VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ABSENT: Fran Allen
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O'Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kehoe.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
- Lakomata Realty – 2-12 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 66) – Application for a Change of Use Approval from a Nail Salon to a Korean Chicken Take-out Restaurant
Maria Modica-Snow, Esq., attorney for the Applicant; Thomas Quartuccio, Sr., P.E., engineer for the Applicant; Lee Hyun, proprietor of the proposed take-out restaurant; and John and Jimmy Antiaris of Lakomata Realty, owners of the property, were present for this application.
Ms. Modica-Snow noted to the board members that the Applicant has performed the site work that was requested at the last meeting. The back of the property has been cleaned up (weeds removed) and plantings have been installed. A new wooden fence enclosure has been installed around the dumpsters.
The Village Engineer noted to the board that the Village is at various stages of putting in asphalt curbing at the back of the property along Elm Street. If time permits, the Village’s sidewalk contractor would install concrete curbing uphill from the building. The Village Engineer said that the concrete curbing would create a delineation/edge for the pavement along the right-of-way and would also serve to divert storm water away from the building.
The Village Engineer noted that large vehicles parked in the back of the shopping center “hang out” onto Elm Street. He suggested that, as a condition of their approval, the Planning Board should prohibit parked vehicles from hanging out onto the street. The Village Engineer said that reconfiguring the parking in the back of the shopping center would ultimately create a safer condition for residents living on Elm Street. Mr. Antiaris, Jr. suggested that, once the Village has completed the curbing project, they (the property owners) could mark off the parking spaces in the back, to which the Village Engineer told Mr. Antiaris, Jr. that when the parking is reconfigured, the cars parked in the back should “end up at the curb.”
Mr. Antiaris, Jr. distributed to the board members photographs showing the new Arborvitae plantings in the back and the wooden dumpster enclosure.
Chairman Kehoe referred to the Applicant’s photograph showing the row of Arborvitae plantings. He asked the Applicant if there was an issue with people parking on the grass area in front of the Arborvitae, to which Mr. Antiaris, Jr. replied that there would not be enough room for a car, especially when the Arborvitae begin to mature.
Mr. Andrews asked if there was ever any discussion about the condition of the green fence around the grease containers in the back, to which the Village Engineer said that he, personally, could not recall any discussion about the fence. Mr. Andrews noted that the slats of the fence are somewhat run down. Mr. Antiaris, Jr. said that, in their (he and his father’s) view, the color green of this fence blends in “as well as it can” with the new trees. The Village Engineer told Mr. Antiaris, Jr. that the fence around the grease containers should be properly maintained. If one of the slats is damaged or missing, it should be replaced.
Chairman Kehoe opened the public hearing on this application. He asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak. Harold Lockwood of 11 Hudson Street was present. Mr. Lockwood questioned having another take-out restaurant added to the shopping center. He noted that the shopping center already has a Chinese restaurant, pizzeria, etc. Mr. Lockwood expressed concern about the impacts of another restaurant on the parking at the shopping center and the ingress/egress onto Maple Street. He told the board members that delivery trucks park in “No Parking” areas or on the street making it difficult for drivers to get through. There would be even more deliveries with another take-out restaurant. Mr. Lockwood said that he would be concerned about cooking odors. He asked if there would be
cooking odors generated from this restaurant, to which Mr. Antiaris, Jr. replied that the new systems are well insulated and the filters are changed constantly. Mr. Lockwood asked how often the garbage is picked up, to which Mr. Antiaris, Sr. said, twice a week.
Mr. Lockwood was concerned about the safety of school children living in close proximity to the shopping center. School children are picked up and dropped off by the bus at the corner of Maple and Hudson streets in front of the stores. Another take-out restaurant would mean more delivery trucks, additional traffic (ingress and egress), etc. Mr. Andrews asked Mr. Hyun what his hours of operation would be, to which Mr. Hyun said, 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Mr. Andrews said that he would think that the pick-up and drop-off of school children would not necessarily coincide with deliveries being made to the restaurant. He also thought that the restaurant would not substantially increase the amount of traffic at that corner. Chairman Kehoe said that the main issue is the possible conflict with deliveries. He asked Mr.
