Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
 
 
Planning Board Minutes 07/14/2009
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 in the Municipal Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chris Kehoe, Chairman
                                Mark Aarons
                                Fran Allen
                                Robert Luntz

ABSENT:                 Vincent Andrews

ALSO PRESENT:           James Staudt, Village Attorney
                                Ann Gallelli, Member of the Board of Trustees
                                Demetra Restuccia, 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.  PUBLIC HEARINGS:

  • Margo Francy – 57 Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lot 27) – Application for a Steep Slope Permit (Public Hearing, Continued)
John Gochman, Esq., attorney for the Applicant, was present.

Chairman Kehoe stated that he is recused on this application; board member Fran Allen will act as chairperson.

Ms. Allen stated that the Planning Board received in their packets for tonight’s meeting a letter from the Applicant’s attorney John Gochman dated July 8, 2009.

Mr. Gochman said that he, indeed, sent a letter and attached to this letter the sets of minutes pertaining to the Francy application.

Mr. Gochman told the Planning Board that he is, again, going to have to ask for an adjournment due to the fact that there are only three board members present tonight who could vote on this application. Mr. Gochman noted that Chairman Kehoe has recused himself and Planning Board member Vincent Andrews is absent.  Mr. Gochman said that he would want to have four Planning Board members present. Ms. Allen noted that Mr. Andrews was unable to attend the Planning Board meeting tonight for business reasons.

Ms. Allen asked if the Planning Board had any objections to this request for an adjournment, to which the board members had no objections.
Ms. Allen asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

The Planning Board unanimously agreed to adjourn this application to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 28th.    

  • MetroPCS New York, LLC – Application for Site Plan Approval for the Collocation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility at the DPW Facility, Veteran’s Plaza
Anthony Gioffre, Esq., of Cuddy & Feder LLP was present to represent the Applicant.

Mr. Gioffre noted that the Village Board granted the Special Permit on this application at their meeting of June 15, 2009.  Also, the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) found this project to be consistent with the Village’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) at their meeting of Wednesday, June 10, 2009.

Mr. Gioffre said that the Applicant MetroPCS wishes to collocate on the previously approved cell tower on the DPW property, which is located in the Light Industrial (LI) Zoning District.   

Mr. Gioffre noted that three other carriers were approved with the original (cell tower) application.  MetroPCS would be the fourth carrier to be approved for collocation on the cell tower. Mr. Gioffre stated that the equipment for the antennas would be located within the fenced-in compound at the base of the cell tower.  No extension of the compound would be required.  The antennas themselves would be situated on the cell tower 100 feet above grade level.  

Mr. Gioffre stated that, as requested at the last meeting, he has put together a copy of all of the prior submissions on this application and has bound them into one packet.  Mr. Gioffre handed to the Planning Board secretary the bound packet.

Mr. Gioffre stated that his firm has just received additional information with respect to the battery cabinets being proposed.  He handed to the board members the manufacturer’s specification sheets on the batteries.  Mr. Gioffre noted that the company that makes the batteries also recycles them.  The company East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. has a factory in West Babylon, New York, which handles the recycling. Mr. Gioffre noted that the specification sheets submitted show that the batteries can be properly disposed of.   

Chairman Kehoe opened the public hearing on this application.  He asked those members of the public present if they had any comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe noted to the Planning Board members that he recently received an email stating that the cell tower has been installed, to which the Village Engineer responded that the cell tower has been installed; however, the three carriers’ antennas are not on the tower yet.

Mr. Aarons asked if there was a bond in place for the construction/installation of the cell tower, to which the Village Engineer said that a removal bond would be put in place.  Mr. Aarons asked about bonding for the removal of the batteries, to which the Village Engineer said that the bonding for the batteries would be included in the removal bond.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to close the public hearing.  The motion was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

Ms. Allen said that she would like to compliment the Applicant’s attorney Mr. Gioffre on his efforts to comply with the Planning Board’s requests regarding the batteries, final application (submission) packet, etc.  

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution. He noted that the one condition in the draft resolution states that, “the Applicant [shall] abide by the ten conditions set forth in the Village Board’s resolution of approval dated June 15, 2009.”  Chairman Kehoe noted that one of the ten conditions in the Village Board resolution pertains to the proper disposal of batteries; for the meeting tonight, the Applicant supplied the Planning Board with additional information on the batteries being proposed, which includes information on the disposal of the batteries. Chairman Kehoe noted that the Applicant also submitted a bound packet of all previous submissions. Chairman Kehoe asked the board if, other than abiding by the Village Board’s ten conditions, the Planning Board had any other conditions that should be included in the resolution, to which there were none.  Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board secretary would “reference and make part of the record” the Planning Board’s receipt of the final, bound packet of application materials submitted for the meeting tonight.  

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the condition just discussed.  The motion to approve was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
    
  • Belarmino & Virginia Anton – 337 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 1 Lot 62) – Application for an Amended Site Plan Approval
Kevin Davignon of EDA Architecture, Inc. and Belarmino & Virginia Anton, proprietors of the proposed restaurant, were present.

Mr. Davignon explained to those present the scope of the project stating that the Anton’s are proposing to make additions to the rear and front of the existing building. The bathrooms in the restaurant would be relocated to the rear.  The façade would be renovated to include a vestibule entranceway.  

Mr. Davignon said that he has been working with the Village Engineer to determine the parking requirements for the proposed restaurant.  The Applicant’s parking layout has been changed accordingly.  Mr. Davignon said that the Applicant’s plan is currently showing 28 parking spaces including one handicap space.  The Applicant’s original plan showed three compact car spaces.  Mr. Davignon stated that the parking layout has been revised to eliminate the three compact spaces and reconfigure these spaces into two standard-size spaces. The total number of spaces for the on-site parking is 28, which is one more than the required number (27).  

Mr. Davignon told the board that, with respect to the landscaping, there would be a planted area at the side of the building, which would consist of a small site wall and a planting bed.   

Mr. Davignon stated that the front entry to the restaurant would consist of a concrete paver walkway to the main entry door; the surface of the new outdoor dining area would be scored concrete.

