Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Welcome to the website for the Village of Croton on Hudson, New York

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

Village of Croton-on-Hudson
1 Van Wyck Street
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Phone: 914-271-4781
Fax: 914-271-2836


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
Planning Board Minutes 2006 10-24

VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2006


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:                Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                Fran Allen
                                Robert Luntz
                                Deven Sharma

                ABSENT:         Vincent Andrews
                                                                                        
                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.  OLD BUSINESS:

a)  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.

Mr. Tarulli stated that he has met with the Village Engineer and Ken Kraft of the Department of Public Works (DPW) to take a look at the parking on South Riverside Avenue.  Cars would not be able to park along the street at the front of the day care facility.  The intersection would have to remain clear.  There would be a “No Parking” sign installed just before the parking lot entry on the Grand Street side. On the other side, going toward the car dealership, another “No Parking” sign would be installed.  Mr. Tarulli noted that there is a fire hydrant at the far edge of the property; a fire hydrant requires a 50-foot clearance.  In so far as the parking is concerned, there would be a 250-foot stretch of road between the day care center property and the car dealership that could be used for parking.  Mr. Tarulli showed the board members photographs of the site designating the ‘parking’ and ‘no parking’ areas.  He noted that the ‘no parking’ areas are indicated by the color red and the ‘parking’ areas, by the color green.

Mr. Tarulli told the Planning Board that the parking spaces along South Riverside Avenue would be striped off.  The parking spaces would be 20 feet in length.  These spaces would be for the employees of the day care center.  The Village Engineer noted that the Village would issue special parking permits to the day care center employees to park on the street.

Mr. Tarulli stated that his parking analysis is at the top of the first sheet of the plans submitted for tonight’s meeting.  The required on-site parking is one parking space per 300 square feet of building area.  According to his analysis 16 parking spaces would be required for the first floor (day care center).  The second floor could be broken down to different establishments: two law offices, two therapists who share an office and one financial planner.  There are also four non-professional employees on the second floor for a grand total of 11 employees.   Mr. Tarulli stated that the total number of parking spaces for the second floor establishments would be 23 spaces.  The total on-site parking would, therefore, be 39 spaces (16 + 23 = 39).  

Mr. Tarulli said that the proposed on-site parking would be 18 spaces, which would be 21 spaces less than what is required by code.  He noted that the Applicant would be requesting from the Zoning Board of Appeals a variance for the 21 parking spaces.  This would be for the on-site parking only.  There would be an additional 12 parking spaces available along South Riverside Avenue, which brings the total number of available parking spaces to 30 spaces (18 + 12 = 30).  Mr. Tarulli noted that the required number of spaces would be 39 so that, even with the granting of the variance, the Applicant would still be shy 9 parking spaces.

The Village Engineer stated that in the parking regulations the calculation for parking is as follows: three spaces per establishment or three spaces per practitioner.  In this particular case, there would be seven practitioners (4 attorneys, 2 therapists and 1 financial planner) for a total of 21 parking spaces. Based on the number of establishments (4), the number of parking spaces required would be 12, which is nine spaces less. The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that he has suggested to the Applicant that they apply to the ZBA for the higher number of parking spaces; however, both sets of numbers for the parking should be presented to the ZBA for their review.         

Ms. Allen said that she thinks the variance being requested for the parking is a significant one.  The Village Engineer told the board members that this property has a long history of requests for variances, parking and otherwise.  There was once a variance granted for the parking, but it was based on a smaller piece of property, and it was granted under a different set of circumstances.   He did not think that it (this parking variance) could be applied in this case.

Mr. Sharma asked if a length of 20 feet were the standard length used for parallel parking in the Village.  He questioned if 20 feet were enough space to maneuver a vehicle.  The Village Engineer said that, indeed, 20 feet is the standard length used in the Village.  So far, it has not presented a problem.

Chairman Kehoe asked if part of the Applicant’s presentation to the ZBA would be that the day care center has (would have) the use of 12 on-street parking spaces, to which Mr. Tarulli said, “Yes.”  Ms. Allen asked how parking along a public thoroughfare would be factored in. The Village Engineer stated that the Village would make the parking for others along the street “two-hour maximum parking” and then issue parking permits to the employees of the day care center.  Ms. Allen noted that the Village would be taking away public parking from others and permitting the employees of the day care to take up these spaces on the street.  The Village Engineer noted that there is a precedent for this in the Village i.e., the on street parking across the street from Dom’s.    

Mr. Luntz stated that, according to code, the professional use on the second floor requires 23 parking spaces.  As it stands now, there are not enough spaces at the site for the professional use.  Mr. Tarulli stated that there were 22 spaces provided on the lot when ET Cycle was renting the first floor of the building.  A few of those spaces would be removed for the playground area of the day care center.  Mr. Tarulli showed the board members a photograph of the site taken on a weekday afternoon during working hours.  Mr. Tarulli noted that even though there were some cars parked in the lot the day the photograph was taken, the parking lot was by no means full.

