VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran Allen, acting as Chairperson
ABSENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 P.M. by Chairperson Allen.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
* T/C of Croton Inc. (Tom & Carlene Fallacaro) – 75 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 78.12 Blk. 3 Lot 1) – Application for an Amended Site Plan Approval
Ed Gemmola of Gemmola & McWilliams, architect representing the Applicant, and Tom Fallacaro, owner of the property, were present.
Chairperson Allen opened the public hearing on this Amended Site Plan application. She asked Mr. Gemmola if he would explain the Applicant’s proposal to those present.
Mr. Gemmola stated that this application was before the Planning Board for the first time last month. The building in question is in a C-2 Zoning District. The second floor of the Applicant’s building is presently being occupied by the law firm of Robert J. Hilpert, Esq. The lower level of the building, which is now vacant, was previously occupied by a bicycle repair and retail shop. The Applicant’s proposal would be to renovate the lower level of the building to accommodate Mr. Hilpert’s expanding law practice.
Mr. Gemmola stated that the Applicant’s plans have been revised, based on the comments made at the last Planning Board meeting. He noted that the Village Engineer has reviewed the plans, and he has commented on the revisions in a memorandum distributed to the Planning Board tonight.
Mr. Gemmola referred to item 1 of the Village Engineer’s memorandum. The Village Engineer asked in item 1 that the second handicap parking space be relocated to be on the shortest accessible route to the building. Mr. Gemmola said that they could easily put the two handicap parking spaces together at the front of the building to conform to the Village Engineer’s request.
Mr. Gemmola referred to item 2 regarding the “No Parking Anytime” signs to be installed in the handicap parking aisles. He noted to the Village Engineer that, with respect to the handicap signs, the revised plans show a detail of the sign being proposed. The Village Engineer told Mr. Gemmola that he wanted to make sure that the signs would be installed in the striped aisles, to which Mr. Gemmola said that they (the Applicant) would have no problem doing that.
Mr. Gemmola said that with respect to the Village Engineer’s request in items 4 and 5 regarding the landscape plantings on the property, he would add a note to the site plan indicating that the plantings shall be maintained to a maximum height of 30 inches. A note would also be added indicating that the lower branches of street trees shall be pruned for sight distance purposes.
Mr. Gemmola asked the Village Engineer to clarify for him his request in item 6 regarding the storm drain manhole cover. The Village Engineer told Mr. Gemmola that he would like the Applicant to locate the manhole cover and, if found, bring it to the surface. The Village Engineer noted that if there were no manhole on the site then this would, of course, not be an issue. Mr. Fallacaro said that he would not have a problem bringing it (the manhole cover) up if, indeed, there is one. The Village Engineer stated that the Village does not know exactly where this manhole is situated but if it were situated on the site, he would like the Applicant to raise the cover up to grade.
Mr. Gemmola stated that as requested in item 7, a backflow prevention device would, indeed, be provided.
Mr. Gemmola noted that there was a question at the last meeting about the Village pick-up(s) for garbage. He has since learned that the DPW picks up the garbage twice a week. The Applicant intends to remove the existing trash bins.
Mr. Gemmola told the board members that the proposed retaining wall, which would replace the existing railroad tie wall, would be a masonry product (textured block).
Mr. Gemmola referred to the minutes of the Visual Environment Board (VEB) meeting dated July 23, 2007. He noted that, as stated in the minutes, the VEB would recommend that boxwood be planted in the lawn area along the front to hide the parking lot from view. Boxwood is serviceable and aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Gemmola said that the Applicant also thinks that boxwood would be a good choice of plants; the Applicant’s site plan shows boxwood in the front lawn area.
Mr. Gemmola said that if there were any questions tonight from the Planning Board or members of the public, he would be happy to answer them.
Chairperson Allen asked if there were anyone in the audience who wanted to speak on this application, to which there were none.