Mr. Davignon noted that, at a previous meeting, Mr. Luntz had suggested that the Applicant install a centralized curb cut at the entranceway to the parking lot off of South Riverside Avenue.  Mr. Davignon said that they tried to create a design for a centralized curb cut but, due to the location of the utility poles at this site, were unable to do so. Mr. Davignon said that the Anton’s would propose keeping the two existing curb cuts off of South Riverside Avenue with the idea of “cutting off” one of the curb cuts to create two additional on-street parking spaces.     

Mr. Davignon stated that the new paver walkway in the front of the restaurant would extend to the edge of the existing sidewalk.  

Mr. Davignon stated that the tables for the outdoor dining area would remain inside during the off-season and be moved outside in the summertime.

The Village Engineer asked if double doors would be installed from the restaurant to the outdoor dining area, to which Mr. Davignon said, yes.

The Village Engineer asked Mr. Davignon to describe the planting area being envisioned along the side of the property, to which Mr. Davignon stated that they are considering building a concrete site wall, 2 to 3 feet in height, and installing a planting bed.

Mr. Davignon stated that, in so far as the landscaping is concerned, they are proposing to extend the curbing in the front and create planting beds.  Mr. Davignon noted that the new planting bed at the left of the front entrance would help to screen the parking lot from view.

Chairman Kehoe said that, as he understands it, the Applicant is proposing two new on-street parking spaces in the front where the drop curb is now, to which Mr. Davignon said that this is, indeed, the case.  The Village Engineer suggested that, to keep people from driving their vehicles onto the new pavers being installed at the front entrance, the Planning Board could make it a condition of their approval that the curbing at the front entrance be raised.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if the Applicant had chosen the plantings for the front, to which Mr. Davignon said that the Applicant would be hiring a landscape architect to prepare a landscaping plan.  The Village Engineer suggested that the Applicant should come back to the Planning Board once this landscaping plan is developed.

Chairman Kehoe noted that there is an existing apartment on the second floor, which would remain.  It is his (Chairman Kehoe’s) understanding that the new addition in the back would potentially have a second apartment above it, to which Mr. Davignon said, yes.  Chairman Kehoe asked if the apartments would both be two-bedroom apartments, to which Mr. Davignon said that they would be.   

Mr. Davignon noted to the board members that the existing fences and mature trees on the property would remain.

Mr. Luntz said that all in all he is pleased with the improvements being proposed for this property. Mr. Luntz said that he would agree with the Village Engineer that there should be a condition in the resolution of approval requiring the Applicant to raise the curb in the front. He noted that it has to be clear to people that they cannot drive in there.  Mr. Luntz said that he would be “okay” with the curb cut not being centralized, given the location of the utility poles.    

Chairman Kehoe noted that, as part of the submission for tonight’s meeting, the Applicant provided detail sheets on the colors of materials being proposed for exterior use(s).

Chairman Kehoe asked if the two additions for the restaurant would be built at the same time, to which Mr. Davignon said that they would be.  The exception is the second-floor apartment in the back, which is (would be) a future expansion.

The Village Engineer noted that the Applicant’s proposal also involves the removal of an oil tank and placement of the oil tank in a new location. A report has to be sent to the Village Engineer’s office that states that the oil tank removal/installation work was properly handled.

The Village Engineer suggested that, for drainage purposes, the Applicant should put a small dry well in the grassy area in the back.

Mr. Aarons suggested that bollards could be placed in the front until such time as the curb work at the front entrance has been completed.  

Valerie Leis, member of the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB), was present.  Ms. Leis said that the VEB has reviewed the Applicant’s plans; she is present tonight to go over the VEB members’ comments.  Ms. Leis stated that, with respect to the planting bed to the left of the proposed front entrance walkway, it was suggested by one of the VEB members that it might be an attractive addition to the planting bed to include a few small trees.  Ms. Leis noted that parking spaces #’s 7 and 8 in front of the dumpster area are designated as employee parking spaces.  The VEB members questioned why the two employee parking spaces could not be situated in the rear, since at this point in time there is only one tenant in the building. The VEB would suggest that these employees park in spaces #’s 27 and 28 in the back. Mr. Davignon told Ms. Leis that they designated these two spaces for employees because they would not want customers’ or tenants’ vehicles parked in front of the dumpster when the garbage truck comes.  

Ms. Leis noted that the Applicant has 28 off-street parking spaces and only 27 are required.  As there is this “extra” parking space that is not required, the VEB would suggest eliminating this “extra” space altogether. Ms. Leis said that the VEB would like to see parking space #13 next to the new planting bed in the front eliminated and plantings installed to provide more screening of the parking lot from the street. Mr. Luntz pointed out that either space #14 or space #15, which are situated next to space #13, could be used as a handicap parking space. Mr. Luntz said that, if space #13 were removed and additional landscaping installed, there would be enough room for a wider parking space for handicap parking in that location. Ms. Leis reiterated that landscaping in this area (space #13) would serve the purpose of providing some additional screening of the parking lot from the street.

Ms. Leis said that the VEB would like to see the color scheme being proposed for the exterior use(s).

Ms. Leis said that one of the VEB members suggested that the sign for the restaurant should say “Anton” rather than “Anton’s” with an apostrophe “s.”  

Ms. Leis noted to those present that the VEB would want to review the sign application once submitted.  The Village Engineer stated that the VEB would need to provide their input to the Planning Board on the proposed signage. As the sign is a part of the site plan, the Planning Board would be the approving authority for the sign. Chairman Kehoe suggested that when the Applicant goes before the VEB for the sign, the Applicant should also show the VEB the colors being proposed for the exterior site work.    

Phyllis Morrow of 61 Nordica Drive was present.  Ms. Morrow had concerns about the future second-floor apartment being proposed. Ms. Morrow asked if there were restrictions in the Village Code on occupancy of buildings, to which the Village Engineer said that occupancy restrictions are covered in the New York State Building Code. Ms. Morrow said that the public should be made aware of these restrictions.  Ms. Morrow was concerned about residential parking in this area of the Village. She said that any expansion in this three-block area of the Village has to be handled carefully.  Ms. Morrow questioned if there had been any plan developed for parking for potential residents.  Ms. Morrow was also concerned about garbage from the restaurant and rodent infestation. The trash area would have to be rodent-free and camouflaged from view.  She would also be concerned about odors from food garbage.  Ms. Morrow noted that she did not attend the last few meetings on this application and that, perhaps, some of these matters had been discussed; to which Ms. Allen told Ms. Morrow that she believes these matters had been discussed earlier in the review process. Ms. Morrow asked how food waste from restaurants was generally handled, to which the Village Engineer replied that the Village’s DPW picks up commercial garbage twice a week.  