Ms. Allen stated that the professional offices on the second floor of the building provide services to the public.  There would need to be parking provided for visitors to the site.  Ms. Allen stated that, according to code, the professional use on the second floor does not have the required parking.  She would think that before moving forward with this application it should be established whether this represents an illegal use of the second floor.  The Village Engineer said that there might have been changes in the professional offices over time.  He would look into this matter.  Ms. Allen noted further that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to see what conditions were put on the previously approved (existing) site plan.  

Mr. Sharma said that he would be concerned about the traffic at the day care center in the morning hours when parents are dropping off their children.  He would think that there would be peak periods of traffic. Assuming that all of the parking spaces on the lot are taken, what would happen to the traffic on the street?  He (Mr. Sharma) thought that, before acting on this application, this matter concerning the impact(s) on traffic should be looked into.

Ms. Allen said that she would want to know if, when the site plan was approved, there were restrictions placed on the number of businesses that could occupy the building. The Planning Board doing the review at that time should have limited the number of practitioners on the second floor.  She suggested that the Planning Board could review the minutes of the meetings that took place to see what transpired.

The Village Engineer said that his position concerning the required parking would be to go by the number of practitioners rather than the number of establishments.  It would be better to look at the “worst case” scenario.   Chairman Kehoe noted that if the parking were determined by the number of practitioners, the total number of spaces required would increase by 9 spaces (48 rather than 39).

Ms. Allen questioned why this application is back before the Planning Board when the Applicant has to go before the ZBA for a parking variance.  The Village Engineer said that in this case the two boards are looking at this application concurrently.  Chairman Kehoe noted to the board members that if the ZBA grants the variance for the parking, then one of the main issues has been addressed.  He added that this issue concerning the parking would be addressed in the sense that the parking on the site would become “legal.”  Mr. Sharma asked if, during their site plan review, the Planning Board would also be looking at issues relating to the parking.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board members could outline for the ZBA some of their questions/concerns.  Ms. Allen did not see how this Applicant could go before the ZBA for a parking variance without the Village (first) determining the legal status of the current use of the second floor. Ms. Allen thought that both boards (ZBA and Planning Board) would need more information before moving forward.  The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that he would review the amended site plan that was approved in 1995.  Ms. Allen suggested that, in the Village Engineer’s review of the building history, he should “go back to a reasonable point when the present building was built.”  

Chairman Kehoe asked about the status of the retaining walls on the site. He noted that the Village Engineer had told the board members at the last meeting that the walls were showing signs of deterioration.  The Village Engineer stated that one wall is reinforced concrete and the other is a railroad tie wall.  Mr. Tarulli told the Planning Board that he spoke to the property owner, Thomas Fallacaro, regarding the condition of the retaining walls.  Mr. Fallarcaro told him that pending approval from the boards, he would go ahead and reconstruct the walls. The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board would need to see plans for the walls that show the materials being used, the color(s), etc.  

The Village Engineer stated that, in their referral back to the Village Board, the Planning Board should make note of the fact that the retaining walls need to be replaced.  The Planning Board’s memorandum could also make note of the other major site plan issues to be addressed.

Mr. Tarulli described the material being used for the playground’s surface stating that, in so far as the covering on the asphalt is concerned, it would be like a “rubber coating.”  To facilitate drainage, he would propose that the walkway not be raised but remain at the existing parking lot elevation.  That portion of the walkway in front of the playground area would be left at grade.  There would be bollards installed on either side to prevent anyone from parking and/or driving into the playground area.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant might want to put the asphalt flush with the parking lot for drainage purposes.     

The Village Engineer stated that the street trees should be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s).  The lower branches of these trees should be trimmed to improve the sight distance.

The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that the Planning Board would want to see the preliminary concept, in terms of location and size, of any signs being proposed for the day care center.

The Village Engineer stated that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should give the Planning Board an idea of the size and scope of the playground equipment being put in.  Mr. Tarulli noted to the board members that a 6-foot high fence would be installed to screen the playground from view.  

Mr. Tarulli stated that the Applicant is scheduled go before the ZBA on November 8th.  They would come back before the Planning Board on November 14th, if they are prepared by then to address some of the items discussed tonight.  

b)  MAF Realty Inc. – 16 Beekman Avenue (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 6 Lot 46) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New One-Family Dwelling
                                                                                &
c)  Franzoso Contracting, Inc. – 18 Beekman Avenue (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 6 Lot 49) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New One-Family Dwelling

Mark Franzoso, owner of the two properties on Beekman Avenue, was present.

