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 01/23/07

VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2007

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 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
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.  NEW BUSINESS:

*   Maria & Angelo Cipriano – 44 Mt. Airy Road (Sec. 68.17 Blk. 1 Lot 78) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New Single-Family Dwelling

Maria & Angelo Cipriano, owners of the property, and John Alfonzetti of MGM Burbon LLC, engineer for the Applicant, were present.

Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the lot in question is one-half acre in size.  The parcel is located north of King Street on Mt. Airy Road.  Presently, there are, on this piece of property, an existing house situated on the north property line, a detached stucco garage and a wood shed.  The Applicant is proposing to demolish the house and shed.  The garage would remain.  Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant is proposing to bring in a sewer extension from King Street.  They would like to bring the sewer extension right up to the new house.

Ms. Allen asked about the history of this piece of property.  The Village Engineer stated that he has looked at the Village’s old Sanborn maps.  It is indicated on one of the maps that, back in the 1920’s, the garage on the property was an auto repair shop.  Ms. Allen noted that this piece of property is in an historic area of the Village.  She suggested that the Planning Board should notify the Village’s Historical Society so as to have a better understanding of the property’s history.  Mr. Andrews asked what the historical concerns are (would be) on this property.  He asked Ms. Allen if she was referring to the possibility of there being artifacts or just that the property is in the old part of the Village. Ms. Allen said that no one on the Planning Board knows the history of what was previously on the property.  There is an existing stone wall enclosure.  She thought that the Planning Board should at least take steps to find out the history. The Village Engineer thought that the property was probably developed in the late 1800’s.  He suggested that, prior to demolishing the house and shed, the Historical Society could do a pictorial archive of the property. Ms. Allen thought that the Planning Board might also want to have an archeologist render an opinion.

Chairman Kehoe asked what the Applicant was proposing to do with the existing stone walls, to which Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the Applicant intends to leave the stone walls around the perimeter just the way they are.

Mr. Cipriano told the board members that they intend to keep the same driveway.  They do not intend to put in a new driveway.  The Village Engineer noted that the driveway entrance is in the same location, so the curb cut is not going to change.

Ms. Allen pointed out that a tree on the property has recently been cut down.  Mr. Cipriano said that they have pruned all the trees.  The tree to which Ms. Allen is referring was an old pine tree.  The Village Engineer told the board that the tree in question did not require a tree permit.  

Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding the exterior of the house would be a gray vinyl shingle, to which Mr. Cipriano said that this is, indeed, the case.

Chairman Kehoe asked if a permit would be required to cut down the trees in the front.  The Village Engineer stated that the trees along the stone wall are within the “tree buffer” and would require a permit.

Chairman Kehoe said that the house being proposed does not seem overly large, to which Mr. Cipriano stated that the proposed house would be 2,700 square feet in size.  Mr. Luntz said that the size of the house being proposed is certainly within the range of the houses in the surrounding area.  

Chairman Kehoe asked how steeply pitched the roof would be, to which Mr. Cipriano said, 8 feet on 12 feet.  The Village Engineer noted that the dormers would be steeper than that.

Chairman Kehoe asked what the material on the front porch would be, to which Mr. Cipriano said that the baluster and railing of the front porch would be made of wood.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the 9’ over 9’ windows being proposed would mirror the large paned windows of the older neighboring houses.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if the sewer extension would be brought up Mt. Airy Road, to which the Village Engineer said that it would be.  He (the Village Engineer) noted that the Westchester County Health Department would have to approve the sewer extension.

Ms. Allen asked if the house would be on Village water, to which Mr. Cipriano said, yes.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the existing stucco garage is similar in shape to the house being proposed, to which Mr. Cipriano said that it (the garage) would look the same as the house.  Chairman Kehoe noted further that the house being proposed has a two-car garage. Mr. Cipriano said that they intend to use the existing detached garage as a storage shed.

The Village Engineer said that, in so far as the history of the property is concerned, he could make arrangements to have the Historical Society photographically document the existing house and accessory buildings.  Ms. Allen said that she would also think it would be worthwhile to document the wall enclosure.

Mr. Luntz asked if the contours being shown on the site plan are the new contours, to which Mr. Alfonzetti stated that the dark lines represent the new (proposed) contours.

