VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ABSENT: Deven Sharma
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kehoe.
2. OLD BUSINESS:
a) 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
Hilmar Fenger of Constructive Investments LLC was present.
Mr. Fenger distributed to the Planning Board members a drawing entitled “Impact Comparison Plan,” which compared the previously approved limits of disturbance for the subdivision to the new (current) limits of disturbance for Lot #2. Mr. Fenger said that the steep slopes calculations are close to the original approval. Chairman Kehoe noted that the numbers have changed slightly. The additional disturbance to slopes “15% to 20%” would be 100 square feet, and the additional disturbance to slopes “greater than 20%” would be 69 square feet. Mr. Fenger told the board that they “skewed” the house to avoid steep slopes areas, and this resulted in the new limits of disturbance line.
Chairman Kehoe said that he was unable to attend the last two Planning Board meetings on this application. At the last meeting, the board had requested that the Applicant provide a landscaping plan. He wondered what the reasons were for requesting this plan. Ms. Allen noted that she had requested that significant trees should be included. Mr. Fenger stated that the purpose of the landscaping would be to shield the exposed foundation of the garage. The thought is (would be) to create a border of plantings between Lots #’s 1 and 2. Mr. Fenger noted that there are two black walnut trees along the Prospect Street side of the property. They would propose to fill in the area around these trees with plantings.
Ms. Allen noted that the “Kwanzan” tree shown at the front of the house facing Old Post Road North is essentially a flowering cherry tree, which grows to be 50 feet high at the most. She questioned why more plantings are not being proposed for that corner of the property. Mr. Fenger told Ms. Allen that they did not want to plant “too high” in the area where Prospect Place intersects Old Post Road North.
Chairman Kehoe said that it would have been helpful to the Planning Board if the Applicant’s landscaper, Judith Terlizzi, were present tonight to describe and/or explain some of the plantings being proposed.
Mr. Luntz told Chairman Kehoe that the Planning Board was fairly close to making a decision on this application at the last meeting. At that meeting, the Applicant’s architect showed the board a change that was made to the exterior of the building with respect to the stone. The board members were satisfied with this change. Mr. Luntz noted that the Code requirements for the building have been met in terms of setbacks, size and height. There was some discussion last time about the amounts of disturbance. The Applicant has provided to the board tonight a plan comparing the old and new disturbance lines. The plan indicates that there is not much difference in the amounts of disturbance. Finally, the Planning Board asked for a landscaping plan, which the Applicant has provided to the board members
Ms. Allen said that she has a number of questions about the groupings of plants. She, too, would think it would be helpful to have the landscaper present.
Ms. Allen suggested that, with respect to the landscaping, the Planning Board could require, as a condition of the approval, replacements for the principal plantings, should these plants not survive. The Village Engineer said that the board could approve the landscaping plan with the condition that there be a one-year warranty on the plantings.
Ms. Allen noted that, at previous meetings, the board was concerned about the height of the house. She had heard that other municipalities have applicants do balloon tests. She questioned if the board had ever requested balloon tests from applicants when there was a concern raised by residents and/or board members about the height. The Village Engineer recalled that there were tests performed for the houses on the Velardo Subdivision lots. The Planning Board was concerned that the houses would be visible from the Hudson River. It was determined from the tests performed that the houses would not be visible. The Village Engineer noted that requiring these tests is (would be) at the board’s discretion. Mr. Luntz said that he thought the height issue had been resolved and that requiring these tests
would be unnecessary.