Mr. Franzoso stated that at the last meeting the Planning Board asked to see engineering drawings of the new retaining wall to be constructed at the rear of the two Beekman lots.  These drawings have been provided to the board members.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that at the last meeting an issue was raised on how the new wall was going to tie in with the neighbors’ (the Mormile’s) wood railroad tie retaining wall. The wall at the rear of the Applicant’s two Beekman Avenue lots extends beyond the Applicant’s property and continues across the back of the Mormile’s property.  The Mormile’s are concerned about maintaining the structural integrity of their portion of this contiguous retaining wall.  Mr. Franzoso said that he would take a backhoe bucket to support the wall and put in the necessary deadmen to tie it in.  Mr. Franzoso distributed to the board members color brochures and the manufacturer’s specifications on his new wall.  The new wall would be composed of Redi-Rock blocks as opposed to railroad ties.  

The Village Engineer distributed to the board members a copy of the letter regarding the retaining wall that he received from the Mormile’s architect, Peter Helmes, dated August 29, 2006.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the existing retaining wall is stepped, to which Mr. Franzoso said that he would do the new wall in the same way (stepped).

Mr. Franzoso referred to the manufacturer’s specifications and noted to those present that this type of wall can go 9 feet without a geo-grid.

Chairman Kehoe recalled that at the last meeting the Planning Board was mainly concerned about the condition of the existing retaining wall. There were no other site plan issues raised.  Chairman Kehoe stated that, at tonight’s meeting, the Applicant has presented a proposal for the replacement of the wall, which would seem to be a suitable solution.  He (Chairman Kehoe) would rely on the Village Engineer that the engineering of the wall is satisfactory and that it meets code requirements.

The Village Engineer referred to the letter from the neighbors’ (the Mormile’s) architect and stated that these neighbors have asked that photographs be taken of their retaining wall to document its condition in the event any damage is done during the construction of the new wall. The neighbors were also concerned about the aesthetics of the wall.  

Mr. Luntz suggested that the Planning Board should approve these two applications for a minor site plan.  He noted that the retaining wall was the board’s only concern, and this matter seems to have been satisfactorily addressed.      

Chairman Kehoe said that it should be noted in the record that the Planning Board has received a letter from the neighbors’ (the Mormile’s) architect regarding the new wall.  These neighbors would like to have photographs taken of their (portion of the) wall prior to the new wall construction.  The Applicant should hire a professional engineer to properly design and engineer the new wall. The Applicant should take into consideration the aesthetics of the wall design.   
 
Chairman Kehoe stated that two separate draft resolutions have been prepared for the two Beekman houses.  He suggested that the Planning Board could approve these applications with the condition, discussed tonight, that a new retaining wall be built at the rear of the two properties, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve the application for a minor site plan for 16 Beekman Avenue with the aforementioned condition about the new wall.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve the application for a minor site plan for 18 Beekman Avenue with the same (aforementioned) condition about the retaining wall.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  

3.    NEW BUSINESS:

a)  Franzoso Contracting, Inc. – Ridge Road (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 33) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New One-Family Dwelling

Mark Franzoso, owner of the property, and Philip Tully, P.E., engineer for the Applicant, were present for this application.

Mr. Franzoso told the Planning Board members that the ZBA has granted a variance to make it possible to build a house on this lot.  The process of obtaining the variance was a “long, drawn-out” process.  

Mr. Franzoso stated that Mr. Tully did the engineering work and the house design.  The house is a “modular” house.

Mr. Franzoso said that the house would be modest in size and would offer a beautiful view of the Hudson River.  There would be a nice, level backyard.

The Village Engineer asked the Applicant about the logistics of delivering and installing the modular house.  Mr. Franzoso stated that he would be in close contact with the neighbors regarding the details of the delivery and installation.  A crane would be set up in the driveway area.  The Village Engineer noted that the delivery of the modular house would (first) take place in the street.  For that reason, it would be very important to let the neighbors know the details of the delivery and installation.  Mr. Franzoso assured the Village Engineer and Planning Board that he would be notifying the neighbors.

Chairman Kehoe said that it would appear from the Applicant’s topographical survey that the trees, 10 inches in diameter or greater, have been identified.  He asked if that was acceptable.  The Village Engineer said that the code now states that trees, 4 inches in diameter or greater, should be identified.  Chairman Kehoe referred to the Applicant’s survey and noted to those present that the trees to be removed (‘14” maple,’ ‘30” oak,’ etc.) have been identified on the survey map by a rectangular-shaped box.  Ms. Allen asked about the 30” oak tree to be removed.  Mr. Franzoso stated that the 30” oak tree has to be removed because of its close proximity “right up against” the house foundation.  The trees are only coming down if they interfere with the house construction.  Ms. Allen said that she would want to make sure that no significant and/or specimen trees are being cut down.  She suggested to the board members that, for all future applications, an arborist should be called upon to identify the trees.  