Mr. Sharma referred to the Applicant’s site plan indicating six parking spaces along the back of the property, which are slightly under the code requirements for size. Mr. Gemmola said that the six spaces to which Mr. Sharma is referring are existing spaces, which were (are) probably used by employees. The Village Engineer noted that the law firm would not want their clients using these smaller (tighter) spaces. He (the Village Engineer) noted that, even if the number of spaces were reduced from six to five the zoning requirements for the minimum number of parking spaces would still be met. The Village Engineer suggested that, if the tenant (Hilpert) complains or if the employees of the law firm say that the spaces are too tight, then they could reduce the number of parking spaces by one (six
to five) and re-stripe the spaces.
Mr. Sharma referred to the proposed layout of the parking and questioned whether cars could easily maneuver when parked in the lot. Mr. Gemmola said that, with respect to the cars parked in the front, he would think there would be enough room to back up and pull out. He noted that with the angled parking being proposed for the site, a driver of a vehicle would need less of an aisle width to maneuver his/her vehicle.
Chairperson Allen asked if there were any other comments, to which there were none.
Chairperson Allen closed the public hearing.
Chairperson Allen read aloud the draft resolution. She asked the Planning Board members present if they would want to incorporate into the resolution the conditions enumerated in the Village Engineer’s memorandum discussed tonight. The Planning Board decided that they would make it a condition of the approval that the Applicant should abide by the conditions enumerated in the Village Engineer’s memorandum. The memorandum would be attached to the Planning Board’s resolution.
Chairperson Allen entertained a motion to approve this application with the condition(s) discussed tonight. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
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, P.E., engineer representing the Applicant, was present.
Mr. Mastromonaco stated that, since the last Planning Board meeting on this application, the Applicant has been before the Water Control Commission and has been granted a Wetlands Activity Permit for the minor encroachment into the wetlands buffer area.
The Village Engineer referred to condition #3 of the WCC’s draft resolution. Condition #3 states that the Applicant’s driveway “is not to be impervious.” The Village Engineer said that he does not agree with this condition. The Village Engineer said that, with respect to the driveway, he would think just the opposite, that the driveway’s surface should be asphalt in that location. He would rather have the Applicant put in dry wells than have the driveway be composed of gravel. He would discuss this matter with the WCC. Mr. Mastromonaco told the Planning Board that he does not know where that condition “came from.” He does not recall having discussed any of this with the WCC.
Chairperson Allen referred to condition #2 of the WCC’s draft resolution. She asked Mr. Mastromonaco if, at their meeting, the WCC had had access to the Applicant’s plan that would have answered the issues raised in condition #2 regarding the landscaping, tree removal, drainage, etc. Mr. Mastromonaco told Chairperson Allen that he showed the WCC the tree plan at the meeting. Although he did not include the tree plan in their packets, they did see this plan. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that the WCC told him at the meeting that they would want the Planning Board, in their (the Planning Board’s) on-going review of this application, to request a landscaping plan. The WCC discussed the landscaping at their meeting, but a landscaping plan would be more in the Planning Board’s purview. Mr. Mastromonaco
noted that the landscaping plan would be different from the tree plan in that it would show where the lawn areas would go, any new trees to be planted, etc.
Chairperson Allen noted that there would be numerous trees removed for the construction of the driveway on Lot #1. She questioned what the visual impact(s) of this tree removal would be on Albany Post Road. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that at the WCC meeting it was suggested that, for mitigation purposes, these trees being removed should be replaced. The Village Engineer said that he would suggest that on the landscaping plan, the Applicant should show the trees to remain and the new (replacement) trees.
The Village Engineer suggested that, besides the area along Albany Post Road, the Applicant might want to consider putting in replacement trees between the existing house and the two new houses. Mr. Mastromonaco told the Village Engineer that he would think this type of landscaping plan would only be required at the time of the minor site plan and not at this early stage (as part of a subdivision plan). Chairperson Allen said that it is certainly within the Planning Board’s purview to require such a plan. The Village Engineer told Mr. Mastromonaco that the Applicant should try to develop some kind of proposal, however, it should be noted that the landscaping plan would be subject to field decisions later on. Chairperson Allen asked if there would be any replacement plantings to mitigate the disturbance to
wetlands areas, to which Mr. Mastromonaco said, “No,” there would not be. He added that the subject wetlands areas are actually not on the Applicant’s property.