Mr. Fenger expressed concern to the board members about having to wait another two weeks until the next Planning Board meeting to have his landscaper present the landscaping plan. He asked if there would be a way to expedite the process. The Village Engineer suggested a possible alternative solution regarding the landscaping. The Planning Board could make it a condition of their approval that, prior to installation of the plantings, the final landscaping plan be reviewed by the Village’s environmental consultant. The Planning Board would have to approve the final plan. The Village Engineer suggested that the landscaping plan should be brought back to the board once the house is built. In his view, reviewing the plan at that time would make more sense. It would be better to look at the landscaping “when you can really visualize how it would relate to the house and what it would look like on the property.” The Village Engineer noted further that once the house is actually built
the landscaper might want to make a change to the plan anyway. Mr. Luntz thought that the Village Engineer’s suggestion about approving the landscaping plan was a good one. Ms. Allen said that she would like to know how much of the original vegetation, which was there prior to the work being done for the subdivision, remains on this lot (Lot #2). Chairman Kehoe asked if the “Impact Comparison Plan” submitted tonight shows the trees that are still remaining on Lot #2, to which the Village Engineer said that it does.
The Village Engineer reiterated that the board could require the Applicant to come back with a landscaping plan once the house is built. He would think that the Applicant’s landscaper would have a much better idea as to what the landscaping should look like at that point in time. Mr. Luntz agreed. Chairman Kehoe said that he, too, would think that this is a good solution. Ms. Allen disagreed. She said that she would think that the landscaping plan should be approved as part of the minor site plan approval. There is no recourse once the building activity begins. Ms. Allen said that there has been a significant amount of construction activity at this site (the Hudson View Subdivision site) that was not reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. She would think that, with respect to
the landscaping, there should be more plantings installed on the site than are being proposed. Ms. Allen stated that the Planning Board has to assure the neighbors and the Village that they are looking closely at the landscaping, especially since there have been a number of trees destroyed at this site already. Chairman Kehoe said that, as he understands it, the Planning Board would still be approving the landscaping plan, but it would be at a later date prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued.
The Village Engineer asked Mr. Fenger when he would be ready to do the planting. Mr. Fenger said that it would probably be in the springtime of 2008. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could come back to the Planning Board in December 2007 with a landscaping plan.
The Village Engineer suggested that, as part of the condition regarding the landscaping, the Planning Board could arrange a site visit with the Applicant’s landscaper and the Village’s environmental consultant. They could all meet out in the field “after the snow melts” to discuss the landscaping. Ms. Allen thought that this was a good idea. She also thought that, to aid the Planning Board in their review, the Applicant’s plan should be updated to show what currently exists on the lot. The Village Engineer agreed and told the Applicant to have his plan updated to show the property line and the existing trees.
Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution.
Chairman Kehoe stated that the first two conditions would be as follows:
1) that plans submitted for the building permit be reviewed by an environmental consultant identified by the Village.
2) that construction milestones be established by the Village Engineer at which times inspections by either Village inspectors or the environmental consultant for the project be performed prior to construction proceeding further.
Chairman Kehoe stated that, as discussed at tonight’s meeting, the resolution should also contain a condition regarding the Applicant’s final landscaping plan. The condition should read as follows:
that, once the house on Lot #2 is built but prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued, a final landscaping plan be submitted to the Planning Board. The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the Village’s environmental consultant and approved by the Planning Board prior to the installation of the plantings.
Chairman Kehoe noted that, if the construction of the house goes according to schedule, the Planning Board would expect that the Applicant’s landscaping plan would be back before the board in December 2007 or January 2008.
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 Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
At this juncture, Chairman Kehoe noted that the next item was supposed to be the referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit for Margo Francy. He told those present that there would be a problem making a quorum of three members if the Planning Board were to proceed with the agenda items in this order. Chairman Kehoe explained that there are only three members present and he (Chairman Kehoe) would be recusing himself from the review of this application. The Village Engineer informed the board that Mr. Andrews had planned to attend the meeting tonight but was delayed in traffic. It was his understanding that Mr. Andrews could still make the meeting, if necessary. He would contact Mr. Andrews to let him know that his presence would be required for a quorum. In the interim, the Planning Board could
review the Omnipoint application. John Gochman, Ms. Francy’s attorney, said that he would be willing to wait until later in the meeting (after Omnipoint) to be heard.
b) 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 – Reports from the Village’s Consultants, RCC Consultants, Inc. & Frederick P. Clark Associates
Robert Gaudioso of Snyder & Snyder, LLP attorney representing Omnipoint, was present.
