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

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

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

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


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
Planning Board Minutes 11/10/2009

VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 in the Municipal Building.

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

        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.

  • 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 and Tom Fallacaro, owner of the property, were present.

Mr. Sheer said that the Applicant was last before the Planning Board in July of this year.  After that meeting, there were two items that had to be addressed to move the application forward.  The first was for the Planning Board to hire a consulting engineering firm to review and comment on the work done by the Applicant’s structural engineer, Bernard Grossfield.  The second was for the Applicant to run a camera through the drainage pipe on the property, the purpose of which was to check the condition of the pipe. Mr. Sheer said that the Village Engineer has informed him tonight that he is still waiting to hear from the consulting engineering firm about the scope and cost of the work to be done. In so far as the inspection of the drainage pipe is concerned, when the Applicant’s engineer ran the camera through the pipe, they found a collapsed section.  Mr. Sheer stated that the collapsed section of pipe has since been replaced. He showed the Planning Board photographs of the work that was done.

Mr. Fallacaro said that the pipe installed was an 18” pipe; before they covered it over, they had the Village’s Assistant Building Inspector Joseph Sperber inspect the pipe. Mr. Fallacaro said that the base and outlet pipe are still the originals, but they “built it up” so that if someone wanted to inspect the pipe, he/she could climb down into it.

Ms. Allen asked how the pipe collapsed, to which Mr. Fallacaro said that he believes that it collapsed when it was first put in. It could have happened as a result of the fill put on top of it or someone driving over it. He does not know.  Mr. Fallacaro said that he put the pipe in himself the first time but this time he had a professional do the work.

Chairman Kehoe said that it is his understanding that the Planning Board has not finalized hiring its own engineer, to which the Village Engineer told the Planning Board that he would follow up with the consulting engineering firm that he had contacted about this (the Fallacaro) application and report back to the board at the next meeting.  The Village Engineer said that the scope of the consulting work would be to review the report on the retaining wall prepared by the Applicant’s engineer Bernard Grossfield and do an independent engineering analysis of the wall.  Based on this analysis, the consulting engineer would either agree or disagree with the recommendations made in the Grossfield report.  The Village Engineer noted to the Planning Board that if the Village’s consulting engineering firm were to find the wall structurally sound, then, they would make recommendations to the Planning Board on monitoring the wall, e.g., periodic inspections, maintenance to be performed, etc.  

Mr. Fallacaro referred to the photographs of the pipe that had been given to the Planning Board earlier in the meeting and explained to the Planning Board where the water going through the pipe drains into.  

Mr. Luntz asked what the pipe is made of, to which Mr. Fallacaro said that the pipe is a plastic rib pipe.  The Village Engineer said that the pipe material is polyethylene.   Mr. Luntz asked if this is a proper material to use, to which the Village Engineer said that it is.  The new drainage pipe on Batten Road is made of this material.     

Ms. Allen asked if, with respect to the wall’s construction, the Village’s consulting engineer would provide a guarantee on the projected lifetime of the wall or is it that the Village is going to have to take full liability for this wall. The Village Engineer said that he would think that the consulting engineer would provide their professional opinion on the wall’s construction and stability.  Their analysis would be based on what they could gather from the wall’s surface and from the radar testing that was done.  Chairman Kehoe said that the consulting engineering firm hired by the Village would probably put their seal on their report and then, at the end of the report, put a disclaimer. Mr. Sheer said that, in this case, the property owner is (would be) held liable/responsible for the wall.

Mr. Sheer questioned when this item could be back on the Planning Board agenda, to which the Village Engineer said that it could hopefully be back on the agenda in two weeks. By that time he should have the scope of work and cost from the consulting engineering firm.  Mr. Sheer said that he would like to be back on the agenda by the first meeting in December (December 8th), to which the Planning Board agreed.     