Hyun about the delivery schedule to the restaurant, to which Mr. Hyun replied that there would be no deliveries to his restaurant. He would be picking up the supplies himself. Mr. Hyun explained to the board that he would be importing his food supplies from South Korea. The supplies would be picked up at a wholesale company in Queens and brought to the restaurant.
Chairman Kehoe asked how many employees would be working at the restaurant, to which Mr. Hyun said, so far, one or two. Mr. Hyun noted that the employees would come in one van, so no additional employee parking would be required.
Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Lockwood if he had noticed any unpleasant cooking odors generating from the existing restaurants at the shopping center, to which Mr. Lockwood said that, to date, the cooking odors have not been too bad. The Village Engineer noted that the state-regulated Ansel system is being used. The Ansel system is a fire-fighting system. The Village Engineer explained how the system works, stating that if there is a fire in a particular area, the cooking apparatus is flooded with chemicals to extinguish the flames. The Village Engineer noted that there is a section in the Village Code dealing with odors. The Engineer’s Office would address this issue when reviewing the building permit application for the interior work being done. His office would make sure that there would be the proper
ventilation installed to disburse the odors. Chairman Kehoe asked if each of the restaurants has its own ventilation system on the roof, to which Mr. Antiaris, Jr. said that, indeed, they each have their own system.
Mr. Lockwood noted that people park on the sidewalk which, he assumes, is illegal. Mr. Lockwood pointed out to Mr. Hyun that his customers who park their cars on the sidewalk could be ticketed for parking illegally, and this would be expensive for them.
Mr. Lockwood told the board members that between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 P.M., it is impossible to walk through the shopping center parking lot due to the cars and trucks.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments from the public, to which there were none. Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 3 to 1. Mr. Aarons abstained.
The Village Engineer told the board members that, since the last meeting, he has spoken with the Village Attorney concerning the parking, and the Village Attorney concurred that no variance for parking is required. The Village Engineer summarized the building history of the shopping center, stating that the shopping center was constructed in the 1960’s. The construction of the shopping center was governed by the Village regulations in effect at that time. In so far as the requirement(s) for parking is concerned, the number of parking spaces, along with the building, is “grandfathered” under these old regulations. The Village Engineer stated that the number of off-street parking spaces required was 12. There currently exist 24-29 spaces; therefore, there is, at present, a sufficient amount of parking at the
shopping center even taking into consideration the loss of the one space in the back. The Village Engineer noted that, in his research of the property, he also discovered that the pizzeria at the shopping center was, at one point in time, granted a variance from the parking requirement(s).
Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution. Chairman Kehoe noted to those present that the first condition in the draft resolution pertains to the signage being proposed for the restaurant. Mr. Antiaris, Sr. stated that, with respect to the signage being installed, the Applicant’s sign would have to “blend in” and be equal to the signage of the other tenants at the shopping center. The only change they intend to make is with the graphics. The existing signage box would be used. The sign, once completed, would simply slide into the signage box, which is already in place. The Village Engineer noted that, if the sign were going to be placed in the same box, then it would meet the signage regulations. Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant that they would have to submit their sign
application to the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB) for review and comment.
Chairman Kehoe said that condition #2 should be amended to read: “that the employees of the restaurant shall be required to park off-site on the west side of South Riverside Avenue.”
Chairman Kehoe said that he would like to have assurance from the landlord that, if the evergreen trees (Arborvitae) recently planted in the back were to die, they would be replaced. He would want to be certain that these trees were being properly maintained. Mr. Antiaris, Jr. told the board that they (the Applicant) have been working with the nursery on these plantings. The nursery suggested preventive measures to keep these trees healthy. One of these measures is to water the trees every day for the first 30 days, which is being done. Mr. Antiaris, Jr. told the Planning Board that, if these trees were to die, they would re-soil that area in the back and plant new trees.
