Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
 
 
Planning Board Minutes 10/09/07
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 in the Municipal Building.


MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                Fran Allen
Vincent Andrews
                                
                                    ABSENT:      Robert Luntz
Deven Sharma
                                                                                        
                ALSO PRESENT:   Ann Gallelli, Liaison from the Village Board
Kathleen Riedy, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
                                        Witt Barlow, Member of the Zoning Board of Appeals
                                        Doug Olcott, Member of the Zoning Board of Appeals
                                        Rhoda Stephens, Member of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
        
1.  Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Kehoe.

2.  NEW BUSINESS:

*    Joint-Discussion between the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board on a Proposal for a Mixed-Use Building at 379 South Riverside Avenue

The Zoning Board members present were: Kathleen Riedy, Witt Barlow, Doug Olcott and Rhoda Stephens.  Ronald Napolitani, owner of the property at 379 South Riverside Avenue, and Edmond Gemmola of Gemmola & McWilliams, Architects, were also present.

Chairman Kehoe referred the Zoning Board members present to Sec. 230-164D of the Zoning Code in which it states that the Zoning Board Secretary shall provide to the Planning Board Secretary a copy of any appeal/application scheduled to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board has the option to render an advisory opinion on the subject appeal/application.  

Zoning Board Chairperson Kathleen Riedy noted that the Applicant, Ronald Napolitani, is scheduled to go before the Zoning Board tomorrow (Wednesday) night for the following variances: front yard setback; side yard setback; a variance from the number of stories; a parking variance and a variance from the FAR requirements.

Mr. Andrews pointed out the significance of the decision(s) being made by the Zoning Board, stating that the outcome of the Zoning Board’s decision(s) on the Napolitani application would (more than likely) have an impact on the overall potential commercial development of the Harmon area. He would think that there would be a “natural spillover” to the other Harmon lots.  Chairperson Riedy noted that a three-story building on this (the Napolitani) property could have an impact on street parking in the Harmon area.

Mr. Napolitani noted that his property was originally in the C-1 Zoning District.  The zoning has changed and the property is now situated in the C-2 District.  Mr. Napolitani told those present that, because his property is in the C-2 District, he no longer needs to apply to the Village Board for a special permit.  

Chairperson Riedy questioned what the parameters of the joint-discussion tonight should be.  She asked what guidance the Village Code offers in this regard.  The Village Engineer read verbatim Sec. 230-164(D) in which it states that the Planning Board has the option to give an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board on appeals/applications. The Planning Board asked to hold this joint meeting tonight to discuss the pertinent issues. Chairperson Riedy asked if the Planning Board had any thoughts with respect to the variances being sought.  Chairman Kehoe said that his concerns were more theoretical.  If, for example, a variance for the third story were granted to this Applicant, then there would, more than likely, be other property owners who would want to do the same. Traffic and parking are issues of concern. Chairman Kehoe noted that there are those in the Village, who feel that perhaps the zoning in that entire area (the Harmon area) should be changed to allow a third story rather than looking at this type of request on a case by case basis.  Mr. Andrews added that an argument for changing the zoning is that it would give more flexibility to potential developers to create more economically viable properties without “bouncing back and forth between boards.”  Chairperson Riedy noted that irrespective of what the Village decides to do in the future about the zoning in that area, the Zoning Board has to look at the current Napolitani application with respect to the existing zoning laws.  

The Village Engineer said he would think that it would not be necessary for the ZBA to send to the Planning Board the (greater number of) requests for variances on residential properties. The Planning Board should probably only see applications on commercial properties.  The Village Engineer said that there are far less commercial properties seeking variances so, all in all, the Planning Board would not be seeing that many ZBA applications.

Mr. Andrews noted that the Planning Board would be looking at broader (planning) issues, such as the overall parking in the Harmon area and the flow of traffic.  The Planning Board has to take into consideration the impact(s) on the neighborhood of the future development of this (the Harmon) area. In so far as this particular application is concerned, the parking and flow of traffic onto Benedict Boulevard are site plan issues that are impacted by the decisions that the Zoning Board must make. Chairperson Riedy noted that, in so far as this application is concerned, the Planning Board might decide that, notwithstanding the granting of variances for parking and the third story, the implications of traffic flow are such that the Applicant’s proposal is unworkable. It would be the Planning Board’s responsibility in this case, and within their purview, not to approve the site plan.  

