Planning Board Minutes 12/22/2009
VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK

PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2009


A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, December 22, 2009 in the Municipal Building.

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

ALSO PRESENT:           Daniel O'Connor, P.E., Village Engineer

1.  Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kehoe.


  • NEW BUSINESS:
  • Interpretation of Condition 9(d) of the Resolution of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the River Landing Subdivision
Maureen and Brian Fitzpatrick, owners of Lot 23 of the River Landing Subdivision, were present.

Chairman Kehoe said that, according to the letter received from the Fitzpatrick’s, the Village Engineer has issued a Stop Work Order for the construction of the driveway retaining walls on their property. Chairman Kehoe said that the Fitzpatrick’s received approval from the Planning Board for a minor site plan to construct a house in November 2007. Chairman Kehoe noted that it states in the Planning Board minutes on the Fitzpatrick’s minor site plan application that the wall would be an “interlock and geo-grid” wall.

Mr. Andrews asked if the Stop Work Order issued by the Village Engineer was the result of a complaint by a neighbor, to which the Village Engineer said that it was.  The neighbor stopped in and asked to look at the resolution of approval for River Landing.  The neighbor found the condition in the River Landing resolution that calls for “dry or mortared stone” for driveway retaining walls. The Village Engineer said that he issued the Stop Work Order so that the Planning Board could have the opportunity to determine whether or not the wall being proposed is in compliance with this condition in the resolution.  

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that there would appear to be a statute of limitations for challenging the board’s decision (30 days to 4 months).  Mr. Fitzpatrick said that this would eliminate any challenge to the board’s decision that might presently occur.  Chairman Kehoe noted that from what Mr. Fitzpatrick is saying, any challenge should have happened when the Planning Board approved the minor site plan in 2007, to which Mr. Fitzpatrick said that this is, indeed, the case. Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that it was open to discussion at that time; the neighbor did not come in and make any mention of this.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he spoke with his neighbor regarding the condition in the resolution mandating “dry or mortared stone,” and his neighbor told him that he is not concerned with the aesthetics; he wants the building to be in conformance with the resolution.  Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the next time he spoke to his neighbor, the neighbor had changed his mind about the aesthetics issue and said to him, “I am going to have to see that [the wall] every day.”  Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that he has reviewed the resolution and he does not see the term “natural stone” anywhere in the resolution, just “dry or mortared stone.”

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that they looked up the definition of “stone” in the dictionary.  Definition 1.a in Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “stone” as “a concretion of earthy or mineral matter.” Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the material being used for their retaining wall is, indeed, “a concretion of earthy or mineral matter.” He showed the Planning Board a sample of the material (block) that would be used.

Mrs. Fitzpatrick came forward and told the board that the material being used for the retaining wall is the same that was used for the foundation and garage walls.  These walls were designed to present a visually unifying architectural feature.  The walls would be harmonious with the roofing, which consists of rectangular pieces of slate.  Mrs. Fitzpatrick said that to change the unfinished portion of the retaining wall by substituting another type of stone would be “jarringly disruptive.” Mrs. Fitzpatrick said that the driveway retaining wall was discussed among a number of people at the time of the minor site plan approval; no one at that time said that the material was inappropriate.  Mrs. Fitzpatrick said that this material has been used to build the foundation and garage walls, and the last of it (for the driveway wall) has already been purchased. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said that her husband and she believe that the Planning Board should stand behind their original (previous) minor site plan approval.

Mr. Aarons asked the Village Engineer what led him to issue the Stop Work Order, to which the Village Engineer responded that the preliminary subdivision resolution states that the material to be used for driveway retaining walls has to be “dry or mortared stone.” He thought that this meant field stone. Mr. Aarons noted that, from what the Fitzpatrick’s have said tonight, even though the material being used is fabricated as opposed to being natural, it is still stone.  Mr. Aarons noted that he was not a member of the Planning Board when this application was approved.  He asked what the feeling was at the time of the minor site plan approval, to which Mr. Luntz said that he believes the Planning Board thought that the material was appropriate for this use.  Mr. Luntz pointed out that the Planning Board was unaware of the condition in the River Landing resolution regarding the type of stone. Mr. Luntz noted that the board might have questioned the material being used had the board been aware of this condition.  Chairman Kehoe said that he drove through the River Landing Subdivision and noticed that there are some retaining walls, which are made of dry-stacked field stone.  He was surprised that there were not more stone walls in this subdivision. There were not as many as he thought there would be, to which the Village Engineer pointed out that there are not that many walls on the side of driveways because the topography of the land is such that retaining walls are not required.  Chairman Kehoe noted that in his drive through the subdivision he did not see anywhere else in the subdivision the material that the Fitzpatrick’s are using for their wall.

