Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Welcome to the website for the Village of Croton on Hudson, New York

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

Village of Croton-on-Hudson
1 Van Wyck Street
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Phone: 914-271-4781
Fax: 914-271-2836


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
Planning Board Minutes 03/25/2008


VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2008


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 in the Municipal Building.


MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
Fran Allen
Vincent Andrews
                                Robert Luntz
                                Deven Sharma
                                                                                        
                ALSO PRESENT:   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.  OLD BUSINESS:

·       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 and Thomas Brennan, owner of the property, were present for this application.

Mr. Wegner told the board members that since the last Planning Board meeting, the Applicant has been before the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC), and the WAC has determined that this application complies with the policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).  Mr. Wegner said that, as he understands it, the WAC intends to write a referral to the Village Board and copy the Planning Board.  Ms. Allen noted to the Planning Board that the WAC’s determination of consistency was subject to several conditions most particularly that the storm water runoff would stay on site.  Ms. Allen stated that the Applicant has subsequently provided information (drainage calculations) that shows this to be the case.

Mr. Wegner said that he has provided for tonight’s meeting a drainage analysis.  Soil tests have been performed, and sand and gravel materials were found on site.  These materials are very suitable for drywell and infiltration systems.  

Mr. Wegner noted that the other item discussed at the last meeting was the driveway location.  He did a comparative analysis between the last (most recent) plan for the driveway and the very first plan that he submitted.  The comparison shows that, as far as the disturbance to the steep slopes is concerned, there is not much of a difference between the two driveway layouts.  Mr. Wegner noted that the most recent design for the driveway shows 80 more square feet of disturbance.  The calculations for the various slope categories are fairly close for both driveway layouts.  Mr. Wegner noted that the Planning Board had asked that the driveway location be moved closer to the property line so as to save a 36-inch (DBH) oak tree.  In the most recent layout for the driveway the face of the proposed retaining wall would be 15 feet from the oak tree whereas in the original layout the face of the wall would be only 8 feet away.  Mr. Wegner noted that, in so far as the construction of the driveway is concerned, being 15 feet away would not necessarily guarantee that the tree would survive, but the farther away it is from the construction the greater its chances of survival.  Mr. Wegner said that the drip line would extend well beyond either way.  Mr. Wegner passed out colored photographs of the trees and indicated to the board members the location of the 36- inch (DBH) oak tree.       

Chairman Kehoe asked if the Applicant had a preference for a driveway location, to which Mr. Wegner said that the Applicant does not have any preference.  They would be willing to have the driveway installed in either location.  

Rick Turner of 35 Truesdale Drive was present.  Mr. Turner said that he would prefer the original layout for the driveway.  In the original layout, the driveway is situated farther away from his property line.  Mr. Turner pointed out that if an oak tree were a threatened or endangered species, he would want to save it at all costs, but an oak is not a threatened or endangered species.  Mr. Wegner told the board that the wall in the front would be rebuilt in both circumstances.  He noted that if the original plan were reinstated, the driveway change would be to the front only.  The remainder of the driveway, parking area, etc., would be the same, or very similar to, what is being shown on the most recent driveway plan. Mr. Wegner noted that there would be slightly more disturbance to the more steeply sloped areas with the current (most recent) plan.

Mr. Luntz said that he has read the drainage analysis provided by Mr. Wegner for tonight’s meeting. He asked Mr. Wegner if he were confident, from an engineering standpoint, that the drainage system being proposed would meet the County’s Best Management Practices for drainage and that the dry wells would capture the excess runoff from a 10-year storm event, to which Mr. Wegner said, yes, that he was confident.  

The Village Engineer told Mr. Wegner that, with respect to the drainage system being proposed, he would suggest moving one of the dry wells presently situated near the house to the foot of the driveway. Any overflow for the remaining dry well near the house could be piped to the driveway.  The Village Engineer said that it would be better to put another dry well at the driveway entrance where it is needed most. The Village Engineer noted that Mr. Wegner would have to revise his drainage analysis for the relocated dry well.

Mr. Luntz recalled that it was noted at the WAC meeting that construction stabilization materials should be continued up the entire slope of the driveway.  