The Village Engineer suggested that a condition should be added to the resolution stating that “the parking spaces behind the building along Elm Street should be reconfigured to angled spaces, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.” The dirt area in the back should be filled in with grass. Mr. Antiaris, Jr. said that this work could be done after the drainage curbing is in place. Mr. Quartuccio came forward to show the Planning Board a sketch of the three parking spaces for the back. He noted that with the new configuration, one space would be lost (from four to three spaces). Mr. Aarons noted that there is a crack in the pavement in the back where someone is now parking his/her car. He asked if this area would be repaved. Mr. Antiaris, Jr. suggested that they could work on the rear
parking area with the Village Engineer, once the curbing is installed. Chairman Kehoe said that he would be comfortable leaving this matter regarding the parking to the Village Engineer’s discretion. Once the curbing is in place the Village Engineer and the owner of the property could work together to create a safe parking area. Chairman Kehoe said that it should also be noted as part of this condition that “the rear parking shall be improved consistent with generally accepted construction standards.”
Mr. Andrews pointed out that the condition being discussed about the rear parking is a condition for the future. He would think that the Planning Board’s approval of the take-out restaurant would not be “conditioned upon it.” Mr. Andrews questioned how the Planning Board should deal with work, which is being done in the future. Mr. Aarons said that there should be a timeframe stipulated in the resolution for this future project to occur. Mr. Antiaris, Jr. said that this work could be contingent upon the Village doing the curbing. The work would have to be done “so many days” after the completion of the curbing project. Mr. Aarons suggested that the condition could state that “the work on the parking lot should be performed within 180 days from when the Village
completes the curb work.”
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments from board members, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this change-of-use application with the conditions discussed tonight. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
3. OLD BUSINESS:
- Croton Community Nursery School – Lower North Highland Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lots 5, 6, 9 and 25 [formerly Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 25]) – Application for a Preliminary Subdivision Approval – Discussion to Establish Escrow Account for Environmental Consultant
Chairman Kehoe stated that the Planning Board needs to establish an escrow account for the hiring of an environmental consultant(s) to review the Croton Community Nursery School application. Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding from the Village Engineer that the standard escrow amount for the Planning Board to request is $5,000.
Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant has already hired their own consultant to delineate the wetlands on the nursery school property. He asked the Village Engineer if he were correct to assume that the Village’s consultant would check the work that has been done and then report back to the board, to which the Village Engineer said that this is, indeed, the case.
Chairman Kehoe brought up the issue, discussed at the last meeting on this application, of any possible deed restrictions on the nursery school property. It was his recollection that the Applicant had no objection to providing this information; however, the Applicant’s attorney would have to do research into this matter, as the Applicant did not have any firsthand knowledge of the land transaction that took place. Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board is asking the Applicant to prove that, when the land was donated to the nursery school, there were no restrictions/prohibitions placed on the future development of this land. Before the Planning Board could proceed with the review of this application, the Planning Board would need to be assured that there were no legal restrictions that would disallow the subdivision of
land presently being proposed. Once the Applicant’s attorney has done the necessary research and gathered the information requested, then this information would be submitted to the Village Attorney who, in turn, would render an opinion. Mr. Aarons said that he, personally, would be concerned about the consequences to the Village should the opinion prove not to be correct. The Planning Board would want to be certain to provide the Village Attorney with adequate deed information. Mr. Aarons noted that clearly the deed information provided by the Applicant for the last Planning Board meeting was inadequate. The Village Engineer pointed out to the Planning Board that, should there be any restrictive covenants on the property, these covenants might not necessarily be included in the deed but could instead be (in the form of) separate documents.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve the escrow amount of $5,000 for the Village’s environmental consultant(s) to review this application. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
- Margo Francy – 57 Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lot 27) – Application for a Steep Slope Permit
Ron Wegner of Cronin Engineering was present to represent the Applicant.
Chairman Kehoe recused himself from the review of this application. Mr. Luntz acted as chairperson.
Mr. Wegner noted to the board members that, since the last meeting on this application, the Village’s steep slopes law has been revised to make the Planning Board the approving agency for steep slope permits. The Applicant, Margo Francy, requires a permit under the new steep slopes law.
