VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ABSENT: Fran Allen
ALSO PRESENT: Ann Gallelli from the Board of Trustees
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:
- Brian Ackerman/John Harbeson/Lael Morgan – Batten Road (Sec. 68.17 Blk. 2 Lots 7, 8.1 & 9) – Request for a Second Six-Month Extension for Presentation of the Final Subdivision Plat
Norman Sheer, Esq. of Bank, Sheer, Seymour & Hashmall was present to represent the Applicant.
Chairman Kehoe recused himself from the review of this application. Mr. Luntz acted as chairperson.
Mr. Sheer explained to the Planning Board the reason for the Applicant’s second request for a six-month time extension. The Applicant is waiting for the approval of the Westchester County Health Department. The final subdivision plat is currently at the County Health Department. Mr. Sheer stated that the County Health Department has requested that the Applicant locate the expansion fields for the septic system. They would want to have this information prior to signing off on the subdivision plat. Mr. Sheer said that the Applicant anticipates that tonight’s request would be the last request for a time extension.
Mr. Aarons noted that he was not yet a member of the Planning Board when this application was being reviewed. He would like to better understand the application. Mr. Luntz explained to Mr. Aarons that this application was for a three-lot subdivision involving two improved lots and one new building lot. The Applicant’s proposal consisted of adjusting/moving lot lines and creating a third buildable lot. By adjusting the lot lines the acreage of the two improved lots was expanded, which resulted in the creation of more open space. Mr. Luntz noted that the Planning Board spent a considerable amount of time in the review of this application. The Applicant had originally subdivided their land without the proper approval(s). They came before the Planning Board to rectify this situation.
Mr. Aarons said that he was unfamiliar with the Batten Road property(ies) in question. He lives nearby on Georgia Lane. He would want to know if this subdivision would have any impact on Georgia Lane. Mr. Sheer explained that the subject property does not front on the Georgia Lane properties. It is accessed instead by Valley Trail and South Ledge Loop.
Mr. Luntz asked if the board members had any other comments, to which there were none.
Mr. Luntz entertained a motion to approve the request for a six-month extension to June 15, 2009. The motion was made by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Aarons and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
- Fernando Duce – 1307 Albany Post Road (Sec. 67.14 Blk. 3 Lot 9) – Request for a Second 90-Day Extension of Final Subdivision Approval and Modification of Conditions #’s 6 & 9 of the Final Subdivision Resolution
Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E., was present for this application.
Mr. Mastromonaco noted that his letter to the Planning Board dated January 8, 2009 explains the Applicant’s request for a second time extension. Mr. Mastromonaco stated that the Applicant, Fernando Duce, is concerned that his final subdivision approval would expire. He was granted a 90-day extension in October of 2008. He is requesting a second 90-day extension. Mr. Mastromonaco noted that Mr. Duce has not completed conditions #’s 6 & 9 of the final subdivision approval. Condition #6 reads: “that the garage between Lots 1 and 2 be removed prior to the Planning Board Chairman signing the Final Subdivision Plat.” Mr. Mastromonaco stated that Mr. Duce is requesting that this condition be modified to read: “that the garage between Lots 1 and 2 be removed prior to the
issuance of a building permit.” Mr. Mastromonaco told the board members that the Westchester County Health Department would be satisfied if it were noted on the final subdivision plat that the garage is “to be removed prior to the sale of Lots 1 and 2.” The Applicant would like to “stop the clock on the time extensions” and allow for the final subdivision plat to be filed with the County.
Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant is also requesting that the wording of condition #9 regarding utility easements be similarly modified. The condition now reads: “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.” The Applicant is requesting that this condition be changed to read: “that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the right-of-way and utility easements shall be completed…”
Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Mastromonaco that he, personally, would have no objection to granting the Applicant another 90-day extension; however, he would think that the matter regarding changing the two conditions could not be resolved tonight. The existing garage, in its present location, would straddle the common property line of two of the newly proposed subdivision lots. The Planning Board would want to seek the opinion of the Village Attorney as to whether the plat could be signed prior to this garage being removed. Chairman Kehoe suggested that the Planning Board could grant the Applicant’s request for the extension but not change the wording of the two conditions.
