Planning Board Minutes 02/26/08
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 in the Municipal Building.


MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
Fran Allen
Vincent Andrews
                                Robert Luntz
                                Deven Sharma
                                                                                        
                ALSO PRESENT:   Thomas Brennan, Member of the Village Board
Ann Gallelli, Member of the Village Board
Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
        

1.  Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kehoe.


2.  NEW BUSINESS:

    a)  Simone Development Co. – 420 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.17 Blk. 2 Lot 1) – Application for an Amended            Site Plan for Key Bank

Warren Doty, architect with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.; Anthony Osterberg, P.E. of Jacobs Engineering Group; Paul Clarke, Facilities Manager of Key Bank and Brian O’Connor of Frohling Sign Co., were present for this application.

Mr. Doty said that he is representing the Applicant, Key Bank, and the owner of the property, Simone Development, who gave the Applicant written authorization to come before the Planning Board tonight.  Mr. Doty noted that Paul Clarke, Facilities Manager for the bank, came before the Planning Board in 2007 for a Change of Use approval.  The Change of Use was from a home video store to a bank (Union State Bank).  Union State Bank has since been purchased by Key Bank.  

Mr. Doty said that Jacobs Engineering Group has been commissioned to prepare the installation, schematic and construction plans for Key Bank.  Once the required approvals from the Village have been obtained, the Applicant could move forward with the project.  The interior space is only 2,400 square feet in size.  The space would be designed for 6-7 employees at the most.  Mr. Doty noted that the reason the Applicant had to come before the board for an Amended Site Plan approval is because the Applicant intends to open up the front wall of the building for an ATM and after-hours repository or night deposit box (AHD).      

Mr. Osterberg, engineer for the project, noted to the board that, other than the change to the façade for the ATM and AHD, the only other change to the exterior would be to replace the HVAC units on the roof.  One of the changes to the interior of the building would be a modification to the existing sprinkler system.  

Mr. Luntz noted to the Applicant that the Planning Board addressed the issue of parking for the bank’s employees as a condition of their Change of Use approval for Union State Bank.  Employees of the bank would be required to park at the rear of the building.

Mr. Luntz said that it is his understanding that additional lighting for the ATM and AHD would be placed underneath the canopy.  Ms. Allen expressed concern about how much lighting would spill out from this space.  She noted to the Applicant that at some banks blinding light extends out onto the road.  Mr. Osterberg assured Ms. Allen that the lighting for the ATM and AHD would only cover the immediate area.  The source of the lighting would not be visible.  Mr. Osterberg noted that there are some existing down lights under the canopy.  These lights almost look like “spot lights.” Mr. Osterberg referred the Planning Board to page 24 of the manufacturer’s specification sheets on the lighting being proposed.  The “wallform” fixture in the upper left hand corner on page 24 is the one being used.  The light would illuminate the area in front of the ATM.  Ms. Allen asked if the light would spill out past the sidewalk, to which Mr. Osterberg replied that it would spill out “a little bit [past the sidewalk] but not [that] much.”  He noted that the lighting for the parking lot that currently exists would not be adequate for the ATM and AHD, hence, the additional lighting being proposed.

Ms. Allen wanted to know exactly where, on the building façade of the bank, the ATM and AHD would be installed.  Mr. Luntz referred to the colored photo of the (bank) building and noted that the Applicant would be replacing the whole second bay of windows in the front with a wall to house the ATM and AHD.  Ms. Allen questioned how the pillar in front of the sidewalk would line up with the ATM and AHD, to which Mr. Osterberg replied that the pillar would line up with the solid post on the wall façade.  Chairman Kehoe asked if the ATM and AHD installation would be situated on the “UPS side of this pillar,” to which Mr. Osterberg said that, indeed, it would be.    

The Village Engineer asked if the second door along the façade is for the second store (the UPS Store), to which Mr. Osterberg said, “No.”  This (second) door would be removed as part of this project.

The Village Engineer noted that the yellow striping on the pavement along the sidewalk in front of the bank has faded somewhat over time and is therefore not that visible.  This striping denotes a fire zone.  The Village Engineer noted that people might be tempted to park there (in the fire zone), given its close proximity to the ATM and AHD.  He suggested that, in order to make it clear that this is a fire zone the yellow striping in this area should be repainted.           