Mr. Wegner said that the Applicant’s plans have been revised to show the ranges of steep slopes described in the new law. The plan shows 213 square feet in the “moderately steep slope” category, 5,000 square feet in the “very steep slope” category, and slightly less than 3,000 square feet in the “extremely steep slope” category. Mr. Wegner noted that most of the disturbance would take place in the middle (“very steep slope”) range. Mr. Wegner referred to the Applicant’s site plan showing the house footprint and said that, in order to stay within the setback requirements for a house in the RA-9 Zoning District, the slopes in the “extremely steep slope” range would have to be disturbed.
Mr. Wegner compared the old and new steep slopes laws and said that the new steep slopes law is “qualitative” rather than “quantitative.” Furthermore, under the new law, an applicant has to meet sixteen “review standards.”
Mr. Wegner reviewed the history of this application, stating that the Applicant first came before the Planning Board in 2005. At that time, the Village Board was the approving authority for a “steep slope hardship permit,” as it was then called. Mr. Wegner said that the Village Board referred the application to the Planning Board for a recommendation. There was a question raised during the review process regarding the legality of the subject lot and/or whether this lot had been created as part of an illegal subdivision. Mr. Wegner said that it is his understanding that the Village Attorney has “looked over the documents” and has determined that this is a legal parcel. The Village Engineer told the board that John Gochman is the attorney for the Applicant. After reviewing Mr. Gochman’s and the Village Attorney’s findings, he (the Village Engineer) concluded that the subdivision is legal and that the Planning Board could entertain this steep slope permit application.
Mr. Wegner said that, when this application was first before the Planning Board, the house being proposed had a larger footprint. The house footprint was 1,500 square feet. The footprint of the house currently being proposed is 980 square feet. Mr. Wegner said that the minimum square footage for this zone (RA-9) is 880 square feet. Mr. Wegner noted that the footprint is actually 992 square feet because there is a bump-out, which is not being shown on the Applicant’s plan. Mr. Wegner said that even with the bump-out the zoning requirements are being met.
Mr. Wegner said that under the old law almost the entire property was considered to be in the “20% and greater” category. Under the new law, the (three) different ranges of “steep” have to be considered and, in this case, most of the disturbance would take place in the “very steep slope” range. Mr. Wegner said that, when the old law was still in effect, the residence being proposed was a much larger structure with a built-in garage. The new house is much smaller in size. Mr. Wegner said that, if one were to compare the two, one would see that the building now being proposed has definitely been reduced in size.
Mr. Luntz asked if, with respect to the house being proposed, the Planning Board would also be looking at an application for a minor site plan, to which the Village Engineer replied that the Planning Board is (would be) looking at a minor site plan application “that has a steep slopes component to it.” He added that the Planning Board would be looking at the architectural drawings for the house during the minor site plan review.
Mr. Wegner noted that John Nikic is the contract vendee for this property and would also be the developer/builder. Ms. Francy is the current owner/applicant.
Mr. Wegner described the proposed house to the board members stating that the house would have two stories with a walk-out basement. There would be a deck at the rear of the house and a small carport. He referred to the plan and said that the L-shaped wall being shown is for the walk-out basement. Mr. Luntz noted that, according to the Applicant’s plan, the house is “pretty much on grade,” to which Mr. Wegner replied that this is, indeed, so. There are just two steps coming down. Mr. Wegner said that a retaining wall is being proposed with a maximum height of six feet. The Village Engineer asked if, with respect to the retaining wall on the uphill side, the geo-grid extends out from the wall. Also, are there any trees on the property line? Mr. Wegner told the Village Engineer
that the Applicant had discussed the possibility of a modular wall for the lower wall. It is possible to use the geo-grid system for that wall (the lower wall). Mr. Wegner referred the Planning Board to the Applicant’s plan entitled “Details and Sections” and noted that this plan shows a detail of the upper wall. The wall would be reinforced concrete. Mr. Luntz noted that Mr. Wegner would need to have a large-sized footing behind that wall. Mr. Wegner said that, in so far as the wall on the uphill side is concerned, he is not certain that it would be possible to put in a unilock wall with geo-grids uphill. The Applicant is considering it for the lower wall. Mr. Wegner noted that the wall would be similar to the wall with the stone facing that Mr. Nikic is constructing on his Truesdale Drive property.