  • Croton Community Nursery School – Lower North Highland Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lots 5, 6, 9 & 25 [formerly Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 25] – Application for a Preliminary Subdivision Approval
Norman Sheer, Esq. of Bank, Sheer, Seymour & Hashmall and Ron Wegner of Cronin Engineering were present to represent the Applicant.

Chairman Kehoe stated that the Planning Board went on a site visit to the nursery school property this past Sunday.  The purpose of the site visit was to get an idea of the site constraints, house locations, etc.  Mr. Sheer said that the Applicant’s engineer Ron Wegner explained to him what took place at the site visit.  Mr. Sheer said that it is his understanding that the Planning Board had concerns about the house locations on Lots 1 and 2.  Mr. Sheer stated that Mr. Wegner has since prepared a plan overlay, which shows alternate locations for both of these houses.     

Mr. Wegner placed the overlay on the subdivision map and showed the board the alternate locations for the houses.  Mr. Wegner said that the alternate plan for the house on Lot 1 shows the house closer to the neighbor’s house on North Highland Place.  Mr. Wegner said that because the house has been “moved up” 20 feet, it no longer meets the front yard setback requirement, and a front yard setback variance would be required.  Mr. Wegner said that there would still be some disturbance to the steep slopes but the disturbance would be slightly reduced.  Mr. Wegner said that, in so far as the wetlands are concerned, the house would be almost entirely outside the wetlands buffer.  A corner of the house would still be within the buffer. Mr. Wegner noted that by moving the house almost entirely outside the buffer, the environmental impacts would be reduced.  Mr. Wegner explained the alternate plan for the house on Lot 2.  The alternate plan shows the house closer to the front of the property.  Mr. Wegner said that the house has been moved forward to the “street side” of the watercourse.  Mr. Wegner referred to the subdivision map and said that, in this alternate location, the house on Lot 2 would be “up against the back of this hill.”  Mr. Wegner noted that a retaining wall would be constructed for the purpose of limiting the grading on the right side of the property.

Chairman Kehoe asked if the drainage channel on Lot 2 would be behind the house, to which Mr. Wegner said that it would be.  Mr. Aarons asked Mr. Wegner why he moved the house to this “new” location, to which Mr. Wegner said that it was suggested that he do so on the site visit.  Mr. Wegner noted that moving the house in this way is not necessarily what he would do, but he wanted to demonstrate that it could be done.  Mr. Wegner said that he was unable to keep the proposed grading outside the wetlands buffer.  

Chairman Kehoe said that he would like to know the benefits of moving the houses to these alternate locations.  Mr. Sheer asked Chairman Kehoe if he would want to see a comparison between the old plan and the overlay (alternate) plan, to which Chairman Kehoe said that, indeed, he would.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that he had asked the Applicant at the last meeting to look into the possibility of a three- versus a four-lot subdivision.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would think that the environmental impacts (disturbance to wetlands, steep slopes, etc.) of a three-lot subdivision would be less; however, without doing an analysis/comparison of three versus four lots, it would be impossible to know. Mr. Sheer suggested that they (the Applicant) could start by doing a comparison of the old and new (alternate) house locations for Lots 1 and 2.  Mr. Sheer said that the Applicant could also look at a three- versus a four-lot subdivision, but it should be kept in mind that with respect to the number of lots this is a ten-acre site, and almost half the site is (would be) a conservation easement area.

The Village Engineer suggested that, in quantifying the steep slopes disturbance, the Applicant could give the disturbances in each slope category for each lot.  Mr. Sheer added that the Applicant could give the disturbances in square feet and in percentages.  Mr. Aarons said that the Planning Board would want to see what one plan versus the other (alternate) plan looks like in terms of environmental impacts.

Ms. Allen said that she would like to see the three-lot subdivision design, which would “get the houses out of the drainage areas,” to which Mr. Sheer noted that the drainage area (channel) on Lot 2 is only a drainage ditch.  It is not considered a “wetlands.”  Chairman Kehoe said that he would like to know which government agency issues permits for drainage channels, to which the Village Engineer said that for a drainage channel, “It is really and engineering permit [that would be issued].”

