VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Liaison from the Village Board
Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kehoe.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
* Croton View Properties LLC – 40-50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Application for an Amended Site Plan to Operate a Nail Salon & Full Service Spa, Expand Existing Tenant Spaces and Make Minor Exterior Modifications
Steven Chae, President of Floris Nail & Spa, and Anthony Branchinelli of Croton View Properties LLC were present.
Mr. Chae noted to the board that, since the last meeting, the front elevation drawing has been revised. The Planning Board has also received in their packets colored renderings showing the interior spaces of other stores operated by Floris Nail & Spa. Mr. Chae noted that, even though there are changes being made to the front elevation of their store, they (the Applicant) have kept the same height of the existing windowsill.
Mr. Chae stated that they intend to keep the existing six-foot wide window in the front and are “opening up” another nine feet of wall space by adding two additional windows.
Chairman Kehoe opened the public hearing on this application.
Chairman Kehoe recalled that, at the last meeting, there was a lengthy discussion about the parking. The Village Engineer noted to the board that the shopping center as a whole is in compliance with the parking regulations. There was previously a variance granted for eight parking spaces. With the granting of the variance, the shopping center is allowed 140 (as opposed to 148) parking spaces. The Village Engineer stated that he believes the shopping center actually has 142 or 143 spaces, which is a few more than what the variance allows.
The Village Engineer said that it is his understanding the nail salon would have 12 or more employees and that most of these employees would be coming to the site in one vehicle (van). Mr. Chae stated that, indeed, most of the employees would be coming in the van. There are a few that would have their own vehicles. The Village Engineer noted that the van carrying the 12 employees would take up only one parking space, so the Village would not be losing as many parking spaces as it would if all of the employees were coming in separate vehicles.
Mr. Sharma noted that, with respect to the impact(s) on the parking at the shopping center, the customers of the nail salon & spa might be parked for longer periods of time (one hour or longer). The parking for some of the retail stores and the Post Office is for shorter periods of time. The Village Engineer noted that if a restaurant were to move into the space at the shopping center, then, by code, additional parking would be required. For this type of facility (nail salon) just the basic parking requirement applies.
The Village Engineer noted that if there are two (or more) employees coming to the site in their own cars, then these employees should be requested to park off site. Permit parking on South Riverside Avenue is free. The Village Engineer told the Applicant that, with respect to permit parking for the employees, there is no time restriction along the street for permit parking. Chairman Kehoe noted that there is employee parking in the parking lot of the shopping center. Ms. Allen asked where the van carrying the 12 employees would be parked, to which Mr. Chae said that the van would be parked in an employee parking spot. Ms. Allen noted that these spots are small. She questioned how a van carrying 12 people could fit in one of these parking spots. The Village Engineer agreed that it might be tight
for the van to park in one of these spots. He suggested that, perhaps to accommodate the van, a larger parking spot could be designated “Employee Parking.” The Planning Board discussed with the Applicant parking the van on South Riverside Avenue, which the Applicant agreed to.
Mr. Sharma said that, when this application was first discussed, he was absent from the meeting. He wanted to know if the Planning Board members had seen the sign application yet, to which the Village Engineer said that they have not. The Village Engineer noted that the sign application has not yet been before the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB). Typically, the Planning Board would wait for the VEB’s comments before approving the sign application. He suggested that the Applicant should arrange to go before the VEB. After reviewing the VEB’s comments the Planning Board would be in a position to approve the sign.
Chairman Kehoe noted that Zeytinia Gourmet Market has been storing merchandise in the sidewalk area in the front of the store. He would assume that this Applicant would not want the merchandise there. Mr. Andrews noted that, if this grocery store were not to cooperate with the new tenant of the shopping center in this regard, the Village would always have enforcement options.
Ms. Allen asked where the garbage for the new nail salon & spa would go, to which Mr. Branchinelli stated that the garbage would go in the compactor, which is adjacent to the Post Office.
Mr. Andrews asked about the chemicals being used in the nail salon, to which Mr. Chae said that the products being used in their facility would be non-toxic. The products they use are organic. The nail polishes are water-base. They cannot use lotions with chemicals in them.