Chairman Kehoe brought up the issue of the driveway location and said that, in his view, if the environmental impacts are “awash,” and the Applicant has no preference as to where the driveway should be installed, he would recommend moving the driveway farther away from Mr. Turner’s property line.  The Village Engineer told the Planning Board members that they would not necessarily have to “weigh in” on the driveway location at this point. In the memorandum to the Village Board, the Planning Board could say that there were two designs submitted for the driveway location.  The neighboring property owner, Rick Turner, would like the driveway farther away from his property line, and the Applicant has no preference. The reason for moving the driveway in the first place was to save the 36-inch (DBH) oak tree.  The Planning Board could suggest that a certified arborist be hired to render his/her opinion so that the Village Board could make a more informed decision.

Mr. Andrews said that he, personally, is prepared to make a recommendation tonight on the driveway location.  He would not object to the driveway being moved farther away from the neighboring property.  Mr. Andrews said that he would think that the oak tree is not going to survive either way.  Chairman Kehoe asked if the tree branches would extend over the driveway, to which Mr. Wegner said that they would.  Mr. Wegner noted that, no matter where the driveway is located, the roots of this tree would be cut through during the construction process.  Mr. Andrews pointed out that, for mitigation purposes, the Applicant proposes to plant some new trees (oak trees) at the front of the property.  Mr. Luntz said that he would suggest moving the driveway farther away from the neighboring property and putting in these new trees. Mr. Brennan questioned the present condition of this oak tree, stating that huge branches have been breaking off.  He has found limbs 30 feet long and 2 feet wide on the ground.  Ms. Allen said that she would think that another reason for moving the driveway farther away from the Turner property would be to maintain the natural swale on the other side (the neighbor’s side).  This basin (swale) would serve to capture more storm water runoff.      

Chairman Kehoe suggested that the Planning Board could draft a memorandum to the Village Board recommending that the Steep Slopes Hardship Permit be granted subject to the conditions discussed tonight.

The Village Engineer suggested that, as part of the condition regarding the drainage, the trench drain at the foot of the driveway should be continued across the front of the driveway as much as possible. This would ensure proper drainage once the house is actually built. The Village Engineer said (again) that, to provide additional capacity for excess runoff at the driveway entrance, one of the dry wells situated near the house should be moved to the foot of the driveway.  

The Village Engineer stated that another condition would be that an erosion and sedimentation control plan should be developed.

The Village Engineer noted that, as mentioned earlier in the meeting, construction stabilization materials (gravel anti-tracking pad) should be continued up the entire slope of the driveway.  For the purpose of stabilizing the slope(s), the retaining walls for the driveway should be built early on in the construction process.

Chairman Kehoe stated that the Planning Board would recommend in their memorandum that the driveway be moved farther away from the neighbor’s property, as shown on the Applicant’s original plan. Mr. Luntz said that, for mitigation purposes in conjunction with the driveway construction, the Planning Board would recommend that new trees be planted in the front of the property.  The exact location of the new trees could be at the discretion of the property owner.  

Ms. Allen noted that by moving the driveway over there would now be an opportunity for landscaping between the neighbor’s fence and the new wall.  Mr. Wegner told Ms. Allen that only the bottom piece of the driveway would be shifted over; the back parking area would stay the same.  Mr. Turner informed the board members that he had met with the contract vendee John Nikic, and Mr. Nikic assured him that they could come to an agreement about the fencing, landscaping, etc.    

Ms. Allen said that the WAC would be supplying a memorandum to the Village Board along with the Planning Board’s memorandum.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to recommend that the Steep Slopes Hardship Permit be granted subject to the conditions discussed tonight.  The motion was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Sharma and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.


3.  NEW BUSINESS:

a)      Debra & Craig Schor – 4 Red Maple Ridge  (Sec. 67.11 Blk. 1 Lot 20) – Application for a Modification to the Building Envelope for the Relocation of a Shed

Debra Schor, owner of the property, was present.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant is before the Planning Board tonight for a modification to the building envelope to relocate an existing shed.  The shed had been inadvertently installed on the Arrowcrest Subdivision Homeowner’s Association conservation open space parcel.

Chairman Kehoe asked Ms. Schor what the difficulty would be, if any, to install the shed inside the building envelope, to which Ms. Schor replied that if it were installed inside the envelope, it would be too close to the house.  