Mr. Luntz said that Chairman Kehoe’s “angle” in pushing for a three- versus a four-lot subdivision is that there would intuitively be less disturbance. Mr. Sheer questioned the reasoning being used for reducing the number of lots in this way and said that, “We [the Applicant] could go down and down [in number] and this is a ten-acre site.”

Chairman Kehoe referred to the colored map showing the different categories of steep slope areas and noted that for the construction of the house on Lot 3 there would be 100% slope disturbance.  Mr. Wegner said that the house would be in an area of 15 to 25% slopes and the driveway, in an area of 30% or greater slopes.  Chairman Kehoe expressed concern about the environmental constraints on Lot 3.  He said that, generally speaking, the Planning Board would want to see houses in a proposed subdivision built on flat areas of the property but, in this case, there is not much (in the way of) flat areas.  Chairman Kehoe said that given the environmental constraints (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.) of the property, he would think that a four-lot subdivision is “pushing it.”

Mr. Wegner said that, for the next meeting, he would do a comparison of the disturbances on Lots 1 and 2 looking at the old and the new (alternate) plan.  

Ms. Allen said that, for the next meeting, she would also like the Applicant to do a comparison of a three- versus a four-lot subdivision, to which Chairman Kehoe said that he, too, would like to see this comparison.  Mr. Andrews said that, with respect to a three- versus a four-lot proposal, he, personally, has not reached that point yet. He would, first, like to see the comparison for Lots 1 and 2 that has been discussed tonight.  Mr. Luntz said that he would be somewhat concerned about pushing a three-lot solution, noting that the inevitable conclusion that one could draw from pushing three versus four lots is that the houses would become larger and larger.  Mr. Luntz said that it would seem to him that there would be less economic forces on a developer/property owner to make larger houses if the Planning Board were to allow a four-lot solution.  Mr. Aarons said that he would like to see the comparison for Lots 1 and 2, and he would also like to see the disturbances to the steep slopes quantified for each lot. A discussion ensued among the board members about limiting the size of houses on lots. A solution that was suggested was to impose building envelopes around the houses.  Chairman Kehoe said that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should provide to the board a comparison of the two lots (Lots 1 and 2) as well as disturbance figures (calculations) overall.   

Chairman Kehoe referred the board members to the conservation easement area being shown on the Applicant’s plan(s).  He noted that this easement area would be owned by the people who own the subdivision lots.  There would be restrictions on this land that would preclude public use of the land. Chairman Kehoe noted that another solution would be to dedicate this land to the Village and/or make it Village property.  Ms. Allen said that she would prefer to see the land dedicated to the Village.  Chairman Kehoe asked if there are any connections on this land to the Village’s walking trails, to which Ms. Allen said that she believes there are connections. Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Sheer to discuss this matter regarding a conservation easement versus a dedication of the land with the nursery school. The Village Engineer noted that if the Village were to take over the land, the Village would need to have access to the land for maintenance purposes, etc.

Chairman Kehoe said that his on-going issue has been the matter regarding the gift of this land to the nursery school and the possibility of restrictions placed on the use of the land. Chairman Kehoe noted that when his children were attending the nursery school, it was said (at that time) that the land was not to be developed.  The Planning Board has seen the title report and the deeds, and there is no mention of restrictions in these documents. Chairman Kehoe questioned if there might be another document that the board has not seen that would shed light on this issue. Chairman Kehoe noted that the board asked the Village Attorney to look into this matter. The Village Engineer reiterated that the Planning Board would like to have some further assurance that there are no restrictions, to which Mr. Sheer responded that the Planning Board “needs [to see] a copy of the [nursery school] by-laws, [know] what the [nursery school] board can do and what the membership has to say.”       