Chairman Kehoe noted that two of the three signs being proposed would require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  He asked if all of the signs meet the Village Code in so far as the dimensions are concerned, to which the Village Engineer said that they do.  The sign on the main façade is 74 square feet in size and the sign on the side is roughly 64 square feet.  The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances for two of the signs i.e., the sign on the side of the building and the sign above the ATM.  

Chairman Kehoe asked the Planning Board if they had any further comments, to which there were none.  Chairman Kehoe suggested that the Planning Board could schedule the public hearing for this application for the next meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 11th.

At this juncture, the Village Engineer noted to those present that, at this point in time, there is virtually no sidewalk from South Riverside Avenue into the shopping center.  The Village wants to start the process of having the owner extend the pedestrian link into the shopping center from the street (South Riverside Avenue).  The Village Engineer asked that this matter regarding the sidewalk improvement be noted in the record at the time of the public hearing.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to schedule a public hearing on this Amended Site Plan application for Tuesday, March 11, 2008.  The motion was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.   

        b)  John & Donna Nikic – 39 Truesdale Drive  (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 6 Lot 37.01) – Referral from the Village Board                             for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit

Ron Wegner of Cronin Engineering was present to represent the Applicant.

Mr. Wegner stated that the Applicant is before the Planning Board tonight for a recommendation from the Planning Board on an application for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit.  The Applicant proposes to construct a new single-family residence on the site.  The lot in question complies with all zoning requirements except for the steep slopes.  Mr. Wegner stated that the driveway being proposed would be off of Truesdale Drive on the southwesterly side of the property. The Applicant has tried to minimize the disturbance to the steep slopes to the greatest degree possible.  Retaining walls would be installed around the driveway’s perimeter.  

Mr. Wegner stated that he has brought with him to the meeting tonight a “new” plan, which shows the adjacent houses.  On the “new” plan, the Applicant’s proposed residence has been moved forward somewhat to line up with the houses on either side.  The driveway has been pulled to the left to minimize the removal of trees.  By relocating the driveway in this way the impact to the oak tree nearby is further reduced.  Mr. Wegner noted that the Applicant decided to shorten the driveway, which is more in keeping with the driveways in this area.  The driveway would be slightly deeper than originally proposed, with six-foot rather than four-foot high retaining walls on either side.  Mr. Wegner noted that an advantage of moving the house forward is (would be) to show less of the foundation, which is more aesthetically appealing.  The elevation has been dropped by approximately 1? feet.  In its “new” location the house would look like it is “sitting below the hill rather than on the hill.”  

Mr. Andrews asked if, on the plan now being presented, the driveway is any wider, to which Mr. Wegner said that the driveway width would be the same i.e., 12 feet wide with a 2-foot shoulder.  

Mr. Luntz asked if the area of the driveway where the potential homeowner would park his/her car would be on a slope, to which Mr. Wegner said that it would be.  Mr. Wegner noted to the board members that, according to the Village Code, a person is allowed to disturb only 10% of slopes “20% or greater.”  He referred to the steep slopes analysis on the Applicant’s plan and said that, in this particular case, the total disturbance is triple what is allowed (30% instead of 10%).  Mr. Wegner noted that there is more disturbance to the slopes in the “10 to 15%” category than in the “20% or greater” category.

Ms. Allen said that, in her view, the “new” plan is a much better design.  The back yard is bigger than it was on the original plan.  The driveway is closer to the property line and does not appear to be as steep.  Mr. Wegner noted that the driveway is on a 15% grade either way, but the new driveway plan seems to be more in character with the driveways in the neighborhood.

Mr. Luntz asked if it is going to be possible for a person to turn their vehicle around in the driveway.  Mr. Wegner said that there would be 31 feet of pavement, which is ample space to turn around.

Chairman Kehoe passed around the colored photographs of the property, which the Village Engineer had sent to the board members via an email.