Mr. Gaudioso told the board members that the Applicant has received the reports from RCC Consultants, Inc. and Frederick P. Clark Associates, and the Applicant has no objections to the comments made. Mr. Gaudioso noted that the Applicant decided not to submit a revised set of plans for tonight’s meeting. The changes requested were minor. The Applicant would make these changes to the plans and submit the revised set of plans to the Village Board when the Applicant has to go back before the Village Board for the public hearing.
Mr. Gaudioso stated that the Applicant has reviewed Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and has no comments.
Chairman Kehoe noted to Mr. Gaudioso that the Planning Board has received two reports from RCC Consultants, Inc. on the Omnipoint application. Mr. Gaudioso told the board members that the Applicant has already responded to RCC’s first report. He has copies of the responses to RCC, which he could distribute to the Planning Board.
Francis Rodriguez, M.S. of RCC Consultants, Inc. was present. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he has examined the application materials submitted by the Applicant and has reviewed the Applicant’s responses to his Report #1 in which he made requests for additional information or clarification of the materials submitted.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the Applicant proposes three antenna systems: one on the southwest façade at about 34.6 feet above the ground; one on the south face at the southeast chimney and one at the south face at the northeast chimney. The three panel antennas are facing at different directions to encompass their area(s) of coverage. Mr. Rodriguez said that, having reviewed the application materials, the Applicant has responded completely to all of the elements that he would look for in both a code compliance and technical review.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to item #1 of his report regarding FCC authorizations/licensing. He told the board that the Applicant’s attorney, Mr. Gaudioso, has responded to his request to specify Omnipoint’s relationship to the named FCC Licensee. He (Mr. Rodriguez) is satisfied with this response and considers this matter closed.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to item #2 regarding the heights of the antennas. The antennas should be situated at a height on the building that would minimize the environmental impacts. Furthermore, so that there is no requirement for lighting for FAA purposes, the antennas should not exceed the height of the building. Mr. Rodriguez said that the antennas would not exceed the height of the building, so no lighting is required. In so far as the environmental impacts are concerned, the antennas would be mounted high enough so that there would be no impact(s) on anyone walking toward the antennas at ground level. Mr. Rodriguez noted that his concern is (would be) for anyone working on the roof of the Municipal Building. Workmen should be made aware of the electromagnetic radiation that might be
emanating from the antennas. A sign/map should be posted indicating the location of the antennas. There should also be a sign/map identifying antennas on the roof belonging to other carriers.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to his item #3 regarding the screening of the antennas. The antennas should be camouflaged to match the existing building. The antennas on the chimneys should match the brickwork. Mr. Rodriguez said that the camouflage must be properly maintained. The Village should have written assurance from the Applicant that timely maintenance would be performed. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the air-conditioner on the roof should be painted in whatever manner the Village Engineer agrees to.
Mr. Rodriguez said that, as stated in his item #4, it is his opinion that there is still sufficient roof area to consider collocation by another carrier. A future carrier might have to consider side mounting on the slopes of the roof. Mr. Rodriguez said that he could not comment on the remaining indoor space available. He referred the Planning Board members to the roof plan on Drawing #Z-4, which shows where the antennas are proposed to be mounted. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the Applicant has agreed to identify the Nextel antennas on the roof plan. It would be useful for a future applicant to know where the antennas of all other carriers are situated. Mr. Rodriguez said that he found an error in the location of the Omnipoint antennas on the south elevation plan on Drawing #Z-4. The
Applicant has agreed to correct this error.
Mr. Rodriguez said that he would recommend that the Applicant make a copy of the roof elevation drawing with the roof antenna locations circled. The Village could then post this drawing at the access point to the roof. Mr. Rodriguez recommended adding other technical information to this drawing, such as latitude and longitude coordinates. It would be useful to other (future) carriers collocating on the roof to have this information.
