VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 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. NEW BUSINESS:
a) Constructive Investments LLC – 48 Prospect Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19.01) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for Lot #2 of the Hudson View Subdivision
Ron Wegner, P.E., of Cronin Engineering; William Spade, architect for the Applicant; and Kerri Gilday & Hilmar Fenger of Constructive Investments LLC were present.
Mr. Wegner stated that the subject lot (Lot #2) of the Hudson View Subdivision is situated on the corner of Old Post Road North and Prospect Place. Access to this lot would be off of Prospect Place. The lot is two acres in size. Mr. Wegner noted that some of the retention facilities for this subdivision are located on this parcel (Lot #2).
Mr. Wegner explained to the board members the changes that have been made to the infrastructure on Lot #2, which were not on the original subdivision plan. At the time the subdivision was proposed there was a swale running through the property. The drainage system currently being constructed consists of a closed pipe rather than a swale. Mr. Wegner noted that the proposed sewage system for the new house on Lot #2 would connect to an existing manhole rather than a new manhole.
Mr. Wegner told the board that access to the new house still comes off of Prospect Place, but they have changed the orientation of the house. The Planning Board has received in their packets the set of architectural plans.
Mr. Wegner noted that they meet the zoning requirements for the zoning district in which this lot is located (RA-25). He (Mr. Wegner) has calculated the steep slopes on the property and they are within the limits allowed by code.
Chairman Kehoe asked where the access to the detention basin easement would be, to which Mr. Wegner replied that access to the detention basin would be along the gravel driveway behind Prospect Place. Mr. Wegner noted that since this subdivision was approved, the Village has gained permission to go through the existing driveway south of Lot #1. The Village Engineer noted that the subject driveway was formerly the driveway for the DeSantis house. Mr. DeSantis has since sold his property, and the new owner has given the Village permission to use the existing driveway.
Mr. Wegner said that the orientation of the house was changed essentially for aesthetics purposes. As currently proposed, the house would be built to face Old Post Road North.
Ms. Allen questioned why the minimum activity setback shown on the final subdivision approval is no longer shown on the Applicant’s current plan(s). Mr. Wegner said that, with respect to the delineation of the wetlands area(s) on this piece of property (Lot #2), the watercourse that was formerly above ground no longer exists. The drainage pipe is in the ground, and the above ground drainage channel is no longer there. The Village Engineer explained to the board the changes that are being proposed to the Village’s wetlands law. The Village has increased the protection of wetlands areas in the Village by decreasing the size that could be regulated to 5,000 square feet. The pond on the Applicant’s property is less than 5,000 square feet, so the pond does not count as a wetlands. The Village Engineer noted that “poorly drained
soils” would not be regulated under the new wetlands law. The regulation of “rainfall drainage channels” was taken out of the new wetlands law and placed in the new stormwater law. The Village Engineer noted that a watercourse would be defined as a “wetlands” if the watercourse/stream were flowing for three or more consecutive months out of the year. He (the Village Engineer) would think that the stream coming through the middle of the Applicant’s property would not constitute a “wetlands” area as this stream does not flow for three or more months out of the year. The Village Engineer noted that the public hearing on the Village’s proposed wetlands law would take place in the near future.
Ms. Allen expressed her concern about the new wetlands law stating that the “net [result] of this is that we [the Village] went from a piece of property that was a good percentage wetlands to one with no wetlands.” Chairman Kehoe said that there is still a wetlands feature (stream) at the bottom of Lot #2. He noted that the house footprint, as shown on the subdivision plan, was situated within a wetlands area at the time the subdivision was approved, and the newly proposed house is still within a wetlands area. Mr. Wegner explained to the board members that the former owner of the property (Galina Feit) went before the Water Control Commission for a Wetlands Activity Permit and was granted the permit. The Village Engineer added that Ms. Feit went before the WCC for encroachment into two wetlands areas i.e., a “poorly drained
soils” area and a “rainfall drainage channel.” She received approval from the WCC. The Wetlands Activity Permit expired after one year. Ms. Feit renewed the permit when the year was up. The Village Engineer noted that the current owner of the property, Constructive Investments LLC (Hilmar Fenger), has also been before the WCC and has renewed this permit once again.