Ms. Allen noted that, in so far as the layout of the driveway is concerned, a person’s visibility when exiting the property might present a problem.  The driveway would have retaining walls on either side, which would impair one’s visibility of the street.  Mr. Luntz noted that a person is going to have to inch his/her way out onto the street (Truesdale Drive).  Mr. Luntz suggested that, perhaps, the wall could be dropped down to 2 feet at the entranceway.  It would significantly improve visibility for exiting the site. Mr. Luntz said that he realizes this would mean more disturbance to the steep slopes – the earth would have to be “carved back” to bring the wall further down – but he would think it would be worthwhile from a safety/visibility standpoint.  He would be in favor of making the situation better in this regard inspite of what happens to the numbers (steep slopes calculations).  The Village Engineer added that bringing the walls down would (also) make a better driveway entrance from an aesthetic standpoint.  Mr. Luntz agreed, stating that the driveway would have less of a “tunnel look.”  The Village Engineer suggested to the Applicant that, for aesthetic purposes, they should try to match the wall around the driveway to the existing (stone) wall.  

Ms. Allen noted that a large oak tree would be lost by moving the residence forward, to which Mr. Wegner replied that the oak tree, to which Ms. Allen is referring, would be affected no matter where they locate the house.  Ms. Allen asked if there would be any way to mitigate the loss of this oak tree.  Could another tree be planted in its place?  Mr. Wegner reiterated that there is (would be) no way to save this tree and put a house on the property.  Mr. Luntz pointed out that this oak tree is in the center of the property hence, it could not be saved.  Mr. Luntz asked what the Applicant intends to do with the shed in the back of the property, to which Mr. Wegner said that this shed would be removed.  Mr. Wegner suggested that, for mitigation purposes, trees could be planted in the back yard.  There would be plenty of room in the back to plant trees.         

Mr. Andrews asked how water runoff on the new driveway would be handled, to which Mr. Wegner replied that they are considering installing a trench drain toward the bottom of the driveway.

The Village Engineer reviewed the items to be provided to the Planning Board for the next meeting.  A storm water report should be submitted.  Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be shown on the plan(s).  Architectural drawings including elevation drawings should be submitted.  The Applicant should provide details of the proposed retaining walls.  Ms. Allen added that the revised plans should also show the neighboring houses.  The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that, should the steep slopes application be approved by the Village Board, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board with an application for a Minor Site Plan.

Chairman Kehoe asked if the new house would connect to the sanitary sewer easement located in the back of the property.  The Village Engineer said that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should show all of the utilities on the plan(s).  

The Village Engineer noted that there is potential for rock excavation/blasting on this piece of property.  The Planning Board should (probably) have more information on the type of rock. The Village Engineer told the Applicant to do the required testing i.e., (they should) hammer a rod or rebar down in a few locations.  

Ms. Allen referred to the steep slopes analysis chart and asked that the Applicant to include, along with the square footage, the percentage(s) of the proposed disturbance.   

The Village Engineer asked Mr. Wegner to review the Village’s steep slopes ordinance to make sure that all of the items in the ordinance have been duly addressed.

Rick Turner of 35 Truesdale Drive was present.  He expressed concern about how a new house in this location would change the character of the neighborhood.  The lot is now a wooded lot and is completely green during the summer months.  As a contiguous neighbor, he would be concerned about screening.  He asked about the Minor Site Plan review process.  He questioned if he should explore his issues now or wait until the Minor Site Plan review.  Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Turner that if he so chooses, he could comment on this application at this stage in the process.  He does not have to wait for the Minor Site Plan review.  

Mr. Turner asked if a Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) would be required for this application.  He noted that, according to the Village Code, the entire Village is covered by the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).  The Village Engineer said that under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) this application for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit would (probably) be considered an Unlisted Action.  He would have to look into this matter of whether or not the Applicant needs to submit a CAF.  Historically, a CAF has not been required.  He would ask the Village Attorney to render an opinion.  The Village Engineer noted that, if a CAF is required, then the Applicant would have to go before the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for a determination of consistency with the policies set forth in the LWRP.  Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Turner that, to his knowledge, a CAF and WAC consistency review have never been required for a single-family house.  Requiring the Applicant to submit a CAF would represent quite a change from what has been the practice in the past.  Mr. Turner pointed out to the Planning Board that the property in question is (also) in a Critical Environmental Area (CEA).   