Chairman Kehoe expressed concern about the aesthetic impacts of the antennas, required by future carriers, projecting out from the side of the building. Mr. Rodriguez noted that the Village could always say “No” to future carriers. The Village is the landlord and has the authority to refuse any future collocation. Mr. Rodriguez said that the Village would have to “balance the intrusion against the benefit.” The Village Engineer said that the Nextel and Omnipoint antennas should be installed on the roof in four to six months. He would think that it would be easier to make a decision on future collocation once we (the Village) could see what their equipment looks like.
Mr. Andrews noted that Mr. Rodriguez voiced concern tonight about whether or not there would be sufficient attic space for other carriers, to which the Village Engineer said that he would think there would be. He described the space in the attic for the cellular equipment being proposed and said that there would be enough space to house this equipment along with the equipment of two other carriers.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to his item #6, “Antenna Safety,” and stated that, having read the Applicant’s June 26, 2007 report, he is satisfied that the Applicant has answered this question.
Mr. Rodriguez said that the Applicant has addressed his item #7, “Non-Interference,” to his satisfaction. His conclusion is that, because of the spacing between the frequency bands of operation of the Village’s equipment and Omnipoint’s equipment, the potential for interference is minimal.
Mr. Rodriguez said that, with respect to his item #8 regarding the coverage maps provided by the Applicant, he intends to address this item tonight as part of his presentation to the board of his Report #2.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to his item #9 stating that this item is a summary of the recommendations for changes, which he (Mr. Rodriguez) has already covered in detail in items #’s1 through 8.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to item #1 in his Report #2 dated August 24, 2007. As stated in item #1, the Applicant’s consultant, Dan Collins, has agreed to correct a misstatement on page #5 of his report supporting Omnipoint’s “Radio Frequency and Non-Interference Certification.” Mr. Rodriguez said that Mr. Collins has also agreed to revise the application materials to include the information requested concerning the minimum distance required between a person at ground level and the chimney/wall-mounted antennas.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to item #2 in which he informed the Planning Board that he has received a response via email from Mr. Gaudioso dated August 24, 2007. In the email, Mr. Gaudioso included, as an attachment, the corrected geographical coordinates for the building. A new propagation map has been attached to Report #2. Mr. Rodriguez said that he is satisfied that the information submitted by the Applicant is now complete and correct.
Mr. Gaudioso reiterated to the board members that the Applicant intends to submit the revised application materials to the Village Board for the public hearing.
The Village Engineer noted that the Village has a back-up antenna for the Police Department on one of the western chimneys of the Municipal Building. Mr. Gaudioso told the Village Engineer that if this antenna were not indicated on the current plan, they would be sure to add it. Mr. Rodriguez said that he would recommend that the Applicant get together with the Village Engineer for the purpose of identifying the antennas.
Michael Landler, AICP, of Frederick P. Clark Associates was present. Mr. Landler referred to his memorandum to the Planning Board dated August 23, 2007 regarding the Omnipoint application. As stated in the memorandum, he has reviewed the application materials and is satisfied that this proposal meets the criteria of the Village Code. Furthermore, there would be no major environmental impacts caused by this project. Mr. Landler noted that his memorandum covers topics that have already been discussed tonight. He would not think that it would be necessary to “rehash” what has already been covered. Mr. Landler told the board that, in so far as this application is concerned, he does not think that there has been too much deviation from the last (the Nextel) project.
Chairman Kehoe asked about the historic preservation review of the Omnipoint application. He asked if it had been referred to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (SHPO). Mr. Gaudioso said that, indeed, it had been referred to SHPO and they have received a response. He distributed to the Planning Board SHPO’s letter dated June 21, 2007. In their letter, they conclude that this project would have no adverse effect upon cultural/historic resources.
Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding that FPCA has prepared Part 2 of the EAF, to which Mr. Landler replied that, indeed, he has prepared Part 2. The Village Engineer noted that there were three questions in Part 2, which have been answered “Yes.” Question 11, “Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources,” and question 12, “Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?” were both answered “Yes.” Question 20, “Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” was also answered “Yes.” In all three cases the impact was considered “Small to Moderate.” The Village Engineer asked Mr.
