drainage structures already in place on Cook Lane.  The Village Engineer reiterated that, overall, the watershed, which would affect the area where the house is being proposed, is fairly limited. The ponding of water would probably decrease. The Village Engineer stated that, with the seepage pits being proposed, the water is being directed around the new house.  This would more than likely decrease the frequency of ponding.  Ms. Allen said that she would assume that it has been verified that the pipe system up above the Applicant’s piece of property is adequate.  The Village Engineer told Ms. Allen that this was not one of the watershed areas that was studied in detail by the Village’s drainage consultants, Dvirka & Bartilucci.  Ms. Allen noted that during the last several years massive changes have taken place in this area of the Village.  She questioned if the upstream pipe system is adequate, given the changes that have taken place. The Village Engineer pointed out that the Applicant’s property is situated downstream from the area to which Ms. Allen is referring.  They (the Applicant) are therefore not in a position to correct the problems relating to the watershed issues upstream.

Mr. Andrews noted to the board members that from the discussion that has taken place tonight it would seem that the Village Engineer is comfortable with the drainage system being proposed. Furthermore, the Water Control Commission has granted this Applicant a Wetlands Activity Permit.  He (Mr. Andrews) thought that under these circumstances the Planning Board could move forward with the vote on this application.

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution, which included the following condition:

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.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this minor site plan application with the condition just stated.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Ms. Allen abstained from taking a vote.

3.  NEW BUSINESS:

-    Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit to Open a Child Day Care Center at 75 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 78.12 Blk. 3 Lot 1)

John & Tara Drapala, the prospective operators of the day care center, and Raffaele Tarulli, engineer representing Mr. & Mrs. Drapala, were present for this application.

Chairman Kehoe stated that this application is to operate a child day care center at 75 South Riverside Avenue.  The Applicant has applied to the Village Board for a special permit.  The Village Board has referred this application to the Planning Board for a recommendation.  

Mr. Tarulli stated that the parking lot on the property would stay the same except for the removal of a few parking spaces to put in a play ground area.  

Mr. Tarulli stated that the Applicant has gone through two iterations of the floor plan design.  The rear of the building is below grade.  The intent is to use the entire ground level of the building as a day care center.

Mr. Tarulli told the board that the Applicant has met with representatives of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services at their Yonkers regional office. Fire Safety Inspector, Joe Romano, has come to the site.  Mr. Tarulli stated that he (Mr. Tarulli) has attempted to arrange the square footage of the rooms of the building according to state law(s).  Mr. Tarulli said that the second floor of the building is occupied by a law firm.  There is elevator access to the second floor.  

Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Tarulli if, indeed, the size of the rooms being proposed meet the state requirements, to which Mr. Tarulli said that, with respect to the size of the rooms, he has made every effort to follow the state law(s).

The Village Engineer noted that, if the special permit were granted, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for a change of use approval.  The first floor of the building used to be a bicycle shop.  The Applicant would also need an amended site plan approval because of the exterior site plan modifications being proposed.  

Mr. Tarulli noted that the garage door on the building would be removed, and the wall would be closed up. There would be two egresses added – one in the front and the other on the other side in the playground area.  A sign for the day care center would be installed.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Tarulli that it would be helpful to the Planning Board to see renderings of the building showing how it would look with the exterior changes being proposed.

Ms. Allen noted that the storage/trash area would not be accessible when cars are parked in that area of the parking lot.  

Mr. Luntz asked about the parking for the employees along South Riverside Avenue.  Mr. Tarulli noted that, by code, 24 parking spaces are required for this property.  However, given the slender configuration of this lot and the playground and fire safety requirements, he (Mr. Tarulli) has dropped the number of parking spaces down to 19 spaces.  Mr. Tarulli noted that the way cars would line up at the day care center vehicles would be forced to do “K” maneuvers.  Mr. Tarulli stated that South Riverside Avenue is a state road, and parking is allowed along this road.  It would facilitate the parking at the day care center to have the employees of the day care center park along South Riverside Avenue.         

Mr. Sharma asked if the required off-street parking is 24 parking spaces, to which Mr. Tarulli replied that, as he understands the code, 24 spaces are required, and this would include the parking for the law office(s).  Chairman Kehoe asked if there would be different parking requirements for a day care center, to which the Village Engineer stated that there is an additional requirement for schools.  Chairman Kehoe asked what the state classification of the Applicant’s proposed facility would be, to which the Village Engineer replied that it is (would be) classified as a day care center.

Mr. Sharma noted that some of the issues to be considered regarding the parking would be employee parking, vehicles making deliveries, and parents bringing in and picking up their children.