Chairman Kehoe said that there is a nice “hodge-podge” of houses in that area of the Village.  He would be somewhat concerned that the house being proposed is (would be) slightly larger than the other houses. He noted that the proposed house does meet all code requirements.  He would hope that the look of the new house would not detract from the other houses in the neighboring vicinity.  He would want to preserve the character of that area of the Village.  

Ms. Allen said that she would want to know if there are any artifacts on the property. She was more concerned, from an historical perspective, about the site itself than the existing house.  The land has been disturbed.  There are no trees to any extent.  She would want to know what the land was used for and if there are any important artifacts.  Ms. Allen said that she would like to have the opinion of a professional archeologist.  

Mr. Sharma asked what would happen if artifacts were found on the property.  The Village Engineer told the board members that the archeologist would excavate into the ground and, if artifacts were found, the archeologist would either try to save the artifacts or document what is there. The Village Engineer said that the archeologist would first research the Village records and then do the fieldwork.  The archeologist would try to put together a history of the property, after which field tests would be performed.  The Village Engineer noted that the garage on the property was an auto repair shop in the 1920’s.  There are probably car parts “chucked” all over the property.  Ms. Allen suggested that a Phase 1 archeological study could be performed.  If the Applicant were to perform a Phase 1 study, then the Planning Board would have a way of knowing if a Phase 2 study were required.

Mr. Andrews said that, in so far as the history of the property is concerned, unless the Planning Board knows something “particular to this [piece of] property,” he would not think that a Phase 1 archeological study is required.  The Planning Board could bring up the matter with the Village’s Historical Society, but he did not think this project merited a Phase 1 study.  Mr. Luntz agreed and stated that rather than mandating a Phase 1 study he would think that it would be more appropriate in this case to simply contact the Historical Society.  Ms. Allen said that the point she is trying to make is that we (the Planning Board) need to have the Applicant take the first step to know what is there.  She would suggest that the Applicant begin the process by reviewing the Village records.   The Village Engineer stated that, to begin the process, the Applicant could review the property file(s) in the Village Engineer’s office and look at the old Sanborn maps.  After doing a thorough review of these documents, the Applicant could contact the Village Historian for further information.  

Mr. Alfonzetti expressed concern about the length of time involved to look into the history of the property.  Where do we “draw the line” to know whether the property has historic significance or not.  “When do we stop the process?”   Mr. Alfonzetti said that he thought that the Applicant was before the Planning Board for an architectural review of the project e.g., how the house would fit into the neighborhood, etc.    Mr. Sharma thought that it would be appropriate to ask the Historical Society to look into the history of the property.  The Village Historian could render an opinion as to the historic significance of the property and recommend whether or not further action should be taken.  Mr. Sharma said that the Planning Board should be careful not to cause undue delays to the Applicant. He would hope that the Village Historian’s opinion would be forthcoming by the next Planning Board meeting.

Trustee Gallelli noted to those present that Joyce Finnerty is the Village Historian.  The Historical Society is open on Mondays.  Their offices are located on the first floor next to the Court Clerk’s offices at Village Hall. Trustee Gallelli noted that Ms. Finnerty is out of town at the moment.  The Applicant could ask the Historical Society if they have any information on this piece of property.  Trustee Gallelli pointed out that there is no historic preservation law in the Village Code that would give the Village the authority/jurisdiction to take action against the project.

Chairman Kehoe suggested that the Planning Board could approve this application subject to the Village’s Historical Society taking a look at the property’s history.

The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could provide to the Historical Society, for their review, a photographic documentation in the form of a CD.    

Mr. Alfonzetti suggested that, instead of demolishing the existing house, it could be left intact until the historical data is gathered.  The existing house is on a different part of the property. It would not have to be demolished right away. Ms. Allen said that it is not so much the house that she is interested in.  It is the site itself. Ms. Allen said that she believes it is within the Planning Board’s purview to know whether or not important artifacts are being disturbed.  Chairman Kehoe noted that even if it were discovered that there are important artifacts on the property, there is no local mechanism (law) to take any action.  Mr. Andrews asked what the implications of finding something of historical or archeological significance on the property would be.  What action, if any, can be taken?  Mr. Andrews asked if the Historical Society had already designated areas of importance in this or other parts of the Village.  Has the Historical Society done a survey of some kind? He thought that the Planning Board could ask the Historical Society if a survey had been done. Trustee Gallelli noted that the Historical Society has already done a good job of photographing and documenting areas of the Village.  If the Planning Board were to ask, she would think that the Historical Society would know something about the history of this piece of property.