Landler if, with respect to the EAF, there is (would be) a requirement to fill in Part 3, to which Mr. Landler replied that there would be no requirement. The Village Engineer noted that the Omnipoint application for antennas on the roof of the Municipal Building is quite similar to the Nextel application except that Omnipoint is proposing to install a fewer number of antennas. The Village Engineer said that he would think, given the lesser number, there would be less visual impacts.
The Village Engineer suggested that, should the Planning Board decide to recommend that the Village Board grant the Special Permit to Omnipoint, the Planning Board could use as a guide their memorandum to the Village Board regarding the Nextel application. The language would be similar. The Village Engineer noted that, as the circumstances with Omnipoint are somewhat different, there would be some rewriting required, for example, item #6 would have to be rewritten. His office could draft the memorandum and circulate it to the board members to make sure that all items discussed tonight have been included. The Village Engineer read aloud the items/conditions set forth in the Nextel memorandum and asked Mr. Gaudioso if, other than the change(s) to item #6, he had any comments and/or objections, to which Mr.
Gaudioso had none.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments on this application, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to recommend to the Village Board that the Special Permit for Omnipoint be granted. The Applicant should adhere to the items enumerated in the reports presented tonight by RCC. Also, the Applicant should abide by the (same) conditions set forth in the Planning Board’s letter of recommendation for Nextel with item #6 modified, as discussed. The motion was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
c) Margo Francy – 57 Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lot 27) – Referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit
Chairman Kehoe recused himself from the review of this application and explained to those present the reason(s) why. Chairman Kehoe noted that, now that board member Vincent Andrews is present, the Planning Board has a quorum of three members to review this application.
John Gochman, attorney for Margo Francy, told the Planning Board members that he is present tonight in connection with a steep slopes application that was presented to the board on May 31, 2005. At that Planning Board meeting, certain questions were raised as to whether the subject lot was legitimate and/or whether the subdivision on Old Post Road North within which the lot is situated was a legal subdivision. These issues have since been resolved. Mr. Gochman referred to the Village Engineer’s memorandum dated April 14, 2007 in which the Village Engineer concludes that the lot is a legal building lot subject to the granting of a steep slopes permit, minor site plan approval, building permit, etc. Mr. Gochman said that he is present tonight to “restart the process” of the steep
Mr. Gochman referred to the Planning Board minutes of May 31, 2005. At the May 31st meeting, the Planning Board expressed their concerns about this application. Mr. Gochman said that the footprint of the proposed house, as presented, was 1,500 square feet. With the second floor included the total square footage would therefore be 3,000 square feet. The board recommended at the May 31st meeting that alternative sketches be provided showing a smaller footprint. Also, at that meeting, the chairman of the Planning Board made a statement that the location of the surrounding houses should be shown on the Applicant’s site plan. There was an issue raised regarding a nearby wetlands area. The Village Engineer pointed out at that meeting that, in the zoning
district in which the lot is located the minimum square footage for the house would have to be 1,000 square feet. The main floor would have to be at least 880 square feet. Mr. Gochman noted that Ms. Allen had expressed concern about the land disturbance involved. She wanted assurance that many of the trees would be allowed to remain and that the property would be properly landscaped. Other issues discussed were drainage, off-street parking, etc.
Mr. Gochman said that the Applicant is prepared to address the issues raised at the Planning Board meeting of May 31st.
Mr. Luntz said that he would think that a major issue/concern with this application would be the slopes “greater than 20%.” The proposed disturbance is (would be) 8,000 square feet, which is six or seven times the allowable disturbance. Mr. Luntz said that the only way one could mediate the disturbance would be to have fairly large retaining walls built on both sides of the site. Ms. Allen stated that she has calculated the percentage(s) of the steep slopes on this property. Her calculations show that, if one were to count the two categories, (“15% to 20%” and “greater than 20%”), 98% of the lot has steep slopes. 96% is “greater than 20%.” 71% of the “greater than 20%” is proposed to be disturbed. Ms. Allen said
that, having done these calculations, it strikes her as being too much of a disturbance.