Mr. Mastromonaco noted to the Planning Board members that the Applicant’s plans have always shown the water and sewer connections for the Duce Subdivision crossing over the Arrowcrest Subdivision conservation easement. The Applicant (Mr. Duce) would need permission from the Arrowcrest Homeowners Association (HOA) to cross over this easement. To date, he has not gained permission from the HOA. Mr. Mastromonaco distributed to the Planning Board a plan showing an alternative location for the water and sewer lines. In the alternative plan the utilities for the water and sewer would cross over Mr. Duce’s existing piece of property. Mr. Mastromonaco noted that the Applicant would like to continue to try to obtain the permission of the HOA for the location of the water and sewer utilities. The route over the HOA’s conservation easement would be preferable because it is a shorter route.
The Village Engineer noted that in the Applicant’s alternative plan, the utilities for Lot #1 would cross over the back of Lot #2. This would create an encumbrance on this property (Lot #2). Mr. Mastromonaco said that, should the Applicant have to go with the alternative plan for the utilities the Applicant would create an easement over the back of Lot #2. The Village Engineer pointed out to Mr. Mastromonaco that having this easement would “prevent anything from happening in the back yard” of Lot #2. Mr. Mastromonaco said that he would think that as long as the future homeowners maintain the function of the easement, they could do anything they want in their back yard.
The Village Engineer asked Mr. Mastromonaco how the alternative utilities plan would change the steep slopes calculations. Mr. Mastromonaco said that he would probably have to revise the steep slopes calculations. He would let the Village Engineer know. Mr. Andrews asked if there were any trees in the “new” disturbance area for the utilities that have not been plotted on the plan. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that this area for the utilities has already been disturbed. The utilities would actually be located within an easement area that was created when Mr. Duce developed his original (three-lot) subdivision. The Village Engineer said that he would visit the Duce site and take a look at the new (alternative) location for the water/sewer connections. He would see if there were any trees on this
(the alternative) route and if there were, he would have the Applicant put them on the plan.
Chairperson Allen noted to Mr. Mastromonaco that in the Planning Board’s review of subdivision applications the Planning Board has always had the Applicant draw on their plan(s) the limits of disturbance for positioning the houses on lots. As far as she could tell this has not been done with this (the Duce) application. Mr. Mastromonaco noted that there are lines on the Applicant’s plans that show the limits of disturbance and lines that show the building envelopes within which houses can be sited. When someone purchases one of the subdivision lots, he/she would have to come back before the Planning Board with a minor site plan application to build a house. He would think that the actual decision on the siting of the house would be made at that time.
Mr. Mastromonaco noted that there was an issue raised at a previous meeting(s) regarding the calculation of steep slopes on this (the Duce) property. It is his understanding that the Village Attorney has rendered an opinion that steep slopes calculations are based on the whole site rather than the individual lots. Mr. Mastromonaco said that he has performed the steep slopes analysis using the whole site. Chairperson Allen questioned how calculating the steep slopes in this way would impact the siting of houses when a future applicant comes before the Planning Board with a minor site plan application. The Village Engineer noted to the Planning Board that, with respect to the steep slopes, the disturbance is (would be) allocated between the two lots. He thought that perhaps, for clarification purposes and to aid
the Planning Board in their review, this allocation of the disturbance could be indicated in the table on the Applicant’s plan. The Village Engineer said that it would act as a guideline in the Planning Board’s review of a minor site plan to know how much of a disturbance is on each subdivision lot. Mr. Mastromonaco noted that there is no requirement in the Village Code to provide this information. He noted further that when a future applicant comes before the Planning Board for a minor site plan there is no requirement in the Village Code to make use of these steep slopes calculations at all. The steep slopes are calculated during the subdivision process for the purpose of determining the number of lots. Mr. Mastromonaco said that, in this case, in adhering to the Village’s steep slopes regulations, it was determined that the total number of subdivision lots could only be two. He would not want to further restrict the size of the
The Village Engineer stated that the Village’s consultants are currently in the process of revising the steep slopes law. The law is in draft form. The Village Engineer noted that the new law is “quite different from what we [the Village] have on the books now.”