Mr. Luntz said that he would suggest that the Planning Board could approve this application subject to the Village’s Historical Society reviewing and commenting on the potential artifacts or the historical/archeological importance of this site. Mr. Andrews said that, in so far as a review of the history of the property is concerned, he would not want an open-ended situation to develop. He suggested that this application could be approved subject to including in the approval the photographically documented archival information on the site and any commentary from the Historical Society.   Ms. Allen said that the historical/archeological information provided should be attached to the Planning Board’s resolution of approval.

The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could take digital photographs of the lot and existing house, shed, etc., and transfer onto a CD for the Historical Society’s use.  The Historical Society could (also) visit the site and provide any relevant documentation, photographic and otherwise, on the property’s history.  The Historical Society could write up a report of their findings and submit the report to the Planning Board and the Applicant.

The Village Engineer suggested to the Applicant that the proposed driveway could be revised to have a 20-foot standing area +/- 2%.  Also, it should be made a condition of the Planning Board’s resolution of approval that the sewer extension being proposed is subject to the approval of the Westchester County Health Department.

Chairman Kehoe referred to the draft resolution prepared for this application.  He noted that the conditions of the approval would be as follows:

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.     

that the sewer line extension being proposed is subject to the approval of the Westchester County Health Department.

that the driveway being shown on the Applicant’s plan be revised to the Village Engineer’s satisfaction.

that a note be added to the Applicant’s plan that the stone walls are to be preserved.

that the Applicant shall assist the Historical Society by allowing them access to the property and by  taking digital photographs of the lot and existing house, shed, etc., and transferring onto a CD for the Historical Society’s use. The Historical Society shall provide to the Planning Board and Applicant a report on their findings including any relevant documentation, photographic and otherwise, on the potential archeological/historical significance of this property.  

that the trees on the property be preserved to the greatest extent possible and that the Applicant apply for a tree permit, when required.  

Mr. Cipriano noted to the Planning Board that, with respect to the stone walls being preserved, there might be some repair work required.  He would match the existing stones to the greatest extent possible.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the conditions discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Ms. Allen abstained.

3.  OLD BUSINESS:

a)   Fernando Duce – 1307 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.14 Blk. 3 Lot 9) – Application for a Preliminary Subdivision Approval

Ralph Mastromonaco, engineer for the Applicant, was present.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board members went on a site walk of the Duce property with Bruce Donohue, the Village’s environmental consultant.  One of the main issues pertained to the trees on the property.  Mr. Mastromonaco stated that, after having visited the site, Mr. Donohue provided to the Applicant a complete listing of the trees with details on each tree.  The Applicant has since resurveyed the trees and has given the trees all new numbers.  Mr. Mastromonaco stated that the Applicant’s topographical map has (also) been updated to show any additional areas of disturbance.  

Ms. Allen told those present that, after having visited the site, she has had a change of mind about the Applicant’s driveway and now feels that the proposed driveway, where it is being located, is satisfactory.  Ms. Allen said that she thinks the tree survey, now that it has been revised, is excellent.   

Ms. Allen said that, having reviewed the steep slopes calculations on the Applicant’s plan, she noted that the steep slopes have been calculated with both lots put together.  She asked if, in calculating the steep slopes, Lots #1 and #2 should be “separated out.” Mr. Mastromonaco said that he would have to check the Village’s steep slopes ordinance, but it was his understanding that “You have to go by the whole site.”  Chairman Kehoe suggested that the Village Engineer could look into this matter of how to calculate the steep slopes.  He (Chairman Kehoe) noted that when this Applicant is scheduled to come back before the Planning Board for a minor site plan approval for each lot, no matter what the method of calculations, the criteria for steep slopes would have to be met. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that under the Village Code, a project has a quota regarding the steep slopes that can be disturbed.  The Applicant’s project is under this quota.  The Village Engineer said that he would ask the Village Attorney to look into this matter.  He (the Village Engineer) would want to avoid a situation whereby a lot is created by a subdivision of land that would require a steep slopes hardship permit to develop the lot.   

Mr. Mastromonaco recalled that when the Westwind (Baltic Estates) Subdivision was developed, they never performed the steep slopes calculations on the individual lots.  It is his understanding that once the subdivision is approved, the Applicant does not have to go through the process of calculating the steep slopes “ever again,” to which Chairman Kehoe said that this is exactly what we (the Planning Board) need to find out.