Mr. Turner told the board members that he would reserve his other comments on this application until such time as he has had an opportunity to review the Applicant’s most recently revised plan(s).

Mr. Wegner said that he would make the changes to the plans requested tonight and let the Planning Board know when they would be ready to come back before the board.        

        c)  Underhill Avenue Corp. – 21 Cook Lane  (Sec. 67.19 Blk. 2 Lot 27) – Application for a Minor Site Plan                           Approval for a New Single-Family Dwelling

Chris O’Keefe of Underhill Avenue Corp. and Pete Catizone of Hudson Land Design were present for this application.

Chairman Kehoe stated that this application is for a Minor Site Plan for a new single-family residence at 21 Cook Lane.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that there is a threshold (legal) issue to be resolved regarding the designation of this piece of property on the subdivision map as a “playground” area.  The Planning Board could discuss the application tonight, however, until this matter regarding the “playground” is cleared up, the Planning Board could not make a decision on the Minor Site Plan.  Chairman Kehoe thought that it would be helpful for the Village Attorney and the Applicant’s attorney to come to a meeting to discuss this matter of the “playground.”

Mr. O’Keefe told the board members that the lot in question is part of the Riverbank Homes Subdivision, which was approved in 1954.  At the time of the approval, the developer had offered to dedicate to the Village streets and playground areas, as indicated on the subdivision map.  Mr. O’Keefe said that the offer to dedicate this lot (Lot #14) as a “playground” was submitted to the Village but in order to validate it, the Village would have had to accept the offer.  Mr. O’Keefe said that, to his knowledge, having researched the records, this acceptance of the offer never took place. The word “playground” is written on the subdivision plat, but there is no mention in the minutes of the Village having accepted this offer of dedication.  

Chairman Kehoe referred to Exhibit D of the materials submitted and said that this exhibit seems to be missing the second page.  He suggested that, perhaps, this document (Exhibit D) was meant to be double-sided.  Mr. O’Keefe said that it would appear that the last two sentences of each page are missing.  He would look into this matter and, for the next meeting, provide the Planning Board with the corrected version.     

Mr. O’Keefe continued his explanation of the property’s history, stating that Riverbank Homes had not been paying taxes on this property (Lot #14) and, in the late 1960’s, the Town of Cortlandt took it over.   Later on, in January 1972, the Village sold the property to Frank and Mary Campbell; however, the Village did not hold proper title and, in June 1972, the Campbell’s deeded the property back to the Village.  The Village, in turn, deeded the property to the Town of Cortlandt.  In July of 1972, the Town of Cortlandt conveyed title of the property to Frank and Mary Campbell.  Underhill Avenue Corp. is now the contract vendee.  Mr. O’Keefe noted that, according to the deed(s), there were restrictions placed on this property i.e., easements for utilities (drainage and sewer).   

Mr. O’Keefe said that there have been, throughout the years, two or three applications for building permits for this lot.  The last one backed out because of a problem with the title company regarding the “playground” designation on the map.  Mr. O’Keefe noted that the contract vendee, Underhill Avenue Corp., is not having a problem with the title company, but this legal issue regarding the “playground” (still) has to be cleared up.

Mr. Luntz said that the Planning Board could not take any action on this application until this legal matter is resolved.

Mr. Catizone told the board that the Applicant is proposing to relocate the sewer to the edge of the property with a 20-foot easement so that the Village could make repairs.  Most of Cook Lane drains to the north.  Water flows into a drainage swale, which the Applicant is proposing to relocate to the west side of the property.  

Ms. Allen noted that there might be questions as to whether or not this lot is a viable building lot, to which the Village Engineer said that, from a zoning standpoint, the lot is a buildable lot.  Mr. Catizone said that the Applicant meets the setbacks and frontage requirements.