The Village Engineer pointed out that granting the 90-day extension would give (more) time for the Village Attorney to look into this matter.
Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Mastromonaco if the Applicant was still covered by the first 90-day extension, to which Mr. Mastromonaco replied that he was not sure if they were still covered. It would depend on the starting date. He pointed out that the Planning Board granted the first 90-day extension at their meeting of October 14, 2008. The Village Engineer suggested that, if the Planning Board were to decide to grant the extension tonight, he (the Village Engineer) could refer back to the minutes of the meeting for the expiration date of the first extension and “tack 90 days on to it.” Chairman Kehoe said that he would think that no one would have an issue about granting the extension, but he was not so sure that this matter about changing the two conditions in the way being requested could ever be worked
The Village Engineer had a question about the Applicant’s request to change condition #9. He noted that this condition pertains to the right-of-way and utility easements. It has nothing to do with the removal of the garage. The Village Engineer noted that this condition involves paperwork i.e., the preparation of the easement agreements. He questioned why the preparation of these agreements could not take place now. He would think that these agreements could be completed prior to the map being filed. Mr. Mastromonaco agreed that it could be done that way; however, the Applicant would prefer not to. Instead, the Applicant would prefer to draw up the agreements prior to the issuance of the building permit(s). Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Mastromonaco that, in so far at changing the two conditions are
concerned, the Planning Board would not be willing to modify these conditions tonight. The Planning Board would refer this matter to the Village Attorney for an opinion.
Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Mastromonaco to explain why the Applicant does not want to remove the garage, to which Mr. Mastromonaco replied that the Applicant currently makes use of this garage. Mr. Mastromonaco said that since the Applicant first came before the Planning Board, the market conditions for housing have worsened considerably. Mr. Duce expects to go forward with his plans for building the houses but would prefer not to begin building until late 2009. Until then, Mr. Duce would like to be allowed to continue his current use of the garage. Mr. Mastromonaco pointed out that, theoretically, no building could take place on the property anyway until the garage comes down.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe suggested that the Planning Board could vote on the 90-day extension request tonight. The Village Engineer could check the October 14th minutes for determining the expiration date of the extension. The matter regarding the two conditions would not be addressed tonight and would be referred to the Village Attorney.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to grant the Applicant a second 90-day extension of the final subdivision approval with the expiration of the 90 days to be determined by the Village Engineer. The motion was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Andrews and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
- Constructive Investments LLC – Prospect Place – Review of Proposed Landscaping Plan for Lots #’s 1 & 2 of the Hudson View Subdivision
Robert Brehm and Eleanore Montefusco of R.S. Granoff Architects P.C. were present to represent the Applicant.
Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant has provided a landscaping plan for Lots #’s 1 & 2. The Village’s environmental consultant, Bruce Donohue, has reviewed the landscaping plan and has prepared a memorandum giving his comments and recommendations. Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant’s architects have already met at the site with Mr. Donohue to discuss the comments made in his memorandum; Mr. Donohue has prepared a second memorandum based on their on-site discussion. Mr. Brehm told the board members that the Planning Board received their original landscaping plan in their packets. They did not have enough time to revise the landscaping plan to reflect Mr. Donohue’s comments. Mr. Brehm said that they have brought with them tonight two colored poster boards showing
the final landscaping being proposed.
Mr. Brehm noted that the bulk of Mr. Donohue’s comments pertained to the types of plants. Mr. Donohue wanted to be certain that the plants being proposed are deer resistant. Mr. Brehm said that deer are hard to predict. There are a handful of plants that are deer resistant and others that would invariably be damaged by the deer. Mr. Brehm pointed out that some species of plants might suffer damage but not so severely that they would not grow back. Mr. Brehm suggested that, if the board so chooses, they could modify their plan to be more in sync with Mr. Donohue’s opinions on what is more deer tolerant.
Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding that there is going to be a new sidewalk installed along Prospect Place. Above-ground utility wires are being put below ground. Chairman Kehoe asked who would be doing this street improvement work, to which Mr. Brehm said that the Applicant would be doing this work.
Mr. Brehm explained to the Planning Board the Applicant’s selection of Red Maples as street trees. He said that the Norway Maple is considered an invasive tree that would rob other plants of nourishment. Sugar Maples are considered more appealing but they are subject to road salt damage. For these reasons, they use the Red Maple, which is also a native Maple tree.