The Village Engineer stated that the issue at hand is that the Village is “transitioning” from the old to the new wetlands regulations. If the new law were to be adopted, then the “poorly drained soils” would not be regulated and the wetlands buffer boundaries on the Applicant’s property would have to be redrawn.
The Village Engineer noted that the Village’s consultants on the new wetlands law recommended that the Village’s definition of a “wetlands” be made standard i.e., as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Ms. Allen stated that if a local municipality were to choose to be more restrictive than the ACOE, they could, indeed, be more restrictive. She said that it would seem that the Village has opted to go in the opposite direction. Mr. Luntz noted that the original subdivision approval was granted to the former Applicant (Galina Feit) when the Village’s current wetlands law was still in effect “at a more stringent level.” He reiterated that the more stringent rules were in place when the subdivision was approved. The Village Engineer explained to the board that there was flooding mitigation put in
place by the Village’s stormwater consultants, Dvirka & Bartilucci, as a result of the poorly drained soils. D&B recommended that the pond should be made bigger, and this was done.
The Village Engineer told the Applicant that, because this lot is a corner lot, it has two front yards.
It is up to the property/homeowner to pick which yard should be classified as the “front yard.” Besides the front yard, the property has a side and rear yard. The Village Engineer noted that a side yard has less of a setback requirement than a rear yard. Mr. Wegner said that, given the proposed layout of the house it would not matter because they meet the requirements in both cases.
Mr. Luntz noted that the elevation drops off significantly from the front to the back of the property. Mr. Wegner said that the Applicant’s architect, Mr. Spade, took the grade(s) around the house into consideration when he designed the house.
Chairman Kehoe asked if the house being proposed were a 2?-story house. Mr. Luntz said that he would think, having looked at the elevation plans, that the house being proposed is a 2-story house. The Applicant’s architect, Mr. Spade, noted that the attic of the house would be left unfinished. Mr. Luntz said that the house would, therefore, be classified as a “2-story.”
Ms. Allen asked Mr. Spade what the highest distance would be from the existing ground level to the ridgeline of the proposed (new) house. Mr. Spade said that the elevation at the front yard is roughly 84. The peak of the roof is at elevation 117, so the height from ground level to the peak of the roof would be 33 feet. Mr. Spade noted that the average building height, which is taken from the average grade across the front of the house, is about 30 feet.
Mr. Spade presented the side elevation plan to the Planning Board, which showed the garage of the house at an oblique angle. Chairman Kehoe said that, as he understands it, it would be up to the future homeowner to buffer with plantings that corner of the garage. When coming up Prospect Place, that side of the garage would be visible from the street. Mr. Spade said that a person coming up Prospect Place would be “at [the] garage level.” He noted that the house itself “sits down below” Prospect Place and Old Post Road North.
Ms. Allen asked what the total height of the house would be if (it were) taken from the rear elevation. Mr. Spade said that the rear grades are 76 to 74. The peak of the roof is 112, so it would be 38 feet from ground level to the peak of the roof. Mr. Spade noted that the building height measurement, as defined in the Village Code, is to the midpoint of the roof. The measurement just calculated (38 feet) is the measurement from grade (ground level) straight up to the peak of the roof. Mr. Luntz said that it is his understanding, from the calculations that the Applicant has made, that this (the Applicant’s) proposal meets the Village Code’s height requirements.
The Village Engineer asked the Applicant’s engineer, Mr. Wegner, to look at the definitions in the Village Code for “basement” and “cellar” and determine, according to the code’s definitions, the number of stories of the house being proposed. A basement is considered a “story” whereas a cellar is not. The maximum number of stories allowed in the RA-25 residential zoning district is 2? stories. The Village Engineer noted to Mr. Wegner that if it were determined that the lower level is a “basement” rather than a “cellar,” the requirement regarding the number of stories would not be met. The situation could be rectified by raising the finished grade along the front of the house. The lower level could then be classified as a “cellar” and the requirement regarding the number of stories would be met.