Ms. Allen said that she would think that, generally speaking, if an applicant were required to go before both boards (Planning and Zoning boards), it would make more sense for the Planning Board to see the application first.  The Planning Board, rather than looking at issues purely related to zoning, is looking at the broader issues relating to a site. The Planning Board could bring to light a number of site plan issues/concerns and, by doing so, provide a more informed opinion to the ZBA on the request for a variance(s).  Chairperson Riedy pointed out that, if the Planning Board were to review the application first and it were an extensive review, then the ZBA would be in the (undesirable) position of doing their review at a point where the Applicant has already expended his/her financial resources.  

The Village Engineer referred to the Applicant’s revised plans and noted to those present that, with the change that has been made to the plans, the Applicant no longer needs a front yard setback variance. The most significant request for a variance is for the third story.  The Village Engineer pointed out that, if the ZBA were to grant the variance for the third story, then, in order to be consistent the ZBA would have to grant the variances from the FAR and parking requirements. The Village Engineer explained how the number of parking spaces are determined and noted that, in so far as meeting the code requirements is concerned, the parking calculations would “work out better” for a two- as opposed to a three-story building.

Mr. Gemmola said that the top (third) floor would have one-bedroom apartments and the second floor would have two-bedroom apartments.  

Mr. Andrews stated that there are five factors to be considered for the granting of a variance, which are enumerated in the Village Code.  Some of these factors might be impacted by issues that the Planning Board would raise. Mr. Andrews wondered if it might be worthwhile to go through the criteria for the granting of a variance(s).

Ms. Stephens read aloud the five criteria:

-          whether undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of an area variance.
-           whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.
-           whether the requested area variance is substantial.
-           whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
-           whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
    
Chairperson Riedy noted to the Planning Board the time constraints that the Planning Board has to render an advisory opinion on this application. The public hearing has been noticed in the newspapers and will take place tomorrow (Wednesday) night.  

Mr. Gemmola said that he was under the impression that tonight’s meeting was a “regular meeting” of the Planning Board to discuss the site plan issues. He did not realize that tonight’s meeting was a joint-discussion between the Planning and Zoning boards.  Mr. Gemmola noted that the Applicant was told by the Village Engineer’s office that he had to go before the ZBA and, as just stated by Chairperson Riedy, the Applicant is scheduled to go before the ZBA tomorrow night.

The Village Engineer said that the opportunity exists now for the Planning Board to make a verbal recommendation on this application to the Zoning Board.  He suggested that the two boards could think of this joint meeting as a “brainstorming session.”  The Village Engineer noted to those present that the ZBA has a set time to make a decision on a request for a variance.

Chairperson Riedy told Mr. Gemmola that the ZBA members have in front of them the application that was submitted for their September meeting, to which Mr. Gemmola replied that the Applicant has resubmitted a revised version for the ZBA meeting tomorrow night.  The Village Engineer noted that the application to the ZBA was made with the previous (first) set of plans. The item that was missing was the elevation plans. The Applicant was told that the ZBA would require elevation plans.  The Village Engineer said that he made an assumption that the plans for the ZBA were sent in ahead of time and that the ZBA had the most recent set.    

Chairperson Riedy handed to Mr. Gemmola a copy of the plans that the ZBA members currently have before them.  She told Mr. Gemmola that if there were changes that the Applicant would want to make to what has just been handed to him, then the Applicant should submit these changes to the ZBA members at their meeting tomorrow night.

Chairman Kehoe said that, based on the discussion that has just transpired the ZBA might not have all the information they need to make their decision tomorrow night. If this were the case, the public hearing would be adjourned. Chairman Kehoe noted that if the Applicant’s information were insufficient and the public hearing were to remain open, then the Planning Board would have the time to provide to the ZBA a “more formal” advisory opinion.  

Chairperson Riedy questioned whether the ZBA members have a proper application before them.  The request for a variance(s) would appear to have changed. It would appear that the application previously submitted to the ZBA and the plans (revised plans), which are being discussed tonight, are no longer in agreement.  Mr. Olcott suggested that the ZBA members could go through the original application that was submitted and, if the variance request has changed, the application could be amended accordingly.