The Village Engineer noted that, procedurally, the Planning Board would have to do an extensive review associated with the steep slopes application. Then, if the steep slopes permit were granted the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board with a minor site plan.
Mr. Luntz asked what the criteria are for an applicant to be granted a steep slopes hardship permit. The Village Engineer referred the board members to Section 195-9 of the Village Code. He read aloud the seven criteria for the granting of a permit.
The Village Engineer noted that besides the wetlands issue, which was mentioned earlier by Mr. Gochman, the Applicant would have to make sure that the activity would not affect the wells and septic systems of the neighboring houses.
The Village Engineer said that the Applicant would need to submit plans addressing a number of site plan issues, including drainage, landscaping, tree locations, etc.
Ms. Allen again expressed a concern about the percentage of steep slopes on this property. She, personally, would be prepared to recommend that the steep slopes permit not be granted. Ms. Allen said that she would not want this Applicant to go through the review process at some considerable expense, only to have the Planning Board give a negative recommendation to the Village Board. She realizes that the Village Board could “over rule” the Planning Board on this application. A steep slopes permit is in their (the Village Board’s) jurisdiction and not the Planning Board’s. The Village Engineer suggested that, instead of saying “No” at this meeting, the Applicant should be told to “go back to the drawing board” to see what could be done to minimize the
disturbance. The Village Engineer noted that the disturbance to the steep slopes is not so much the issue as are all of the potential adverse effects. Drainage could be a problem. The effects of the drainage would have to be mitigated. The Village Engineer suggested that, as a first step, the Applicant should go back to her engineer to see if there would be a way to redesign the house and make the footprint somewhat smaller.
Mr. Luntz reiterated his concern(s) about the degree of steep slopes on this lot. He agreed with Ms. Allen that, with respect to the engineering aspects of this application, the site issues would have to be very carefully looked at to try to minimize the disturbance. Mr. Luntz said that he does not know if the Applicant would succeed in minimizing the disturbance to the point that “is going to make this board happy.” Mr. Luntz referred to the plan submitted to the board for the May 31st meeting and stated that, if this were the plan to be implemented, every tree on the property would have to be removed with the exception of one or two in the back. There would be a number of other adverse impacts caused by the construction. Mr. Luntz noted that, with respect to the
engineering involved, changing the contours on a lot this size would be “a radical move.” Mr. Luntz referred to the first criterion in the steep slopes law, which states that, “The steep slope area or areas will be disturbed to the minimum extent consistent with the use of the lot as a one-family dwelling…..” In his view, the engineering approach would have to be radically different from what is now being proposed to achieve this criterion.
Mr. Gochman noted that the reason the Applicant is before the Village/Planning boards is because her property presents a hardship. The configuration of her property is such that it creates a hardship for her to sell the lot and/or build a house on it. The Applicant would have to come up with ideas to reduce the hardship to make it acceptable to the Village/Planning boards. The Applicant wanted to have a preliminary meeting to determine what the Planning Board would require and how she could comply. The Village Engineer referred to the retaining wall/driveway configuration and suggested a possible way to make the disturbance less. He said that he would think that something could be done to minimize the disturbance but he does not know how much.
The Village Engineer said that the Applicant should respond to the first criterion in the steep slopes law and try to minimize the disturbance to the greatest degree possible. This would be the place to start. The Applicant should take into consideration the house and driveway configuration, the drainage, etc. Mr. Luntz said that one question to ask would be, “Does it need to have a basement or could it sit more lightly on the land?” He reiterated that the Applicant should start the process by finding ways to minimize the disturbance. Mr. Andrews pointed out that the Applicant, Ms. Francy, needs to know that the Planning Board review process would be a lengthy one.