Rhoda Stephens of 2 Batten Road asked Mr. Davignon how he calculated the required parking for the restaurant, to which Mr. Davignon explained to Ms. Stephens how he came up with the number 28 for the off-street parking spaces.  Ms. Stephens noted that, with respect to the outdoor dining area, the Applicant would want to have the outdoor dining during the nice weather.  She asked if the outdoor dining would reduce the number of tables inside, to which Mr. Davignon said that, indeed, it would.  Mr. Davignon said that during the nice weather, “the tables would be coming from the inside to the outside.”

Thierry Pradines of 36 Melrose Avenue said that he, too, would want to be certain that the code requirements on occupancy of buildings are being respected.  He would want to be certain that the Village ordinance pertaining to the handling of commercial garbage is also being respected.  The Village Engineer said that the Village’s code enforcement staff would be responsible for looking into these matters.  Mr. Pradines asked how many make up the code enforcement staff, to which the Village Engineer said that the Village has three staff members involved with code enforcement. Mr. Pradines noted that there have been on-going problems with Zeytinia Gourmet Market, which have not been resolved, to which Vito Divenere of 51 Farrington Road came forward and told those present that when he, personally, has dealt with the Village’s code enforcement staff, they have answered his inquiries in a relatively short period of time.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments, to which there were none.  Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to close the public hearing.  The motion was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution.  Chairman Kehoe referred to the first condition regarding the approval of the Applicant’s sign(s) and said that this condition should be expanded to say that, besides the sign(s), the VEB would also like to see the color scheme for the exterior use(s) and the landscaping being proposed. The Village Engineer noted that the sign application being submitted should not only include the restaurant signage but also any parking signs e.g., “employee parking,” “tenant parking,” “no parking in front of the dumpster,” etc.

The Village Engineer said that there should be a condition, which states that the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board with a landscaping plan. The landscaping plan should show the wall and planting bed being proposed on the side of the property.  Chairman Kehoe noted that, as discussed tonight, the Applicant should consider as part of the landscaping eliminating parking space #13 and using that space for some additional plantings.

The Village Engineer said that there should be a condition stating that a new dry well be placed at the rear of the property to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

Chairman Kehoe said that, as discussed earlier in the meeting, the resolution of approval should contain a condition requiring the Applicant to raise the curb in the front. Mr. Luntz said that there should be a time frame for doing this curbing work.  Mr. Luntz suggested a two-year time frame, i.e., July 2011, to which the other board members agreed. Chairman Kehoe said that, in the interim, two large planters/potted plants could be placed in that location.

The Village Engineer said that there should be a condition, which states that the removal and re-installation of the oil tank shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the conditions discussed tonight.  The motion to approve was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Aarons and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

3.  NEW BUSINESS:

  • Referral from the Village Board for Proposed Zoning Changes to the Harmon Gateway Overlay Zoning District
Bonnie Von Ohlsen, RLA of Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. and Village Attorney James Staudt were present for this application.

The Village Attorney came forward and joined the Planning Board members at the dais.

Chairman Kehoe noted that, at the Village Board meeting last night, the Village Board referred to the Planning Board the proposal for zoning changes to the Harmon Gateway Overlay Zoning District.  Chairman Kehoe noted to those present that, in so far as a recommendation to the Village Board is concerned, no decisions are going to be made tonight.  Tonight’s meeting is for information gathering purposes only.  Chairman Kehoe stated that the Village Code requires that the Village Board seek a recommendation from the Planning Board on zoning changes.  There will be no public hearing before the Planning Board; however, as is the practice with the Planning Board, public comments will be heard.

Chairman Kehoe said that the Village’s consultant on this project, Bonnie Von Ohlsen of Saccardi & Schiff, will give the presentation.

Ms. Von Ohlsen stated that, with respect to the zoning changes being proposed, the recommendations for these changes, which have been compiled into a draft local law, are based on input provided by the Harmon Economic Development Committee. Ms. Von Ohlsen noted that the Harmon Gateway Overlay District already exists; the law would be amended to expand the district and modify this district’s regulations/standards.  

Ms. Von Ohlsen showed the Planning Board an aerial photograph of the subject “study” area.

Ms. Von Ohlsen said that when the Harmon Economic Development Committee was developing their recommendations for the proposed zoning change(s), the Village hired her firm to do a utilization analysis.  Factors taken into consideration were the current Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and parking standards.  Ms. Von Ohlsen said that one of the goals is (has been) “not to have this commercial area conflict with other commercial areas of the Village.”

Ms. Von Ohlsen stated that the Village has started the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process.  At the Village Board meeting last night the Village Board declared itself the Lead Agency and referred this proposal to the Planning Board, the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) and the Westchester County Department of Planning.  The referral includes the draft law and the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF).  The steps in the SEQRA process would entail answering any questions that have come up in the public comments and addressing the potential impacts of the zoning amendments, as proposed.

Chairman Kehoe asked if they (the Village’s consultant) would be doing separate build-out analyses covering best- to worst-case scenarios of development, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen said that they would be.  

Ms. Von Ohlsen said that she does not intend to go through the actual local law tonight unless the Planning Board wants her to.  She has with her a list of the basic concepts being proposed.  Ms. Von Ohlsen said that the goal is (would be) to gain flexibility for property owners in that (the Harmon) District and benefit the community as a whole.  Ms. Von Ohlsen reviewed the major changes being considered in the “new” law stating that for mixed occupancy uses in the Gateway Overlay Zone the maximum allowable FAR would increase from the current values to a uniform 0.8 value.  The maximum building height would remain at 35 feet; but a third story (within roofline) would be permitted for residential use only.  Ms. Allen noted that, with respect to building height, the 35-foot roofline is measured in different ways.  She would want to know how it is being measured in this case.  Ms. Allen said that, “Most people assume that it is the ridge line from the existing ground level.”  The Village Engineer noted that the definition of “building height,” which is currently in the Village Code, is not changing, to which Ms. Allen said that she assumed that to be the case.  Ms. Allen said that she would hope that, at some point in the process, the Village would (also) consider making a change to the current definition of “building height.”