Mr. Brehm noted that Mr. Donohue questioned the rationale for removing the Red Oak tree in front of Lot #1. Mr. Brehm explained the reason for removing this tree stating that this tree, which is 50 to 60 feet tall, is leaning toward the house and, if it were to fall over, it would fall onto the house. Also, this tree would be impacted when the Applicant does the sidewalk and utility work.
Chairman Kehoe stated that the Applicant’s landscaping plan, which was included in the Planning Board’s packets, shows a hedge all along Prospect Place and a little wall. Chairman Kehoe said that he would not see any reason for “hiding” the houses and questioned the reason for the screening being proposed. Mr. Brehm said that the hedge would act as a barrier between the wall and the sidewalk. There is a steep drop-off between the sidewalk and the stone wall. The hedge would be planted in this location for safety purposes. Mr. Brehm stated that they would recommend Burning Bush for the hedge. Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding that Burning Bush is an invasive species, to which Mr. Brehm replied that, indeed, it is, but the choices for hedge plantings are limited. Mr. Brehm
said that Mr. Donohue suggested Inkberry, but this is primarily a wetlands plant. They are not working with moist soils in this area. They chose the smallest hedge plant. Basically, all the plants that make good hedges are invasive.
Chairman Kehoe noted that there would be no sidewalk on the Old Post Road North side of the property. There is a flat area between the curb and the existing stone wall. He asked if there would be grass in this flat area, to which Mr. Brehm said that there would be. Mr. Brehm noted that they are proposing screening trees along the front of Lot #2.
Chairman Kehoe expressed concern about the enforceability of the landscaping plan being considered. What if the future property owner of one of these houses were to decide that he/she did not like the plantings? He questioned what, if anything, the Planning Board could do to insure that the plantings being considered tonight for approval by the Planning Board would remain. The Village Engineer said that certainly the plantings being proposed in the Village right-of-way would remain. As far as the other plantings are concerned, he would think that, if the major features of the landscaping plan were good to begin with, the plan would last. There would be no reason to change the landscaping if the overall plan were a good one. The Village Engineer said that, in his view, the landscaping plan being presented is
Mr. Luntz questioned how the Planning Board should handle the differences of opinion on the plantings/landscaping between the Village’s consultant and the Applicant’s landscape architect. The Village Engineer suggested that, perhaps, there could be a compromise between the two. Mr. Brehm pointed out to the Planning Board that as far as the selection of plants is concerned, he would certainly not want to sell something that would be destroyed. Chairman Kehoe noted that if Mr. Donohue were here tonight, he would have his own opinions on the plant selection. Chairman Kehoe said that he would think that the Applicant and Mr. Donohue could work together to come to a consensus on the plantings.
Mr. Aarons questioned if the evergreen trees presently being proposed should be so close to the stone wall. The property line is just inside the stone wall. As they grow, the evergreen trees might extend over the property line. Mr. Aarons noted that, at some point in the future, there could be a sidewalk installed along this portion of Old Post Road North, at which point the evergreens might create a problem. Mr. Brehm said that the evergreen trees being proposed could be allowed to grow tall or, in the alternative, they could be trained to grow to a smaller, more manageable size. The Village Engineer noted that, in so far as the installation of a sidewalk is concerned, the sidewalk on Old Post Road North that connects with the Village is on the other side of the road. There would be little reason to put a sidewalk on
both sides of the road.
Mr. Aarons said that there is an eight-inch Maple tree on the other side of the stone wall parallel to Old Post Road North, which is damaged. He questioned why this tree is not being shown on the Applicant’s landscaping plan as coming down. Mr. Brehm said that this tree was recently damaged. He would be glad to revise the Applicant’s plan to show this Maple tree as being removed.
Chairman Kehoe referred to the first comment in Mr. Donohue’s second (most recent) memorandum to the Planning Board and asked the Applicant if, as suggested by Mr. Donohue, they would be willing to add street trees along Old Post Road North, to which Mr. Brehm said that they would be.