Ms. Allen pointed out that the windows in the front of the new nail salon & spa are low to the ground – just above the sidewalk. Chairman Kehoe noted that, from a design standpoint, the low window is being carried over from the liquor store next door. They (the Applicant) are carrying the same line across the front. Mr. Chae noted further that the window treatment is the same for all the stores.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any comments from the public, to which there were none. Chairman Kehoe closed the public hearing.
Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution with the following two conditions:
that employees of the nail salon & spa should park their vehicles on South Riverside Avenue.
that garbage from the facility should be placed in the compactor adjacent to the Post Office.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the aforementioned two conditions. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
3. 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 Drapala, prospective operator of the day care center, and Raffaele Tarulli, engineer representing the Applicant, were present for this application.
Mr. Tarulli noted that this Applicant was scheduled to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from the parking requirement(s). The Applicant was seeking a variance for 21 parking spaces. Since the last meeting, the Village Engineer did some further research on the property and discovered that there was an existing variance for the parking that was granted in 1987. The variance was for 32 parking spaces. There were no conditions attached to this parking variance. The Village Engineer asked the Village Attorney if this variance for the parking would still apply today. The Village Attorney rendered the opinion that it would still apply. As a result, the Applicant has withdrawn their application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Tarulli said that the Applicant is before the
Planning Board tonight to note, for the record, the decision regarding the variance and to ask the Planning Board what the next step(s) in the application process should be.
The Village Engineer noted that Philip Tully, the Village Engineer at the time the variance was granted, had performed an analysis for the parking, which showed that 49 spaces were required by code. The ZBA granted a variance from the parking requirement for 32 parking spaces. The number of parking spaces allowed by the variance is, therefore, 17 spaces (49 - 32 = 17). The Village Engineer reiterated to the Planning Board members that the ZBA did not put any condition in their variance that specifies the use.
Mr. Sharma said that he would think that if the use were to change, and the parking situation on the site becomes worse, then the variance should be looked at again. The Village Engineer reiterated that the parking variance was granted with no conditions that specify the use. The Village Attorney determined that this variance still applies today.
Chairman Kehoe noted that, at some point, the Planning Board should receive a letter from the Village Attorney regarding his decision on the parking variance.
The Village Engineer noted to the board that in March of 1976 the Planning Board approved a site plan for a two-story building. The Planning Board approved an amended site plan for a building expansion in 1987. Ms. Allen thought that there might have been changes made to the building in the 1990’s. She would be interested in knowing the overall structural history of the building. Mr. Tarulli stated that the size of the building is 7,286 square feet, which includes the first and second floor. Mr. Luntz said that it would seem to him, from the documented history, that the building, as it currently exists, is the same building that was approved in 1987.
Ms. Allen said that, even though the Applicant in 1987 came in with a proposed use, and the calculation for the parking was based on the square footage, the ZBA granted the variance without putting any conditions in the resolution for a specific use or timeframe. She noted that the variance that was granted from the parking requirements back in 1987 was a substantial one. The Village Engineer agreed that the variance was substantial, and it was granted to the Applicant without any type of deadlines or “sunset” clauses.
Mr. Sharma asked how many parking spaces would be required on the site for the proposed (day care) use of the building. The Village Engineer said that there are two ways of calculating the parking. If the parking were calculated using the number of establishments, the required number would be 38. If it were calculated using the number of practitioners, the required number would be 47. The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant had used the larger number in their calculations because the Zoning Code is ambiguous with respect to this type of application (day care).
Mr. Sharma agreed with Ms. Allen that the parking variance is a substantial one. He said that, when the variance was granted for the parking, 32 spaces were “waived” which, in his view, is a major deviation from the parking requirement.
Chairman Kehoe noted that this application is a referral from the Village Board to the Planning Board for a special permit. The Planning Board is going to be making a recommendation to the Village Board about the use. The Applicant would also have to come back before the Planning Board for an amended site plan approval.
Mr. Luntz pointed out that no matter what the proposed use on this site, the boards doing the reviews have to deal with the repercussions of the parking variance that was granted in 1987. “It is a problem with the site.”
The Village Engineer noted to the board members that, in their referral back to the Village Board, the Planning Board would want to include in their recommendation that all employees of the day care center should park along the street (South Riverside Avenue).
Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board has not yet discussed whether the internal system of dropping off and picking up the children would be feasible.