The Village Engineer suggested that when a future applicant comes before the Planning Board with a minor site plan application for one of these lots, the Planning Board could ask the applicant to provide information on how much slope area is being disturbed. It would then be up to the Planning Board to make sure that the first lot “does not expand the disturbance” when these lots are developed. Chairperson Allen said that she would think, from the point of view of where a house could be built, it would be better to show the house location now, at the subdivision stage, rather than at the time of the minor site plan. The Planning Board would be better off if, at this point, the disturbance lines were drawn on both of these lots that would satisfy the steep slopes requirements. The Village Engineer
reiterated that the problem with the current steep slopes law is that the calculations are based on the whole site rather than each lot. The house on Lot #l is in a steep slopes area. It would be difficult later on to allocate the disturbance and still be under the total site disturbance. The Village Engineer noted that the current steep slopes law does not address the incremental disturbance over time.
The Village Engineer recalled that at a previous meeting the Planning Board had asked the Applicant to provide building envelopes that were somewhat more restrictive so that the proposed houses could not, at some point in the future, be moved further down the hill toward Route 9A.
The Village Engineer said that the Planning Board could make it a condition of their approval that disturbance lines be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s). He pointed out that the line(s) might have to be shifted somewhat due to actual field conditions at the time of the house construction.
Mr. Andrews noted that the principal building envelope line, as shown on the plan, does not necessarily coincide with the limits of disturbance line.
Mr. Andrews wondered if, perhaps, there could be an arrangement worked out with the Applicant as to where the proposed houses could reasonably be situated. There should be a way to make it clear to a future owner that the Planning Board would want him/her to rely on the natural topography of the land as much as possible and stay away from the sloped areas. He suggested that a building envelope might be imposed around the houses that would be somewhat more restrictive (more restrictive than the Zoning Code) but still make sense from a practical standpoint.
Mr. Sharma said that he would think that it might be useful to know, for the minor site plan review later on, what the allocation of the steep slopes is for each lot. Mr. Mastromonaco said that when they tried to calculate the steep slopes based on the individual lots they could not come up with a reasonable “dividing line” for the lots. By calculating the steep slopes based on the property as a whole, they were able to create reasonably shaped lots. Mr. Andrews told Mr. Mastromonaco that what Mr. Sharma is asking for are the calculations for each of the two lots as currently drawn. Mr. Andrews thought that this would be useful information to have because the Planning Board would then clearly understand, in so far as the steep slopes are concerned what the potential problems for building on these lots
The Village Engineer said that the Village adopted its minor site plan procedures without analyzing the steep slopes law. They (steep slopes and minor site plan) “interact with each other” and, in his view, this should have been done.
Mr. Andrews suggested to those present a possible solution to the problem being discussed tonight regarding the steep slopes. He referred to the Applicant’s proposed subdivision plan and said that the proposed location of the house on the second lot would seem to be in a flatter area. He suggested moving the principal building envelope line closer to the limits of disturbance line on that lot. Mr. Andrews noted that the house on Lot #1 is already in a disturbance area. The principal building envelope on Lot #1 would not have to be touched. Mr. Andrews said that he would think that if the principal building envelope on Lot #2 could be moved from the top of that lot closer to the proposed disturbance line, it would give the Planning Board some level of comfort. Mr. Andrews suggested that the
building envelope should be for the houses only. The Planning Board would deal with the accessory structures later on. Mr. Andrews suggested that the Applicant and the Village Engineer could work together to resolve this matter.
Mr. Mastromonaco thought that Mr. Andrews’ solution was an acceptable one.
Chairperson Allen said that she thinks Mr. Andrews’ suggestion is a good one. “What [it] does is clarify that whatever is built would be within that principal [building] envelope.” Mr. Andrews pointed out that, for practical purposes, a future homeowner would probably opt to put the house in this (the restricted) area anyway. Mr. Mastromonaco noted that if, for whatever reason, the house had to be relocated, the Planning Board would have the ability to change the building envelope when a future applicant comes in with a minor site plan.
Mr. Mastromonaco told the board that he would work with the Village Engineer and put on the Applicant’s plan the more restrictive building envelope being discussed.