Ms. Allen told the board that she has recently spoken to the president of the local chapter of the Audubon Society, Ann Swaim, and Ms. Swaim told her that the Audubon Society is satisfied with the newly proposed location for the shed.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant has also submitted to the Planning Board a Tree Removal Permit application dated March 10, 2008.  Ms. Schor told the board members that there are several dead trees on their property and one live tree that needs to be removed.  The tree requiring the permit is the Black Birch tree, which is leaning too close to the house.  The tree has to be removed for safety reasons.  Ms. Allen asked who identified the tree as a Black Birch tree, to which Ms. Schor said that Almstead Tree Service identified it as such.  The Village Engineer told the board that a permit is required because the tree is within the regulated buffer zone for the RA-40 zoning district in which the property is located. The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant is not required to go before the Planning Board for a tree permit.  The Village Engineer’s office would issue the permit.  Ms. Schor said that the reason they submitted the application to the Planning Board is that her husband and she want to do all the work (the installation of the shed and the removal of trees) at the same time. The dead trees are situated in close proximity to the “new” shed location.  They did not want to delay the application process by making a procedural error.

The Village Engineer asked if there would be any need for clean-up once the shed is removed.  Ms. Schor said that the shed was placed on railroad ties and gravel.  No trees were removed for the installation of the shed.  Ms. Schor told the board that the railroad ties and gravel would be removed from the site, and, if it would make it better for the Audubon Society, her husband and she could put leaves or brush in the area where the shed once was.       

The Village Engineer noted that if the Planning Board were to approve this application, the building envelope would be modified to encompass the shed area.  The Planning Board could ask that the line be redrawn to show the exact modification or, in the alternative, the Planning Board could say that they approve the modification as per the documents submitted.  The Village Engineer noted that, in so far as the Village’s Zoning Ordinance is concerned, an accessory structure cannot be placed in the front yard.  In this particular instance the shed would be relocated to an area, which is (really) toward the rear or side of the lot.

Mr. Luntz noted that, according to the Village Code, an accessory structure has to be a minimum of five feet from the property line.  He asked Ms. Schor if, in its new location, the shed would be a minimum of five feet away, to which Ms. Schor said that it would be.

Ms. Schor told the board that her husband never got a building permit to install the shed and he should have.  If the Planning Board were to approve this application, she would submit an application for a building permit to the Village Engineer’s office.

Mr. Sharma asked how the Village came to know about the Applicant’s “mistake” regarding the shed.  Ms. Allen told Mr. Sharma that the Audubon Society found out about the incursion into the conservation easement, and they “took up the matter as a board” to do something about it.  Ms. Allen noted that, when the Arrowcrest Subdivision was approved, the Audubon Society wanted the conservation easement in this particular location because of an existing trail.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments on this application, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution.  He asked the board members if there were any conditions.  Ms. Allen said that she would think that there should be a condition about how the building envelope is going to be extended. She would like to have a better sense of how this is going to be done.   Mr. Luntz suggested that there should be a condition to the effect that the building envelope shall be extended to encompass the minimum amount required to move the shed to a suitable location.

The Planning Board decided to approve this application with the following (two) conditions:

1)      that the modification of the building envelope be extended solely for the siting of the relocated shed.

2)      that the newly extended building envelope be a minimum of five feet from the common property line with the conservation easement area.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the aforementioned (two) conditions.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.


b)      John & Donna Nikic – Franklin Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 4 Lot 8.01) – Referral from the Village Board for a Steep Slopes Hardship Permit

Ron Wegner of Cronon Engineering was present for this application.

Mr. Wegner noted that John Nikic, the contract vendee for the lot on 39 Truesdale Drive, is also the contract vendee for this lot on Franklin Avenue.  The Franklin Avenue lot is also subject to the Village’s steep slopes regulations.  In the case of the Franklin Avenue lot, the steep slopes are in the middle of the lot where the house would be situated rather than the front in the access (driveway) area.  Mr. Wegner said that, having done the engineering work for building a house on this lot, he would think that a house could be built without causing a great amount of erosion and degradation to the environment.  Mr. Wegner said that rather than a traditional Colonial-style, this would be more of a “custom home.”  He showed the Planning Board members the architectural (elevation) renderings of the house.

Chairman Kehoe noted that, having looked at the slope analysis data chart on the plan, the disturbances to the steep slopes, percentage-wise, are significantly more than what is permitted, to which Mr. Wegner said that this is true  in both the “15 to 20%” and “20% and greater” categories.

The Village Engineer noted to the board that the previous property owner was in the process of building a stone wall around the perimeter of the property.  The concrete footings were constructed but the stone wall was never completed.  Ms. Allen said that she walked the site this evening and noticed that the concrete footings in the back and sides of the property are exposed, to which Mr. Wegner replied that the Applicant intends to break up these footings and remove the debris from the property.  