Mr. Napolitani said that he was under the impression that his proposal would be agreeable to the boards. In his view, his current proposal corresponds to the goals set forth by the Harmon area commercial development committee. He thought he would be “helping the situation” in Harmon.  Mr. Napolitani said that it would seem, from the discussion tonight, that it would be even harder than before to go forward with his proposal.  He thought this joint meeting between the two boards would be a help to him.  Chairperson Riedy said that tonight’s joint meeting could be considered “a success” because the Applicant’s architect was able tonight to shed some light on the application going before the ZBA.  She noted to Mr. Gemmola that if he were present at the meeting on behalf of this Applicant, the plans submitted should be consistent with the variances requested. Mr. Barlow agreed and noted that, to his knowledge, no one has resubmitted an application for “new” variances.

At this juncture, the four ZBA members present left the Planning Board meeting.

Chairman Kehoe suggested to Mr. Napolitani that he could describe to the Planning Board the project being proposed for his mixed-use building. Mr. Napolitani said that he is currently proposing to pull the building forward on South Riverside Avenue to make the retail stores more accessible to pedestrian traffic.  Originally, he had intended to put the building in the back and the parking in the front, but the Village wants accessibility from the street for pedestrians. Mr. Napolitani noted that the extra (third) story being proposed would still be under the height requirement of 35 feet.  The actual height would be 31 feet to the mid-roof.  Mr. Gemmola added that the peak of the roof might be higher than that, but the roof would have a parapet.

Mr. Gemmola said that, as he understands it, the Planning Board would have some purview over waiving parking spaces for a mixed-use occupancy.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if there would be four separate retail tenants on the first level, to which Mr. Gemmola said that there would be.  Mr. Gemmola noted that there would be no tractor-trailers on the site.

Chairman Kehoe said that, according to his understanding of the code, the parking would be based on habitable floor space, which would be one space per 300 square feet in this zoning district.  Mr. Gemmola stated that, indeed, this would be the case with office space.  He based the parking on the worst-case scenario and came up with 11.3 spaces.  

Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Napolitani that the Planning Board would not want him to feel that he has been misled.  The “problem” that the Planning and Zoning boards are faced with is the fact that they are bound by the rules and regulations set forth in the Village Code.  “Even if people think it is a good idea, there is still a process [to follow].”

Mr. Napolitani noted that he could put up a two-story building and would probably not need any variances.  However, from a financial standpoint, a two-story building would not generate enough revenue to make it work for him.  He reiterated that it would not be economically viable for him to put up a two-story building.

Mr. Andrews asked Mr. Gemmola to describe the front of the proposed building. Mr. Gemmola said that the bottom of the building would match the brick of the buildings next door.  He explained the entranceways into the stores at the front and where the doors would be.  Mr. Gemmola noted that he has started work on four elevation plans.  If the ZBA needs to see these elevation plans, and apparently they do, he will be sure to have them ready for an upcoming ZBA meeting.  

The Village Engineer asked if the residential (apartment) entries would be from the rear of the building, to which Mr. Gemmola said “yes.”

Ms. Allen said that the Planning Board would want to have a better understanding of the neighborhood.  A plan should be submitted showing the location of the neighboring houses and the other (commercial) buildings across the street.

Mr. Andrews questioned if the ZBA, in their deliberations, would ask for a financial analysis that would show the reasons why a two-story building, as opposed to a three-story building, would not be viable.  Mr. Napolitani said that, if the ZBA were to ask for a financial analysis, he would have his accountant provide one.

Chairman Kehoe reiterated that some of the commercial development committee members want to handle applications on a case by case basis.  Others feel that a zoning change would be the way to proceed.  Mr. Napolitani said he would think that a zoning change would take a long time to accomplish.  In the meantime, he is spending $19,000 a year in taxes for a two-car garage on this (his) piece of property.  He was hoping to be able to move forward with this application.  Mr. Napolitani noted that the Mayor of the Village has said that, “We have to do something to help Harmon out.”  There have recently been a number of shops/stores vacated or up for sale in the Harmon area.  Mr. Napolitani said that he was under the impression that his building proposal would be a financially viable solution to help out that corner of the Village.