Ms. Von Ohlsen stated that in the current zoning law for the General Commercial (C-2) District, a mixed-use building is permitted with the granting of a special permit by the Village Board.  In the “new” law applicable to the Harmon Gateway, this requirement for a special permit would be removed, and a mixed-use building would be allowed as an as-of-right use.  The Village Attorney noted that the current standards for the C-2 Zoning District, which are in place in the Village Code, are going to remain, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen added that the purpose of the changes for the Harmon Gateway Overlay District is to encourage mixed-use in that area of the Village.

Ms. Von Ohlsen stated that, in the “new” mixed-use gateway zone, the front setback would be 15 feet instead of 10 feet to encourage wider sidewalk areas.  

Ms. Von Ohlsen stated that, in the amended gateway law, at least 50% of the first floor of a building would have to be for commercial use, and the commercial space must face the street.  All new street level space fronting on the sidewalk would have to have at least 60% of the façade(s) covered by glass (windows).  Ms. Von Ohlsen said that, according to the proposed law a residential use, if situated on the first floor, would have to be situated behind the commercial use.

Ms. Von Ohlsen stated that a non-residential use would not be permitted on the third floor of a building.  

Ms. Von Ohlsen noted that the “new” gateway law would try to encourage parking at the rear of buildings.  Two parking spaces would be required for a residential unit.  In mixed-use buildings, one of the two residential parking spaces could count toward commercial parking requirements.  

Ms. Von Ohlsen said that a traffic consultant hired by the Village is going to study how traffic would be affected by the various build-out scenarios.  The next step for her firm would be to start their study/analyses of these best to worst-case build-out scenarios.

Mr. Luntz asked if the permitted uses have been spelled out in the “new” law being proposed, to which the Village Attorney replied that any uses that are now being permitted in the C-2 Zoning District would be permitted.  

Mr. Aarons asked if a property owner in the Harmon Gateway district would be allowed to have a building that contains a mixed use, if the subject (existing) building does not meet the new setback requirements.  The Village Attorney said that Mr. Aarons’ point is a good one.  The Village Attorney said that he thinks the intent of the “new” law would not be to prohibit a mixed use. Chairman Kehoe said that, once the “new” law is in place, he would think that the existing buildings in this zoning district would be enlarged and/or improved; this would go directly to Mr. Aarons’ point that they would not meet the setbacks.  The Village Attorney noted to those present that the very reason this proposal is before the Planning Board is so that the Planning Board could explore these kinds of issues.

Chairman Kehoe noted that drive-through windows for commercial establishments are not permitted in the gateway districts. He questioned if the intent was also to prohibit ATM machines for banks. The Village Attorney noted that the current gateway law prohibits drive-through windows.  Chairman Kehoe asked if this “new” local law would only deal with the Harmon Gateway, to which the Village Attorney replied that this is, indeed, the case. Chairman Kehoe asked if, in the Harmon zone the Village were to change the language pertaining to drive-through windows it would only affect Harmon, to which the Village Attorney said that it would have to be made clear that, on that certain point, only Harmon would be affected. The Village Attorney reiterated that, if it were the case that the Village makes a change that only applies to Harmon, it would have to be clearly stated as such in the Village Code.

Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding that the Village’s consultants are going to do a parking analysis that would give the Planning Board an idea of the total amount of on-street parking in this area, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen that this is true.

Ms. Allen noted that fast food restaurants are also prohibited.  She asked how precisely the term “fast food restaurant” is defined in the Village Code. The Village Attorney said that a fast food establishment is prohibited in the current gateway law.  Ms. Von Ohlsen said that she would think, while the “new” gateway law is under review, that it would be a good time for the Planning Board to ask the Village Board to clarify the term/definition of “fast food restaurant.”

Mr. Aarons asked why these particular parcels were chosen to be added to the Harmon Gateway Overlay Zone, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen said that these 36 parcels pretty much encircle where the commercial properties (restaurants, commercial businesses, etc.) are now.  The Village Attorney said that he thinks that there was a recommendation made by the Harmon Economic Development Committee on the parcels chosen.  He thinks that there is some text (language) in their report to this effect.  The Village Attorney said that this information should (obviously) be provided to the Planning Board.

Chairman Kehoe asked if, for the gateway extension study, the Village’s consultants followed the existing underlying zoning for C-2, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen said that this is correct.

Ms. Allen expressed concern about the current law pertaining to building heights stating that, the way building heights are measured now it would seem that “no one can predict how high a building can be.”  Ms. Allen said that she would think that what the Village has to look for with respect to a law on determining building heights is the “element of no surprise.”  It would be good to be able to more clearly visualize what the height of the building is going to be.  Ms. Allen said that she, personally, would like to put additional constraints on what is allowed in terms of building height. Chairman Kehoe noted that in measuring the height of a building, decorative features, such as cupolas, are excluded.  Mr. Luntz said that, in his view, it is possible to interpret and visualize what a building would look like within the framework of the current law.  He said that he is not convinced that “[it is] not predictable.”  Ms. Allen asked how, with respect to building height, a third story would be handled, to which Mr. Luntz said that he would think the Planning Board should look at this issue of height relative to what is being proposed in this zone (gateway zone).  When land is being developed, the manipulation of the land has an effect on height measurement(s). He (Mr. Luntz) would think that this would not be the case in the Harmon study area. Chairman Kehoe said that it would be good to have some basic examples of what one can do within the existing law so as to give the Planning Board an idea of what the possibilities are relative to manipulating a roof line.