Mr. Catizone asked that the Village Engineer review the comments in his February 22nd email to the Planning Board.  The Village Engineer said that one of his comments pertained to escrow for the Village Attorney.  Besides the matter regarding the “playground” designation on the subdivision map, the Village Attorney would also have to be involved with the rewriting of the two easements.  In Chapter 178 of the Village Code entitled “Professional Fees,” the Planning Board can require an applicant to provide escrow monies to pay for professional services pertaining to an application.  The Village Engineer said that he would recommend that the Planning Board ask the Applicant for $5,000 to be put in escrow to pay for the Village Attorney’s services.  

The Village Engineer said that a site visit should be set up to walk the route of the storm drain and sewer relocations.  The site visit should be attended by the Applicant, Village Engineer and DPW staff.  

The Village Engineer noted that, in addition to the sanitary sewer and storm drain systems, there might also be a small water line through the lot that the Village would require be relocated.

Mr. O’Keefe noted that, at this point in time, there are easements on the property for storm water and sewer.  He asked if the Village Engineer would want these easements changed to metes and bounds easements, to which the Village Engineer said that he would.  He would want to establish metes and bounds easements to clarify the location(s).

Ms. Allen said that she would like to have the drainage system looked at very carefully.  Because of the terrain, the drainage system being proposed might not be catching the storm water adequately. The Village Engineer told the Applicant that they should provide to the Planning Board a drainage report.

Ms. Allen stated that, as she understands it, the house being proposed would sit on top of an easement; hence, the easement has to be relocated.  Mr. O’Keefe said that, in so far as the drainage easement is concerned, they are moving it to the side of the property.  They would not be increasing the volume, just rerouting it.  Mr. Catizone noted that they would be providing a catch basin on Cook Lane for the storm water to flow into a pipe.  A small, shallow swale is proposed in the event that the inlet, also being proposed, becomes clogged.  The intent is to provide a means for the runoff to leave the property without going through the front yard of the house.  Ms. Allen said that, in the Planning Board’s review of this application, she would think the Planning Board would need to better understand the existing storm water drainage system in this area.

Mr. Catizone said that, with respect to the drainage, they could pull the catch basin forward onto Cook Lane as far as possible and form a curb around it.

Ms. Allen noted that the Village Engineer’s email mentioned rock outcroppings. It would appear that, over the years, the Riverbank Homes area has been significantly disturbed.  Mr. Catizone said that Lot #13 drops off quite significantly, to which Ms. Allen pointed out that if this is the case then drainage would be a concern, given the impervious surfaces now being proposed.  Mr. Catizone noted to Ms. Allen that the drainage system being proposed would not have storm water draining toward this lot (Lot #13).  Ms. Allen told Mr. Catizone that, in their review of this application, the Planning Board would (also) need grading information on the neighboring lots.  

The Village Engineer asked Mr. Catizone if the grade is accurate on the house elevation, to which Mr. Catizone said that it is.  The property slopes toward Wolf Road.  The basement would be fully exposed on the Wolf Road side.  The first floor, facing Cook Lane, is at street level.  Mr. Catizone noted that a dry well would be provided to capture roof runoff.  A small yard drain would capture sediment before any excess water runs off into the dry well.

Mr. Sharma noted that, according to the plan, the Applicant proposes to build the grade up by about five feet in the area where the house would be situated. Mr. Catizone said that, as shown in the front elevation, there would be a front porch with stairs going up to it.  The Applicant did not want the house to look as if it were “in a hole.”  The Village Engineer told the Applicant that the plan should show the houses on Lots #’s 13 and 15 on either side of the property and the other nearby lots.

The Village Engineer said that photo renderings of the streetscapes are needed.  In this particular case, there are two streets to be concerned about (Cook Lane and Wolf Road) in terms of “how the house looks.”  

Mr. Catizone said that, in so far as the contours of the surrounding area are concerned, he would think that, relatively speaking, the new house being proposed “won’t be ‘out of whack’ with homes on the street.”

The Village Engineer pointed out to those present that, from a zoning perspective, the new house would have two front yards.  This particular lot could be viewed as a “front to back” lot.  From Cook Lane, the Applicant would meet the setback requirements and the limitations for the height and the number of stories.  However, from Wolf Road, the house is clearly a three-story house.  According to code, the house has to be a maximum of 2? stories.  The Village Engineer told the Applicant that they might have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to address this height issue. He would let the Applicant know.  Mr. O’Keefe said that it is his understanding that a person could choose what could be considered the front and rear yards, to which the Village Engineer replied that the issue is not so much the overall height.  It is more the exposed basement.  Ms. Allen suggested to the Applicant that they could put in some plantings on the Wolf Road side to mitigate the visual impact(s) of the exposed basement.  