Chairman Kehoe expressed concern about the procedure for this application, i.e. that the application has to go before the Zoning Board first.  He would think that it would create a “huge problem” for the Planning Board if the variances were granted prior to the Planning Board’s having had an opportunity to do a site plan review.  Once the variances are granted the Planning Board’s ability to ask for potentially important or desirable changes is compromised.  Ms. Allen noted to Chairman Kehoe that the Planning Board could still say “no” to this proposal.  Mr. Napolitani said that, as he sees it, the outcome has to be mutually agreed upon by all parties involved.

Phyllis Morrow of 61 Nordica Drive was present.  Ms. Morrow expressed concern about the traffic situation in the Harmon area.  The intersection of South Riverside Avenue and Benedict Boulevard is already dangerously congested.  The three-story building being proposed would exacerbate the traffic problem.  Parking would also be a concern.  Ms. Morrow said that there is no other way into or out of the Harmon section of the Village.  She would be concerned about people in that community being able to get out of the Harmon area in case of an emergency.  She would think that it would not be a good idea to create a three-story building “precedent” there.  It would have a huge impact on entering and exiting the Harmon area and getting to places within Harmon.   Ms. Morrow said that she is unable to attend the ZBA public hearing tomorrow night.  This was her only opportunity to speak on this proposal.  Ms. Morrow suggested that, before the Planning Board makes a decision on this proposal, they should visit the Harmon area in order to evaluate the experience of driving there.  Chairman Kehoe suggested that Ms. Morrow should keep in touch with the ZBA secretary regarding this application.  The ZBA might not make a decision on this application in one meeting.  There might be another opportunity for her to express her point of view before the ZBA.  Ms. Morrow said that she is not opposed to Mr. Napolitani developing his property; however, she would be opposed to the project presently being proposed.  

Chairman Kehoe told the board members that he would be in touch with the ZBA to ask that the Planning Board be kept informed of the status of the Napolitani application.

3.  OLD BUSINESS:

*    Constructive Investments LLC – 46 Prospect Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for Lot #1 of the Hudson View Subdivision

Ronald Wegner, P.E., of Cronin Engineering, and Hilmar Fenger of Constructive Investments LLC were present.

Mr. Wegner said that at the last meeting there was an issue raised about two trees on Lot #2 and whether they were supposed to be removed.  He referred to the approved site plan for Lot #2 and stated that, indeed, these two trees were scheduled to be removed.  Ms Allen noted that on the original site plan for Lot #2, which was approved at the time of the subdivision, these two elm trees were supposed to be saved.  When the Applicant applied for the minor site plan approval for Lot #2, the limits of disturbance were much greater than at the time of the subdivision. The result of this change to the limits of disturbance is that the two elm trees are now scheduled to come down.  Ms. Allen recalled that, at the time of the minor site plan approval for Lot #2, the Planning Board never discussed this matter of the Applicant’s not following the original site plan with respect to the removal of these trees.  She would think that the Planning Board made a mistake in this regard. Chairman Kehoe noted that regardless of whether or not the Planning Board made a mistake by not looking into the matter of the trees, the minor site plan has been approved; the two trees could now come down.  

Ms. Allen felt that the Planning Board was at fault for these trees coming down. The Planning Board should have taken more time to review the minor site plan application.  She said that she feels personally responsible for not having initiated more of a review.  For the future, she would suggest that the Planning Board take their (minor) site plan review much more seriously. Mr. Andrews said that he thinks it is not a matter of taking the site plan review more seriously. The Planning Board takes it seriously. He would think that what Ms. Allen is saying is that the Planning Board needs to compare the original site plan to the new (minor) site plan to see what, if any, changes have taken place.  This does not mean that the Planning Board would not accept the changes made.  Mr. Andrews said that he thinks Ms. Allen makes a fair point. The Planning Board, in their review, should perhaps put more emphasis on the original concept.  However, in the end, the Planning Board needs to see how “things balance out” between the original and “new” site plan and then make their decision accordingly.

Ms. Allen said that, in the Planning Board’s review of minor site plans, the Planning Board should go back to see what the nature of their discussion(s) was, when the subdivision was approved. At the time of the subdivision approval the Planning Board would have discussed at length the issues pertaining to the site. Ms. Allen said again that she feels personally responsible for not keeping the discussion going and looking back at the original plan(s).