The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that he would find out when the Applicant’s Wetlands Activity Permit was last extended. If it were more than a year since the permit was extended, then the Applicant would have to renew the permit. The Village Engineer noted that if the new law is in effect, and the permit needs to be extended, then the requirement in the new law would be for the Applicant to come before the Planning Board, rather than the Water Control Commission, for the extension of the permit. The Village Engineer noted further that under the new regulations, the length of time of the permit is left to the discretion of the approval authority. Under the old regulations, a wetlands activity permit is valid for only one year.
Ms. Allen noted that the limit of disturbance line has been eliminated from the Applicant’s plan. The limit of disturbance line is on the subdivision plan that the Planning Board has been looking at tonight. Ms. Allen questioned why this limit of disturbance line has been eliminated from the Applicant’s current plan. Mr. Wegner said that it is his understanding that the limit of disturbance line is not regulated except for how it applies to the steep slopes ordinance. The only place where it (this line) is “quantified” is in the slope analysis. The limit of disturbance needs to be quantified for the steep slopes law. Mr. Wegner noted that the result of the steep slopes analysis was that Lot #1 has no steep slopes and Lots #’s 2 and 3 have steep slopes and, indeed, these lots (#’s 2 and 3) take their present shape
because of the steep slopes. Ms. Allen asked if, with respect to the current proposal for a house on Lot #2, the Applicant would be going outside the limit of disturbance that was approved with the original subdivision. Mr. Wegner said that the answer to Ms. Allen’s question is “Yes,” however, with the new house design, areas that were previously being disturbed are not being disturbed. Chairman Kehoe said that the question to ask is, “Is the difference (in the limit of disturbance line) relevant?” Ms. Allen said that there has to be a rationale for changing the limit of disturbance line. This rationale has to be based on the land and not the house design being proposed. Ms. Allen said that, when the subdivision was approved, the Planning Board took into consideration the amount of fill to be brought in, the number of trees to be removed, etc. The line was drawn to take into account a number of factors, not just steep slopes. Ms. Allen reiterated
that the placement/location of the limit of disturbance line was not an “arbitrary” decision on the part of the Planning Board; there was a definite rationale behind it.
Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board spends a great deal of time on site plan and/or house-related issues as part of the subdivision review process. Then, when the minor site plan application for the house comes before the Planning Board, the plan for the house has invariably changed. Chairman Kehoe said that he, personally, finds this process to be somewhat unwieldy. The Village Engineer stated that the Planning Board reviews the minor site plan “up to a point” during the subdivision process. Issues pertaining to the site, such as disturbance to the steep slopes and drainage flow(s), are reviewed. Disturbance areas are quantified at this juncture. If there were a circumstance, for example, that required the tightening of a building envelope around the house(s), then that would have to be looked at
during the subdivision review process. The Village Engineer noted that a major part of the minor site plan review is (would be) the architectural review of the structure.
Mr. Wegner noted to the board members that, when this subdivision was approved, there were no building envelopes applied to the subdivision lots. Chairman Kehoe said that if this is true the “dash” disturbance line, as shown, is not a building envelope. Ms. Allen said that she thought this “dash” line meant that there should be no disturbance beyond that line. Mr. Sharma suggested that, instead of discussing the “old” limit of disturbance line on the subdivision plan, the Planning Board should consider the Applicant’s plan, as it exists now. The Planning Board should make a determination based on the current plan. Ms. Allen thought that the Applicant should be asked to come back with a plan showing the limit of disturbance line(s). Mr. Luntz said that he would think the Planning Board should deal with the plan that is
“on the table” and move toward some sort of resolution. Ms. Allen said that she finds it troubling that the Planning Board is being asked to review a minor site plan that, she believes, completely ignores the originally approved subdivision plan.
The Village Engineer said that the attic being proposed might be considered to be a half a story. The Applicant should refer to the definition in the Village Code of what constitutes an “attic.” This should be clearly annotated on the Applicant’s plan.
The Village Engineer told the Applicant that, with respect to the drainage system being proposed they might want to consider having the overflow to the dry well go to the manhole. The Applicant should add to the plan the proposed limit of disturbance around the swale.
The Village Engineer stated that the two black walnut trees on the property line need to be properly identified. In so far as tree protection is concerned, the Applicant’s tree protection plan should show the drip line. The Applicant should make sure that the swale is outside the drip line.