Adam Rodriguez of 19 Lower North Highland Place came forward and told the board that he had received a notice in his mailbox about the meeting tonight. The notice was from concerned neighbors of the nursery school property. Mr. Rodriguez said that at this point he does not know whether to support this application or not.  Mr. Rodriguez told the board some of his concerns about the proposal stating that, first and foremost, he would be concerned about the impacts on the wildlife in the area. He had seen a North American salamander.  He hopes that something could be done to preserve the wildlife habitat(s).  Mr. Rodriguez said that he has concerns about the brook at the back of the property.  The brook has a natural waterfall that he and his family have enjoyed over the years, and they would hate to see the waterfall destroyed.  Mr. Rodriguez said that the drainage from the site would be a big concern due to the steep grade of Lower North Highland Place.  He would think that there might be a problem with the natural drainage when the vegetation is removed from the site for the construction of the houses, driveways, etc. Mr. Rodriguez expressed concern about potential safety issues for pedestrians with the increase in traffic generated from the subdivision. Sidewalks do not exist except on the lowest portion of North Highland Place.  Mr. Rodriguez said that parking at the rental properties at the foot of the hill is at a premium.  That portion of North Highland Place is often a one-lane street.  Mr. Rodriguez said that he would encourage some level of parking restrictions on that portion of North Highland Place.  He would also encourage the installation of speed bumps to act as a deterrent against speeding cars. Mr. Rodriguez noted that North Highland Place is used as part of the Village’s trail system, so these safety-related issues do apply.

Adam Rodriguez also spoke on behalf of Maddale Cinquanta of 25 Lower North Highland Place. The Cinquanta’s have had to build trenches to control the flooding and overflow from properties uphill.  Also, blasting in that area has affected their house foundation.

Eugene Perl of 39 Finney Farm Road was present.  Mr. Perl said that, with respect to possible building restrictions on the property, it is his recollection that when his children attended the nursery school in the 1950’s and 1960’s, it was understood that this gift of land from Sam Rubin was to be used only for the nursery school as a recreation area.  Mr. Perl noted that Mr. Rubin has given other lands to the Village with restrictions placed on the use of the land.  Mr. Perl said that it would be his assumption that Mr. Rubin meant to do so here (with the nursery school land).  Mr. Perl reiterated that it would make sense that if Mr. Rubin donated other lands with restrictions placed on them, this property would have had restrictions as well. Mr. Perl said that, to resolve this issue, the Planning Board would need to have access to the full wording of the deed(s).

Mr. Perl expressed concern about the development of the remaining wild (natural) areas in the Village and said that there are laws that exist in the Village (steep slope law, wetlands law, etc.) for protecting environmentally-sensitive areas. Mr. Perl said that he realizes that technically-speaking building on this property could probably take place, but he would question the reason(s) why this building should occur if granting the permits allowing it to happen were to violate the intent of the Village’s existing environmental laws.  Mr. Perl said that to avoid potentially adverse impacts he would urge the Planning Board to be careful in their decisions about building in these environmentally-sensitive areas. Mr. Perl said that he, personally, would rather keep the ten-acre nursery school property in its wild and natural state.  He noted that there is not that much undeveloped land left.  Mr. Perl said that he would hope that the Planning Board would keep these thoughts in mind when they make their decision.

Sam Watkins of 30 Lounsbury Road came forward and told the board members that he has read the deeds on the property and he found no restrictions; however, “that does not mean that there are no restrictions.” Mr. Watkins expressed concern about the potentially adverse environmental impacts of building on this land noting the steep slopes and wetland areas on the property. Mr. Watkins questioned the appropriateness of developing this particular piece of property given the environmental constraints.  Mr. Watkins said that the property should be properly developed within the confines of the law(s). He said that it is ultimately incumbent upon the Planning Board to decide where lots are allowed and/or where the houses are sited.  Mr. Watkins said that to site a house on a 100% disturbed area does not make sense.  Mr. Watkins said that before making their decision he would hope that the Planning Board would take into account the environmental constraints of the property.  Mr. Watkins noted that the focus of the Planning Board aught not be to make it possible for a developer to make as much money as he/she can on a piece of property. Instead, any (future) development should take into consideration the neighbors and the community at large.