The Village Engineer suggested that, perhaps, the Applicant (developer), at the time of the subdivision, should show something “more realistic” with respect to the size of the house.  The board is led to believe that a house is going to be 2,000 square feet and then it ends up being 3,000 square feet. Chairman Kehoe said that he would think that it is up to this board (the Planning Board) to determine whether the difference between the two approvals (subdivision and minor site plan) is something to be concerned about.

Mr. Wegner explained the revisions made to the plans for Lot #1.  The driveway has been moved three feet uphill on Prospect Place to avoid a guy wire supporting a telephone pole near the end of the driveway.  The notation on the “Limit of Disturbance” in the legend has been corrected.  The tax map number on the plan has been corrected. The tree notes (Note #10 and the special tree note) have been revised to make it clearer which trees are to be cut down and to remain.

Mr. Wegner stated that at the last meeting a neighboring resident expressed concern about the ability of the sewage system to handle the volume of sewage, should the pumps all “kick on” simultaneously. He (Mr. Wegner) has prepared for tonight’s meeting sewer capacity calculations, which demonstrate that the existing sewer line on Prospect Place has adequate capacity to handle the sewage from the new houses.  

The Village Engineer said that, during the construction process, the area where the two walnut trees on Lot #1 are located should be roped off in an effort to minimize the amount of fill in that area.  The two walnut trees are located between the houses on Lots #’s 1 and 2.  

The Village Engineer stated that, as a condition of the resolution of approval, the board should require that a (final) landscaping plan be submitted.  A component of the landscaping plan should be to put screening between the house on Lot #1 and the house to the west of it.  Ms. Allen said that she is pleased to note that the two maple trees along the road have been saved.

 The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s retaining wall would have two or three feet of “reveal.”  He would imagine that the wall is going to be made of stone.  He did not see a problem with the proposed wall from an aesthetic standpoint.  The Village Engineer noted further that, behind the house, more of the wall would be revealed (four and one-half feet).  All in all, this is not a particularly high retaining wall. Mr. Andrews asked the Village Engineer if the retaining wall is (would be) a “field” issue, to which the Village Engineer replied that any wall more than five feet in height has to be engineered.  Chairman Kehoe questioned whether the Planning Board would want to make it a condition of the resolution that the retaining wall has to be made of stone. The Village Engineer said that, if the board so chooses, it could make a determination on the aesthetic facing of the wall.

The Village Engineer referred to the architect’s revised elevation plans and asked how the architect calculated the height of the building (house).  Mr. Wegner said that it is his understanding that the Applicant’s architect Mr. Spade has used the average grade to calculate the building height.  He referred to the numbers shown on the architectural drawing #A.1 and said that he (Mr. Spade) came up with an average grade elevation of 67.  The Village Engineer said that this is a case where there cannot be the slightest mistake in the elevation of the foundation. If the foundation were off by only three inches, there would be a problem with the height.  Chairman Kehoe pointed out that the Applicant would be responsible for providing to the Village Engineer’s office an as-built survey.

The Village Engineer asked if Mr. Wegner had looked into the matter of the fill to be stored on site. Mr. Wegner said that the amount of fill is “in the neighborhood of” what it is supposed to be, based on the contours shown on the site plan.  The Village Engineer said that the point is that if there were to be more fill than what is being anticipated, then this excess fill would have to be taken off-site.

Ms. Allen asked what the highest ridgeline of the house would be, to which Mr. Wegner said, about 109.  Mr. Wegner referred the board members to architectural drawing #A.2, which showed the elevation(s) of the houses on Lots #’s 1 and 2 and the existing (neighbor’s) house at street level (Prospect Place).  Mr. Wegner noted that, in so far as the elevations of the houses are concerned, the new houses on Lots #’s 1 and 2 are in somewhat of a “hole.”  The house next door is at, or slightly above, grade.  The Village Engineer said that he did not see any problem with the house elevations.