Mr. Andrews noted that the plan originally called for screening with trees along the side of the driveway retaining wall, to which Mr. Fitzpatrick said that this is true.

The Village Engineer noted to the board that he issued the Stop Work Order for the retaining wall only. He wanted the Applicant to come before the Planning Board for an interpretation of condition 9(d), to which Chairman Kehoe said that he thinks it is logical for the Village Engineer to bring this matter to the Planning Board.  Ms. Allen noted that the Planning Board approved the minor site plan in 2007.  She questioned if it is reasonable to make the Fitzpatrick’s change the type of stone at this point in the process.  Ms. Allen pointed out that no one picked up on the restriction in the original subdivision resolution concerning the walls.  

Chairman Kehoe said that he would suppose that the discussion would be different if the neighbor who made the complaint were present tonight.  Mr. Aarons asked Mr. Fitzpatrick if the neighbor was opposed to the wall based on aesthetics, to which Mr. Fitzpatrick responded that this was not the case initially; then, the next time he saw this neighbor, he made the (aforementioned) comment that he would have to see the wall every day.

Chairman Kehoe said that it would seem that the consensus of the board is that the board is “okay” with the material for the retaining wall that the Fitzpatrick’s have chosen.  Chairman Kehoe questioned how the Planning Board should proceed. “Are we saying that this [the material] is stone and that the Applicant is in conformance?”  Mr. Aarons said that, in his opinion, the Planning Board should not make that statement. He would think that the wording of the condition in the 1990 resolution should not be changed. Mr. Aarons said that changing the wording could have repercussions far beyond the scope of this project. Mr. Aarons said that the board should say that, in so far as this application is concerned, the Planning Board does not have a problem with the material proposed to be used. Furthermore, the discussion tonight is solely for the purpose of the Fitzpatrick property at 7 Ackerman Court. The material for the walls was approved as a part of their minor site plan in 2007. Mr. Aarons said that the Planning Board should instruct the Village Engineer to revoke the Stop Work Order and let the project go forward.  Chairman Kehoe asked again if the Planning Board wanted to change the resolution or “leave it with” the 2007 approval, to which the board members all agreed that the wording in the condition of the 1990 resolution should not be changed; the Planning Board would stand by their original (2007) approval of the Fitzpatrick’s minor site plan.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to reaffirm the 2007 approval of the Fitzpatrick’s minor site plan with respect to the material being used for the retaining wall along the driveway.  The motion was made by Mr. Aarons, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.


  • OLD BUSINESS:
  • Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for an Auto Repair and Auto Sales Shop at 365 South Riverside Avenue
John Gochman, Esq., attorney for the Applicant, and John Palladino, owner of the property, were present.  

Mr. Gochman said that at the last meeting on this application the board asked for a narrative and a new site plan.  The Applicant has submitted for the meeting tonight a new (revised) site plan together with a narrative prepared by Edmond Gemmola, the Applicant’s architect.  

Chairman Kehoe asked what the differences are between the previously submitted site plan and the one prepared for tonight’s meeting, to which Mr. Gochman said that the Applicant’s architect Ed Gemmola tried to address in his revised plan the Code issues that were raised at the last meeting. Chairman Kehoe noted that on the revised plan Mr. Gemmola gives some information about the landscaping and shows the handicap parking.