Mr. Aarons asked what the impacts of these changes to the gateway law would be on drainage/storm water, to which the Village Engineer replied that impacts on drainage as well as other utilities would have to be addressed at the time of the site plan review by the Planning Board.  The Village Engineer said that when an Applicant comes before the Planning Board with a site plan application, the Applicant would have to meet the requirements in the Village’s storm water law.  Mr. Aarons asked about the potential impacts on the municipal sewer system, to which the Village Engineer said that it would be good to know whether or not the capacity would be met, “if everything were built out to the max.”  The Village Engineer suggested that this issue regarding sewage capacity could be addressed as part of the consultants’ analysis/study.

Chairman Kehoe asked Ms. Von Ohlsen if she would be working on part 3 of the FEAF, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen said that she would be.  Ms. Von Ohlsen suggested that for assistance in her preparation of part 3 the Planning Board could write down their comments/concerns discussed tonight, e.g., issues pertaining to building height, parking, etc.  The Village Attorney noted to the Planning Board that the Village Board, as Lead Agency, would determine if there is to be a scoping session.  Part 3 of the FEAF is designed to give the Village Board more information as to whether a scoping session is necessary.    

Chairman Kehoe asked if, once completed, Ms. Von Ohlsen would be submitting part 3 to the Planning Board, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen said that she would think part 3 should be submitted to the Village Board first. The Village Attorney said that it is open to discussion as to what the process can be. He noted that this proposal for zoning changes also has to be referred to the WAC. Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board has asked for some additional information tonight, and he would think that once Ms. Von Ohlsen has completed part 3 of the FEAF, she should come back before the Planning Board first. The Village Attorney said that he would assume that the Village Board would be “okay” with this arrangement. The Village Engineer suggested that, perhaps, part 3 could be submitted to the Planning Board and the Village Board at the same time, to which Ms. Von Ohlsen said that once completed, she would submit a draft copy of part 3 to both boards.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any members of the public present who wished to speak on the zoning changes being proposed.   Thierry Pradines of 36 Melrose Avenue said that, in his opinion, the Planning Board rather than the Village Board should be the Lead Agency on this proposal. Mr. Pradines said that he found interesting the Planning Board’s discussion(s) tonight on fast food restaurants, drive-throughs, ATM’s, etc.  Phyllis Morrow of 61 Nordica Drive said that she would like to see the Village’s consultant come back before the Planning Board before going to the Village Board.  She would like to see the Planning Board do their review as they are the “pros” at this.  Ms. Morrow said that she has misgivings about this proposal.  She questioned why the Village is being (would be) developed in this way.  She asked if the goal is to raise the economic viability of the Village.  Ms. Morrow said that in her view the report on the Harmon zoning change recommendations does not reflect the constraints of the Village.  Ms. Morrow expressed her concerns about the impacts on traffic, parking, building heights, drainage, etc.  A factor that she (also) mentioned should be considered is the proximity of the Harmon area to the Hudson River. Ms. Morrow expressed concern about the worst-case scenario of development (build-out) in the Harmon area.  She said that she would think that there would have to be limitations put on density. Ms. Morrow said that she would be interested in seeing the results of the traffic study.  She would want to know when the traffic study is “going on” and would want Village residents to be able to see the details of that study.   

David Goldman of 76 Young Avenue expressed concern about the impact of this proposal on parking.  He would think that two parking spaces per residence would not be enough.  He expressed concern about the legal ramifications of people parking behind buildings, should an accident occur. Mr. Goldman had other concerns, such as the impact of this proposal on the character of the neighborhood, the visual impacts, noise issues, etc.  Mr. Goldman questioned the way this project was being handled i.e., handling one area of the Village at a time rather than looking at the Village as a whole.  He said that this is a “spot zoning” issue.  Mr. Goldman questioned what the effects of this proposal would be on the economy of the Upper Village and said that the Upper Village is “already hurting.”

Ms. Morrow asked if there would be a limitation on the hours that a fast food establishment could be open, should the Village decide to allow fast food establishments.  Chairman Kehoe noted to Ms. Morrow that this is the start of the review process.  Once the consultants’ analyses/reports come back to the Planning Board, the board will know if the questions/concerns that have been raised tonight have been sufficiently answered.  Ms. Morrow said that, in so far as this zoning proposal is concerned, “There was no primary research done, no interviews with neighbors, no notifications to Harmon residents.”  She said, “The misunderstandings just abound.”  Ms. Morrow told the board members that she would like to see this proposal “stay here” (with the Planning Board) before it goes back to the Village Board.  Chairman Kehoe said that he personally has felt no pressure from the Village Board on a time frame for the review; he assured Ms. Morrow that the Planning Board would do a careful review of this proposal.

Mr. Aarons asked if the Village has architectural requirements that could be put into this proposal.  He gave as an example of a possible architectural requirement the uniformity to the fascia of buildings.  The Village Attorney said that the Village could put design guidelines into the ordinance, if desired.  Mr. Luntz said that from his experience design guidelines do not always guarantee good results.

Chairman Kehoe said that the Planning Board would wait to hear back from the Village’s consultants on the status (completion) of part 3 of the FEAF and the build-out analysis/study.  

  • Brian Ackerman/John Harbeson/Lael Morgan – Batten Road (Sec. 68.17 Blk. 2 Lots 7, 8.1 & 9) – Application for a Final Subdivision Plat Approval
Norman Sheer, Esq. of Bank, Sheer, Seymour & Hashmall and Ronald Wegner, P.E. of Cronin Engineering were present for this application.

Chairman Kehoe stated that he is recused on this application; board member Fran Allen will act as chairperson.

Mr. Wegner said that the final subdivision plat has been prepared and is substantially the same as the plan submitted for the preliminary subdivision approval.  The only change is the location of the trail easement.

Mr. Sheer noted that a trail easement was drafted and given to the Village Attorney for his review.  The easement has gone through a few revisions.  Mr. Sheer distributed to the board members copies of the easement.  The Village Engineer said that he has reviewed the trail easement and is satisfied with it.  Mr. Sheer said that the Applicant’s hope is that the final plat would be approved tonight so that it could be signed by the Planning Board chairman and filed with County Land Records.