The Village Engineer noted that the house being proposed is on an angle.  Mr. Franzoso said that the house would be designed in a way to blend in with the neighboring houses.  He had originally wanted to put up another kind of house but the ZBA said that this is the house they would accept.  Mr. Franzoso stated that the variance that was granted was for the lot depth.  The house that the Planning Board is seeing tonight is what was finally agreed upon.  Mr. Luntz asked if the Applicant maintained the 25-foot rear yard setback requirement.  The Village Engineer stated that the rear yard issue was resolved so that a variance was not needed.  In the end the only variance required was for the lot depth.

Chairman Kehoe noted that, for the new driveway, the Applicant would have to cut a little of the sloped area.  The Village Engineer stated that the ground is composed of mostly sand so that there should be no need for rock excavation.  The Village Engineer stated that sedimentation & erosion controls should be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s).  The dry wells for runoff should also be indicated.

The Village Engineer asked if there were water/sewer/gas connections in the street, to which Mr. Franzoso said, “Yes.”

The Village Engineer asked if the retaining walls are going to be made of blocks, to which Mr. Franzoso said, “Yes.”

The Village Engineer stated that the house being proposed is close to the road.  The driveway is very short, and the limit of disturbance is small.  The Village Engineer noted that the most critical aspect of this application is not so much the issue(s) relating to the site plan as it is the matter, discussed earlier, of notifying the neighbors regarding the house delivery and installation.  Mr. Franzoso stated that there would be flagmen on the premises.  The excavation would be minimal.  It would take one day to “set the boxes,” which would be the part of the process that would be the biggest inconvenience to the neighbors.  

The Village Engineer stated that, in so far as the delivery of the modular home is concerned, traffic control is (would be) an issue.  He noted that this is Ridge Road (and not a main thoroughfare); so, he would anticipate that the traffic would be less.  

Ms. Allen stated that the Applicant’s neighbors should be notified of the date and time that the modular home is being delivered/installed because these neighbors are going to be blocked in.

The Village Engineer noted that the steep slopes on the property have been analyzed, and it has been determined that a steep slopes hardship permit is not required.

Ms. Allen asked what the height of the building would be to the highest ridgeline above the ground facing the street.  The Village Engineer said that the height would be 24 feet from the front door area, and the garage would drop down.  The basement would be considered a “cellar,” which is not a “story.”  The new house would, therefore, be a two-story house.

The Village Engineer suggested that perhaps the driveway could be made wider to accommodate two cars.  He noted that people are not allowed to park their cars on the street when there is more than two inches of snow.  Parking in the wintertime oftentimes becomes an issue.  The Village Engineer noted that sometimes people have three cars.  From a homeowner’s perspective it would be better to have two parking spaces in the driveway as well as the garage space.  The Village Engineer suggested to the Applicant that, to accommodate two cars, the width of the driveway could be increased to 16 feet.  Mr. Franzoso told the Village Engineer that he would have no problem changing the width.  

Mr. Franzoso asked the Village Engineer if the next step after the minor site plan approval was the application for a building permit, to which the Village Engineer said that it was.

Chairman Kehoe questioned whether there should be a condition in the resolution regarding the Village Engineer’s request to widen the driveway.  He thought that it should, at least, be noted in the record that the Village Engineer is asking the Applicant to do so.  The Village Engineer noted that if, by changing the driveway the wall were to be pushed back, then this would alter the engineering of the wall, and the Applicant’s plan(s) would have to be revised accordingly. Mr. Tully told the board members that widening the driveway could affect access to the garage.  Mr. Luntz noted that if the wall were pushed more toward the back, some stairs could be provided in the back of the house.  The Village Engineer stated that by pushing the retaining wall back 4 feet, steps could, indeed, be provided.  The Village Engineer told the Applicant that he (the Village Engineer), and the Planning Board, are not mandating the widening of the driveway, but if at all possible, it should be widened.

Chairman Kehoe referred to the draft resolution for this application.  He noted the following conditions:

that erosion & sedimentation controls should be provided.
that dry wells should be shown on the plan(s).
that the neighboring property owners should be notified of the modular home delivery/installation.
that, if at all possible, the driveway should be widened to accommodate two cars.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this minor site plan application with the conditions discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
 
b)  Referral from the Village Board to Modify the O-1 Zoning District Regulations to Allow a Day Care Center as a Primary Use

Lisa Nardozzi and Linda Bush, operators of the prospective day care center; Frederick Turner, attorney for the Applicant, and Stephen DeName of Dream Weaver Realty, Inc., owner of the property, were present.

Chairman Kehoe stated that this application is a referral from the Village Board to explore the feasibility of amending the O-1 (Limited Office) Zoning District regulations to allow a day care center as a primary use.  