Mr. Gochman said that Mr. Gemmola’s narrative responds to items (a) through (l) under Section 230-17B(1) of the Village Code pertaining to motor vehicle service stations.  Mr. Gochman said that the answers to item (a) are found in the Zoning Tabulation on drawing SY-101. Mr. Gochman said that item (b) pertains to entrance and exit driveways for a motor vehicle service station; these driveways are being shown on the new (revised) plan.  Mr. Gochman said that in reference to item (c) “Vehicle lifts or pits shall be located within a building fully enclosed on all sides,” Mr. Gemmola states in his narrative that these vehicle lifts would be located within the building. Also, as is required in item (d), all service or repair of motor vehicles would take place within the building.  Mr. Gochman noted to the board that the Applicant John Palladino feels that items (e) through (k) are not applicable to the proposed use. Mr. Palladino feels that these items would apply to a traditional gas station, which is different from an auto repair shop.

Chairman Kehoe said that it is, indeed, true that items (e) through (k) are critical to a traditional gas station. The problem is items (g) and (h).  Item (g) restricts the distance of a motor vehicle service station from public institutions such as schools, churches and hospitals and item (h) puts a limit on the distance between two motor vehicle service stations. Chairman Kehoe said that items (g) and (h) are the “deal breakers.” It is his understanding that the Applicant believes that these items refer only to a standard gas station.  The Village Engineer said that items (a) through (l) refer to a motor vehicle service station use.  A motor vehicle service station may or may not have a gas pump component. Chairman Kehoe said that he would disagree with Mr. Gemmola that items (e) through (k) are specifically for a traditional gas station use.  Mr. Gochman said that the problem is that the Code does not give a definition of the term “service station,” to which Mr. Luntz said that it would seem to him that a service station is “what we are defining this [application] to be” i.e., a place where one fixes cars.  

Mr. Andrews asked if the intended use would require a permit from the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles, to which Mr. Gochman said, “Yes.”

Mr. Aarons said that he thinks that when this section of the Code was written, the author(s) envisioned a “motor vehicle service station” to be a full service station with gasoline pumps, a car repair facility, etc.  Mr. Aarons said that the problem he has with the wording of items (g) and (h) is the use of the term “building permit.” Mr. Aarons noted that this section of the Code deals with special permits and, yet, items (g) and (h) say that “no building permit…..shall be issued….”  Mr. Aarons said that using the term “building permit” and eliminating the term “special permit” would seem to mean that, if the structure (building) on the premises were already built, the use could be continued.  Mr. Aarons said that to him items (g) and (h) pertain to new rather than existing structures and would only apply if a new structure (building) were being proposed. Mr. Andrews said that he would think that (g) and (h) still pose a problem for this application.  Chairman Kehoe questioned why items (g) and (h) call out a “building permit” rather than a special permit, noting that it would have been “easier” if the Code had said “no special permit…..shall be issued…..” rather than “no building permit…..”  Mr. Aarons suggested that when this section of the Code was written, items (g) and (h) were probably about safety and/or maintaining a safe environment for the surrounding area(s).  He questioned, given this interpretation for (g) and (h), whether the Planning Board would have the same issue if no petroleum products were being sold. Chairman Kehoe told Mr. Aarons that “we [the Planning Board] are not interpreters and enforcers of the Village Code; however, the Planning Board could still raise this issue in their memorandum to the Village Board.  Mr. Aarons said again that his sense is that this is all about safety, to which Mr. Andrews said that he would think that there is also an aesthetic issue being raised here.  Mr. Luntz added that, in his reading of this section of the Code, there would seem to be an interest in keeping certain operations away from residences and public places (churches, etc.).            

Chairman Kehoe noted that another critical component of this application is the issue pertaining to the percentage of the site being used for used-car sales as opposed to a service station. The used-car sales operation would be considered an accessory use. Chairman Kehoe referred to the Applicant’s floor plan and noted that the floor plan specifically calls out a sales/display area at the front of the building. Chairman Kehoe said that there would appear to be no “hard and fast number” stated in the Village Code of cars that could be offered for sale. As he sees the Planning Board’s role, it would be the Planning Board’s decision, based on the plan(s) submitted, to say whether the used-car sales component being proposed could be classified as an “accessory use.”        