Mr. Sharma asked if, besides the parking, there were any other issues the Planning Board needed to look at before making a recommendation to the Village Board. The Village Engineer said that the proposed playground would have to be 25 feet away from a residential property. He noted that there are no residential properties in the vicinity except uphill.
Ms Allen said that she does not see why “we have to make up the required number of parking spaces [by] resorting to public streets.” She thought that the board(s) could look at this application from the perspective, (in so far as the parking is concerned), of a use that would “fit” on the site as opposed to a use that would require additional parking along the street.
The Village Engineer noted to the board members that people do not seem to park along that portion of South Riverside Avenue where the day care center is being proposed. There are other areas of the Village, however, where people compete for the on-street parking spaces.
Ms. Allen expressed concern about the need for future parking along this portion of South Riverside Avenue. “What about the future when the Riverwalk is built up?” The Village Engineer said that the Village would have to issue parking permits to the employees of the day care center and restrict the public parking in that area to one hour. Mr. Luntz said that, in his view, it is desirable to have the on-street parking for the employees. It is “a very nice way of setting a suburban tone for the Village” as opposed to “[having] a big parking lot.” The Village would be creating a place for these people to park their cars along the street.
Mr. Sharma asked if the Planning Board could recommend a review of the variance that was granted for the parking in 1987, to which Chairman Kehoe said that the Village Attorney was asked to do “just that” and has rendered an opinion. Chairman Kehoe said that he is dissatisfied with the response (decision) from the Village Attorney that the variance still applies today. He agreed with Mr. Sharma that the variance that was granted for the parking was substantial.
Mr. Sharma said that, by approving the on-street parking for the employees, the Village would be dedicating the use of spaces for this lot. In his view, “It’s a public parking that should be shared.” The Village Engineer noted to the board members that, when the idea for the on-street employee parking first came about, the Village’s thought was to relocate employees to the street so as to have the off-street parking for the customers of the local stores/businesses.
Ms. Allen said that she would like to look into what happened on this site in the 1990’s. She thought that there was more of a history than the Planning Board has reviewed to date. She would want to know if the square footage of the building increased once again in the 1990’s.
The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board should present to the Village Board, in the form of a memorandum, what was discussed at the Planning Board meetings. He (the Village Engineer) could draft the memorandum and email it to the Planning Board members for their review. The memorandum should contain the history of the parking and the potential for the on-street employee parking. The Village Engineer noted that, once the recommendation from the Planning Board is received, the Village Board would call a public hearing and ultimately make the decision on the special permit application.
The Village Engineer suggested to the Applicant that the Applicant should hire a traffic engineer to look at the parking/traffic issues at this site.
The Village Engineer suggested that at the next Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board could try to reach a consensus regarding the wording of the memorandum to the Village Board.
Chairman Kehoe said that the traffic flow within the parking lot is an issue, to which the Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s traffic consultant would have to present options for the parking layout/design.
Mr. Tarulli noted that the playground being proposed would eliminate some parking spaces. The number of on-site parking spaces is (would be) 18. Mr. Tarulli noted that the only way for a vehicle to maneuver would be to pull in and back out doing a “K” turn. “You would have to depend on [the] courtesy of drivers.” Chairman Kehoe wondered if another exit could be created. He realized that there might be sight distance problems. The Village Engineer pointed out that, if another exit were created, an additional parking spot would be lost. The Village Engineer suggested that one option would be to put time-related parking signs (“10-minute Parking”) on the premises for the day care center.
Chairman Kehoe asked what the hours of operation would be, to which Mr. Tarulli said, 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M.
The Village Engineer asked if the playground being proposed meets the state requirements regarding size and equipment, to which Mr. Tarulli said, yes.
Chairman Kehoe stated that the memorandum to the Village Board should include the Planning Board’s discussion on the parking and traffic flow. Mr. Luntz stated that the Planning Board should also recommend that the Applicant hire a traffic engineer/consultant to render their professional opinion regarding the layout of the parking lot.
The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant is in the process of preparing the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). It should be available for the Planning Board to review by the next meeting.
Chairman Kehoe stated that the Planning Board would review the draft memorandum to the Village Board at the next meeting and, if deemed satisfactory, the memorandum could be sent to the Village Board in time for their first meeting of December.
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.