Mr. Turner told the board members that, for many years, this day care center, “Happy Tots,” has been operating in the Holy Name of Mary school building.  They have to leave their present location and have been searching for quite some time for a new space. The building at 1380 Albany Post Road would fit their needs.  This building is in an O-l zone, and a day care center is not permitted in an O-1 zone as a primary use.  The Applicant is seeking to amend the O-1 regulations accordingly.  

Mr. Turner stated that there are 19 parcels in the O-1 Zoning District.  He suggested that, as part of the review of this application, they (the Applicant) could give the Planning Board some background information on these lots (lot sizes, current uses, etc.) so that the Planning Board could analyze the implications of such a change to this zoning district.  It is the Applicant’s hope that the Planning Board would give a positive recommendation to the Village Board.

Ms. Allen noted that the area in question is not consistently zoned as “O-1.”  The Village Engineer stated that the RA-25 (one-family residence) zone is situated across the street on the eastside. Furthermore, the RC (multiple residence) zone, which is composed of the Scenic Ridge townhouses, is situated next to the RA-25 zone.  

Mr. Turner told the board that the Fire Inspector has made a preliminary inspection of the site and does not foresee any problems.

The Village Engineer displayed for the Planning Board’s use the Village Zoning Map.  Chairman Kehoe referred to the map and noted that the lots in the subject O-1 area are fairly large.  The buildings house mostly offices.  

The Village Engineer stated that the lot in question is (also) in the Gateway Overlay District.  There is a private sewer line across the street.  The Applicant would have to investigate the possibility of tying into this line.  The Village Engineer noted that this area of the Village is on public water.

The Village Engineer referred to the O-1 lots situated in the Upper Village and noted that these lots are narrow, rectangular-shaped lots.  Many do not have on-site parking.  Mr. Luntz said that it would seem to him that none of the O-1 lots in the Upper Village would be appropriate for a day care center.  Mr. Turner suggested that, as part of the revision to the code, day care centers in the O-1 District could be limited to the larger lots.

Mr. Turner said that, even if the code were amended to include, as a primary use, day care centers in the O-1 District, this Applicant would still have to come back before the Planning Board for site plan approval.  

The Village Engineer referred to the rules governing day care centers in the RB (two-family residence) zone and noted to those present that day cares are permitted in this residential zone but as an accessory use to a residence/house.  The same holds true in the O-1 zone.

Mr. Turner told the board members that, with respect to day care centers, there is an “extensive state overlay of regulations.”  The state would not permit smaller lots for day care use.  The parking would not be adequate, etc.

The Village Engineer noted that the former skateboard site, which is owned by the Village, is in the O-1 zone.  There are no residential zones around it.

Mr. Turner said that, in so far as day care centers in the O-1 District are concerned, the Village might want to put restrictions in the code with respect to the minimum lot size, parking, etc.  

The Village Engineer noted that, in the code, day care centers are allowed as an accessory use in an O-1 District.   There are already restrictions in place in the Village Code for day care center use.  Chairman Kehoe noted that, at a minimum, the Village could carry over the restrictions that are already in place.

The Village Engineer asked the Applicant if the playground equipment would exceed 10 feet in height, to which Ms. Bush said, “No.”  Ms. Bush said that the ages of the children at their day care center range from pre-school up to 5 years.  The state requirement is 35 square feet per child.  Ms. Bush noted that, if they were to move into the space at 1380 Albany Post Road, extra space would be required.  They would need to put on an addition.  

The Village Engineer referred to the limitations set forth in the Village Code on day care centers as an accessory use in a residential district(s).  He said that if the law were amended, he would think that items #5 and #7 would no longer apply.  Item #5 limits the maximum number of children to 15.  Item #7 states that the operator of the day care would have to be a full-time resident of the building and the number of nonresident employees would be limited to two.

The Village Engineer noted that the code currently states that the minimum lot area for a day care center must be 25,000 square feet.  This lot size restriction would, for the most part, eliminate the O-1 lots in the Upper Village.  The only lots that would still apply would be the Village Hall, the skate board park and the O-1 lots “up north.”  The Village Engineer noted that the O-1 zone is currently a mixture of office buildings and residences.  

Mr. Sharma asked if there were height restrictions in the O-1 District, to which the Village Engineer replied that the height restrictions for the O-1 District can be found in the “bulk requirements” section of the code.  The Village Engineer noted to the board that, in their review, they should also look at the requirements of the Gateway Overlay zone.

The Village Engineer read aloud the bulk requirements for the O-1 District.  He said that, in so far as this application for an amendment to the code is concerned, he would not think that the Village would be changing these bulk requirements.  Mr. Turner said, “This is certainly not a part of this application.”