Mr. Wegner told the board members that, in so far as the drainage is concerned, the current plan does not yet show all of the dry wells that would be installed.  He wanted to be sure that the Planning Board was comfortable with the house layout before completing the drainage design.

Mr. Wegner noted that the original plan submitted to the Village Board shows a different limit of disturbance line.  Mr. Wegner explained to the board that the line was changed for the sake of getting rid of the stone wall foundation (footings).  

Mr. Wegner stated that the retaining walls being proposed would be a maximum of 6 feet in height on the side and 3 to 4 feet in height behind the house.

The Village Engineer said that a critical item for this application would be the house location and how it relates to the other (neighboring) houses.  There is a house on either side.  The “new” house seems to line up with the house on the left. Mr. Wegner said that their intention when creating the house design was to “get the elevation of the house up toward the backyard” so as to keep the excavation work at a minimum.  Mr. Wegner said that the driveway grade is (would be) 14%. Chairman Kehoe noted that the back yard outside the retaining wall is flat, so the prospective homeowner could have a patio or deck behind the wall.  Mr. Wegner said that the back yard is, indeed, a large, open, flat area.

Mr. Wegner referred to the front elevation plan and said that the porch along the front of the house is going to line up with the garage.  Ms. Allen noted that from the level of the street, a person would be looking up hill at the house.  Mr. Wegner said that, rather than putting the porch on grade, the Applicant opted to raise the front porch and have lattice work underneath.   

Mr. Luntz referred to the rear elevation plan and asked if the shaded basement windows along the back are welled out, to which Mr. Wegner said that they are.  Mr. Luntz asked if the patio would be on the left side in the back, to which Mr. Wegner said that it would be.  Mr. Luntz pointed out that the basement window wells would be big and deep, to which the Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant should either get rid of these windows altogether or push the retaining wall back.  Mr. Luntz said that he would think that, design-wise, the house should be made taller than is presently being proposed.  There would be less of an issue with retaining walls and the cut in the back.  Mr. Luntz suggested that the design could be modified so that instead of coming up three steps to get to the porch, a person would come up five or six steps.  By elevating the house in this way, the retaining wall issues “go away.”  Mr. Luntz said that, in his view, the space that is being created along the back and side of the property “is not great space.”  There could be a patio in the back but after a certain number of feet, “you are up against the wall.”  Mr. Luntz noted that the slope of the driveway could not be increased, but the house could be somewhat more elevated.   Mr. Wegner said that he would speak to Mr. Nikic about the change in the house elevation being suggested.

Ms. Allen noted that one of the interesting aspects of this street (Franklin Avenue) is the variety of the houses at different depths.  “Nothing lines up.”

Mr. Luntz told Mr. Wegner that, for the next meeting, the elevations being shown on the architect’s plans should be adjusted to match the site plan.

Chairman Kehoe asked if this were a heavily treed lot, to which Mr. Wegner said that it is not heavily treed.

Mr. Wegner suggested to the board members that, perhaps, the yard could be lowered by a foot or two.  Lowering the yard would help to get rid of the need for a retaining wall(s).

The Village Engineer told Mr. Wegner that, once the construction begins, the neighboring property owners should be made aware of the plan for excavation.  

Chairman Kehoe asked what the function of the retaining walls is on this site, to which Mr. Wegner replied that it is a function of the elevation change on this lot.  The grade change is what necessitates the retaining walls.  Mr. Luntz suggested again that, for the next meeting, Mr. Wegner should ask the architect for the project to work on the elevations.  The elevations should be adjusted to match the site plan.  Mr. Luntz pointed out that, once adjusted the “look” of what is currently being shown to the Planning Board is going to change.

Mr. Luntz asked if the garage is already at mid-level, to which Mr. Wegner said that it is.

The Village Engineer said that, for the next meeting, Mr. Wegner should continue to work on the plan(s).  More details should be provided.  It would also be helpful to the board if Mr. Wegner took some photographs of the site.  Mr. Wegner asked the board members if they would be averse to his bringing the grade down somewhat, to which Chairman Kehoe said that the Planning Board would be willing to look at any solution Mr. Wegner might have to resolve the issues (walls, elevations, etc.) discussed tonight.  Chairman Kehoe pointed out to Mr. Wegner that the Planning Board is not in a position to render an opinion one way or the other until they see the “new” plan.  