Mr. Turner stated that for tonight’s meeting, they (the Applicant) have prepared an inventory of all the properties in the O-1 Zoning District. There are 19 lots in the O-1 District. The O-1 inventory includes a description of the use; a notation as to whether or not the lot is improved or vacant and the lot size. Mr. Turner stated that the Applicant has submitted for the board’s review a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). He (Mr. Turner) has prepared a draft of a proposed text amendment to the code.
Mr. Turner stated that he has done some research into the parking for day care centers. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has conducted a survey, the results of which are based on the parking for day care centers throughout the United States. The Institute bases the parking on three variables: (1) number of children; (2) number of employees; and (3) building square footage. Mr. Turner told the board members that the results of the parking survey have been provided in their packets. The results were based on the “average” demand.
Mr. Turner told the board that the subject day care center (“Happy Tots”) is “under a tremendous time pressure.” They must shortly vacate their present space. They (the Applicant) hope to leave tonight with the Planning Board’s having made a positive recommendation to the Village Board on the O-1 zoning change.
Mr. Turner stated that the Applicant has had, in attendance at their day care center at the Holy Name of Mary Church, a “low” of 60 children and a “high” of 75 children. The number of parking spaces required for 60 children would be 14, and the parking spaces required for 75 children would be 18. Mr. Andrews asked if the staff of the day care center was taken into consideration in the calculation for the parking, to which Mr. Turner said that it was. Mr. Turner noted that the calculation just given is on a “per student” basis. If based on the number of employees, the parking spaces required are 20 at the “high end,” which would correlate with the higher number of students/children (75).
Chairman Kehoe asked how many parking spaces are on the site for the proposed day care center, to which the owner of the property, Mr. DeName, said, about 20 to 25 parking spaces.
The Village Engineer asked what the parking calculation would be based on the square footage. Mr. Turner stated that he did not calculate the parking based on the square footage because the square footage at the proposed day care facility is still “up in the air.” The Village Engineer asked what the square footage of the day care center is at the Holy Name of Mary Church, to which Ms. Nardozzi said that it is 4,800 square feet. She added that they had 75 children in attendance. The Village Engineer calculated the number based on the square footage and said that 20 spaces would be required, which is consistent with the other two calculations.
Mr. Turner suggested to the Planning Board that the parking discussion be a part of the site plan review for the day care center.
Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board has to make a recommendation to the Village Board on the proposed amendment to the O-1 District. If the amendment were passed, the Applicant would then have to apply to the Village Board for a special permit. The Village Board would refer this application for a special permit to the Planning Board for a recommendation. If the special permit were approved by the Village Board, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for a site plan approval.
Mr. Turner suggested that the Village could consider restricting day care centers in the O-1 District to lots, one acre or larger. This would limit the lots in the O-1 District to just a few lots situated along Albany Post Road. Chairman Kehoe looked at the Applicant’s inventory of O-1 lots and noted that those lots, one acre or larger, are Lots #’s 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. The Village Engineer stated that the code currently restricts day care centers to a minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet. This square footage is the minimum lot size for a day care center as an accessory use. The Village Engineer stated that, for a commercial use, it should not be any less than 25,000 square feet. It could be more, but not less. Mr. Andrews said that he would not recommend making it
less than 25,000 square feet. He would agree that the square footage should be kept at the same level.
Chairman Kehoe noted that, at tonight’s meeting, the Planning Board has to deal with concepts relating to the zoning amendment change and make a recommendation back to the Village Board. If the zoning amendment were passed by the Village Board, the Applicant would then be in a position to submit an application for a special permit to the Village Board. The Village Engineer told the Applicant that the Village Board would hold a public hearing for the O-1 zoning change. If passed, the Applicant would then “have a right” to apply for a special permit under the new regulations.
The Village Engineer told the board that, as the Planning Board is going to be looking into the parking for day care centers, there (also) needs to be wording placed in the law that addresses the parking.
Chairman Kehoe noted that in the draft local law submitted, the Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Turner, has left a blank space for the minimum lot size for a day care center. Chairman Kehoe said that, as he understands it from tonight’s discussion, the minimum lot size should be 25,000 square feet.
Mr. Luntz asked what the current parking requirement is in terms of square footage, to which the Village Engineer said that, in the O-1 District, it is one parking space per 300 square feet. The code reads, “The greater of 1 space per 300 square feet of office floor area or 1 space per employee.” The Village Engineer noted that the numbers for the parking provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers are close to the numbers in the Village Code.