Mr. Luntz asked if the Planning Board would be approving building envelopes for the houses on these lots, to which the Village Engineer said, no, the standard setback requirements would apply.

Chairman Kehoe noted to those present that when the Planning Board approves a subdivision, they are approving the house(s) schematically but then, when the Applicant comes back before the Planning Board for the minor site plan approval, the house(s) could be in a completely different location. Chairman Kehoe said that what Mr. Mastromonaco is saying tonight is that once the subdivision is approved, the Planning Board would no longer be looking at the steep slopes.  Mr. Mastromonaco said that it is his understanding that once the subdivision is approved, “You can put erosion controls on, but [the lot] is now considered buildable.”  The Village Engineer noted that, as it stands now with the calculations that have been submitted, the Applicant meets the steep slopes thresholds.  The Applicant has designated very specific limits of disturbance.  If a house were to be moved so that it goes beyond the designated limits of disturbance, there would be a greater possibility of exceeding these steep slopes thresholds.

Mr. Mastromonaco suggested that, for the next meeting, he could calculate the steep slopes on the property by separating out each individual lot rather than going by the site as a whole.  It might be that the outcome would be the same.  The only way to find out would be to do these calculations.  The Planning Board members all agreed.

Chairman Kehoe said that he noticed on the Applicant’s plan that the underlying topographical lines have changed.  The 200 or 202 lines are different than what were shown on the original plan; however, the steep slope shaded areas seem exactly the same.  He questioned if there were any discrepancies on the plans that needed to be corrected.  Mr. Mastromonaco said that he did not think there were any, however, he would double-check to make sure that all the necessary changes were made.

Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding that the Applicant is using the existing driveway to access Lot #2.  A “new” driveway would be constructed across Lot #2 to access Lot #1.  An easement agreement for the driveway access to Lot #1 would need to be drawn up. The Village Engineer noted that easement documents would have to be submitted as part of the subdivision approval.

The Village Engineer noted that there is a potential issue about the Applicant having to go across the conservation easement owned by the Arrowcrest Subdivision Homeowners Association.  Mr. Duce has already met with the HOA.  The Planning Board would need a letter from the HOA regarding their agreement to the easement(s).

The Village Engineer said that there is a watercourse in the conservation area that might be classified as a “wetland.”  Under Village law, it would be considered a “wetland” if it were a continuous flowing body of water (stream).  It would not be classified as such if it were strictly a drainage area flowing out of the detention pond.  The Village Engineer said that he personally believes this watercourse is a continuous flowing body of water and should, therefore, be classified as a “wetland.”    

Ms. Allen said that she would like to make sure that the two lots that comprise this subdivision have building envelopes.  The Village Engineer noted that, in so far as the construction of the two new houses is concerned, there are lines drawn on the Applicant’s current plan(s) to limit the areas of disturbance.  If there is a unique situation where the Planning Board would want to further restrict the setbacks and narrow the building area(s), then building envelopes could be established.  The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board could ask the Applicant to create building envelopes but there has to be a reason for doing so.  Mr. Mastromonaco said that he would think that the Applicant would not have any objection to a reasonable restriction on a place to put the house(s).  Ms. Allen said that she would want building envelopes established to protect the steep slopes on the property and the trees.  When the Planning Board approves an application, it is with the understanding that certain trees would be saved and others removed.  A tree survey is drawn up with the house location, shown on the subdivision plan(s), taken into consideration.  A rudimentary sketch of the house is provided. If the Planning Board were to approve this application without building envelopes, a house could be moved to another location.  The situation regarding the trees and slopes might be jeopardized.  Ms. Allen expressed concern that a house could be moved close to the road.  Mr. Luntz noted that there are setback requirements in the Village, which prevent houses from being built too close to a road.  The Village Engineer said that the question here is, “Where would those lines (building envelopes) be drawn and for what reasons?”

The Village Engineer said that he noticed that on Lot #2 the house is very close to the side yard setback, probably only a foot away.  He suggested that the common property line could be shifted over slightly so as to give more flexibility in setting the house on Lot #2.  Mr. Mastromonaco noted that they might have to move the house over anyway when the steep slopes are calculated for the individual lots. The Village Engineer told Mr. Mastromonaco to do the calculations and provide the results to him.  If there is a problem, he would “run it by” the Village Attorney.   