Chairman Kehoe referred to the current restrictions on day care centers as accessory uses and stated that item #9 pertaining to a day care in a single-family residence would no longer apply and should be eliminated.  He questioned if item #10 pertaining to the procedures for a special permit should also be eliminated.  The Village Engineer said that if it (the day care center) were to become a permitted use, then a special permit would not be required.  The Applicant would only have to come before the Planning Board for site plan approval.  Ms. Allen thought that a day care center should require a special permit.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would think if the day care facility being proposed were to have 80-100 children (for example), the Village would want to have some control over this type of application.  He added that, “Conditioning something as a special permit [use] would just be another layer of review.”  Mr. Luntz also thought that it would be a good idea for the Village to require a special permit for a day care center.    

Mr. Luntz referred to item #11, which states that “Any new owner of the building in which a day-care center is operated must apply to the Board of Trustees for a special permit to continue a day-care center use.” Mr. Luntz thought that it should be “any new operator” rather than “any new owner.”  A special permit should be required if a new operator comes in.   

Chairman Kehoe stated that, as he understands tonight’s discussion on the conditions, the Planning Board would suggest to the Village Board that all the current conditions in the Village Code regarding day care centers should be eliminated except items #s 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and (a modified) 11.    

Chairman Kehoe asked about the parking requirements for a day care center, to which the Village Engineer stated that the Planning Board would need to refer to the bulk requirements for the parking.  The Village Engineer noted that with respect to the parking some additional requirements might have to be added.  He said that it is just not clear in the code which category a day care center would fit into.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would be concerned about parking and traffic flow in and out of the day care center facility.

The Village Engineer asked what the square footage of the building would be with the addition, to which Ms. Bush said approximately 4,600 square feet.  The Village Engineer asked how many employees there would be.  Ms. Bush said that, at the present time, they have 12 staff members for each shift, and there are two shifts, morning and afternoon.  The Village Engineer thought that it might be necessary to make a recommendation that, supplemental to the bulk requirements, one additional parking space per employee should be provided.  Ms. Allen said that she would not think it would be a good idea to put something so specific in the regulations.  She added that, with respect to the day care, “The numbers are going to vary every year.”  Chairman Kehoe suggested that the parking could be based on the square footage e.g., one space per a [certain] number of square feet.   The Village Engineer suggested that there could be a condition in the code that, if deemed appropriate, the approval authority (Village Board) could waive the number of parking spaces.  Mr. Turner noted that, as Ms. Allen mentioned before, the numbers fluctuate each year.  For that reason, he would not think it would be a good idea to “lock” the numbers for parking into the square footage.  The Village Engineer reiterated that there could be a condition in the code that the Village Board could waive the number of parking spaces.

The Village Engineer asked what the lowest child-staff ratio was.  Ms. Bush said that the ratio of children per staff member is as follows: Infants: 4 to 1, toddlers: 5 to 1 and 4-5 year olds: 14 to1.

Mr. Turner suggested that the Planning Board should review the current parking standards before “casting the parking in stone.”

Chairman Kehoe said that he would think from tonight’s discussion that the Planning Board would be inclined to make a positive recommendation on the zoning change being proposed.  He asked the Village Engineer if there were any other matters that the Planning Board should discuss before making their recommendation.  The Village Engineer said that the Applicant should submit the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for the Planning Board to review.  The Village Board is the Lead Agency for this application, however, before making a recommendation to the Village Board, the Planning Board would need to review the EAF.  

The Village Engineer said that he would want to see what the range of options is for the parking.  The parking appears to be a major issue associated with day care centers.  In so far as the parking is concerned, he would think that it would be best to go with the worst-case scenario.  The Applicant should do an analysis based on the higher ratio to see what the maximum parking is (would be).  

The Village Engineer noted that the sewage in this area of the Village (up north) would go to a private sewage treatment plant.  The Applicant would need a response from the sewer company as to whether they could handle the sewage from this day care center facility. The sewage flow should be calculated.  The Village Engineer noted that many residents/businesses are still using septic systems but, if at all possible, the Village would prefer that those on septic systems hook up to the municipal sewer system. He noted further that septic systems impose limitations on a site.  The Village Engineer stated that the problem in this instance is that the Village does not have control of the sewer in that area (up north).  Mr. Turner said that he would be willing to pursue this matter with the sewer company. He would let the Village Engineer/Planning Board know the outcome of their discussion.

Ms. Nardozzi noted to the board members that the site plan for the day care center would have to be approved by the state before coming back to the Planning Board.  Ms. Bush noted that the state is mainly concerned with safety issues.  The aesthetics of the day care center facility does not enter into the state’s review.