Mr. Andrews said that it is his understanding that the Applicant intends to increase the square footage of the building on Albany Post Road that they wish to occupy. Mr. Andrews asked how many children the Applicant envisions at the day care center with the expanded space included. Ms. Nardozzi said, between 75 and 80 children.
The Village Engineer said that if the Planning Board were to recommend that the Village Board stay with “1 parking space per 300 square feet,” then the only change in the code would be to make a reference to “day care centers” in the bulk parking calculation.
Mr. Andrews said that, with respect to the calculation(s) for parking, he would be uncomfortable making a recommendation to the Village Board without first having “experts” look into this matter.
Mr. Sharma noted that the number of visitors that come to a site varies from business to business. He asked how this is accounted for. Chairman Kehoe noted that this issue was raised in conjunction with the review of the proposed day care center on the other site (75 South Riverside Avenue). In that case, the businesses on the second floor (law offices, therapist, etc.) all have visitors coming to the site. Mr. Luntz noted that the circumstances are different here (Albany Post Road). On-site parking is being provided. On South Riverside Avenue, additional on-street parking is being proposed. Ms. Allen said that, in her view, basing the parking on the square footage would be acceptable in this case.
Chairman Kehoe summarized the discussion on the parking stating that the Planning Board would recommend leaving the parking requirement as is, i.e., “one space per 300 square feet.” The Planning Board would not put any condition regarding the parking in the special permit language. The Village Engineer noted to the board that the term “day care center” would have to be added to the O-1 bulk parking regulations.
The Planning Board reviewed the EAF. The Village Engineer referred to A-6 “Is project substantially contiguous to, or containing a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places?” The Applicant has answered, “No.” The Village Engineer said that he believes the answer should be, “Yes,” because there is a designated historic site (St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church) next to the Municipal Building.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any implications due to the fact that the proposed site for the day care is in a gateway overlay district, to which the Village Engineer replied that there are other requirements for the gateway district(s), including requirements pertaining to landscaping and aesthetics.
The Village Engineer referred to C-1 on page 8 of 21 of the EAF “Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision?” The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant correctly answered, “Yes,” to this question. As part of the answer to C-1, the Applicant had to indicate the decision required. The Applicant checked the box for “Other Report to Village Board.” The Village Engineer said that the box that should have been checked is “Zoning amendment.” This section of the EAF should be changed accordingly.
Chairman Kehoe stated that, as discussed, the Planning Board would make a positive recommendation on the O-1 zoning change to the Village Board. The memorandum to the Village Board would include, as an attachment, the draft local law prepared by the Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Turner. Chairman Kehoe stated that “25,000” (square feet) should be added to Sec. 1A(3) on page 2 of the draft amendment. The Village Engineer stated that it should be recommended that, in the table listing the bulk parking requirements in Sec. 230-35 of the Zoning Code, the term “day care center” should be added to read: “…per 300 square feet of office/day care center floor area.”
Mr. Turner told the board members that he would redraft the proposed code amendment incorporating the changes made tonight.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board on the amendment to the O-1 Zoning District regulations with the modifications discussed tonight. The motion was made by Mr. Sharma, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
* Meredeth M. Glenn, DDS – 102 Grand Street – (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 6 Lot 37.01) – Application for a Sign Permit for a Pediatric Dental Office
Steven Chester of Signs Ink was present to represent the Applicant.
Mr. Chester stated that he is before the Planning Board tonight for the approval of a wall-mounted sign for Meredeth Glenn’s dental office on 102 Grand Street. He noted to the board members that Dr. Glenn’s sign application is also on the agenda for tomorrow night’s meeting of the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB).
The Village Engineer noted that, on the application form, the Applicant correctly states that the subject property is located in an O-1 Zoning District. However, on page 2 of the application form, the Applicant has filled out the C-1 and C-2 information, and has stated on the application form that the proposed sign is 20 square feet in size. The Village Engineer stated that, in the O-1 District, the size of a sign is limited to 5 square feet. The Village Engineer told those present that if the Applicant wanted to erect a 20-square foot sign, the Applicant would have to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from the size (square footage) requirement.