Ms. Allen noted that (only) three out of the four members who could vote on this application are present tonight.  Chairman Kehoe is recused and Mr. Andrews was unable to attend the meeting.  Ms. Allen said that it is standard procedure for the Planning Board to give an applicant a choice to adjourn the decision-making until such time as the full board is present. Mr. Sheer said that, given the fact that there are no changes being made and the preliminary and final plans are substantially the same, he would hope that they could go ahead with the vote tonight.

The Village Engineer noted that one of the conditions of preliminary subdivision approval required that iron rods be installed at property corners and at any changes at points of course of the new lot lines established for the existing lots. The Village Engineer said that this condition of the preliminary subdivision approval has been met.  The Village Engineer noted that, with respect to the trail easement, the chairman of the Trails Committee Jan Wines and he visited the site.  Mr. Wines has since provided a response on behalf of the Trails Committee regarding the trail. All in all, the Trails Committee is pleased with the Applicant’s proposal.  Ms. Allen read aloud Mr. Wines’ response (via email) about the trail, which states that the Committee reviewed the Applicant’s proposal and believes that the trail link being proposed would provide an important connection to the Village’s trail system. Ms. Allen noted that the trail link being provided was actually called for in the master plan for Village trails prepared in the early 1990’s.  She noted that what this trail link would do would be to provide a means for people walking on the trail to get to NYS Route 129.  

The Village Engineer stated that the sewer easement being provided by the Applicant would allow for future connections to certain portions of the Mt. Airy section of the Village. There currently exists a sewer line at Eklof Court.  The Village Engineer said that, should the Village Board decide to extend the sewer line at some point in the future, the subject sewer easement, which is being established, would provide the means to do so.

Charles Trendell of 39 Batten Road came forward and expressed his concern about the flooding problems he has experienced on his property.  He was concerned that his problems with flooding would be compounded by putting houses up on the hill.  Mr. Trendell said that it seems as if the Planning Board is ready to “steamroll” this project through, but the problem with the flooding has not been resolved. Ms. Allen noted that this subdivision proposal involves one new house, and the building of this house might not happen for a long time. Ms. Allen said that as far as rushing along the approval process is concerned, this application has been before Planning Board since 2007, so the Planning Board is not rushing this project along. Ms. Allen noted that, besides the lengthy Planning Board approval process, the Westchester County Health Department has also taken a long time to approve the Applicant’s sewer and water connections.
 
Mr. Trendell suggested that to help remedy the flooding problems and take water off of his and his neighbor’s (Audre Gabrielsen’s) property, the Planning Board could have the Applicant put in a French curtain drain.

Audre Gabrielsen of 41 Batten Road said that it is her understanding that the Village was supposed to start work on the Batten Road drainage but, to her knowledge, this work has not started yet.

Ms. Gabrielsen expressed concern about the flooding that has taken place on property situated near her house belonging to the Village. Ms. Gabrielsen said that the water comes down the hill and just sits there. She said that, “The water is still there from the rain we had this past year; the Village has not done a thing about it.” Ms. Allen noted that the problem with flooding in this area of the Village is not a new problem. She would hope that there could be a way of resolving the flooding problem. In the meantime, she would think that the Planning Board should move forward with the application before them.

Mr. Aarons pointed out that, as he is a relatively new member of the Planning Board, he did not take part in the discussion(s) on this subdivision application.  If the Planning Board were to take a vote tonight, he would have to abstain. Mr. Aarons said that (his reason is) there were members from the public present tonight who expressed concerns about this proposal. Mr. Aarons noted that if there had not been this participation from the public, he might not have had a problem casting a vote.

The Village Engineer described the Village’s drainage improvements project for Batten Road stating that the design of the project is such that construction and improvements are limited to the Village right-of-way.  The Village is putting in an extra inlet and is doubling up the pipe system. The Village Engineer said that the project is designed to increase the capacity of the Village drainage system.

Mr. Luntz noted that, with respect to the application presently before the board, the drainage/water issues relating to construction of the new house would be dealt with at the time of the minor site plan approval. The Applicant is before the board tonight for a final subdivision approval. Mr. Luntz noted that, as explained to the Planning Board early on in the process by Mr. Sheer, this subdivision application is before the Planning Board to modify/adjust the lot lines of the existing (three) lots and legalize the subdivision.

Mr. Sheer said that the final subdivision plat, which is presently before the Planning Board, is exactly the same as the preliminary subdivision plan already approved by the Planning Board with the exception of the trail. Mr. Sheer noted that the Applicant has a 12-acre site, and only one new house is being proposed.  Mr. Sheer said that, with respect to the drainage, water flows downhill and Mr. Trendell’s house is uphill from where the water flows.  Finally, whoever wants to build a house on the vacant parcel has to come back to the Planning Board for a minor site plan approval. Mr. Sheer noted that if Mr. Aarons is going to abstain from voting on this application, then they (the Applicant) would have to ask for an adjournment.  He (Mr. Sheer) would think that it would be difficult for this board to change its mind at this point.  The board would have to have a “really good reason for doing so.”  Mr. Sheer said that the board has to realize that they are looking at a final subdivision approval “with an unchanged map.”  Mr. Trendell questioned Mr. Sheer’s earlier comment that the house being proposed is lower than his house. Mr. Trendell said that this is impossible, to which Mr. Wegner clarified Mr. Sheer’s comment by stating that the “topo” might be higher but the water flow does not go toward Mr. Trendell’s house.

Ms. Allen said that the Planning Board would adjourn this application until the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 28th.

4.  OLD BUSINESS:

  • Tom & Carlene Fallacaro – 3 Arrowcrest Drive (Sec. 67.15 Blk. 1 Lot 33) – Applications for a Modification to the Building Envelope, a Steep Slope Permit and a Wetlands Activity Permit for an Existing Retaining Wall and Other Site Improvements
Norman Sheer, Esq. of Bank, Sheer, Seymour & Hashmall was present to represent the Applicant.

Mr. Sheer said that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board had asked that he prepare and submit to the Planning Board a list of boards/actions necessary to approve the changes at the Fallacaro property; the board received this list in their packets for tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Sheer stated that the Applicant’s engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, has produced the watershed maps requested at the last meeting.  The only item remaining for Mr. Mastromonaco is the engineering work required to measure the capacity of water going through the drainage pipes.  Mr. Sheer stated that the work with the pipes would be completed by the next meeting.