The Village Engineer noted that there is an old stone wall on the Applicant’s property, both on Old Post Road North and on Prospect Place. The Applicant has already repaired a portion of this wall. The Village Engineer said that he does not know if there was ever a decision made about what to do with the sidewalk and the stone wall. Tree roots are taking over the area in between the sidewalk and the wall. The Village Engineer told the Applicant that the sidewalk needs to be continued over the driveway when the driveway is put in.
The Village Engineer stated that because the subject property (Lot #2) is a corner lot, the house on this lot would be visible from both streets (Prospect Place and Old Post Road North). The architectural aspect of the Planning Board’s minor site plan review is, therefore, very important. Ms. Gilday told the board members that they intend to use the same stone facing on the house as they used on Lot #3. The rest of the house would be colored siding (painted wood). Mr. Spade noted that, on the side elevation, the stone would be brought up to the wainscoting. In the front, it would be brought all the way up to the eaves. The Village Engineer suggested to Mr. Spade that he should develop the elevation plans in color so that the Planning Board could visualize more clearly what the new house would look like. The Village Engineer noted that there is an old stone house on the opposite corner on Prospect Place. The Planning Board would want the new house to be in character with the
neighboring stone houses.
The Village Engineer asked what the square footage of the house would be, to which Mr. Spade replied that that the first floor footprint and garage would be 4,065 square feet. The total living space would be 5,704 square feet.
The Village Engineer asked what the color of the siding would be. He noted that the siding on the existing house on Lot #3 is a gray color. Mr. Spade noted that the color of the siding for the house on Lot #2 would have a little more yellow in it. Changing the color slightly is a way of distinguishing the two houses.
The Village Engineer noted that some additional trees would have to be removed due to the driveway construction. Mr. Wegner said that a total of four additional trees are coming down. The Village Engineer stated that one option would be to have replacement trees planted for those trees to be removed. Ms. Gilday said that they have been working with a landscape specialist for the plantings on Lot #2. Their landscape specialist has recommended several different trees for Lot #2 that would be in keeping with the trees found in this neighborhood. Ms. Gilday suggested that she could provide for the Planning Board the names of the trees and bring in a rendering to show what the landscaping on the property would look like.
The Village Engineer said that he would look into the current status of the Applicant’s Wetlands Activity Permit and let the Applicant know.
Mr. Wegner told the board members that the Applicant would be back before the Planning Board the first meeting of August with the items requested tonight.
b) John & Luz Kochiss – 48 Wells Avenue (Sec. 78.08 Blk. 7 Lot 43.01) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval to Construct a New Single-Family Dwelling
Ron Wegner, P.E., of Cronin Engineering; Annemarie Addeo, attorney for the Applicant; and John & Luz Kochiss, owners of the property, were present.
The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that this Applicant was before the Zoning Board of Appeals in March of this year and was granted a variance from the lot depth requirement.
Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. & Mrs. Kochiss if they also own the improved lot next door to the lot in question, to which Mr. Kochiss said that they do.
Chairman Kehoe asked if the garage being proposed would be below-grade, to which Mr. Wegner said that it would be. He added that this proposal for a single-family dwelling is similar to that which was presented to the Planning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Outhouse earlier this year; however, the terrain of the Kochiss’ property/lot is not as flat.
The Village Engineer said that the shed in the back of the property is to be removed.
Mr. Wegner stated that the grade of the driveway is 11%, which would meet the code requirements for a driveway grade.
The Village Engineer told Mr. Wegner that in order to determine whether the bottom story of the house is to be considered a “basement” or a “cellar,” he would have to do the calculations as defined in the Village Code.
The Village Engineer noted that the driveway being proposed would be 21 feet wide so that there would be room for two cars to fit in the driveway.
The Village Engineer noted that there is a public park situated behind the Kochiss’ property. It would appear from the GIS map that there are woods between the park and their (the Kochiss’) property. The Village Engineer asked the Applicant if they thought the woods would be sufficient to buffer the house from view, to which Mr. Kochiss said, “Yes,” he would think that the woods would be sufficient.