Ms. Allen read aloud excerpts from an article in the Gazette newspaper, written by a realtor, on the subject of the large number of luxury homes for sale in the Village.  The realtor states in the article that at this point in time (fourth quarter of 2009) there are twenty-one houses for sale in the $1,000,000 range and in all of 2009 only four of these homes in this category have been sold.  The realtor points out that at this rate, the Village has a five-year supply of luxury homes for sale provided no more of these homes come on the market.  Ms. Allen said that she would think, judging by this article, that the Village does not need any more luxury homes.  She questioned why the Planning Board would want to see these types of luxury houses built.

Mr. Rodriguez asked how members of the public could be ensured that they receive notices of public hearings, to which Mr. Luntz responded that the Planning Board agendas are posted on the Village’s web site.  

Chairman Kehoe asked when the Applicant would like to come back before the Planning Board, to which Mr. Sheer said that they would try to be back for the meeting of Tuesday, November 24th.

  • Margo Francy – 57 Old Post Road North (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lot 27) – Application for a Steep Slope Permit – Discussion of Scoping Document for Environmental Impact Statement
John Gochman, Esq. was present to represent the Applicant.

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

Mr. Gochman said that he has with him tonight a copy of the resolution that was passed by the Planning Board issuing a Positive Declaration for this (the Francy) steep slope application. He also has a copy of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) form, which gives the reasons for the Positive Declaration determination.  

Ms. Allen said that she received some information this afternoon from the Village staff that is going to put this project on hold.  Ms. Allen said that it is her understanding that the Applicant Mrs. Francy owes back taxes to the Village. Ms. Allen noted that the Planning Board could not proceed until this matter regarding the taxes is resolved. Ms. Allen said that the taxes owed to the Village must be paid in full.  According to the Village Attorney, this matter regarding the back taxes has to be “the first order of business.”  

Ms. Allen said that once the taxes are paid, the Planning Board could proceed with the SEQRA review.  Ms. Allen said that the Planning Board would then go into a very comprehensive scoping session, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would be required to be submitted.

Ms. Allen reviewed the history of this application stating that the old steep slopes law was in effect when this Applicant first came before the Planning Board.  The law was changed and a “new” application was submitted to the board in October 2008. Ms. Allen said that the Planning Board went through the review process and opened the public hearing in May 2009.  In September 2009, this application went before the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC), and the WAC found this project to be inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The application went back to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration.  Ms. Allen said that it was not until this afternoon that she learned that the Planning Board should never have started their review in the first place without all of the taxes being paid.  Mr. Gochman asked if he could interject something into this discussion of the history of this application.  Mr. Gochman said that the original application was made under the old steep slopes law.  At the time the application was before the board there was a discussion as to whether the property was a legal building lot. There was a question as to the legality of the subdivision of which the Francy property is a part.  Mr. Gochman said that the lot was ultimately determined to be a legal building lot, and the matter was resolved. Mr. Gochman said that the research required to resolve the legality issue caused a delay in the application review process; it was during this delay that the Village’s new steep slopes law came into effect.   

Mr. Gochman thanked Ms. Allen for the information that she gave him tonight regarding the back taxes.  He said that he would follow up with his client and let the Planning Board secretary know when they are ready to come back before the board.

  • NEW BUSINESS:
  • Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for a Pre-school/Day Care Center at 1380 Albany Post Road
Tom Vayda and Gloria Foster, owners of the proposed day care center, were present.