The Village Engineer noted that Mr. Mastromonaco’s topographical mapping was based on 1996 watershed information. Mr. Mastromonaco has since procured additional topographical information from more recent (2004) aerial maps generated by the County.  The Village Engineer noted that the watershed boundary is practically (almost exactly) the same looking at both the 1996 and 2004 mappings. Ms. Allen said that the subject watershed boundary is not the natural boundary for that area because of the changes in the drainage made during the construction of the Arrowcrest Subdivision. Ms. Allen said that, to understand the drainage, she would think that the larger watersheds in this area should be taken into consideration. Ms. Allen said that the development of the Arrowcrest Subdivision (placement of houses, drainage channels, etc.) did not follow the site plan approved by the Planning Board and that, in turn, had an impact on the watershed(s).

Mr. Sheer noted that it could very well be true that the drainage system now in place is not what was originally approved but, “If the drainage works, it works.” He questioned what the concern is about the drainage/watersheds as long as the drainage calculations work and the system is functioning properly. Mr. Sheer said that the only information missing is the measurement of the capacity of water going through the pipes; this information would be provided for the next meeting. Mr. Sheer explained the process of measuring the water capacity in the drainage pipes stating that Mr. Mastromonaco has to run a video camera through the pipes to make sure that the water is draining properly.

Mr. Sheer noted that, for this application to move forward, the Village Engineer also needs to receive the proposal from McLaren Engineering for the technical review of Bernard Grossfield’s work on the stability of the retaining wall. The Village Engineer told Mr. Sheer and the Planning Board that he would contact McLaren Engineering and ask them to submit their proposal.

Mr. Sheer said that the Applicant would be back before the Planning Board at their meeting of July 28th, if the items discussed tonight have been satisfactorily addressed.

  • Rakis, Inc. (Peter Tsagarakis) – 215 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 54) – Application for an Amended Site Plan for the Croton Colonial Diner – Designation of Lead Agency
Chairman Kehoe noted to those present that the Planning Board has received a copy of the resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals dated July 8, 2009, which states that the Zoning Board has no objections to the Planning Board acting as the Lead Agency for this application.  

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion for the Planning Board to declare itself the Lead Agency.  The motion was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Aarons and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.

Charles Henley of 7 Hudson Street came forward and expressed his concern to the Planning Board about the Applicant’s proposal to turn the property at 6 Hudson Street into a parking lot for the diner. He noted that the Applicant has already been using this property for parking for a number of years even though he (the Applicant) does not have permission from the Village to do so.  Furthermore, the Applicant is using his property along Bungalow Road for parking without the Village’s permission. Mr. Henley said that this is a clear example of commercial encroachment into residential areas.  Mr. Henley said that he would think that, given the availability of parking along the street, the parking for the diner is not a serious issue.  There are 17 on-street parking spaces along South Riverside Avenue in close proximity to the diner.  Mr. Henley noted that no one seems to use these parking spots on Saturdays and Sundays.   

Mr. Henley distributed to the Planning Board members photographs showing cars parked in the Applicant’s 6 Hudson Street lot.

Mr. Henley said that he had heard from a Village resident that the Applicant’s dumpster might be moved to the Hudson Street side of the diner.  He would be concerned about garbage odors emanating from the dumpster.

Mr. Henley said that he has contacted the Village Engineer’s office about the Code violations on the Applicant’s property.  To date, these Code issues have not been successfully resolved.  He is (would be) concerned about this lack of Code enforcement.

Mr. Henley noted that the Duck Pond is located across the street from the diner parking lot on Bungalow Road. There are oftentimes children playing at the Duck Pond.  He would be concerned about the safety of children at the Duck Pond when cars are pulling out of the diner parking lot onto Bungalow Road.  

The Village Engineer explained to those present the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process stating that the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, would review the environmental impacts of this project and, in the end, either issue a Negative Declaration or a Positive Declaration.  As part of the SEQRA process this application would be referred to the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for a determination of consistency with the policies in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).  Ms. Allen noted that the Applicant’s property consists of multiple lots and only one or two are zoned for commercial use.  As part of the approval process the Applicant would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for special permits for the parking and a variance for the removal of the guide rail.  The Village Engineer added that the Applicant (also) has to go before the Planning Board for an Amended Site Plan approval.

The Village Engineer noted that several years ago the Applicant (Peter Tsagarakis) requested a rezoning of 6 Hudson Street, and his application for this rezoning was denied.  The Applicant has since come back before the Planning Board with an Amended Site Plan application for additional parking.  A Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the additional parking on the Hudson Street lot.  The Applicant is also seeking the renewal of a Special Permit for parking in the back parking lot off of Bungalow Road.  A variance is required for removing the guide rail.  The Village Engineer noted that in February 2009 the Planning Board recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they grant this Applicant these special permits and the variance.

Ms. Allen said that she thinks there was some kind of variance granted when the building (diner) was built, to which Ms. Stephens said that she believes that back in the 1960’s “there was something done to allow him [the Applicant/property owner] to come out as far as he did, which was not correct.”  Chairman Kehoe said that he personally would think that the Village (Planning Board, Zoning Board, etc.) would not have gotten this far in the review process if there had been unresolved issues on the legality of the Applicant’s property/lots.

The Village Engineer asked Mr. Henley if he had looked at the Applicant’s Amended Site Plan presently being proposed, to which Mr. Henley said, not yet, but he is looking forward to reviewing it.  Chairman Kehoe said that, as part of the proposal, the Applicant would remove the barrier (guide rail) in the back parking area.  Mr. Luntz said that he would think that removing this barrier would be a good idea.  He (Mr. Luntz) also liked the Applicant’s proposal to “fix up” the area of the back parking lot across from the Duck Pond. The Village Engineer said that, several years ago, the Applicant’s house at 8 Hudson Street was renovated and the house at 6 Hudson Street was demolished. As part of this “new” proposal, the Applicant would like to turn this lot (6 Hudson Street) into an additional parking area. The Village Engineer said that, according to the Applicant’s plans, there would be no entry to or exit from this parking area onto Hudson Street.  There would be a landscaped buffer strip, which would provide screening from the residential area. The Village Engineer said that the Bungalow Road entrance would be a “right turn in only.” There would be no exiting of vehicles permitted onto Bungalow Road.  Customers of the diner would exit onto South Riverside Avenue from the diner parking lot(s).  