Chairman Kehoe referred to Mr. Donohue’s second comment about the removal of the twelve-inch Red Oak tree and said that, for safety reasons, he (Chairman Kehoe) would have no objection to that tree being taken down. Chairman Kehoe asked the Applicant if they would recommend keeping some trees in that location regardless of whether or not the utilities are buried underground, to which Mr. Brehm said that they would not recommend that. Mr. Brehm said that, in their view, it would look much nicer if they were to run a hedge in the space between the sidewalk and the stone wall. The Village Engineer noted that there was a question raised earlier about whether the Applicant should use Burning Bush for the hedge. Burning Bush is an invasive species. The Village Engineer asked Mr. Brehm how much of the Burning Bush would hang
over the sidewalk, to which Mr. Brehm said that, indeed, it would hang over the sidewalk if not maintained. The Burning Bush would need to be maintained and/or pruned yearly. The Village Engineer noted that, with respect to plant maintenance, even if the plantings were located in the Village right-of-way, it would be the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain them.
The Village Engineer referred to Mr. Donohue’s next comment regarding the planting of Sugar Maple trees on Lot #1. The Village Engineer asked the Applicant to respond to Mr. Donohue’s comment, to which Mr. Brehm told the board members that they would be willing to modify the plan by adding some additional trees along the shared drive bordering Lot #1. If they were to add trees, they would probably decide to shift plants around and substitute plantings that would be more tolerant of growing under trees.
The Village Engineer noted that Mr. Donohue’s last recommendation for the Lot #1 plantings is to “Unbury the large Black Walnut [tree] by the detention pond access drive behind Lot #1.” According to Mr. Donohue, the Applicant has agreed to do so. The Village Engineer asked Mr. Brehm to point out the location of the Black Walnut tree on the Applicant’s landscaping plan. Mr. Brehm said that it is not being shown. He would show it on the revised plan and make a note about unburying it.
The Village Engineer referred to Mr. Donohue’s first comment for the plantings on Lot #2 and noted that, according to Mr. Donohue, the Applicant has agreed to replace the Kwanzan Cherry tree between the walkway and the house. Mr. Brehm told the Planning Board that replacing this Cherry tree would be one of the changes that he would make to the plan that he would show to Mr. Donohue.
Mr. Luntz said that he would think that the Planning Board could approve the Applicant’s landscaping plan tonight. He did not see any reason why the Applicant would have to come back before the board. Chairman Kehoe added that, once the Applicant has had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Donohue and develop the final plan, he would like the Planning Board to “get something back on what the final agreement was.” The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant should be in touch with Mr. Donohue and come up with a plan that is agreeable to both. Mr. Andrews said that if Mr. Donohue were to have any major reservations about the landscaping, then, the Planning Board would want to hear about them. Mr. Brehm assured the Planning Board that Mr. Donohue and he would “work out” any issues. Mr.
Luntz said that it would seem to him that what remains to be resolved are “a lot of little things.” In the event that Mr. Donohue has any strong objections, then, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board; otherwise, they would not have to come back.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments on this application, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe made a motion to approve the Applicant’s landscaping plan subject to sign-off of the final plan by the Village’s environmental consultant. The motion was made by Mr. Aarons, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
3. NEW BUSINESS:
- Tom & Carlene Fallacaro – 3 Arrowcrest Drive (Sec. 67.15 Blk. 1 Lot 33) – Applications for a Modification to the Building Envelope, a Steep Slopes Permit and a Wetlands Activity Permit for an Existing Retaining Wall and Other Site Improvements
Norman Sheer, Esq. of Bank, Sheer, Seymour & Hashmall and Ralph Mastromonaco, P.E., were present for this application.
Mr. Sheer described for the Planning Board the violations, which were incurred on the Fallacaro property and which are the subject of this application. In the late 1990’s and early years of this decade (2001 and 2002), the Applicant, Tom and Carlene Fallacaro, had work done on their property without the benefit of a building permit(s). The property is situated in the RA-40 Zoning District. Mr. Sheer showed the Planning Board the original site plan for the Fallacaro property and pointed out the building envelope for the Fallacaro lot (Lot #32 of the Arrowcrest Subdivision). Mr. Sheer said that after the house was built in 1999, the Fallacaro’s obtained a building permit to construct a swimming pool, which was inside the building envelope. A deck was built and a hot tub installed, the corner of which
infringes on the conservation easement abutting the Fallacaro property.