The Village Engineer said that the issue regarding the classification of the watercourse in the conservation area has to be resolved.  If the watercourse were classified as a “wetland” and it were determined that construction activity would be taking place within the wetland buffer, then the Applicant would have to go before the Water Control Commission for a Wetlands Activity Permit.       

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board could not call a public hearing on this application until the issue regarding the steep slopes is resolved.

Chairman Kehoe said that the Planning Board also needs to decide whether or not building envelopes should be required on these lots.  He noted that Ms. Allen has already stated her position that building envelopes should be established.  Ms. Allen noted that when a building envelope is established, steep slopes and wetlands areas are taken into consideration.  A building envelope is created so that no construction activity takes place in these environmentally sensitive areas.

The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board should not make the building envelope so restrictive that a prospective homeowner would have to come back before the Planning Board for every little (minor) improvement.  

Mr. Luntz noted that the Planning Board is going to have an opportunity to review the minor site plans for the two houses.  It is his understanding that an envelope is created around the primary structure to restrict the building, beyond the envelope, of accessory structures such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.  The Village Engineer said that this is, indeed, the case.  Mr. Luntz said that the Applicant’s engineer, Mr. Mastromonaco, would be the one to establish the building envelope. Mr. Andrews questioned why it would be necessary to have a building envelope established when the Applicant has to come back before the Planning Board for a minor site plan approval.    

The Village Engineer stated that if a building envelope were approved on this (the Applicant’s) plan, there would be conditions associated with it.  The Planning Board is going to have to decide on these conditions as part of their approval.  

Mr. Mastromonaco said that he would rather not see any restrictions on accessory structures.  However, he thought that there could be a building envelope for the primary structure (house).  It could be drawn up in such a way as to keep the house in a more desirable location.  Mr. Mastromonaco gave an example of how a building envelope could be configured for the house on Lot #1.  He would take into consideration the fact that the house should not be too close to the driveway coming onto the property from Lot #2.               

Ms. Allen said that the point of reviewing these lots with building envelopes is that all the features of the property would be taken into consideration.  It would be a way of protecting the trees, wetlands, etc.

Chairman Kehoe reviewed the items that need to be addressed for the next meeting.  The “new” steep slopes calculations should be submitted.  A determination should be made regarding the classification of the watercourse in the conservation area.  The Applicant should respond to the concerns expressed about building envelopes.  Mr. Mastromonaco said that he would let the Planning Board know when the Applicant is ready to come back before the board.    

b)   Christopher Outhouse – 23 Penfield Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 3 Lot 72.01) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New Single-Family Dwelling

Michael Vara of Gilded Age Construction Inc., Project Manager for the Applicant, and Christopher Outhouse, Contract Vendee for the property at 23 Penfield Avenue, were present for this application.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board has received tonight a letter from the Applicant’s engineer, Ronald Wegner of Croning Engineering, explaining the revisions made to the Applicant’s site plan.   

Mr. Vara told the board that for tonight’s meeting the Applicant has provided new elevation drawings and a revised site plan.

Mr. Andrews asked how far forward the house has been moved, to which Mr. Vara said that the house is now 29.6 feet from the property line.  It was originally 36 feet from the property line.  The driveway is now at a 13.6% grade.  Mr. Sharma noted that the slope of the driveway from the street is 13.6%.  Rather than leveling off where it meets the street, the driveway now slopes down from the sidewalk to the basement (garage).  Chairman Kehoe pointed out that if a landing were “put up” near the sidewalk, it would increase the slope of the driveway and make it worse.  Mr. Sharma said that, rather than a sloped driveway he has always been in favor of having a level landing where the driveway meets the street.  Mr. Vara noted that the only way to level off the driveway would be to push the house farther back.

Mr. Sharma noted that, other than the issue regarding the driveway, the matters discussed at the last meeting have been taken care of.  The discrepancies/inconsistencies on the Applicant’s plans have been corrected.

Mr. Luntz asked about the remains of the concrete foundation in the back of the property, to which the Village Engineer stated that the remains of the foundation would have to be removed.  

Mr. Luntz said that, although he understands what Mr. Sharma is saying about the slope of the driveway, he would rather see the house in the location that is now being shown.  In its “new” location the house is in alignment with the neighboring houses.   