Mr. Wegner noted that, with respect to this steeps slopes application, the Applicant would need to schedule a meeting before the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC).

Mr. Wegner said that he would make the changes suggested tonight and be prepared to come back before the board for the next meeting.   


c)      Fernando Duce – 1307 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.14 Blk. 3 Lot 9) – Application for a Final Subdivision Approval

Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E., engineer for the Applicant, was present.

Chairman Kehoe noted that an additional map (plan) has been handed out to the Planning Board tonight, which shows the analysis for on-site slope disturbance and the analysis for total slope disturbance off-site.

Ms. Allen noted that, in so far as the steep slopes analysis for this application is concerned, the Village Engineer was supposed to ask the Village Attorney to render an opinion on how steep slopes should be calculated.  The question was whether land that was off-site should be included in the analysis.  Ms. Allen said that she had noted at the last meeting on this application that the numbers (calculations) for steep slopes, as shown on the Applicant’s revised plan, had changed.  The Applicant had included land off-site that was intended to be used for utility easements.  The numbers changed as a result of incorporating into the calculations this off-site land.  Ms. Allen said that she had hoped the Village Attorney would render an opinion in writing on this matter regarding the steep slopes.

The Village Engineer said that it is his understanding that it was never the intent of the steep slopes law to include easements such as these.  He received today a “new” plan from Ralph Mastromonaco’s office that shows the steep slopes calculations both with and without the easements included.  Mr. Mastromonaco noted to the board that condition #2 of the preliminary subdivision approval states that it must be verified by the Village Engineer that the steep slopes calculations, as shown on the slope disturbance plans, are accurate; hence, this “new” plan was submitted. Mr. Mastromonaco explained why the numbers changed.  Midway through the project Mr. Duce decided to use the utility easements on his other piece of property for the subdivision rather than use the Arrowcrest Homeowner’s Association conservation easement.  There were more steep slopes in these easement areas, hence, more disturbance.  Mr. Mastromonaco noted that the numbers changed accordingly.  Ms. Allen said that the Planning Board was not informed about the change in the numbers.  She pointed out at that meeting that the numbers on the January 25, 2007 plan were different from those on the plan that the Planning Board had just received. Mr. Mastromonaco told Ms. Allen that the earlier plan, to which she is referring, does not have the easement disturbance on it.  Mr. Andrews said that, having looked at the numbers on the “new” plan just received tonight, it would appear that, in either case, the Applicant meets the steep slopes requirements.

Ms. Allen asked why including the easement area(s) would suddenly reduce the amount of disturbance.  Mr. Luntz explained to Ms. Allen that, as he understands these calculations, the area of disturbance on the property is (would be) different with the easements included.  The layout is different from that which was originally submitted resulting in a change in numbers.  Ms. Allen said that, as Mr. Mastromonaco explained earlier, it comes down to the question of whether the off-site disturbance should or should not be included with the on-site disturbance.  Ms. Allen reiterated that she had wanted to see in writing the Village Attorney’s opinion as to whether or not one should take into account the off-site disturbance.  Mr. Mastromonaco told Ms. Allen that he has calculated the steep slopes “both ways,” and in both cases they meet the steep slopes requirements.  The Village Engineer noted to the board members that when Mr. Mastromonaco prepares the final subdivision plan(s) the numbers for the slope areas need to be reduced to on-site slope areas only.  Mr. Andrews pointed out that if both sets of calculations prepared by Mr. Mastromonaco meet the requirements of the law, then obtaining the Village Attorney’s opinion at this point is a “moot point.”  Mr. Andrews said that the Planning Board might want to ask the Village Attorney for an opinion in the future, but he did not think that it matters in this case.  Mr. Luntz said that, in his view, off-site disturbance should never be considered in the steep slopes calculations.  
 
Ms. Allen asked the Village Engineer if he was certain that the numbers provided in the Applicant’s steep slopes analysis chart were accurate.  The Village Engineer said that he does not have the computer software that Mr. Mastromonaco’s office has to measure steep slopes.  He could not in doing these calculations by himself “mimic” the accuracy of a computer.      