Mr. Sheer said that after the pool was built, water would come down a swale and wash into the pool. The Fallacaro’s ran a pipe that crosses into the conservation easement. They started construction of a large stone wall and put fill behind the wall to level off this area of their lot. Mr. Sheer said that this large stone wall was built outside the building envelope. Clearing and grading was performed within the conservation easement. Mr. Sheer noted that, during the construction process, a watercourse was relocated and fill placed within the wetlands controlled area without a wetlands activity permit ever having been issued. Also, fill was placed behind the stone wall without the benefit of a fill permit.
Mr. Sheer stated that the building permit for the swimming pool has expired, and a Certificate of Occupancy was never issued.
Mr. Sheer noted that a steep slopes permit would be required for the fill work that was performed.
Mr. Sheer stated that the stone wall was built less than five feet from the property line, so a setback variance would be required. A variance would also be required for an accessory structure (stone wall) extending into the front yard. Finally, the stone wall is more than fifteen feet in height, so a variance from the height requirement for a retaining wall would be required.
Mr. Sheer noted that the Village Board is a beneficiary of the conservation easement, so the Applicant would have to go before the Village Board for the intrusion(s) into the conservation easement. The Applicant would need to apply for a building permit for the swimming pool and for the construction of the (existing) stone wall.
Mr. Sheer told the Planning Board about the dispute between the Fallacaro’s and a neighboring property owner, stating that the case was settled for a number (dollar amount) that all parties agreed to. Mr. Sheer said that it was put on the record that all claims set forth by the neighbor about the retaining wall would be settled in that lawsuit. The neighboring property owner agreed; however, when it came down to executing the releases, the neighbor refused. Mr. Sheer reiterated that the neighbor has refused to sign the release. Mr. Sheer told the board that he has a copy of this neighbor’s complaints about the wall, which he could provide to the Planning Board. Mr. Andrews noted that whatever action the Planning Board takes on this application may be scrutinized by the neighbors. Mr.
Sheer asked again if the Planning Board would want a copy of the complaint and settlement transcript, to which Mr. Andrews suggested that Mr. Sheer could provide a copy to the Planning Board secretary to have on file.
Mr. Sheer noted that besides the complaints about the wall, there was an issue about the topping of trees on this neighbor’s property. Apparently, Mr. Fallacaro had topped some of the neighbor’s trees, and the neighbor complained to the Village Engineer’s office about it. The Village Engineer pointed out to the Planning Board that the neighbor was complaining about the topping of the trees and the wall and its construction at the same time that his office was finding out about all of the aforementioned violations.
Mr. Sheer stated that the Applicant has hired an engineer to inspect the stone wall. The Applicant’s consulting engineer, Bernard Grossfield, provided a report, dated November 4, 2008, in which he gave his observations on the condition of the stone wall. Mr. Sheer said that Mr. Grossfield’s report “says the wall is safe.” The wall has been there since 2001 or 2002. There is no indication of sink holes or bulges. Mr. Andrews asked if a determination has been made yet on the impacts of the wall on runoff and water, to which Mr. Mastromonaco responded that the wall “does not create the runoff.” Mr. Andrews questioned whether the wall has diverted the runoff in such a way as to create a drainage problem, to which Mr. Sheer noted that one neighbor said that they had problems
before the wall was constructed and now that the wall is there, they no longer have the problem. Mr. Mastromonaco noted that the existence of this wall would make it so that the water would take a different route, but the amount of water would be the same.
Mr. Andrews noted that there have been multiple violations of the Village Code described tonight. He asked if the Village Engineer could explain the enforcement issue(s), to which the Village Engineer replied that, with respect to enforcement, this is, indeed, a unique case. “It involves every board.” The Village Engineer told the Planning Board that he “never saw that before.”
Mr. Sheer said that the consequence of removing this stone wall would be severe. He gave as an example the potential for erosion. He suggested that the Applicant could look into it, but he would think that the consequences would be severe.
Mr. Sheer said that the Planning Board would need to go on a site visit to the property. He suggested that it could be a joint site visit with the other boards (ZBA, WCC, etc.).