The Village Engineer said that it has been brought to his attention that the neighbors to the south of the Kochiss’ property have had a problem in the past with drainage i.e., water pooling above the road off of their lot. In order to minimize the impact(s) to the neighbors, a drainage system would have to be developed that would catch the water coming off of the Kochiss’ property. Ms. Kochiss noted to the Village Engineer that they have lived in the house next door for the last five years, and she had never noticed any pooling in that area.
Chairman Kehoe stated that the Applicant’s plan shows a 10-inch sanitary sewer line being proposed for the new house. He asked if the existing stone wall would have to be removed for the sewer line to be put in, to which Mr. Wegner said that they would try to preserve this stone wall. The Village Engineer wanted to know if the Applicant would repair the stone wall should it be damaged during the sewer line installation, to which Mr. Wegner said, “Yes,” any damage to the stone wall would be repaired.
The Village Engineer noted that there is a Village drainage easement situated in the area where the proposed driveway would be installed. He would want to make sure that no infrastructure is installed in the ground in that area. In order to check the status of this drainage easement, the Village Engineer asked to see a copy of the survey. Ms. Addeo said that she would provide the Village Engineer with a copy of the survey.
Chairman Kehoe noted that the architectural design of the house being proposed seems similar, in character, to the other houses on Wells Avenue and Beekman Avenue.
The Village Engineer noted that the Village right-of-way off of Wells Avenue is rather large. Given the size of the right-of-way, he would think that the Applicant could stay off of the road with their utility lines and storm drain line. The Village Engineer suggested that the utilities and storm drain line could come down the shoulder of the road in the grassy area, which would be preferable to opening up the road.
The Village Engineer asked the Applicant to provide inverts for the storm drain line.
The Village Engineer noted that there is a sidewalk that comes down through the park. The Village might decide to install more sidewalks in this area of the Village at some point in the future. He asked the Applicant if they could design the very front of their property in such a way as to be able to provide a future sidewalk.
The Village Engineer asked the Applicant to submit cut sheets for the drainage system.
The Village Engineer noted that most of the trees, which are being saved, are close to the property line(s). Mr. Kochiss noted that there is a half-rotted Japanese maple tree on the property, which is next to the proposed dry well. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could remove the Japanese maple tree and install, as mitigation, a street and/or replacement tree. The same holds true for the cedar tree, which is to be removed. The Village Engineer (also) recommended that the Applicant could continue the row of pine trees in the back of the property to delineate the back property line. The row of pine trees would serve to delineate the Applicant’s property from the Village’s park property. Mr. Luntz suggested that the Planning Board could approve this application with a condition
that the row of pine trees be planted in the back, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.
Ms. Allen asked about the hickory tree in the front of the property on Wells Avenue, which is to be removed. The Village Engineer noted that this hickory tree is in the street right-of-way, so the Village would have to give the Applicant permission to take the tree down. This hickory tree is 40 feet in height and is in decent condition. The Village Engineer noted to the board that he would have to look into this matter of removing the hickory tree. Chairman Kehoe said that he would like to avoid having a “debate” in the future about what happened to this tree. The Village Engineer stated that this tree might be able to be saved. He would have to look into it. The Village Engineer noted that the tree is in the area of the proposed driveway. The new driveway would have to meet the
code requirements for width, etc. He suggested that Mr. Wegner and he could make a visit to the site to see what could be done.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments on this application, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution with 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 row of pine trees be continued along the back property line to delineate the Applicant’s property from the Village’s property (park). The row of pine trees would serve as a buffer between the two properties. The row of pine trees shall be planted, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.
3) that a replacement tree be planted in the area where the Japanese maple tree has to be removed, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.
4) that, if at all possible, the hickory tree, which is situated in the Village right-of-way, be saved. The Village Engineer would meet the Applicant’s engineer in the field to examine changes to the driveway and retaining wall for the purpose of saving this hickory tree.
Chairman Kehoe noted that the Village Engineer’s comments tonight, relating to the engineering aspects of this application would be addressed when the Applicant applies for a building permit.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this minor site plan application with the conditions discussed tonight. The motion to approve was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
c) Omnipoint Communications, Inc. – Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for the Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the Municipal Building
Robert Gaudioso, attorney with Snyder & Snyder, LLP, was present to represent the Applicant.