Chairman Kehoe expressed concern about how complicated the engineering has had to be to build the house being proposed.  He would have thought there could have been an easier way to construct a house on this lot.  The lot is completely flat.  Chairman Kehoe said that he, personally, does not think this house is in character with the rest of the houses on this street.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that to meet the requirements of the house being proposed retaining walls have to be constructed on both sides of the driveway and a driveway with a +/- 14% slope has to be installed.  Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant that he realizes this is the Applicant’s choice for a house but in his (Chairman Kehoe’s) view, it just does not make any sense to build a house such as this one on this particular lot.      

Chairman Kehoe asked what the height of the retaining walls on both sides of the driveway would be, to which Mr. Vara said, five feet.  

Ms. Allen asked if soil would have to be brought in, to which Mr. Vara said, yes.

Ms. Allen said that she would agree with Chairman Kehoe that this is a complicated engineering project for a lot that is completely flat.

Mr. Luntz said that, in so far as the garage in the basement is concerned, there are plenty of examples of homes in the Village that have basements as garages.  He has seen other examples of houses in the Village that are similar in design to the one being proposed.  He (Mr. Luntz) would not consider this house to be out of character, and he would be inclined to approve this application.  Mr. Andrews said that he would agree with Mr. Luntz that this house is not that out of character with other houses in the Village.

Mr. Vara noted to the board members that, if the lot were 75 feet in width he could have built a garage on the side, but the subject lot is only 50 feet in width.

Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant that the Village Code requires that the Planning Board act as an architectural review board in the review of a minor site plan application. In an architectural review, the character of the neighborhood must be taken into consideration. He was concerned about how the proposed house would fit in with the neighboring houses.

The Village Engineer told the Applicant that they might have to raise the finished grade to meet the Village Code requirements for a “story.”  He suggested that there could be a condition in the Planning Board’s resolution of approval about the grading.  The condition could say that the grading in the front of the house shall be such that the basement is considered a “cellar” under the Village Zoning Code.  

The Village Engineer stated that the footing drain being proposed should have very little water coming out of it.  The footing drain discharge location should be separate from the roof leader.  It (the footing drain) should be in a separate location and further away from the house in order to prevent the storm water from coming around the back of the house.  

The Village Engineer noted that, with respect to the parking, it is important to have room on the property for three cars so that, in the wintertime, when the DPW comes through with the snow plow, the cars would be parked off the street.  He thought that, on the Applicant’s property, there would be room for three cars.  One car could be parked in the garage and two in the driveway.    

Chairman Kehoe referred to the draft resolution prepared for this minor site plan application.  The conditions of the approval would be as follows:

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

2)      that the footing drain discharge location shall be separated from the roof leader discharge location, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

3)      that erosion and sedimentation control measures be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s).

4)      that the grading in the front of the house be revised, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.  The grading shall be such that the basement is considered a “cellar” under the Village Zoning Code.

5)      that the asphalt pavement from the driveway of the adjacent lot that extends over the property line shall be removed along with the remains of the old foundation in the rear of the lot.

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 Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 2.  Chairman Kehoe and Ms. Allen were opposed.

4.  OTHER BUSINESS:

The Village Engineer updated the Planning Board on the two Nextel applications.  The Village Engineer stated that the Village Board has approved the special permit for the installation of cellular antennas on the roof of the Municipal Building.  The Village has hired a structural engineering firm, LynStaar Engineering, to review the Applicant’s plans.  The Village Engineer stated that the building permit should be issued by sometime next week.  This project (the Municipal Building project) is well underway. The Village Engineer stated that, with respect to the proposed monopole installation at the DPW site, the monopole is being shifted closer to the DPW facility and farther away from the boat launch area.  The remaining documents that Nextel had to send to the Village are at the Village Attorney’s office.  The amended lease will be signed, after which Nextel will come back to the Planning Board for the continuation of their (the Planning Board’s) review.  The Village Engineer noted that there would be four carriers on the cell tower (monopole).  They are: Nextel, New Cingular Wireless, Verizon and T. Mobile.  The intention is (would be) to have all four carriers come before the Planning Board at one time.