The Village Engineer said that, in his view, in so far as this application is concerned, there would be no sense “throwing it in court.” The Village Engineer said that requiring the Applicant to go before the various boards provides a mechanism for the Applicant to comply with Village law(s). The Village Engineer said that if he were to go the route of sending the Applicant to the Village Justice Court, he could request the Court to issue a fine. He (the Village Engineer) would rather have the Applicant go before the Village boards to be in compliance with Village regulations than to have a fine issued.
Mr. Aarons said that he is (would be) curious to know how the wall got built to begin with, to which Mr. Sheer suggested that he could ask Mr. Fallacaro that question on the site visit.
Mr. Aarons said that, with respect to the condition of this wall, the owner could be requested to put up a bond for damages, if not built properly.
Trustee Gallelli told the Planning Board members that it is her recollection that the conservation easement agreement said that there was to be no encroachment into the easement whatsoever.
Chairman Kehoe said that this had to have been a massive construction project. He questioned how it could have happened. Mr. Luntz suggested that perhaps people just assumed that they (the Fallacaro’s) had the approval(s) to do it. The Village Engineer said that the neighbor raised the issue about trimming the trees and at that point started to complain about the wall. The topping of the trees “kicked it off.”
A discussion ensued about how the Planning Board should proceed with this application. The Village Engineer said that the major issue is going to be the wall (itself). Mr. Sheer said that, in his view, the engineering report provided by the Applicant’s consulting engineer, Mr. Grossfield, has taken the application process “a step forward.” There were many good observations made in the report. Mr. Sheer said that Mr. Grossfield would be willing to come to a Planning Board meeting, if the Planning Board so chooses.
The Village Engineer pointed out that the drainage, although it has not changed in terms of the quantity of water, has taken another route. There is water that goes through a piping system in the wall. The Planning Board would want to make sure that the drainage functions properly. If it (the piping) were to plug up, then the soil behind the wall would become saturated, and extra pressure would be put on the wall. Mr. Sheer suggested that Mr. Grossfield could meet with the Village Engineer to discuss matters such as drainage, or Mr. Grossfield could be asked to come before the Planning Board. The Village Engineer suggested that it would be helpful to the Planning Board in their review if Mr. Grossfield could create a detail of a wall section as if he were designing the wall today. He would show in the
detail what the gravity section should look like to create a stable wall, ascertain how close the Applicant’s wall is to that section, etc.
Mr. Mastromonaco referred to the drainage shown on the initial (site) plan and pointed out to the Planning Board that the drainage might be taking another route but it is being brought to the same location as before.
Mr. Sheer noted (again) that before the wall was built a neighbor complained that water was getting into their garage; now, that neighbor is not complaining about a water problem anymore.
Trustee Gallelli said that from the point of view of the conservation easement, the Village Board would want to know what the nature of the land cover was, to which Mr. Sheer said “low shrubs and scrub brush.”
Mr. Mastromonaco stated that his office prepared the site plan for the builder. It is his (Mr. Mastromonaco’s) recollection that the builder did not precisely follow the plan for the drainage. The builder ran the drainage in back of the house into a swale. Mr. Sheer said that Mr. Fallacaro noticed that water was running over the surface and into the swimming pool. It was at that time that Mr. Fallacaro put the pipe in. Mr. Luntz suggested that, perhaps, this discussion about the drainage, wall construction, etc. could be tabled and brought up again with Mr. Fallacaro present to answer the Planning Board’s questions.
Mr. Sheer suggested that a joint site visit could take place in early February. The Village Engineer said that he would think that the Applicant should do a presentation before each of the involved Village boards first. The Planning Board could refer this application to the Water Control Commission (WCC) for a recommendation. The Village Engineer said that the Applicant is aware of the fact that they have to go before the Zoning Board. Trustee Gallelli said that, in her view, it would be best for the Applicant to go before the Zoning Board and Planning Board first before coming to the Village Board. Mr. Sheer said that he would contact the secretary of the Zoning Board and WCC to schedule the meeting dates. Once they have done the presentation before these boards, the Applicant would come back before the
Planning Board to discuss a date for the joint site visit.
Mr. Sheer said 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, December 23, 2008 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Aarons 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 9:55 P.M.
Village of Croton-on-Hudson