The Village Engineer referred to the parking tabulation(s) on the site plan and asked if the 8,528.45 square feet is referring to the square footage of the larger building on the premises, to which Mr. Palladino said that he believes the larger building is actually 9,500 square feet in size.  Chairman Kehoe asked if that number (8,528.45) is referring to the usable space.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would want to know how Mr. Gemmola came up with that number. Chairman Kehoe noted that, according to the parking tabulation(s), the larger building on the premises would require 28 spaces and the smaller building (nail salon) would require 6.40 parking spaces. The Village Engineer questioned where cars in need of repair/service would be dismantled on site. He (the Village Engineer) would think that if the Applicant intends to provide an area outside the building to store cars, then, that should be shown on the Applicant’s plan(s).  Mr. Palladino said that, in so far as dismantling cars is concerned there would be enough room inside the building.   

Chairman Kehoe went over the various categories that would have to be looked at for calculating the off-street parking.  The Village Engineer noted that there are two sections on parking in the bulk chapter of the Village Code. Mr. Gemmola would have to refer to these two sections to determine the parking required.  The Village Engineer said that he would think that the off-street parking has to be looked at again and recalculated for the building.  Mr. Aarons said that, as he sees it, there are four distinct categories for determining the required parking. The first would be the off-street parking for the nail salon. The second would be the parking, which would be based on the cars being serviced or repaired. These cars, which are being worked on, have to be accounted for. Mr. Aarons said that the third category would be for the cars that are potentially going to be offered for sale. The parking calculation would be 1 space per 300 square feet of usable area.  Finally, the fourth category would be the parking for customers and employees (1 space per 250 square feet of retail/service floor area).  Mr. Aarons said that the Applicant would need to know how much space is being allotted for the vehicles.  As he (Mr. Aarons) sees it, there are three areas that would need to be segmented i.e., the display area, the office space and the retail space. The calculations for the parking are going to depend on the way the space is segmented. The Village Engineer pointed out to the Planning Board that the Applicant would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, if these parking requirements could not be met.         

Chairman Kehoe questioned the mathematical calculations used by Mr. Gemmola for determining the parking. Chairman Kehoe said that by his (Chairman Kehoe’s) calculations, the parking spaces required for employees and customers “coming to and going from the site” would be more than 28 spaces.  Mr. Gemmola also has to take into consideration the vehicles being sold.  Chairman Kehoe said that the parking has to be recalculated; once done, it might very well be that the Applicant would need to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Gochman suggested that Mr. Gemmola could redo the calculations and verify the numbers with the Village Engineer.  

The Village Engineer said that, with respect to the parking, it would seem that Mr. Gemmola is claiming that the interior space of the building is all “office space;” however, this is not the case.  The Village Engineer said that what Mr. Gemmola did not take into consideration is the parking being used for car sales in the front. There is a display area for cars on the inside of the building. The Village Engineer said that Mr. Gemmola has to look at the calculations for the main building and, then, for the vehicles being repaired.  He should make it clear to the Planning Board just how much space is available.  There would be equipment, lifts, tool boxes, tires, etc.  The Planning Board would need to know how much space is being allotted for the cars themselves.  

Mr. Andrews asked where the lifts would be located, to which Mr. Palladino referred to the floor plan and pointed to the area inside the building where the lifts would be.  Mr. Andrews noted that Mr. Gemmola should also show where the cars would be dismantled.  Chairman Kehoe said that Mr. Gemmola should refer to item (j) under Section 230-17B(1) pertaining to the storage and repair of dismantled vehicles and, then, show the layout on the floor plan.  

Mr. Palladino said that when Croton Dodge was in business, they were selling 150 cars a month.  This new operation is “not going to have anything like that.” Mr. Palladino said that this is a different type of operation.  Chairman Kehoe said that from what is being presented tonight, there would be a considerable amount of space being allotted outside the building for the sale of used cars. As he understands the Code, the used cars for sale would have to be displayed inside or “here and there” on the property; the Code does not permit an outside used-car lot. The Village Engineer noted that the sale of used cars is not an allowable use. A motor vehicle service station is allowed; the sale of used cars is allowed as an accessory use to the motor vehicle service station.

Mr. Palladino referred to Section 230-17B(1) and said that he would think that the language in this section of the Code is somewhat antiquated. Mr. Gochman said that there would seem to be conflicting language in this section. He referred specifically to the wording of items (g) and (l).  Mr. Gochman said that item (g) states that no building permit shall be issued for a service station within a distance of 200 feet from a public institution (school, church, etc.). Item (l) pertains to used-car sales as an accessory use and states that the sale of used cars at a service station is allowed, if the service station is in compliance with items (b) through (i); a special permit is required for both (uses). Mr. Aarons said that he does not think that (g) conflicts with (l). He said that it is clear from his reading of the Code that the sale of used cars is allowed as an accessory use to a motor vehicle service station; otherwise, the sale of used cars is not allowed.