The Village Engineer said that he would also like to update the Planning Board tonight on the 1A Croton Point Avenue application.  He reviewed the history of the application stating that back in the summer of 2006 the Village Board referred NIR’s special permit application to the Planning Board. The Planning Board first discussed this application at their July 25, 2006 meeting. The Village Engineer noted that David Steinmetz and Jody Cross of Zarin & Steinmetz, Andreas Gruson of Regus Industries LLC, and Michael Gerrard of Arnold & Porter LLP, special counsel to the Village, were all present at that meeting.  Among other items, the requirements for a special permit application were discussed.  One of the recommendations made by the Planning Board at that meeting was to hire a consultant to aid the Planning Board in their review.  At the next meeting on August 8, 2006 the Planning Board continued their discussion on the hiring of the consultant.  The Village Engineer noted that there was no one present to represent the Applicant at the August 8th meeting.   

The Village Engineer stated that at the August 22, 2006 meeting, David Steinmetz was present.  Once again, the requirements for the submission of materials for a special permit application were discussed.  The Planning Board members told Mr. Steinmetz at that meeting that they were in the process of selecting a consultant.  They would continue their discussion on this matter of the consultant via email(s).  At the September 12th Planning Board meeting the Planning Board voted to recommend the hiring of Malcolm Pirnie to act as their consultant.  The Planning Board members also discussed the amount of escrow monies to be submitted.  The Planning Board decided to recommend to the Village Board that the Applicant submit $25,000 in escrow monies to pay for the consultant. The Planning Board prepared their recommendation to the Village Board in time for the September 18th Village Board meeting.  On September 18th the Village Board voted to approve the hiring of Malcolm Pirnie and to require $25,000 in escrow monies.  The Village Engineer noted to the board members that the Village Manager and he relayed to the Applicant’s attorney that $25,000 in escrow monies would be required.  To date, the Village has not received the escrow monies, and the Applicant has not contacted the Village to be placed (again) on an upcoming agenda.     
 
5.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, January 2, 2007 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

6.    ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:50 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills
SECRETARY


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, for Maria & Angelo Cipriano, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 44 Mt. Airy Road, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 68.17 Block 1 Lot 78; and

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minor Site Plan application as shown on Dwg. #060130.01 entitled “Proposed Site Plan Maria & Angelo Cipriano,” prepared by MGM Burbon LLC, dated December 27, 2006; and Dwg. 1 of 10 entitled “Front Elevation,” Dwg. 6 of 10 entitled “Side Elevation,” Dwg. 7 of 10 entitled “Side Elevation,” and Dwg. 8 of 10 entitled “Rear Elevation,” prepared by R. Barry Goewey, AIA, dated November 16, 2006, be approved subject to the following conditions:

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

2.      that the sewer line extension being proposed is subject to the approval of the Westchester County Health Department.

3.      that the driveway being shown on the Applicant’s plan be revised to the Village Engineer’s satisfaction.

4.      that a note be added to the Applicant’s plan that the stone walls are to be preserved.

5.      that the Applicant shall assist the Historical Society by allowing them access to the property and by taking digital photographs of the lot and existing house, shed, etc., and transferring onto a CD for the Historical Society’s use.  The Historical Society shall provide to the Planning Board and Applicant a report on their findings including and relevant documentation, photographic and otherwise, on the potential archeological/historical significance of this property.

6.      that the trees on the property be preserved to the greatest extent possible and that the Applicant apply for a tree permit, when required.

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. Luntz, 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, January 23, 2007.



RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, for Christopher Outhouse, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 23 Penfield Ave, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.13 Block 3 Lot 72.01; and

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minor Site Plan application as shown on Dwg. SP-1.1 entitled “Site Development Plan;” Dwg. A-1 entitled “Foundation and First Floor Plan;” Dwg. A-2 entitled “Second Floor and Roof Plan;” Dwg. A-3 entitled “Elevations;” and Dwg. A-4 entitled “Building Sections, prepared by Emil Babdriwsky R.A. and dated December 13, 2006, be approved subject to the following conditions:

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

2)      that the footing drain discharge location shall be separated from the roof leader discharge location, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

3)      that erosion and sedimentation control measures be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s).

4)      that the grading in the front of the house be revised, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.  The grading shall be such that the basement is considered a “cellar” under the Village Zoning Code.

5)      that the asphalt pavement from the driveway of the adjacent lot that extends over the property line shall be removed along with the remains of the old foundation in the rear of the lot.

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. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 2.  Chairman Kehoe and Ms. Allen were opposed.   
                
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, January 23, 2007.