Mr. Gaudioso noted to the Planning Board members that Nextel has just received their building permit from the Village to go forward with their cellular installation on the roof of the Municipal Building. He would hope that the Village could approve the Omnipoint application in a timely fashion so that Omnipoint could “catch up” to Nextel. The Omnipoint installation would be similar to the Nextel installation, however Omnipoint would require less equipment, both in the attic and on the roof. Omnipoint’s equipment for the attic, which consists of three individual cabinets, is self-contained. There would also be less equipment on the roof (i.e., only four antennas). The antennas would be installed on two chimneys situated on the south side of the building and the northwest corner, respectively. Each of the two
chimneys would house two antennas. Mr. Gaudioso said that the antennas would be hand-painted to match the brickwork. The four antennas would be flush-mounted to the building.
Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Gaudioso how many more cell phone operators could collocate on the rooftop of the Municipal Building, to which Mr. Gaudioso replied that they have come up with three, including Nextel.
Mr. Gaudioso explained to the Planning Board members that Omnipoint operates under the name of T-Mobile.
The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board would need to recommend to the Village Board that consultants be hired to assist the Planning Board in their environmental review of this application. He suggested the same consultants who performed the Nextel review i.e., Frederick P. Clark Associates (FPCA) and RCC Consultants, Inc. FPCA would do the site plan and code compliance review and RCC, the technical review. The Village Engineer also recommended that LynStaar Engineering perform the electrical review. The Village Engineer pointed out to the board that because FPCA and RCC performed the Nextel review they should be “comfortable with” the Omnipoint application. He would think that the process would be more streamlined this time. Mr. Gaudioso added that, in so far as the Omnipoint application
is concerned, this is “ground that has (already) been covered.”
Chairman Kehoe said that, as he understands the process, the Planning Board would draft a letter to the Village Board recommending, as consultants for this project, FPCA, RCC and LynStaar.
The Village Engineer noted that the next meeting of the Village Board would be held on Monday, July 16th. The deadline for materials for that meeting would be tomorrow (Wednesday).
Mr. Gaudioso distributed to the Planning Board members a document entitled “Visual Resource Evaluation – Proposed Installation of Flush-Mounted Antennas,” dated July 1, 2007. He noted that this document should be included in the Omnipoint application materials that the Planning Board members already have.
The Village Engineer said that the Applicant would need to submit escrow monies to pay for the consultants’ environmental review. He suggested that $5,000 should be submitted. Chairman Kehoe noted that, in the Planning Board’s memorandum to the Village Board, the Planning Board should (also) recommend that the amount of $5,000 in escrow monies be submitted.
Ms. Allen asked if new coverage maps would be provided as part of the Omnipoint application, to which Mr. Gaudioso said, “Yes.”
Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant that the Planning Board’s memorandum to the Village Board would be prepared in time for the next Village Board meeting to be held on Monday, July 16th.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, for John and Luz Kochiss, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 48 Wells Avenue, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.08 Block 7 Lot 43.01; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new single-family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2007, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a lot depth variance; 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 Sheet #SP-1.1 entitled “Site Development Plan – Site Grading & Utility Layout for Kochiss,” dated July 5, 2007, prepared by Cronin Engineering P.E. P.C. and plan #A1 entitled “Foundation Plan, Construction Plans & Elevations;” plan #A2 entitled “Construction Plan, Roof Plan, Site Plan & Elevations;” and plan #A3 entitled “Electrical Plans, General Notes & Details,” dated December 23, 2004, 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 row of pine trees be continued along the back property line to delineate the Applicant’s property from the Village’s property (park). The row of pine trees would serve as a buffer between the two properties. The row of pine trees shall be planted, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.
3. that a replacement tree be planted in the area where the Japanese maple tree has to be removed, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.
4. that, if at all possible, the hickory tree, which is situated in the Village right-of-way, be saved. The Village Engineer would meet the Applicant’s engineer in the field to examine changes to the driveway and retaining wall for the purpose of saving this hickory tree.
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
Motion to approve by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, July 10, 2007.