The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s profile plan shows a few areas of minor fill. He asked Mr. Mastromonaco to put curbs or dry wells in those locations to prevent erosion. Mr. Mastromonaco said that they could enhance the grading, if the Village Engineer wanted them to. The Village Engineer said that the drainage coming off the driveway for Lot #1 would flow onto Albany Post Road. He would want the drainage to flow into the detention pond. He reiterated that curbing or dry wells should be installed. Mr. Mastromonaco suggested that he could meet with the Village Engineer to discuss this matter.
Mr. Mastromonaco asked if the public hearing on this application could be scheduled for the next Planning Board meeting. The Village Engineer told the board members that if they decide to schedule the public hearing, he could work with Mr. Mastromonaco in the interim on the drainage issues. Mr. Mastromonaco said that, for the public hearing, he would have the principal building envelope line on Lot #2 redrawn. Mr. Andrews reminded Mr. Mastromonaco that a landscaping plan should be provided. Mr. Mastromonaco said that the purpose of the landscaping plan is to maintain the buffer between Albany Post Road and the driveway. He would not be able to do the landscaping between the individual houses at this time. The Village Engineer thought that the Applicant might need to provide buffering (just some
trees) for the house being proposed on Arrowcrest Drive.
The Planning Board scheduled the public hearing on this application for the next Planning Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 14th.
b) Zeytinia Gourmet Market – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Annual Report Submission of Deliveries by 18-Wheeler Trucks
The Village Engineer stated that on February 1, 2005 the Planning Board amended condition #4 of their amended site plan resolution, dated October 14, 2003, pertaining to Zeytinia Gourmet Market. The amended condition limited the number of deliveries in 18-wheeler trucks to one delivery per week. The amended condition also required the Applicant to submit an annual report on the number of deliveries made to Zeytinia in 18-wheelers. The Village Engineer stated that his office received the annual report on July 16th. The report showed that Zeytinia complied with the amended condition except in one instance. During the month of August 2006 Zeytinia received two deliveries in one week, one on August 25th and the other on August 29th,
Joann Minett of 5 VanCortlandt Place questioned the accuracy of Zeytinia’s report. She asked the Planning Board how they would know for certain that the information in the report is correct. Ms. Minett said that she has been keeping track of the deliveries to Zeytinia, and there are oftentimes more than one delivery in an 18-wheeler per week. She has called the Engineer’s Office many times to complain about these deliveries. To date, this problem has not been resolved. The Village Engineer told Ms. Minett that the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer has been addressing her complaints about Zeytinia. It would be part of the Code Enforcement Officer’s investigation into this matter to find out whether or not the report produced by Zeytinia is accurate.
Mr. Sharma questioned why the Planning Board would be involved with this matter of the number of truck deliveries. He would think that this would be a matter for the Code Enforcement Officer and not the Planning Board. The Village Engineer said that it was a condition of the Planning Board’s resolution of approval that an annual report be submitted. He thought it should be placed on the agenda tonight to keep the Planning Board informed about an item that recurs each year.
Mr. Andrews suggested that the Village Engineer could explain to the Planning Board members and to Ms. Minett how the Village Engineer’s Office and/or Code Enforcement is handling Ms. Minett’s complaint about the 18-wheelers. The Village Engineer said that several weeks ago he wrote a letter to Zeytinia to remind them that they have to provide the annual report on the number of 18-wheeler deliveries. He received the annual report, which shows that they are in compliance with the condition in the Planning Board’s resolution. The Village Engineer stated that the Code Enforcement Officer and he have made site visits to Zeytinia to follow up on Ms. Minett’s complaints about the number of deliveries. They did not see any more than one delivery in an 18-wheeler on their site
visits. They did see many smaller trucks making deliveries to Zeytinia. The Village Engineer noted to the board members that due to the workload in the Engineer’s Office and the limited number of staff, they have not been able to visit the site everyday. He suggested that they could continue their investigation to see if Zeytinia is, indeed, in compliance.
Chairperson Allen asked the Village Engineer how he would know that the report provided by Zeytinia is accurate. The Village Engineer said that it (the report) is determined to be accurate unless the Code Enforcement Officer or he finds out to the contrary. He suggested that he could look at the property file for Zeytinia to see what backup information they have provided. Ms. Minett said that, in her view, the annual report provided by Zeytinia is false. She suggested that the Village Engineer should contact the companies that deliver to Zeytinia in 18-wheeler trucks and ask them how many times they deliver per week. To her knowledge the companies that make the deliveries are Penn, White Rose and Food Distributors Corp. Ms. Minett noted that because she is a
neighboring resident and is “there all day,” she has been able to keep better track than the Village has of the number of 18-wheeler deliveries.