Mr. Vayda noted that, as part of the application materials for this project, the Planning Board received the preliminary site narrative that he had written up.  Mr. Vayda stated that the project that they are proposing is to build a pre-school/day care center facility at 1380 Albany Post Road.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that this is a referral to the Planning Board from the Village Board for a recommendation on the granting of the special permit. The Planning Board makes a recommendation back to the Village Board, and the Village Board hold a public hearing.  Also, the Village Board refers this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for a consistency review.  Chairman Kehoe noted further that if the Village Board were to grant the special permit, then, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board for an amended site plan approval.  

Mr. Vayda said that there presently exists at the location for the proposed day care center a two-story modular building, part of which is being used as office space for a financial planner.  The rest of the building has no occupants.  Mr. Vayda said that he and his wife do not own the building yet.  They do, however, have an agreement (letter of intent) with the sellers.  Mr. Vayda said that if required, they could provide the board with a copy of the letter of intent, to which Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board would want a letter from the present owner stating that he/she is aware of this day care center proposal. Mr. Vayda said that he would provide this letter to the Planning Board secretary.

Mr. Vayda said that the day care facility would accommodate 72 full time spaces and 20 after-school spaces.  The staffing level would be approximately 16 persons; not all staff would be there at all times as there would be some staggered shifts.  

Mr. Vayda said that the septic system on premises is not sufficient for their intended numbers (children/staff).  They have negotiated an agreement to hook up to a private waste treatment plant across the road.  Mr. Vayda said that their new facility would add approximately 1,500 gallons of waste to be processed per day, which is an increase of slightly more than 1%.  Mr. Vayda noted that this would be considered a negligible increase and would fall far below that which is permitted by the County Health Department.  Mr. Vayda said that the well water supply on premises is also not sufficient, so they would be hooking up to the municipal water supply.  

Chairman Kehoe asked if the Village receives a notice of an additional user going into the sewage treatment plant, to which the Village Engineer replied that the County Health Department has regulatory authority over the sewer plant.  The Village Engineer added that the owner of the plant could typically act independently as long as they are not violating their permit.  Mr. Vayda noted that using a sewage treatment plant is (would be) “cleaner on the environment” than using a septic system.

Mr. Vayda said that, as part of their proposal, they would be putting a “wrap-around” addition onto the existing building.  The square footage would be increased by approximately 3,650 square feet for a total of 6,694 square feet, which includes a full basement.  Mr. Vayda noted that they would still meet the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the Limited Office (O-1) zoning district.

Mr. Vayda said that their day care facility would have four classrooms, two for infants and two for toddlers.  They are going to install a full kitchen to provide more nutritious homemade foods as opposed to prepared foods.  Part of the proposed addition would be a reception area.  

Mr. Vayda said that, as part of the changes to the outside area(s), they would be installing four playgrounds for the four separate age groups.  They would also be adding an outdoor sprinkler system.  

Mr. Vayda said that one of the issues that they have had to address is how they would put in the addition to the building and outdoor playgrounds and still maintain the natural character of that area of the Village.  Mr. Vayda said that they are currently running a day care out of their home.  They have a wooded area around their home that they enjoy.  Mr. Vayda said that they are going to try to keep the area around the “new” day care center as wooded as they can.  Mr. Vayda said that, unfortunately, there are some trees that might have to be removed.  Mr. Vayda said that they are going to have a surveyor mark all the trees. They are also going to have an arborist fully identify all the trees.  The trees would be fully identified when they come back before the Planning Board for an amended site plan approval.  Mr. Vayda said that there are 17 trees in the building area, four of which are dead.  As part of this project, they intend to remove some of the dead trees on the property. Mr. Vayda noted that they are going to try not to have to remove the trees on the perimeter of the property.  Mr. Vayda said that, as far as putting in fences for the playground areas is concerned, they have no intention to clear cut any trees.  They are trying not to remove any trees and to keep the wooded areas, as is.  Mr. Vayda pointed out that people who live in clean (natural) spaces have less stress.  They would want the children attending their day care center to play in a nice wooded area. The Village Engineer asked if all the trees in the play areas are being cut down, to which Mr. Vayda said that they are not intending to cut down trees in the play areas unless they are told to do so for safety reasons.  Mr. Vayda said that there is one Sugar Maple tree that they are not going to take down.  They are going to try to maintain the few good specimen trees on the property.