The Village Engineer said that he would schedule a site visit to the property.  He suggested that the Planning Board members should also attend the site visit.  

Chairman Kehoe asked for a motion to require the Applicant to provide $5,000 in escrow for the Village Attorney’s services. The motion was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Mr. Luntz suggested that, prior to the Planning Board’s going on a site visit the legal matter regarding the “playground” designation should be resolved.   Mr. O’Keefe said that he would respectfully request that this matter be placed on the next Planning Board agenda.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would have no objection to placing this item on the agenda as long as the Village Attorney and the Applicant’s attorney could be present at the meeting.

Joe O’Hagen and Barbara Bootz of 19 Cook Lane were present.  Ms. Bootz told the board that their house (Lot #10) is downhill from the Applicant’s property.  She would be concerned about drainage, given the location of their house downhill.  Ms. Bootz said that she is also concerned that the new house is going to take away from the view.  She would not want to see a house “stuck in there [the lot] to maximize that house’s use of the view without blending in with the houses of the neighborhood.”  Mr. O’Hagen said that he believes, when the Campbell’s bought the property, there was no Bill of Sale on that transfer.  He believes there is (was) no clear title on the property.  There is “no record of that property ever being sold.” Mr. O’Hagen said that he agrees with the comments Ms. Allen made earlier in the meeting about the need to look into the drainage issue.  The current (existing) swale overflows, and the water runs off onto the property.  When a structure is built there, the water would have to go somewhere else.  Mr. O’Hagen expressed concern that when the swale becomes blocked by debris (leaves), the water would end up in his basement.  Mr. O’Hagen noted that Ms. Bootz mentioned the visual impact(s).  At this point in time, the neighbors walk through “that park” with their pets and enjoy the view.  That would end with the building of a house.  Mr. O’Hagen reiterated that he would be concerned about this project, given the legal issues, potential drainage problems and the visual impact(s).

Ms. Allen noted that if the LWRP applies to the house on Truesdale Drive, then it would probably apply to this house as well, to which the Village Engineer replied that this house on Cook Lane may not require a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit.  He added that usually the construction of a single-family house is a Type II Action under SEQRA.       

Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant that if the Village Attorney and the Applicant’s attorney could attend the meeting, he would schedule this application for the next meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 11th.

        d)  Zeytinia Gourmet Market – 50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Annual Report Submission of                             Deliveries by 18-Wheeler Trucks

Chairman Kehoe asked the Village Engineer if, with respect to the 18-wheeler deliveries, Zeytinia Gourmet Market is abiding by the conditions set forth in the Planning Board resolution.  The Village Engineer told the board members that, in 2007, Zeytinia was late in providing to the Planning Board their report on the 18-wheeler deliveries for the year 2006.  He purposely kept to the February submission date this year so that Zeytinia would be compelled to meet their deadline.

Mr. Sharma questioned how it could be verified that what Zeytinia is saying in their report is, indeed, the case.  Who confirms the accuracy of the report? The Village Engineer told the Planning Board members that staff members from the Village Engineer’s Office are at this site often enough throughout the year so that, if there were any discrepancies in this report, they would know.

Chairman Kehoe said that, in so far as any action by the Planning Board is concerned, the Planning Board needs to receive this report on an annual basis and ask for any comments on the report from the Village Engineer.  It is his understanding that there is no other action that the Planning Board has to take.            

The Village Engineer pointed out to the board members the times throughout the year that there were five deliveries a month instead of four.  One of the months was December 2007 (holiday time).  

Chairman Kehoe asked the Village Engineer if he was satisfied with the report on deliveries submitted by Zeytinia, to which the Village Engineer said that he was.


4.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, January 29, 2008 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Ms. Allen abstained.


5.  ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:00 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills
Secretary