The Village Engineer told the board members that he would look into the parking requirements for this property.  He would look to see if there was ever a variance granted for the parking.  Mr. Tarulli said that 24 spaces are required, but there are probably only 21 or 22 spaces currently at the site.  

The Village Engineer reiterated that the first floor of this building was previously being used as a bicycle shop (ET Cycle).  The second floor is still being used as a law office.  He (the Village Engineer) has driven by the site many times and, having taken a casual look, he has noticed that the parking lot was (is) never full.  The Village Engineer noted that there might be additional parking requirements for the professional office space upstairs.  He would look into it.

Mr. Sharma said that it would seem to him that the northbound lane of South Riverside Avenue would not be wide enough for parking cars.  Ms. Rhodes said that she has never seen parking on the street in front of ET Cycle.  Mr. Sharma said that he would like to see a zoning analysis on the parking e.g., the parking requirements for the building, street parking, etc.

The Village Engineer noted that there is a curb in the road in this location.  There is also a fire hydrant close by.  The Applicant would need to look at what areas of the street could be utilized for parking.  The Village Engineer noted that, in the past, there have been sight distance issues with people parking along the state highway.  The reason why this has not been a concern at ET Cycle is because there has always been plenty of room for parking in the parking lot. The Applicant would have to address these parking issues as part of the day care center proposal.  The Village Engineer stated that, with respect to the parking along the street, the DPW would also have to become involved.  

Mrs. Drapala told the board members that she and her husband have owned a bagel shop and deli in Eastchester.  She has had experience working in St. Anne’s School and would love to open a child day care center in the Village.  She thinks that the old ET Cycle facility would be a great spot.  She and her husband are residents of the Village.  They would very much like to operate a business in the Village.  Mrs. Drapala said that they would need ten employees for the day care center.  There would be two teachers per classroom.  

Mrs. Drapala stated that she and her husband have joined the Westchester Child Care Council. If their day care proposal were approved, this organization would help them with the hiring of teachers, the salaries to be offered, etc.  This organization has also worked with them to obtain their day care license.  

Mrs. Drapala stated that she and her husband are renting the space.  The interior space has been designed in such a way as to have five rooms with two adults assigned to each room.  She and her husband would be in the office.  She would be doing the bookkeeping.  They would hire a director to create programs for each age group.  Chairman Kehoe asked if they “maxed out” at 66 children because of the size of the space, to which Mrs. Drapala said that this is, indeed, the case.

Mr. Andrews asked if there would be any kind of food preparation on the premises, to which Mrs. Drapala said, “No.”  The children would be bringing their own lunch.  They (the day care) would provide breakfast and snacks.  The children would eat in their classrooms.

Mr. Luntz said that even though the Applicant’s proposed design plan would appear to meet the state’s “number requirements,” it would seem to him that this Applicant could benefit from the expertise of an architect who has had formal training in designing this kind of space.  Mr. Luntz thought that the way the space was arranged was “a bit of a maze.”  Mr. Luntz suggested to the Applicant that perhaps they could hire an architect to look into the design.  Mrs. Drapala said that the plumbing in the building is in the back.  The building itself dictated the design plan for the day care center.  Mr. Luntz said that he just thinks the building could benefit from the “order and rigor of a plan layout.”

Mr. Tarulli noted that, with respect to the playground area, there would be a 3?-inch thick foam rubber pad placed on top of the existing asphalt surface.

Mr. Sharma stated that a zoning analysis should be submitted.  This property is located close to a residential area.  The Planning Board would need to know, in so far as the setbacks are concerned, whether this site is adequate for this kind of use.  Noise is also a factor.  The Village Engineer stated that, in so far as the setbacks are concerned, the playground has to be 20 feet away from the residential property line; this would be the case with this playground.

Chairman Kehoe stated that the Applicant should contact the Village Engineer with respect to the parking requirements.  He noted that a long-term site plan issue to be addressed would be the parking at the site and how the parking lot could be rearranged to better accommodate the flow of traffic on and off the site. The Village Engineer noted that there would be a number of people wanting to get in and out of the site quickly.  It would be important for the Applicant to come up with a plan to facilitate the traffic flow.  An analysis of pedestrian and vehicular movements would need to be submitted.  

The Village Engineer asked what the timeframe for drop-off of the children would be, to which Mrs. Drapala said probably between 6:30 and 9:30 A.M.  The Village Engineer stated that the Planning Board would need information on the parking situation for the other tenants in the building e.g., when they come and go, where they park, etc.  Mr. Sharma noted that it would also be important to know when the lawyers’ clients are coming to the site.

Ms. Allen asked if there was any parking on Grand Street, to which Mr. Tarulli said that, to his knowledge, there is no parking on Grand Street.  The Village Engineer said that, as he recalls the application(s) made to the Village in the past, access to the site off of Grand Street was never approved.