Mr. Chester said that a sign, 5 square feet in size, would be totally out of proportion with the front of the building. It would be much too small. It would not work with the dimensions of the building. Chairman Kehoe agreed and stated that a sign of that size could not be put in the same place on the building façade as the one presently being proposed. “It would not look right.” Mr. Chester noted that the sign presently being proposed is in perfect proportion to the building façade. Chairman Kehoe agreed and said that he likes the look of the sign, as it is presently being proposed.
Chairman Kehoe said that the Applicant could seek a variance from the size requirement. He wondered if it would be necessary to come back to the Planning Board, should the Applicant decide to seek the variance. Ms. Allen said that, if at all possible, she would just as soon expedite the (application) process in this case.
The Village Engineer told Mr. Chester that, in so far as the size of the sign is concerned, the Applicant might want to try to compromise on the size by asking for the minimal variance from the size requirement. Mr. Luntz said that he would think that the Applicant might benefit from a somewhat smaller sign. He referred to the Applicant’s rendering of the sign and noted that the way it looks now, the sign touches the fascia. By shrinking the frame and making the sign somewhat smaller, it would no longer touch the fascia, and it might help with the problem of the square footage.
Chairman Kehoe asked if the sign would be externally illuminated with a spotlight, to which Mr. Chester said, no.
Chairman Kehoe said that it would appear from tonight’s discussion that the Planning Board members are pleased with the design of the sign. The issue is the size. He suggested that, to expedite the process for the Applicant, the Planning Board could approve the sign tonight. The Applicant could then seek the variance for the size of the sign from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Village Engineer noted to those present that the Applicant would either have to seek a variance or change the size of the sign so that it is in compliance with the O-1 regulations.
The Village Engineer noted that this Applicant still has to go before the VEB. He suggested that the matter regarding the size of the sign should be resolved first. When this matter is resolved, the Applicant could be placed on the VEB’s agenda. The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that, before installing the sign, the Applicant should (also) take into consideration the VEB’s comments/recommendations.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this sign application. The motion to approve was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
* Trustee Gallelli told the board members that the New York State Legislature and Governor Pataki have approved a bill requiring training for municipal Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals members. The law goes into effect in January 2007. A minimum of four hours of training per year is required. Trustee Gallelli noted to the board members that municipalities across New York State have been notified that they have the option to follow this law, and the Village opted to do so. After January 1st the Planning Board and ZBA would have to show that they have taken four hours of training during the course of the year. Trustee Gallelli stated that the boards would be receiving a letter from the Village Manager outlining exactly how the
training could be accomplished. She noted that there would be CD’s available, and programs would be offered on-line. Also, there would be land use seminars offered in March by the Westchester Municipal Planning Federation as well as other land use seminars throughout the year.
Trustee Gallelli told the board that the Village would be setting up a system to keep records of the training. These records would show what each of the Planning Board and ZBA members has done to satisfy the four-hour requirement. Trustee Gallelli noted that, in order to be re-appointed, a Planning Board/ZBA member must meet the four-hour training requirement.
Trustee Gallelli stated that, should there be any charges incurred for the courses/seminars, the Village would pay for the cost(s).
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, September 26, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Mr. Sharma abstained.
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Sharma, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Mr. Andrews abstained.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:42 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 for Croton View Properties LLC, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 40-50 Maple Street and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lot 30; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is for alterations to accommodate a new nail salon and full service spa, known as Floris Nail & Spa; expand existing tenant spaces; and make minor exterior modifications; and
WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amended Site Plan application for Floris Nail & Spa, as shown on plans G-1 “General Notes;” A-0 “Site Plan – Demolition Plan;” A-1 “Construction Plan;” A-2 “Reflected Ceiling Plan;” A-3 “Power Plan;” A-4 “Plumbing/Gas Riser Diagram;” A-5 “Architectural Detail” and A-6 “Furniture Plan” dated October 5, 2006, prepared by Ishac Design Architects, PC, and a plan (A-1) entitled “Elevation” dated November 13, 2006, prepared by Ishac Design Architects, PC, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. that employees of the nail salon & spa park on South Riverside Avenue.
2. that garbage be placed in the compacter adjacent to the Post Office.
In the event that this Amended Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.
The Planning Board of the Village of
Croton-on-Hudson, New York
Chris Kehoe, Chairperson
Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, November 14, 2006.