The Village Engineer referred to item #8 regarding day care center compliance with the NYS Department of Social Services regulations.  He thought that this condition might be redundant, given the state law(s) governing day care centers.  Ms. Bush noted that the state approval agency is the NYS Department of Child & Family Services.  The Village Engineer suggested that item #8 could be changed to read:  “Documentation of approval [of the day care center] from the NYS Department of Child & Family Services shall be submitted with (as part of) the special permit application.”  Ms. Allen suggested that item #8 could also say that, “the documentation will be on file with the Village.”  

Mr. Turner said that for the next meeting, they (the Applicant) would come back with the EAF.  They would prepare and submit a parking analysis for the Planning Board to review.  He (Mr. Turner) would contact the sewage treatment plant and let the Planning Board know the outcome of their discussion.  Mr. Turner stated that the Applicant would be back before the Planning Board at their next meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 14th.

4.  OTHER BUSINESS:

Ms. Allen told the other members that she would like to have a discussion tonight on the recent construction that has taken place at the Hudson View Subdivision site at the corner of Prospect Place and Old Post Road North.  Ms. Allen expressed her concern about the grading that has taken place and the trees that have been removed.  The trees on the three lots were identified by land surveyors.  The trees were significantly mislabeled.  The Village’s environmental consultant, Bruce Donohue, discovered that the trees were mislabeled while at the site.  There was a grove of black walnut trees that were labeled “locusts.”  Ms. Allen said that she would like to have the Village’s environmental consultant involved earlier on in the process with the labeling of the trees.  In the future, she would want the prospective Applicant to have their trees labeled by a certified tree expert, preferably an arborist.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if this certified individual (arborist) should be selected by the Applicant, to which Ms. Allen said that she would prefer that the Village be involved with the selection process.  The Village Engineer said that the Applicant could hire the consultant and, once the tree survey work has been completed, the Village’s consultant could verify that the work that was done is accurate.

Chairman Kehoe asked how the process would work from a procedural standpoint.  “When somebody submits a packet for the first time, are we [the Planning Board] going to have our consultant on board?”  Mr. Sharma asked if, perhaps, the Planning Board could say to the Applicant that the trees should be shown on the plan(s) as part of the first submission.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could decide what should be on the survey based on their review of the Applicant’s plan(s).  It could be negotiated.  Ms. Allen said that the point she is trying to make is that the tree survey should be prepared by a tree professional (arborist).

Chairman Kehoe asked if, from a procedural standpoint, the Planning Board should have the Applicant hire their own tree expert and then have the Village’s consultant review and approve the work performed.  He questioned how this would work.  Ms. Allen said that what she would want to insist on is that the individual(s) hired to do the site work for the trees has (have) the proper credentials. Mr. Luntz said that, in so far as the tree work is concerned, the Planning Board would want to be careful not to be unreasonable in their demands.  Ms. Allen reiterated that she would just want to be sure that those hired to do the work are experts in the field.  

Ms. Allen said that, in her view, the Village’s environmental consultant is getting involved with projects too late in the process.  

The Village Engineer said that the board needs to consider the type of project and the costs associated with it.  “If someone comes in with a minor site plan on one lot, [it] could be different from the subdivision of five lots.”  

Ms. Allen expressed concern about the cutting of the trees at the Hudson View Subdivision site.  She noted that the Planning Board had approved only one minor site plan for the subdivision (Lot #3). The Planning Board has not yet seen or approved the applications for a minor site plan for the houses on Lots #’s 1 and 2.  The trees have been removed and the grading has taken place for all three lots.  She questioned why the property was cleared for the entire subdivision when the Planning Board had not yet seen the minor site plan applications for the two remaining lots.  The Village Engineer noted to the board members that the Planning Board approved this subdivision (Hudson View) with the trees to be removed.  He suggested to the Planning Board that, for future applications, the Planning Board might want to say that a tree removal permit would be issued with the minor site plan approval.  

The Village Engineer explained to the board members the land-clearing activities to date on the Hudson View Subdivision site.  Lot #1 needed to be cleared to put the fill there. The Village Engineer told the board that when the developer of the Hudson View Subdivision digs the hole for the retention pond, the fill is going to be placed on the lower lot (Lot #1). The Village Engineer noted that the fill is in a good location from an erosion control standpoint.  There would be no drainage coming onto the fill.

The Village Engineer suggested that perhaps, in the future, the Planning Board could ask for construction phasing plans.

Ms. Allen expressed her concern again that a major amount of grading took place and trees were removed without the Planning Board’s having seen plans for the houses on the two remaining lots. She questioned if, indeed, markers were put up in the field to delineate the limit(s) of disturbance.  The Village Engineer noted that the Village’s consultant, Bruce Donohue, put up the flags.  He (Mr. Donohue) discussed the limit(s) of disturbance with the owner/developer. The Village Engineer noted that the developer ran out of construction fence and had to come back.  The fence should have been up ahead of time.