Chairman Kehoe noted that, on the revised architectural plans the space, which was previously designated as a “bonus room,” has been changed to “unfinished storage.”  Ms. Allen suggested that the table on the Applicant’s plan should include the square footage of this unfinished storage space. It might prove to be a useful piece of information to have on the plan, should a future homeowner decide to finish this space. Chairman Kehoe noted that if a future homeowner were to decide to make this space into a “bonus room,” he/she would have to comply with the Village’s FAR requirement(s). The Village Engineer said that he would be sure to explain to the future homeowner what would be required on the building plan(s) to meet code. If the homeowner’s proposal for the “bonus room” were to exceed the FAR requirements, the homeowner would have the option of seeking a variance from the FAR requirements from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Mr. Wegner suggested to the board that he could put a note on the plan that says that the square footage shown does not include the “unfinished storage.”

Chairman Kehoe referred to the table shown on the architectural drawing #A.1 and questioned which number in the table – 5,378 S.F. or 6,485 S.F. – referred to the proposed square footage. It is not clear from the table what the proposed square footage would be. The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant could provide his office (the Village Engineer’s office) with a clarification of these two S.F. numbers.

Mr. Andrews asked if the Planning Board should be seeing the garage or bottom floor plan.  It was not included with the revised plans. The Village Engineer explained why the Planning Board would not be considering this plan (bottom floor). He explained the difference between a “basement” and a “cellar” in the Village Code.  According to the Village Code, if there were more than 50% of the space “out of the ground,” it would be considered a “basement.” If more than 50% of the space were below ground, it would be classified as a “cellar.” In this case, the space would be considered a “cellar.” The Village Engineer said that the code takes into account how a building appears from the street and in this case, if viewed from the street, this space would be “buried.” As the subject space is classified as a “cellar,” it would not constitute a “story.” The Village Engineer said that, from an architectural standpoint, the exterior space, as opposed to the interior, would be the Planning Board’s concern, but the board would not be concerned with what happens on this level (cellar).

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution, which included the following conditions:

-          that plans submitted for the building permit be reviewed by an environmental consultant identified by the Village.
-          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.
-           that, once the house on Lot #1 is built but prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued, a (final) landscaping plan be submitted to the Planning Board. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the Village’s environmental consultant and approved by the Planning Board prior to the installation of the plantings.    

The Planning Board added the following (fourth) condition:

-           that curtain drains be installed to help lower the ground water table.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application.  The motion to approve was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.  

Ms. Allen told the Applicant, Mr. Fenger, that she thinks this development (the Hudson View Subdivision) is turning out very well. She is pleased that the Village could now use the existing driveway for access to the detention pond rather than having to have a new driveway installed.  Using the existing driveway is a much better solution from an environmental standpoint. She is pleased that some of the existing trees could now be preserved.  Ms. Allen said that she thinks the architecture of the houses is excellent. They (the new houses) make an attractive grouping and are consistent with (in the spirit of) the existing old stone houses in the neighborhood.  Overall, she is pleased with the outcome of this project.

4.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, August 28, 2007 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.

The minutes of the Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Chairman Kehoe and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.  

5.  ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:40 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills
SECRETARY


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, and continued their review on Tuesday, October 9, 2007, for Constructive Investments LLC (Hilmar Fenger), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 46 Prospect Place, and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 4 Lot 19; and

WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new single-family dwelling on Lot #1 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; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board issues a fill permit under Sec. 120-11 of the Village Code.

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 1 of Hudson View,” dated September 20, 2007, last revised October 5, 2007, prepared by Cronin Engineering, P.E., P.C., and Plan #S-2/2 entitled “Details – Site Development Plan Prepared for Lot 1 of Hudson View,” dated September 20, 2007, prepared by Cronin Engineering, P.E., P.C.; Plan #A.1 entitled “Site Plan and Roof Plan;” Plan #A.2 entitled “Site Cross Section;” Plan #A.3 entitled “First Floor Plan;” Plan #A.4 entitled “Second Floor Plan;” Plan #A.5 entitled “Elevations [Front and Side];” Plan #A.6 entitled “Elevation [Rear];” Plan #A.7 entitled “Elevation [Side],” dated May 10, 2007, last revised October 4, 2007, prepared by William R. Spade, Architect – AIA, 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 #1 is built but prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued, a landscaping plan be submitted to the Planning Board.  The landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the Village’s environmental consultant and approved by the Planning Board prior to the installation of the plantings.

4.      that curtain drains be installed to help lower the ground water table.

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
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                Devon Sharma
        
Motion to approve by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.   Messrs. Luntz and Sharma were absent from the meeting.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 9, 2007.