Mr. Luntz noted that the slopes on the property do not run parallel to the lot. The house has been situated the way it is shown on the plans to meet the zoning criteria. The Applicant wants a certain size house. As it is now configured, the house “hugs the setbacks.” Mr. Gochman pointed out that Ms. Francy inherited the property from her parents. She is paying taxes on it. She was hoping to “get something out of it.” Mr. Gochman said that Ms. Francy’s goal is to be able to show a potential buyer that the subject lot has been approved as a building lot. She would not be building the house herself. Mr. Gochman reiterated that she would obtain the approval(s) so that someone else could eventually build a house. Mr. Luntz said that if this is
the case, it makes it even more difficult for the Planning Board to review this application. The Village Engineer explained to Mr. Gochman that a future builder might want to make changes to the approved plan(s). The site plan issues on this piece of property are critical and, if changed, a potential applicant would most likely have to go back before the Village/Planning boards. Mr. Luntz suggested that Mr. Gochman should say to his client that the application process would be long and expensive, and the outcome might not be a positive one.
The Village Engineer noted to Mr. Gochman that the Village is in the process of updating its environmental laws. The next law to be updated is the steep slopes law. The Applicant should keep this in mind. The review process before the Planning Board could take six months to a year. Mr. Andrews asked, if the permit were to be granted, would it be subject to the new steep slopes law, to which the Village Engineer said that it would depend on how the new law is written.
Mr. Gochman noted that the water and gas locations are in the street (Old Post Road North), to which the Village Engineer said that the utility connections would not present a problem. Utilities would be available.
Mr. Gochman told the board members that, when the Applicant reaches the point where it is appropriate to come back before the board, he would let the Planning Board know.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:07 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, and continued their review on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 and Tuesday, August 28, 2007, for Constructive Investments LLC (Hilmar Fenger), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 48 Prospect Place, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 4 Lot 19.01; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new single-family dwelling on Lot #2 of the Hudson View Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, under the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Planning Board has determined that this project is a Type II Action, which is not subject to review under SEQRA.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minor Site Plan application as shown on Plan #S-1/2 entitled “Site Improvements – Site Development Plan Prepared for Lot 2 of Hudson View,” dated July 5, 2007, last revised July 19, 2007, prepared by Cronin Engineering, P.E., P.C., and Plan #S-2/2 entitled “Detail Sheet – Site Development Plan Prepared for Lot 2 of Hudson View,” dated July 5, 2007, prepared by Cronin Engineering, P.E., P.C.; Plan #A.1 entitled “Site Plan,” dated June 1, 2007, last revised July 19, 2007, prepared by William R. Spade, Architect – AIA; Plan #A.3 entitled “First Floor Plan,” dated May 10, 2007, last revised July 19, 2007; Plan #A.4 entitled “Second Floor Plan;” Plan #A.5 entitled “Elevations [Front];” Plan #A.6 entitled “Elevation [Side];” Plan #A.7 entitled “Elevation [Rear];” Plan #A.8 entitled “Elevation [Rear],” and Plan #A.9 entitled “Elevation [Side],” dated May 10, 2007, last revised July 19, 2007, prepared by William R. Spade, Architect – AIA; a plan
entitled “Impact Comparison Plan,” dated August 28, 2007, prepared by Cronin Engineering, P.E., P.C.; and a plan entitled “Planting Plan Prepared for Lot 2 Hudson View,” prepared by Judith Terlizzi of Lifescapes, Inc. Creative Garden Habitats, received by the Planning Board on August 24, 2007, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. that plans submitted for the building permit be reviewed by an environmental consultant identified by the Village.
2. that construction milestones be established by the Village Engineer at which times inspections by either Village inspectors or the environmental consultant for the project be performed prior to construction proceeding further.
3. that, once the house on Lot #2 is built but prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued, a final landscaping plan be submitted to the Planning Board. The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the Village’s environmental consultant and approved by the Planning Board prior to the installation of the plantings.
In the event that this Minor Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.
The Planning Board of the Village of
Croton-on-Hudson, New York
Chris Kehoe, Chairman
Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Mr. Sharma was absent from the meeting. Mr. Andrews was not present when the vote was taken.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, August 28, 2007.