Mr. Wegner stated that, with respect to the design of the upper driveway, he had to make a larger parking and turn-around area because there is no garage. He is looking at the possibility of bringing the drainage out to Old Post Road North. He would have to “get a pitch on the pipe.” Mr. Wegner noted to the board that he would have some obstacles to work around for the installation of the drainage system. He discovered, in looking at an old drawing, the existence of an 8” water main along Old Post Road North in close proximity to the property. The sewer line being shown on the plan is off of the survey of the property. Mr. Wegner noted that the sewer line from the house would also have to “get down to Old Post Road North.”
Mr. Wegner noted that he has put on the Applicant’s plan a Construction Sequence that outlines the order in which the various stages of the construction would take place.
Mr. Wegner said that, due to the resistance that the Applicant has run into in the past, he has made the house smaller in size. They (the Applicant) are trying to minimize the impact(s) with a smaller house.
Mr. Luntz asked Mr. Wegner how, under the new law, he meets the criteria for requiring a steep slope permit, to which Mr. Wegner replied that having calculated the “areas,” he concluded that the Applicant would require a steep slope permit to do the construction. He did the steep slopes measurements and they exceeded what was allowed. Mr. Andrews referred to the Review Standards section of the new steep slopes law (Sec. 195-4), which states in the first paragraph (A) that, in their role as the approving authority, the Planning Board shall apply the following (sixteen) Review Standards. Mr. Andrews read aloud item (1) “that the proposed activity and the manner in which it is to be accomplished are in accordance with the purpose and findings set forth in Section 195-1 of this chapter.” Mr.
Andrews noted that Section 195-1 “Legislative findings” enumerates the “reasons for the law to be,” e.g., protect the natural terrain, preserve wildlife habitat, prevent surface erosion, etc.
The Village Engineer told Mr. Wegner that he would need to provide a drainage report to show that there would not be any increase in runoff from the property. The Village Engineer said that erosion control measures would be required during construction to prevent soils from “washing down hill.” The Village Engineer pointed out that the property is “steep to the very end.” There are no flat areas for the water to seep into. The Village Engineer suggested that Mr. Wegner and he should make a field trip to the site to see if there is any natural erosion happening right now. Due to the steep slopes, the site is “non-forgiving” when it rains. The Village Engineer noted that once the construction of the house is completed the surrounding site would be vegetated He suggested
that the Applicant should provide a landscaping plan for the Planning Board to review. The Planning Board would want to have an idea of what the landscaping around the house would look like.
Mr. Wegner stated that the property is more than 120 feet from the wetlands buffer, so a wetlands activity permit would not be required.
Mr. Andrews noted that the Planning Board is eventually going to have to go through the sixteen criteria under Section 195-4 “Review Standards.” The Planning Board members present decided to go through the sixteen criteria beginning with item (2). Mr. Wegner noted that item (2) pertains to the impacts on steep slopes from erosion. He said that erosion controls have been provided to the Planning Board as part of tonight’s submission. Mr. Wegner referred to item (3) regarding the potential adverse effects on wetland areas and stated that the subject property is “two properties away” from the wetlands, so he would not foresee any negative impacts on either the wetlands or endangered species of flora/fauna.
Mr. Wegner referred to item (4) pertaining to the possible adverse impacts of this project on future wells and sewage disposal systems. Mr. Wegner said that it is his understanding that the house being proposed would be served by Village (municipal) water and sewer. He would, therefore, not foresee any problems in this regard.
Mr. Wegner said that, with respect to item (5), they (the Applicant) could take a look at the Village’s Comprehensive Plan to make certain that this project is consistent with its principles and recommendations. The Village Engineer pointed out to those present that the Comprehensive Plan did not change the zoning in the area in which the house is (would be) situated.
Mr. Wegner said that item (6) does not apply because a septic system is not being installed.
Mr. Wegner referred to item (7) and said that the terracing being proposed for this project would (still) have to be evaluated for the appropriateness to this (the Applicant’s) site.