Ms. Minett referred to condition #4 in the resolution of approval for Zeytinia requiring that the Applicant come back to the Planning Board within three months’ time to show a plan for eliminating 18-wheeler deliveries or, in the alternative, present evidence as to why it could not be done. She questioned if the Applicant ever adhered to this condition. Ms. Minett expressed concern about the garbage at the back of the property, which she said is strewn all over the place. Ms. Minett stated that the gate to the back was supposed to be locked every night at 9:30 P.M. She told the board members that this lock has been broken for more than a year now. Ms. Minett stated that truck deliveries were not supposed to be made to the back prior to 7:00 A.M. This condition is also not being adhered to. Ms.
Minett said that she has heard trucks pull into the back to make deliveries as early as 4:30 A.M. Ms. Minett said that 18-wheeler trucks making deliveries to the shopping center block the traffic on Route 129. Sometimes the trucks are double-parked. Finally, Ms. Minett expressed her concern that the machines, situated on the top of the building, make too much noise. Ms. Minett told the board members that she has taken digital photographs of the Zeytinia site to show proof of the violations to the amended site plan, to which she has been referring tonight. In her view, in so far as Zeytinia is concerned, there has been no code enforcement by the Village Engineer’s Office.
The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that he would have the Code Enforcement Officer continue to look into this matter.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, June 26, 2007 Planning Board meeting was adjourned until the meeting of August 14, 2007.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on July 24, 2007 for T/C of Croton Inc. (Tom & Carlene Fallacaro), said property located at 75 South Riverside Avenue and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.12 Block 3 Lot 1 (formerly Section 24 Block 209 Lot 70); and
WHEREAS, the proposal would involve a change of use from a bicycle shop to law offices on the first floor of the building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the amended site plan application as shown on Drawing #SY-1 entitled “Proposed Plot Plan,” dated May 4, 2007, last revised July 11, 2007, prepared by Gemmola & McWilliams, LLP, Architects & Planners; Drawing #A-1 entitled “Proposed Lower Level Floor Plan;” Drawing #A-2 entitled “Proposed Exterior Elevations [Front & Left Side];” and Drawing #A-3 entitled “Proposed Exterior Elevations [Right Side],” dated June 21, 2007, prepared by Gemmola & McWilliams, LLP, Architects & Planners, and Drawing #EC-1 entitled “Existing Lower Level Floor Plan” and Drawing #EC-2 entitled “Existing Upper Level Floor Plan,” dated July 12, 2007, prepared by Gemmola & McWilliams, LLP, Architects & Planners, be approved
subject to the following condition:
1) that the Applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in the Village Engineer’s memorandum to the Planning Board dated July 24, 2007 (attached).
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, Chairman
Motion to approve by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Messrs. Kehoe and Luntz were absent from the meeting.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on July 24, 2007.
To: Planning Board
From: Daniel O'Connor
Subject: 75 South Riverside Ave. Amended Site Plan
Date: July 24, 2007
The revised plans have been reviewed; comments are as follows:
1. The second handicap parking space shall be relocated to be on the shortest accessible route to the building.
2. A note should be added to the plans indicating that “No Parking Anytime” signs shall be installed in the in the handicap parking aisles.
3. The size of the Boxwood shrubs should be indicated on the plans.
4. A note should be added to the plans indicating that the landscape plantings shall be maintained to a maximum height of 30” to maintain sight distance at the property parking lot entrance.
5. A note should be added to the plans indicating that the lower branches of the street trees shall be pruned as directed by the Village Engineer to improve sight distance from the parking lot entrance.
6. A note should be added to the plans requiring that the storm drain manhole cover for the manhole in the planter area at the corner of the building is to be located and made accessible.
7. A note should be added to the plans indicating that a backflow prevention device shall be installed on the water supply line prior to a certificate of occupancy being granted for the first floor renovations.
8. Any proposed signs will need to be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval.