VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Liaison from the Village Board
Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kehoe.
2. NEW BUSINESS:
* Croton Point DoneDeal, LLC – Croton Point Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 2 Lots 18, 19 & 20) – Request for a Fourth Extension of Site Plan Approval
Helen Mauch of Zarin & Steinmetz, Attorneys at Law, was present to represent the Applicant.
Ms. Mauch explained to the Planning Board that the Applicant needs to seek another (fourth) extension due to issues regarding the septic system located in the common area. There are engineering issues that have to be addressed. Furthermore, the proposed easement agreement(s) between the Applicant and the Village have to be “tweaked” to address the septic issue. Ms. Mauch noted that the Applicant has surveyed the property. They have the contractor “on board” to begin construction. They are now in the process of conducting pre-construction activities on the site. Ms. Mauch stated that the Applicant is seeking a short time extension to execute the aforementioned easement agreement(s). They intend to start construction of the proposed modular structure in the spring.
Mr. Andrews asked how long of a period of time the Applicant is seeking, to which Ms. Mauch said that they are seeking a four-month time extension. They think a four-month extension would be sufficient. The Village Engineer suggested that, to be sure to have enough time to address any pending issues and because this is the last extension being requested, the Applicant could ask for a six- rather than a four-month extension, to which the Planning Board members all agreed.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to grant the Applicant a six-month extension of their site plan approval, from December 1, 2007 to May 1, 2008. The motion to grant the time extension was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
3. OLD BUSINESS:
a) Brian Ackerman/John Harbeson/Lael Morgan – Batten Road (Sec. 68.17 Blk. 2 Lots 7, 8.1 & 9) – Application for a Preliminary Subdivision Approval
Ann Harbeson, co-owner of the property, and Ron Wegner of Cronin Engineering were present.
Chairman Kehoe recused himself from the review of this application. He asked Ms. Allen to take his place as the chairperson for the Planning Board’s review of the application.
Mr. Wegner noted that the project in question on Batten Road has been before the Planning Board many times. The plan being reviewed by the Planning Board tonight is the same plan as that which was previously submitted, with the addition of topography, provided by the County, overlaying the plan. Mr. Wegner said that the Applicant hopes that the Planning Board will consider scheduling the public hearing on this application at tonight’s meeting.
Ms. Allen noted that the plan being presented tonight is entitled “Overall Property Layout – Lot Line Adjustment…” She asked the Applicant how the Planning Board should “officially” be characterizing this plan. Mr. Wegner said that, when the Applicant first came before the Planning Board, the plan presented to the board was labeled a “preliminary subdivision.” Since then, the Applicant has been calling this project a “lot line adjustment.” By code, the project is considered a “subdivision.” Mr. Luntz told Mr. Wegner that the title of the Applicant’s plan(s) should reflect the application, which is presently before the Planning Board i.e., a preliminary subdivision (application) rather than a lot line adjustment.
Mr. Luntz said that he would think that the Planning Board could move to a public hearing on this application. The public hearing could take place at the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, December 11th.
Mr. Wegner said that the revised plan also shows a minor adjustment to the proposed sewer easement.
Mr. Wegner noted that the entrance across from Eklof Court is the latest proposal for a driveway to the new lot (Lot #8).
Ms. Allen wanted to know what plans the Planning Board would be approving for the preliminary subdivision. Would it be solely the plan being presented tonight? The Village Engineer said that for the granting of the preliminary subdivision approval the Planning Board would need to approve Sheets #’s SP-1.1 and SP-1.2, respectively. He noted that the Applicant (re)submitted only the revised plan (#SP-1.1) for the meeting tonight.
The Village Engineer noted that one of the major issues to be addressed is the drainage on Batten Road. He suggested that the Planning Board should consider asking the Applicant to prepare a drainage report. The Applicant’s plan(s) should show the drainage boundaries, the location of seepage pits, etc. A pre- and post-drainage analysis should be provided.
The Village Engineer said that as part of the subdivision application the Applicant has to either set aside a portion of the land to be subdivided for parks and recreational use or, in the alternative, pay to the Village a recreation fee. The Planning Board, in their review of this application, has to be satisfied that this issue regarding the recreational use of land has been adequately addressed. Mr. Andrews asked if the trail easement could be counted toward land set aside for recreation, to which the Village Engineer said that he would think that it could be. The Village Engineer noted that, should the Applicant pay a recreation fee rather than provide land for recreation, the recreation fee is $9,000 per lot.
The Village Engineer stated that the amount of land, which has to be set aside for recreation, is 10% of the subdivision or, in this case, 1.2 acres. Mr. Wegner noted that the code also states that no recreational land shall be less than one-quarter acre in size. The Village Engineer noted that, in the past, the Village has sometimes accepted land for recreational use, which was probably not practicable. He suggested that the Applicant could submit a proposal for the 1.2 acres. The board could then decide whether the land would be suitable for parks and recreational purposes. Mr. Andrews said that, in his view, the most valuable use of the land for recreational purposes would be the establishment of the trail easement. This matter of the trail has already been discussed in some detail by the Applicant and
the Planning Board at previous meetings. He suggested that the Applicant could submit a proposal that consists of ways to establish the trail, addresses the issue of trail maintenance, etc.
Mr. Luntz suggested that the Planning Board could move to a public hearing on this application. The public hearing could take place at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Applicant should submit, for the public hearing, the complete set of plans for the subdivision and a drainage plan/report. The Village Engineer told Mr. Wegner that the drainage plan should show an on-site drainage channel with the associated 20-foot buffer.
Mr. Andrews asked if the location of the adjacent houses was ever shown on the Applicant’s plan(s). The Planning Board would want to see the neighboring houses. The Village Engineer said that the houses situated closest to the proposed house should be shown. Mr. Luntz added that the house on Batten Road, which is situated next to the proposed house, and the two houses that flank Eklof Court, should all be shown.
The Village Engineer said that, in so far as the tree survey is concerned, the Planning Board could request that this survey be provided now, at the time of the preliminary subdivision approval, or later on, at the time of the minor site plan approval for the new house. Mr. Luntz thought that it would be more appropriate to request the tree survey at the time of the minor site plan application. Ms. Allen agreed with Mr. Luntz and noted that from the Planning Board’s past experience with subdivisions, tree surveys, prepared at the time of the subdivision approval, tend to become obsolete. It would be better to wait until such time as the location of the house is more firmly established. Ms. Harbeson told the board that they (Ackerman/Morgan/Harbeson) do not intend to build on their new lot (Lot #8) presently being proposed.
They intend to sell the lot to a potential builder/homeowner. Ms. Harbeson said that “the whole point was [is] to keep the maximum amount of hillside in trees.”
Ms. Allen reviewed the items to be addressed at the next meeting (public hearing). A complete set of plans (Sheets #’s SP-1.1 and SP-1.2) should be submitted. The plan title(s) should be changed from “lot line adjustment” to “preliminary subdivision.” The neighboring houses should be shown on the plans. A drainage plan for new Lot #8 should be submitted. The drainage plan should also show the drainage course (channel) with the associated 20-foot buffer. A proposal for the land to be used for parks and recreational purposes should be provided.
Ms. Allen entertained a motion to move to a public hearing on this application. The motion was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. The public hearing was scheduled to take place at the next Planning Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.
b) Brian and Maureen Fitzpatrick – 7 Ackerman Court (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 3 Lot 34.03) – Application for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a New Single-Family Dwelling
Brian and Maureen Fitzpatrick, owners of the property, and Javier Taborga of Roger A. Pellaton, Architects, were present.
Mr. Taborga stated that the Applicant’s plans have been revised to address the issues raised at the August 14th Planning Board meeting. As requested, a Tree Survey has been submitted. The Applicant hired an environmental consultant, Stephen Coleman, to prepare the survey. Mr. Coleman surveyed all of the trees on the property. There would be no protected (endangered) trees removed during construction.
Mr. Taborga stated that, as requested at the last meeting, the notes on the Applicant’s plan(s) have been clarified. A note has been added stating that the side yard setbacks on the north and south sides of the property have been switched. The setbacks have been switched for better maneuverability in the driveway. Plantings have been added to provide more screening. The Applicant’s environmental consultant Stephen Coleman designed the vegetation/planting plan. Finally, the Applicant has submitted for tonight’s meeting elevation plans showing more clearly what the house would look like. As indicated on the plans, the colors of the exterior surface(s) would be pale green with the front entrance in a gray cultured stone. The roofing materials would be a gray simulated slate composite. Mr. Taborga showed the board
members a sample of the roofing material.
Chairman Kehoe asked if the plans show the height of the retaining wall along the driveway. Mr. Taborga told Chairman Kehoe that the retaining wall would be 7 feet at the highest point. Chairman Kehoe asked what the height of the wall would be in the area where the catch basin is located, to which Mr. Taborga replied that the wall “goes to grade” at that point. Mr. Taborga noted that two different types of applications – the Interlock and the Geo-grid – are being proposed for the wall construction.
Mr. Andrews noted that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations are not included in the Zoning Data chart on the Applicant’s plan (#S1). He would think that the FAR calculations should be included. The Village Engineer asked what the size of the house would be, to which Mr. Taborga said, 3,200 square feet. Mr. Sharma asked if any usable (habitable) attic space is being proposed, to which Mr. Taborga said, no. The Village Engineer noted to Mr. Taborga that, when he does the FAR calculations, any habitable basement space being proposed should be included. Mr. Taborga told the board that he would do the FAR calculations; however, he feels quite certain that the FAR requirements are being met. Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Taborga that the Planning Board would want to make sure that they are being met. Chairman
Kehoe suggested that Mr. Taborga should (also) show or describe to the board how he calculated the FAR. Mr. Sharma noted to Mr. Taborga that any habitable basement space should be included in the calculation of the square footage. The Village Engineer suggested that if, as a result of including the habitable basement space a problem were to arise in meeting the FAR requirements, the Applicant could, at least for the time being, leave the basement “as is.” The construction of the finished basement could take place at some point in the future. Ms. Allen said that, if this were the case, she would think it would be useful for the Applicant to “call out” (identify) on the plans that the basement, in its present state, is “non-habitable” space.
Ms. Allen referred to the Applicant’s Tree Survey. She noted to Mr. Taborga that a tree survey usually shows what trees are going to be cut down. The trees to be removed do not appear to have been identified on the Applicant’s Tree Survey. Chairman Kehoe said that the trees to be removed are, indeed, shown. They are designated by a circle with a broken dotted line. Ms. Allen thought that it would be easier to “read” the plan if an “X” were put through these trees.
Ms. Allen referred to the Special Tree Note on the Tree Survey plan regarding the removal of trees. As stated in the Special Tree Note, the Village is (would be) called upon to inspect the trees prior to any cutting. Ms. Allen noted that there is a process in place whereby the Village’s environmental consultant, Bruce Donohue, inspects the site. She would want to make certain that the Applicant knows exactly what the process is.
Chairman Kehoe noted that this lot (Lot #23) had an approved building envelope when the subdivision was laid out. The building envelope is being modified as part of this minor site plan approval. The Village Engineer suggested that it should, indeed, be stated in the resolution that this building envelope is being modified.
The Village Engineer referred to Note #3 in the Site Development Notes and stated that this note should be corrected to read: River Landing (as opposed to Ackerman) Subdivision.
The Village Engineer recalled that at the last meeting there was some discussion about lowering the height of the tower. Mr. Taborga said that they decided not to alter the height of the tower. They investigated the possibility but then discovered that it would not work well from an aesthetics standpoint. They would lose the composition(s) of the roof. The Applicant would like to keep the proportions as shown on the front elevation drawing.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments from the Planning Board, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution. The conditions were 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.
3) that Note #3 on the plan be amended to read: “Property is located in River Landing Subdivision.”
4) that the FAR calculations be included in the Zoning Data chart on the Applicant’s plan. The square footage of the house should be indicated. Any habitable basement space being proposed should be included in the FAR calculations; otherwise, the basement should be identified as “non-habitable” space.
5) that, on the Tree Survey, the trees to be removed be marked with an “X.”
Mr. Taborga asked the Planning Board to include a condition in their resolution of approval about the neighbor’s fence. He told the board members that the neighbor’s fence is on the Applicant’s property. The Applicant would like the Planning Board to note in their resolution that this fence needs to be removed. The Village Engineer told Mr. Taborga that this is not a matter for the Planning Board. This is (would be) a civil action between the two property owners. He suggested that the Applicant should try to resolve this matter of the fence with their neighbor.
The Village Engineer told the board members that the minor site plan resolution should also address the Applicant’s proposal to modify the previously approved building envelope. He suggested that a “whereas” clause could be included in the resolution stating that the Planning Board has agreed to modify the building envelope by relocating the required setbacks between the north and south sides of the house.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this minor site plan application with the conditions discussed tonight. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Sharma, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 9, 2007 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Messrs. Luntz and Sharma abstained.
Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Planning Board meeting was adjourned until the next Planning Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a Minor Site Plan application on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 and continued their review on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, for Maureen & Brian Fitzpatrick, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 7 Ackerman Court in the River Landing Subdivision (Lot #23) and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 67.20 Block 3 Lot 34.03; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is for a new one-family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, as part of this Minor Site Plan approval, the Planning Board has agreed to modify the previously approved building envelope by relocating the required setbacks between the north and south sides of the house; 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 Drawing S1 entitled “Title Sheet & Street Study;” “Drawing S2 entitled “Site Development Plans;” Drawing S3 entitled “Site & Utility Details;” and Drawing S4 entitled “Site & Erosion Control Details,” prepared by Roger A. Pellaton Architects, dated November 13, 2007, and Drawing 1 entitled “Basement Floor Plan;” Drawing 2 entitled “First Floor Plan;” and Drawing 3 entitled “Second Floor Plan,” prepared by Roger A. Pellaton Architects, dated August 2, 2007, and Drawing R1 entitled “Exterior Rendered Elevations [Front – West Elevation and Rear – East Elevation]” and Drawing R2 entitled “Exterior Rendered Elevations – [Side – North Elevation and Side – South Elevation],” prepared by Roger A. Pellaton Architects, dated November
13, 2007, and a Tree Assessment & Evaluation for 7 Ackerman Court, prepared by Stephen Coleman Environmental Consulting, dated November 6, 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 Note #3 in the Site Development Notes be amended to read: “Property is located in River Landing Subdivision.”
4. that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations be included in the Zoning Data chart on the Applicant’s plan (#S1). The proposed square footage of the house should be indicated. Habitable basement space should be included in the calculation of the square footage; otherwise, the basement should be identified on the plan(s) as “non-habitable” space.
5. that on the Applicant’s Tree Survey plan, the trees to be removed be marked with an “X.”
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. Sharma, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007.