Mr. Andrews asked if the existing building would remain, to which Mr. Vayda said that it would. The top floor would be used for administrative purposes and the lower floor would be used as a classroom. Mr. Vayda said that the entire new addition would be on the ground level. People entering the day care center would be walking into the new building through the reception area.  

Mr. Vayda said that, in so far as the parking is concerned, the required number of parking spaces for the day care center is 22 spaces, and the existing parking lot could easily accommodate 22 parking spaces.  Mr. Vayda said that they would like to keep what they have to minimize the environmental damage.  They are not adding any new asphalt space.  

Chairman Kehoe noted that according to the site plan the pick-up and drop-off of children would be from the parking lot area off of the main road (Albany Post Road), to which Mr. Vayda said that this is, indeed, the case.  Mr. Vayda said that he has been watching the traffic flow in that area, and it would appear that this section of Route 9A is not heavily travelled.  Mr. Vayda said that it is estimated that 58 to 60 cars would enter and leave the facility over a 2-hour period.  There is a clean line of sight in both directions with no other houses or businesses close by.  

Chairman Kehoe said that as he understands it, the 16 employees of the day care center would not all be there at the same time. He asked how many parking spots would be designated for employees, to which Mr. Vayda said, 6 or 8.  Mr. Vayda stated that the hours of operation would be from 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M.  Chairman Kehoe noted that, according to the code, the hours are supposed to be 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.; however, the Village Board has the authority to waive that requirement and make it what they want. Chairman Kehoe told the Applicant that in the Planning Board’s memorandum to the Village Board, the Planning Board would point out to the Village Board that they (the Applicant) want to start earlier than the code permits.  Mr. Vayda said that, in so far as the pick-up time is concerned, they would want to accommodate the commuters; so, they might actually ask to stay open later than 6:30 P.M.  

The Village Engineer told Mr. Vayda that the Planning Board would want to see a topographical map to know what type of grading is occurring.  A rendering of the proposed building/playground areas should be provided so that the Planning Board could see how the building fits into the site.  Mr. Vayda noted to the board members that the topographical map/survey that they have is “off,” so they are having the property resurveyed.  They should have it by the beginning of next week.  Chairman Kehoe asked if the Planning Board should see the topographical survey and building elevations prior to the Village Board’s acting on the special permit, to which the Village Engineer said that he would think that the Planning Board should have this information, especially with the newly proposed playground areas.

Chairman Kehoe asked Mr. Vayda if they were hoping to open the day care center by the spring of 2010, to which Mr. Vayda said that this is their hope.

The Village Engineer said that the Applicant should provide a conceptual plan of where the water line, sewer line, utilities, drainage areas, etc. would be.  The Village Engineer said that this plan does not have to show details, just the concept.  

The Village Engineer said that the revised plan should show the existing lighting on the site.  Mr. Vayda said that they would not be putting in any lighting in the back except for security reasons.

Chairman Kehoe noted that from what the Applicant has described to the Planning Board tonight, this project is (would be) quite an undertaking.  Mr. Vayda said that they have been working on this project for about 2 years.  They want to make sure that they do a good job.  Mr. Vayda said that they know they deliver a good service.  “If we do it all beforehand, [it ends up being] better for everyone.”  

Chairman Kehoe noted to the Applicant that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board would take place on Tuesday, November 24th.  Chairman Kehoe pointed out to the Applicant that the sooner the Planning Board receives the topographical map and other items requested tonight, the sooner the Planning Board could get back to the Village Board.

  • APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Planning Board meeting was tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 24th.
     
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 13, 2009 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5-0.   
   
  • ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:20 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills,
Secretary

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