Chairman Kehoe referred to condition #1 of the preliminary subdivision approval for this application.  Condition #1states, “that an Environmental Site Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Village Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.”   The Village Engineer noted to those present that, at this point in time, the Environmental Site Plan is (would be) the “Minor Site Plan.”  The Village Engineer stated that the Applicant would have to go before the Planning Board for a Minor Site Plan approval for the construction of the house.  The plans for the Minor Site Plan application would include the drainage system being proposed, erosion control measures, etc.  The Village Engineer suggested that a note should be added to the Applicant’s final subdivision plan(s) saying that the Village’s environmental consultant shall oversee the site construction.

Chairman Kehoe noted that condition #2 regarding verification by the Village Engineer of the steep slopes calculations has just been discussed.  

Chairman Kehoe referred to condition #3 pertaining to the planting of trees.  The planting of trees on the property would be in consultation with the environmental consultant.  Mr. Mastromonaco told the board members that there is already a note to that effect on the Applicant’s plans.

Chairman Kehoe referred to condition #4 of the preliminary subdivision resolution, which states that information should be added to the legend on the plans to more clearly identify the lines being shown.   Ms. Allen noted that, having reviewed the latest set of plans, the Principal Building Envelope Line is not identified in the legend.  The line is being shown on the plan but is not identified in the legend.  Chairman Kehoe said that, as he understands it, the principal structure (house) has to be constructed within the Principal Building Envelope Line; however, accessory structures could be built outside this line.  Chairman Kehoe recalled that the Applicant wanted to add a note stating that this line does not apply to accessory structures.  Mr. Mastromonaco suggested to the board that the note could say that the principal building must be constructed within this line (Principal Building Envelope).   Ms. Allen suggested that the Planning Board could review the minutes of the last meeting to know exactly what the Planning Board agreed to regarding the Principal Building Envelope Line.  She recalled that the Planning Board had discussed this matter thoroughly.  Mr. Andrews recalled from the discussion at the last meeting that the house could not be moved beyond the Limit of Disturbance Line due to site constraints (steep slopes).  The Planning Board was comfortable with the fact that, due to these natural constraints, the house could not be moved forward.  

Ms. Allen noted that the Village is in the process of modifying the steep slopes law.  She asked how the previous calculations, which have been submitted for this application, would relate to the new law.   The Village Engineer told Ms. Allen that, in the new law, a square footage number would trigger the need for a steep slopes permit.  

The Village Engineer suggested that the note on the Applicant’s plan regarding the building envelope could just say that the single-family detached dwelling must be within the Principal Building Envelope Line.  Ms. Allen questioned why the Planning Board is asking the Applicant to put such a note on their plans, to which the Village Engineer replied that a “Principal Building Envelope Line” is not defined in the Village Code, hence, it must be identified in a note.

Chairman Kehoe referred to condition #5 regarding the right-of-way and utility easements for the subdivision. According to this condition the easement agreements should be submitted and reviewed by the Village Engineer’s office during the subdivision review.  Mr. Mastromonaco suggested that, as a condition of the resolution of final subdivision approval, the Planning Board could say that the right-of-way and utility easements should be filed concurrently with the subdivision map.

Chairman Kehoe referred to condition # 6, which states that the silt fence should be moved outside the wetlands buffer zone.  He asked Mr. Mastromonaco if this had been done, to which Mr. Mastromonaco said that, indeed, it has.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there would be a recreation fee required for this subdivision, to which the Village Engineer said that there would be a fee for Lot #2.  The fee per lot is $9,500.00.  The Village Engineer noted that, according to the Code, the recreation fee must be paid to the Village prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The Village Engineer told Mr. Mastromonaco that there should be a note on the Applicant’s plans regarding monuments being shown.  A new lot line is being established.  This needs to be documented in the field with iron rods.  When the house is completely built and the lot is sold, these monuments should be shown on the as-built survey.   Mr. Mastromonaco suggested that the Applicant could put in four monuments in locations agreed upon by the Village Engineer.

The Village Engineer said that it should be a condition of the final subdivision approval that the Village’s environmental consultant shall oversee the site construction.  This same condition could be reinforced in the minor site plan approval.  Mr. Mastromonaco noted to the board that this condition regarding the environmental consultant could not be fulfilled prior to the signing of the final subdivision map. Chairman Kehoe suggested that the condition could say that a note be added to the improvement plan(s) that the Village’s environmental consultant oversees the construction.  