Mr. Henley said that, according to the Code, commercial uses in the Village are supposed to be only “one property deep,” and that is not the case here.

The Village Engineer noted that, as the Applicant (Mr. Tsagarakis) is the property owner of 6 Hudson Street, members of Mr. Tsagarakis’s family are permitted to park on the 6 Hudson Street lot. Employees and customers of the diner are not allowed to park there.  Mr. Henley said that there might be as many as 12 cars parked there on a weekend.  Chairman Kehoe noted that at some point in the process, Mr. Tsagarakis would be coming to a Planning Board meeting to provide his response(s) to these issues/concerns.

Chairman Kehoe said that the Applicant should be in touch with the Village Engineer’s office when he is ready to come back before the Planning Board.

5.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The Planning Board tabled the approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, June 9, 2009 and Tuesday, June 23, 2009 Planning Board meetings until the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday July 28, 2009.      

6.  ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:40 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills
Secretary

RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on a Site Plan application on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 for MetroPCS New York, LLC, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 1 Veteran’s Plaza and owned by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson.  The subject property is in the LI (Light Industrial) Zoning District and is designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.17 Block 1 Lot 10; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Site Plan is for the collocation of a personal wireless services facility at the DPW (Veteran’s Plaza) site; and

WHEREAS, this application went before the Village Board in March 2009 for a Special Permit approval, at which time the Village Board referred this application to the Planning Board for a recommendation; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board, in their memorandum to the Village Board dated May 27, 2009, recommended that the Special Permit for a personal wireless services facility be granted; and

WHEREAS, this application was also referred to the Waterfront Advisory Committee for a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) consistency review, and the Waterfront Advisory Committee, as stated in their memorandum to the Village Board dated June 11, 2009, found this project to be consistent with the policies set forth in the LWRP; and

WHEREAS, the Village Board, as the Lead Agency for the review of this application under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), issued a Negative Declaration on June 15, 2009; and

WHEREAS, on June 15, 2009, the Village Board granted the Special Permit; and

WHEREAS, the third condition of the Village Board’s Special Permit states that the construction of the personal wireless services facility (collocation) shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted  and all representations and agreements made by the Applicant in the application process; and

WHEREAS, a list of these plans and specifications, representations and agreements were described in a one-page document prepared by the Applicant (attached); and

WHEREAS, at the public hearing before the Planning Board on July 14, 2009 the Applicant supplied to the Planning Board a copy of all prior submissions on this application bound together into one packet.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Site Plan application, as shown on the aforementioned plans and specifications, representations and agreements be approved subject to the following condition:

1)      that the Applicant abide by the ten conditions set forth in the Village Board’s         resolution of approval dated June 15, 2009.

In the event that this Site Plan 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
                                                Mark Aarons
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                                        
Motion to approve by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 for Belarmino & Virginia Anton, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located in the C-2 Zoning District at 337 South Riverside Avenue and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.13 Block 1 Lot 62 (formerly #12-107-14A & 15); and

WHEREAS, the proposed Amended Site Plan involves exterior site work and changes/additions to the existing building (restaurant); and

WHEREAS, this proposal is considered a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), therefore, no Negative Declaration is required.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amended Site Plan application, as shown on sheet Z-100 entitled “Site Plan and Existing Conditions,” sheet S-100 entitled “Proposed Floor Plans” and sheet Z-201 entitled “Proposed Floor Plans,” prepared by EDA Architecture, dated January 1, 2009, 2008, last revised July 9, 2009 and sheet Z-300 entitled “Proposed Elevations,” prepared by EDA Architecture, dated January 1, 2009, 2008, last revised June 18, 2009, be approved subject to the following conditions:

that, once prepared and submitted to the Village Engineer’s Office, the sign application shall be submitted to the Planning Board for their review.  The sign application would also have to go before the Advisory Board on the Visual Environment (VEB) for their review and comments and be reviewed by the Village Engineer for compliance prior to installation. Finally, the Applicant shall provide to the VEB the proposed color scheme for exterior use(s) and the landscaping plan being proposed.  

that the Applicant shall come back to the Planning Board with a landscaping plan.  The landscaping plan shall show the wall and planting bed being proposed on the side of the property. As part of their landscaping, the Applicant shall consider eliminating parking space #13 and using that space for some additional plantings.

that a new dry well shall be placed at the rear of the property to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

that the curb at the front entrance shall be raised. The Applicant shall have two years (until July 2011) to complete this curbing work. In the interim, the Applicant shall place two large planters or potted plants in that location as a deterrent to cars.

that the removal and reinstallation of the oil tank shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

In the event that this Amended Site Plan 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
                                                Mark Aarons
                                                Fran Allen
                                                Vincent Andrews
                                                Robert Luntz
                                        
                                                        
Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Aarons and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.  

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.


RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, Rakis Inc. (Peter Tsagarakis) has submitted an application to the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York for an Amended Site Plan Approval for a parking lot expansion at the Croton Colonial Diner located at 215 South Riverside Avenue.  The subject properties associated with this project are designated on the Tax Maps of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York as Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lots 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board declared its Intent to Act as the Lead Agency for this application at their meeting of June 23, 2009 and circulated its Notice of Intent to the Involved and Interested agencies on June 24, 2009; and

WHEREAS, no Involved agencies responded in opposition to the Planning Board’s acting as the Lead Agency for this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York declares itself the Lead Agency for the proposed application by Rakis Inc. (Peter Tsagarakis); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, as required under SEQRA, the Planning Board would review the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and make a determination as to whether to issue a Negative or Positive Declaration for this application.


The Planning Board of the Village of
Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Chris Kehoe, Chairman
Mark Aarons
Fran Allen
Vincent Andrews
Robert Luntz

Date:  July 14, 2009





Sylvia Mills
Village of Croton-on-Hudson
Engineer's Office
tel: 914-271-4783
fax: 914-271-3790