Mr. Wegner referred to item (8) regarding the allowable grades for the construction of driveways and roads and noted to the Planning Board that in designing the driveway he tried to make the driveway relatively flat. Mr. Aarons asked why the sediment trap being shown on the Applicant’s plan is temporary, to which Mr. Wegner replied that this trap is just for construction. The sediment trap provides a location where water can slow down and particles can settle out. The Village Engineer noted that, to help with the on-site drainage, it is his understanding that the Applicant is considering putting in breaks in the curbing or infiltrators.
The Village Engineer told Mr. Wegner that he should show on the plan(s) the property line of the flag lot.
Mr. Luntz reiterated what Mr. Wegner had said earlier regarding the change in the steep slopes law, i.e., that the new law addresses the issue of steep slopes from a qualitative as opposed to a quantitative point of view. The Village Engineer pointed out that, as it is qualitative in nature, the new law has many more conditions to be met. The review criteria have been described in more detail and have been expanded. The Village Engineer said that, in his view, the new steep slopes law offers the Planning Board more flexibility to explore the issues.
The Village Engineer noted that, with the old steep slopes law, if a person owned a vacant piece of commercial property, he/she would have been ineligible to apply for a permit.
Mr. Luntz read aloud from the “Review Standards” the items (9), (10) and (11), to which the Planning Board had no comments. Mr. Wegner referred to item (12) concerning the angle of cut and fill slopes and stated that he has “2 to 1 as [his] maximum proposed.” Mr. Wegner said that he believes that he meets the requirement(s) in item (13) also pertaining to cut and fill. The Village Engineer noted that items (12) through (15) pertain to the cut and fill requirements. The Applicant should verify the numbers calculated for the cut and fill to be certain that the requirements are being met. Mr. Wegner referred to item (16) and said that, as noted in the “Erosion & Sediment Control Notes” on the Applicant’s plan, all erosion control measures shall be installed in accordance
with the “New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control.”
The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could go on a site visit. He noted that the Planning Board would be listening to the neighboring property owners’ concerns at the public hearing. By going on a site walk the Planning Board would be able to more easily “connect to the person talking.” The Village Engineer said that it is always good to have firsthand knowledge of the site. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could coordinate a group site visit or, in the alternative, each member could go on his/her own.
Mr. Aarons asked if it would be premature to request elevation drawings, to which the Village Engineer replied that the Planning Board would definitely want to see elevation drawings before the public hearing.
The Village Engineer said that before any construction could take place soil testing would have to be performed.
Mr. Wegner asked if the Planning Board would want to see the elevation drawings at the next meeting on this application, to which Mr. Luntz said that it would be helpful to the board to have these drawings.
Mr. Aarons asked what the total square footage of the house would be, to which Mr. Wegner said 1,800 square feet plus the full basement.
Mr. Wegner told the board members that he would be in touch with the Village Engineer’s office when the Applicant is ready to come back before the board.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 14, 2008 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on a Change of Use application on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 for Lee Hyun, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property owned by Lakomata Realty and located at 2-12 Maple Street. The property is in the C-2 Zoning District and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lot 66 (formerly #14-176-1); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Change of Use is from a nail salon to a take-out restaurant; 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 Change of Use application, as shown on the site plan of the shopping center dated October 8, 2008, received by the Planning Board on October 9, 2008, and a sketch of the proposed ground floor dated July 14, 2008, received by the Planning Board on July 15, 2008, prepared by Thomas M. Quartuccio, P.E., be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) that, once submitted, the sign application for the take-out restaurant be provided to the VEB for their review. The Village Engineer’s office shall review the sign for compliance prior to installation.
2) that the employees of the restaurant shall be required to park off-site on the west side of South Riverside Avenue.
3) that the parking spaces behind the building (shopping center) along Elm Street be reconfigured to angled spaces in general conformance with generally accepted construction standards and that this work be completed within 180 days from when the Village completes its work on the curbing improvements on Elm Street adjacent to the rear of the building, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.
In the event that this Change of Use 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. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Planning Board member Fran Allen was absent.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.
Village of Croton-on-Hudson