Chairman Kehoe said that he shares Ms. Allen’s concern about having this type of construction activity going on without the Planning Board’s having looked at the minor site plans for the two remaining lots.  “What is left for the Planning Board to do if the sites have already been prepared for the houses?”  Chairman Kehoe noted that, [in so far as these construction activities are concerned], “It’s a balancing act between the Village Engineer and the Planning Board.”  He suggested that the Planning Board should continue to discuss this matter at future meetings.  An arrangement needs to be worked out as to whether the Planning Board should be notified and, if so, how and when.   Ms. Allen said that she would think it would be a good idea for certain items to come back before the Planning Board.  The Planning Board should continue to look into this matter.      

5.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, September 26, 2006 and the Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Planning Board meetings was adjourned until the next meeting.

6.   ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:30 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
SECRETARY       

RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 and Tuesday, October 24, 2006 for MAF Realty Inc., hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 16 Beekman Avenue and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.08 Block 6 Lot 46; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new one-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 Drawing #SY-1 entitled “Proposed Plot Plan,” prepared by Gemmola & McWilliams, L.L.P., Architects/Planners, dated August 17, 2006; and a set of modular house plans consisting of Page 1 “Elevation,” Page 2 “Foundation Plan,” Page 3A “First Floor Plan,” Page 3B “Second Floor Plan,” and Page 4 “Cross Section,” prepared by Westchester Modular Homes, Inc. and dated May 5, 2006; and Sheets 1 & 2 of a plan entitled “Proposed Retaining Walls – Franzoso Contracting – 16-18 Beekman Avenue, Croton-on-Hudson, New York,” prepared by Anthony S. Pisarri, P.E., P.C., Consulting Engineer and dated September 29, 2006, be approved subject to the following condition:

1.      that the retaining wall at the rear of the property be replaced by a new retaining wall, as shown on the Applicant’s proposed plans for a retaining wall (referenced above), to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued.

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, Chairman
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                Deven Sharma

Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
        
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 24, 2006.


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 and Tuesday, October 24, 2006 for Franzoso Contracting, Inc., hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 18 Beekman Avenue and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.08 Block 6 Lot 49; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new one-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 Drawing #SY-1 entitled “Proposed Plot Plan,” prepared by Gemmola & McWilliams, L.L.P., Architects/Planners, dated August 17, 2006; and a set of modular house plans consisting of Page 1 “Elevation,” Page 2 “Foundation Plan,” Page 3A “First Floor Plan,” Page 3B “Second Floor Plan,” and Page 4 “Cross Section,” prepared by Westchester Modular Homes, Inc. and dated May 5, 2006; and Sheets 1 & 2 of a plan entitled “Proposed Retaining Walls – Franzoso Contracting – 16-18 Beekman Avenue, Croton-on-Hudson, New York,” prepared by Anthony S. Pisarri, P.E., P.C., Consulting Engineer and dated September 29, 2006, be approved subject to the following condition:

2.      that the retaining wall at the rear of the property be replaced by a new retaining wall, as shown on the Applicant’s proposed plans for a retaining wall (referenced above), to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued.

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, Chairman
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                Deven Sharma

Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
        
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 24, 2006.



RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 for Franzoso Contracting, Inc., hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located on Ridge Road and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lot 33; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new one-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 a survey entitled “Topographical Survey of Tax Lot 33 on Sheet 79.09 in Block 1 for Franzoso Contracting,” prepared by Donnelly Land Surveying, P.C.,                       dated November 18, 2002, last revised September 1, 2006; a set of modular house plans consisting of Page 0 “Cover Sheet,” Page 1 “Elevations,” Page 2 “Foundation Plan,” Page 3A “First Floor Plan,” Page 3B “Second Floor Plan,” Page 4 “Cross Section,” Page 5A “First Floor Plumbing Plan,” Page 5B “Second Floor Plumbing Plan,” Page 6A “1st Fl. Electrical Plan,” Page 6B “2nd Fl. Electrical Plan,” Page 7C “First Floor FHW Heating,” Page 7D “Second Floor FHW Heating,” and Page 8 “Standard Notes & Details Plan,” prepared by Westchester Modular Homes Inc., dated August 11, 2006, last revised September 26, 2006; and specifications (dated August 26, 2006) and a drawing for a concrete modular retaining wall, prepared by Philip Tully, P.E., dated August 31, 2006, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.      that dry wells be shown on the plan(s).

2.      that sedimentation and erosion controls be shown on the plan(s).

3.      that the neighboring property owners be notified of the delivery date of the modular home.

4.      that, if at all possible, the driveway be widened to enable two cars to park in the driveway.

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, Chairman
                                                        Fran Allen
                                                        Vincent Andrews
                                                        Robert Luntz
                                                        Deven Sharma

Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 24, 2006.