VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2009
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ABSENT: Vincent Andrews
ALSO PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Member of 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:
- Margo Francy – 57 Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lot 27) – Application for a Steep Slope Permit
Ron Wegner, P.E., of Cronin Engineering was present to represent the Applicant.
Chairman Kehoe recused himself from the review of this application. Fran Allen acted as chairperson.
Mr. Wegner said that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board had asked for some additional information, which he has provided to the Planning Board for the meeting tonight. Mr. Wegner said that, as part of his submittal, he has prepared a quantitative analysis of the steep slopes on the site. The result of his steep slopes analysis is that about two-thirds of the site would be disturbed. Mr. Wegner referred to his steep slopes table, which shows the slope category in percentages (0 – 15%; 15 – 25%; 25 – 35% and greater than 35%). Mr. Wegner said that the table gives the square footage and percentage of the disturbed area within each slope category and the percentage(s) of the total site area being disturbed.
Mr. Wegner stated that he has also provided for tonight’s meeting a drainage analysis report. The analysis is based on a ten-year storm event.
Mr. Wegner said that, at the last meeting, he did not have a detail of the two drywells being proposed, which are (would be) six feet in diameter by four feet deep. A detail of these drywells is now included in the plans.
Mr. Wegner stated that, for clarification of the drainage system being proposed, he has provided a plan showing the direction of the flow of storm water both on and off the site. Mr. Wegner said that the drainage from the shaded area would be directed to pipes onto Old Post Road North. There is a wall and curb at a high point on the Old Post Road North side of the property, which diverts the water on that portion of the property. The drainage boundary along the top side and Old Post Road North side of the property would essentially remain the same. Mr. Wegner noted that, in the proposed drainage plan, he would send the flow of water in different directions so that any overflow would be diverted from the neighboring (Lipton) property.
Mr. Luntz said that, as he understands the existing conditions, the existing drainage flow is outside of the drainage barrier/boundary line, to which Mr. Wegner replied that, in the existing drainage scheme, there is a drainage barrier/boundary at the upper part of the property toward the road, which diverts the water.
Ms. Allen asked if there was a need for a drywell in the back of the property, to which Mr. Wegner replied that when the Applicant first came before the board with a design for a bigger house, they had put a drywell in the back.
Mr. Luntz said that his understanding of the drainage proposal is that the existing drainage system would continue to be used, and drywells would be installed toward the road to mitigate any disturbance created by the new construction, to which Mr. Wegner said that this is, indeed, the case. Mr. Wegner reiterated that any mitigation is (would be) through the installation of drywells.
Mr. Luntz noted that the Applicant has indicated on their revised plans which trees are proposed to be removed. Ms. Allen noted that there are dozens of Maple trees proposed to be removed; however, there is no distinction being made between Norway Maples, Red Maples, etc. Mr. Wegner told Ms. Allen that the trees have been marked in the field so that the Planning Board would know which ones are being removed. Ms. Allen asked Mr. Wegner if a surveyor did the tree survey, to which Mr. Wegner said that, indeed, it was a surveyor. Ms. Allen stated that it is her recollection that the Planning Board had asked that an arborist do the tree survey. Mr. Luntz pointed out that the trees proposed for removal are in the way of the house, so whether valuable or not, they would have to be removed for the house to be built. Mr. Wegner noted that during the application/review process the Applicant has attempted to meet the spirit of the Steep Slopes Law by decreasing the size of the house and
thereby reducing the environmental impacts of this project to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Wegner said that his drainage analysis shows that when the site work on the Francy property is completed, the volume of storm water runoff originating from the site would not be increased. He based his analysis on a ten-year storm event. Ms. Allen said that she was under the impression that the government standard upon which the storm water analysis report is based had changed, to which Mr. Wegner said that, to his knowledge, the standard used is still a ten-year storm event.
The Village Engineer referred to the Village’s Tree Removal Law and noted that “clear cutting” is defined in the tree law as cutting more than ten trees in twelve months. The Village Engineer noted that there would be more than ten trees cut down on the Francy property in a twelve-month period; hence, the tree removal on the Francy property would involve “clear cutting” as defined by law. Mr. Wegner said that, as he understands the tree law, the Applicant would be required to hire a recognized tree expert to prepare a tree restoration plan; however, a tree expert would not necessarily be required to identify the trees and prepare the survey. Ms. Allen said that she would think the law should be amended to read that a tree expert (arborist) should not only be hired to do the tree restoration but
also to identify the trees and prepare a tree survey.
Mr. Aarons referred to Table 1 of Mr. Wegner’s drainage analysis and asked what “CN” stands for, to which Mr. Wegner replied that “CN” is the “curve number.” Mr. Wegner said that “CN” refers to the ground cover. A low “CN” means that a lot of water is being absorbed and a high “CN” that very little water is being absorbed – the more impervious the surface, the higher the “CN.” Mr. Wegner said that he is “providing for a curve” for the downhill side of the driveway, which would take water from the impervious surfaces; the rest of the runoff “will be like what it was before.” Ms. Allen expressed concern about what might happen to the drainage flow(s) with a change to the existing vegetation, to
which Mr. Wegner replied that any change would be accounted for with the installation of the lawn. Mr. Aarons asked about the drainage already in place on the neighboring Lipton property, to which the Village Engineer said that it would seem that there are drainage features in place on the Lipton property. He suggested that, for the next meeting, he could look in the building file(s) for the Lipton property to see if there was a site plan showing the drainage.
A discussion ensued on the scheduling of a public hearing for this application. The Planning Board decided to schedule the public hearing for Tuesday, May 12th so as to have ample time to publish the notice in the local newspapers. The motion to hold a public hearing was made by Mr. Aarons, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
The Planning Board discussed possible dates for scheduling a site visit to the Francy property. Mr. Wegner said that he would certainly want to join the Planning Board on the site visit, but he would need to look at his schedule for the next few Saturdays and let the Planning Board know when he would be available. Some of the board members also needed to check their schedules. Ms. Allen suggested that, rather than trying to determine the date tonight, the Planning Board secretary could send an email to the board members, Applicant, etc. for the purpose of scheduling the site visit.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, March 10, 2009 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 3 to 0. Chairman Kehoe abstained.
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
Village of Croton-on-Hudson