Mr. Sharma said that, with respect to the traffic flow in and out of the site, more work would have to be done to see if this could be a “workable scenario.”

The Village Engineer told the Applicant that the Planning Board/Village Board would need a letter from the property owner granting authority for this Applicant (the tenant) to act on this application.  

The Village Engineer stated that, for the next meeting, a short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) should be submitted.  

The Village Engineer brought up the issue of the old retaining wall on the property, which is in a deteriorating state. He said that it is just a matter of time before that retaining wall would need to be replaced.  Mr. Tarulli told those present that he does not personally know the owner of the property, but he would guess that the owner is aware of the deteriorating condition of the retaining wall.  Mr. Tarulli said that it is his opinion based on his visual inspection of the wall that the wall is bulging out.  He has seen no cracks in the wall and/or no water running through it.  In this way, it still looks to be solid.

Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant to be in touch with the Village Engineer’s office when they are ready to come back before the Planning Board.

4.  OTHER BUSINESS:

-     Chairman Kehoe noted to the board members that the Bicycle-Pedestrian Committee is having a meeting on the evening of Thursday, September 28th.  Joshua Moreinis is the head of the committee.  Trustee Gallelli stated that the purpose of the meeting is to solicit public input in terms of pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the Village.  The Bicycle-Pedestrian Committee was set up to follow the direction given in the Comprehensive Plan to connect Village neighborhoods with bicycle/pedestrian walkways.  

-     Chairman Kehoe told the board that on the afternoon of September 28th, he would be meeting with Trustee Gallelli, the Village Manager, the Village Engineer and representatives of Malcolm Pirnie on the 1A Croton Point Avenue application.  This would be the initial discussion with Malcolm Pirnie on how this consultant is going to work with the Planning Board/Village Board on the review of this application.  Chairman Kehoe noted that there has already been some discussion about hiring a railroad transportation expert to help in the review as well.  This issue would also be discussed at the meeting with Malcolm Pirnie.

5.   ADJOURNMENT:

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

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY       

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 and Tuesday, September 26, 2006, for Arthur’s Home Improvement, Inc. (Ujlaki-Nagy, Arthur & Eva), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located on North Riverside Avenue, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.19 Block 2 Lot 20.01; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new single-family dwelling; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant went before the Water Control Commission on September 20, 2006 and was granted a Wetlands Activity Permit; 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. Site-1 entitled “Proposed Site Plan Zoning Data & Schedules,” dated April 15, 2005, last revised September 21, 2006; Dwg. Site-2 entitled “Erosion Control, Grading, Drainage & Utilities Plan,” dated April 15, 2005, last revised September 21, 2006; Dwg. Site-3 entitled “NYSDOT Details & Requirements,” dated April 29, 2005, last revised September 13, 2006; Dwg. Site-4 entitled “Existing Site Drainage Plan & Tax Map,” dated September 13, 2006; Dwg. A-1 entitled “Basement/Foundation & First Floor Plan,” dated October 20, 2005, last revised November 10, 2005; Dwg. A-2 entitled “Second Floor Plan Attic/Roof Plan,” dated October 20, 2005, last revised November 10, 2005; Dwg. A-3 entitled “Front & Left Side Elevations Window & Door Schedules,” dated May 6, 2005, last revised September 13, 2006; Dwg. A-4 entitled “Rear & Right Side Elevations,” dated May 6, 2005, last revised September 13, 2006; and Dwg. A-5 entitled “Foundation, Wall & Cornice Details,” dated October 20, 2005, last revised November 10, 2005, prepared by The Helmes Group, be approved subject to the following condition:

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.

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 4 to 0.   Ms. Allen abstained.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, September 26, 2006.


RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 and Tuesday, September 26, 2006 for Galina Feit, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 20 Prospect Place, in the RA-25 Zoning District, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 4 Lot 24 (formerly #33 217 1F); and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a second-story addition; and

WHEREAS, a Minor Site Plan approval is required because the proposed addition exceeds the 80% FAR requirement; 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 six drawings entitled “Site Plan;” “First Level Plan – Levels 1 & 2;” “Second Level Plan – Levels 3 & 4;” “North Elevation;” “West Elevation;” and “South Elevation;” respectively, received by the Planning Board on September 6, 2006, revised and resubmitted to the Planning Board on September 20, 2006, and two drawings entitled “Basement Plan – (Existing)” and “East Elevation,” respectively, received by the Planning Board on September 20, 2006, prepared by Michael Kolk, Architect, be approved subject to the following condition:

1.      that a construction fence be placed on both sides of the driveway, or as directed by the Village Engineer, to ensure that construction vehicles do not cause any damage to the existing trees.

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. Sharma, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, September 26, 2006.