Chairman Kehoe referred to condition #2 of the draft resolution, which states that the final subdivision approval shall be rendered void if the approved Final Subdivision Plat is not filed with the County Clerk within 62 days of the final approval.   Mr. Mastromonaco asked when the “clock starts ticking” for the deadline for filing.  He said that he would think that it would be 62 days from the Planning Board chairman’s having signed the Final Subdivision Plat.  The Village Engineer said that he would check with the Village Attorney and let Mr. Mastromonaco know.

The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant was granted a Wetlands Activity Permit from the Water Control Commission (WCC).  If this permit were granted under the old wetlands law then the permit would only be valid for one year. If it were about to expire, then the Applicant would have to have it renewed.  The Village Engineer questioned whether the Applicant would go before the Planning Board or the WCC for the permit renewal.  Now that the new law is in effect, the Planning Board would be the approving authority for this application. He would ask the Village Attorney and let Mr. Mastromonaco’s office know.

The Village Engineer noted that a condition should be that, prior to the Planning Board chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat the right-of-way and utility easements should be completed, to the satisfaction of the Village Attorney and the Village Engineer.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution.  He reiterated the conditions of final approval:

1)      that the required Recreation Fee be paid to the Village prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2)      that the Applicant shall place monuments within the  property in four locations agreed upon by the Village Engineer.  These monuments shall be shown on the as-built survey.

3)      that a note be added to the final subdivision plan that the Village’s environmental consultant shall oversee the site construction.  The hiring of this consultant shall be at the Applicant’s expense.

4)      that the final selection of plantings (trees) shall take place in consultation with the Village’s environmental consultant.

5)      that the steep slopes calculations, as shown on the Slope Disturbance Map, be revised to exclude the off-site numbers.

6)      that the garage between Lots #’s 1 and 2 be removed prior to the Planning Board chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat.

7)      that the Applicant shall have a valid Wetlands Activity Permit prior to the Planning Board chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat.

8)      that the Principal Building Envelope Line be clearly identified in the legend on the Applicant’s plan.  A note shall be added to the plan stating that the single-family detached dwelling must be within the Principal Building Envelope Line.

9)      that, prior to the Planning Board chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat, the right-of-way and utility easements shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the Village Attorney and the Village Engineer.

10)     that the Applicant shall have received all the following permits, approvals, or letters, and shall have delivered to the Planning Board a copy of each of them certified by the Applicant to be a true copy thereof:

        a)      Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Westchester County Health Department as required by the County Sanitary Code.

11)     that approval of the Final Subdivision Plat be rendered void if the Applicant shall fail to file, in the Westchester County Clerk’s Office, Division of Land Records, the approved Final Subdivision Plat within 62 days from the date of final approval, as final approval is defined in Village Law Section 7-728 11.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application, subject to the aforementioned conditions.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  Ms. Allen abstained.
     
4.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the Tuesday, February 26, 2008 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

5.  ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:40 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills
Secretary


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the Arrowcrest Subdivision on March 15, 1994; and

WHEREAS, each lot in the Arrowcrest Subdivision had a building envelope defined for it, beyond which no construction could occur without approval of the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, Debra & Craig Schor, owners of Lot #15 in the Arrowcrest Subdivision (4 Red Maple Ridge – Sec. 67.11 Blk. 1 Lot 20) have requested an expansion of that lot’s building envelope for the purpose of relocating a shed; and

WHEREAS, the subject shed had been inadvertently put inside the Arrowcrest Homeowner’s Association conservation easement, which shares a common border with Lot #15; and

WHEREAS, as part of this proposal to relocate the shed, although not actually necessary for its relocation, the Applicant has submitted a Tree Removal Permit application #20080092 dated March 10, 2008, to remove a 16-inch (DBH) Black Birch tree, which is leaning too close to their 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, and no Negative Declaration is required.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the modification of the building envelope on Lot #15, as shown on a copy of the site plan indicating the existing and the new location for the shed, received by the Planning Board on March 13, 2008, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

1)      that the modification of the building envelope be extended solely for the siting of the relocated shed.

2)      that the newly extended building envelope be a minimum of five feet from the common property line with the conservation easement area.

Failure to implement this approval in three years will result in the expiration of this approval.
                                                The Planning Board of the Village of
                                                Croton-on-Hudson, New York

                                                Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                Deven Sharma
                                                
Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
   
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on March 25, 2008.



RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A
TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF FERNANDO DUCE


        WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted a Resolution at its regular public meeting held on Tuesday, August 14, 2007, on the application of Fernando Duce (the “Applicant”) which granted preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval of certain property located at 1307 Albany Post Road, in a Residential RA-40 District, which property consists of approximately 2.15 acres identified as Section 67.14 Block 3 Lot 9 (formerly #59 401 3) on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, on the terms and conditions more particularly set forth in said Resolution; and

        WHEREAS, the recitals in the August 14, 2007 Resolution summarize the proceedings on the application of Fernando Duce to and including the date thereof; and

        WHEREAS, on March 19, 2008, the Applicant submitted a proposed Final Subdivision Plat to be considered by the Planning Board at its regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 25, 2008; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed Final Subdivision Plat  and Improvement plans at its March 25, 2008 meeting and deemed same to be officially submitted; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its March 25, 2008 meeting, determined that the proposed Final Subdivision Plat was in substantial agreement with the approved Preliminary Subdivision Plat, and that no public hearing was required pursuant to Village Law Section 7-728 6.(b); and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Board carefully considered all comments received during the course of the Planning Board’s consideration of the application up to and including the date hereof, including those received during the public hearing held on Tuesday, August 14, 2007; and

        WHEREAS, the Final Subdivision Plat which is the subject of the following resolutions is entitled “Subdivision Plat for Fernando Duce Village of Croton-on-Hudson Westchester Co., N.Y.,” prepared by Ralph George Mastromonaco, P.E., Consulting Engineers, dated September 4, 2007;  and

        WHEREAS, the following resolutions are also predicated on the plans entitled “Improvement Plan Proposed Subdivision Duce Property,” dated August 3, 2006, last revised March 19, 2008;  “Tree Plan Proposed Subdivision Duce Property,” dated August 3, 2006, last revised March 19, 2008; “Slope Disturbance Map Proposed Subdivision Duce Property,” dated August 3, 2006, last revised March 25, 2008; “Tree Schedule Proposed Subdivision Duce Property,” dated January 3, 2007, last revised January 16, 2007; and “Details/Profiles/Notes Proposed Subdivision Duce Property,” dated August 3, 2006, last revised January 16, 2007, prepared by Ralph George Mastromonaco, P.E., Consulting Engineers.

        NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved:  (i) That the foregoing recitals are incorporated in the resolution of approval, (ii) That the Final Subdivision Plat hereinbefore referred to is approved subject to the conditions set forth below; and

        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Secretary of the Planning Board are authorized to endorse the Final Subdivision Plat subject to the following conditions:

1)   that the required Recreation Fee be paid to the Village prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2)      that the Applicant shall place monuments within the  property in four locations agreed upon by the Village Engineer.  These monuments shall be shown on the as-built survey.

3)      that a note be added to the final subdivision plan that the Village’s environmental consultant shall oversee the site construction.  The hiring of this consultant shall be at the Applicant’s expense.

4)      that the final selection of plantings (trees) shall take place in consultation with the Village’s environmental consultant.

5)      that the steep slopes calculations, as shown on the Slope Disturbance Map, be revised to exclude the off-site numbers.

6)      that the garage between Lots #’s 1 and 2 be removed prior to the Planning Board chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat.

7)      that the Applicant shall have a valid Wetlands Activity Permit prior to the Planning Board chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat.

8)      that the Principal Building Envelope Line be clearly identified in the legend on the Applicant’s plan.  A note shall be added to the plan stating that the single-family detached dwelling must be within the Principal Building Envelope Line.

9)      that, prior to the Planning Board chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat, the right-of-way and utility easements shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the Village Attorney and the Village Engineer.

10)     that the Applicant shall have received all the following permits, approvals, or letters, and shall have delivered to the Planning Board a copy of each of them certified by the Applicant to be a true copy thereof:

        a)      Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Westchester County Health Department as required by the County Sanitary Code.

11)     that approval of the Final Subdivision Plat be rendered void if the Applicant shall fail to file, in the Westchester County Clerk’s Office, Division of Land Records, the approved Final Subdivision Plat within 62 days from the date of final approval, as final approval is defined in Village Law Section 7-728 11.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a public meeting of the Planning Board in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson held on the 25th of March , 2008.

                                        THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF
                                        CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK


                                        ________________________
                                        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                        Fran Allen
                                        Vincent Andrews
                                        Robert Luntz
                                        Deven Sharma

The Motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, was seconded by Mr. Luntz, and was carried by a vote of 4 to 0.   Ms. Allen abstained.

The Resolution was accepted with the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting held on March 25, 2008.