Chairman Kehoe said that in the course of reviewing this application he has been thinking about used car sales as being an accessory use; however, there is no mention of “accessory” in item (l).  Chairman Kehoe said that, if the math works out for the parking, it might be that they (the Applicant) could sell a greater number of used cars than he originally had thought. The Village Engineer pointed out to the board that, first and foremost, the operation/business would have to be a motor vehicle service station. According to the Code, the sale of used cars would have to be accessory to the service station, to which Chairman Kehoe said that the business would have to “look like a service station and not like a used-car lot.” He (Chairman Kehoe) added that, “If you see 30 cars outside with “Sale” on them, then, that is not permitted.”  The Village Engineer said that the Village Board would have to make that determination. He noted that the special permit granted by the Village Board is a discretionary permit. Mr. Andrews said that the number of cars would be constrained by the usable space. Chairman Kehoe noted that Mr. Gemmola’s tabulation shows 37 spaces on site for employees and customers.  He would think that, based on the parking required for this site, less cars (a lesser number than 30) could be offered for sale outside.  Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board would need to have this confirmed through Mr. Gemmola’s calculations for the parking.

Mr. Andrews said that he would like to see the measurements for the auto and sales display areas to know how many cars could fit there.  Mr. Gemmola could, then, do the parking calculations correctly, as per the Village Code, and see how many parking spots are left. Chairman Kehoe said that he thinks the Planning Board and the Applicant “have to be on the same page” as to what should be counted as usable space. Mr. Aarons said that the usable space is what is left over for showing used cars.  Mr. Aarons said that it should really read “remainder space or available space after calculations.”  The Village Engineer said that he thinks that, outside the building, the outdoor storage is what Mr. Gemmola is calling usable space. Chairman Kehoe said that he would think the usable space inside the building would be the sales and auto display areas.  

The Village Engineer said that Mr. Gemmola should also look at the configuration of the parking area.  He noted that the cars pulling into the parking lot are going to have to back out onto a busy street.  Mr. Palladino said that people entering the parking lot could proceed and go out the other way onto Benedict Boulevard rather than backing out onto South Riverside Avenue. The Village Engineer noted that there would be some spaces where they would have to back out, to which Mr. Palladino said that he would use those spaces for car sales.  The Village Engineer told Mr. Palladino that Mr. Gemmola is going to have to (re)do the parking calculations to see how this would work.

Chairman Kehoe said that, for the next meeting, the Applicant should give the Planning Board an in-depth response to items (g) and (h).  Mr. Aarons noted that these items “talk about” a building permit rather than a special permit.  He would think that there has to be a reason.  It is not just accidental.

Mr. Andrews said that it is his understanding that there could be vehicles going in for service that could use the regular parking spaces.  If not disassembled, then, a vehicle could be parked in a regular parking space.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the idea being proposed by the Applicant for the used-car sales component of the business is for the sale of “vintage” or “classic” cars, to which Mr. Palladino said that he could not actually (just) do that because of the car trade-ins.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would want the record to state that the Planning Board is not looking at solely vintage or classic cars here.

Mr. Aarons asked the Village Engineer if the closing of a business is considered a “cessation of use,” to which the Village Engineer replied that it is his (the Village Engineer’s) interpretation that there was no use there. The Village Engineer said that, in the Zoning Code, a business establishment “loses its vested right to be there” after a certain period of time.  Mr. Aarons asked if a cession of an operation is equivalent to a cessation of use, to which the Village Engineer said that the subject operation/business predated zoning.  It was considered a legally non-conforming use.  The Village Engineer said that the period of time for being able to maintain the legally non-conforming use status has expired; a special permit is now required.

Ms. Allen referred to drawing #SY-101 and noted that there is a staircase being shown going down from the front parking lot, to which Mr. Palladino explained that this stairway leads down to the basement where the water meter is.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the fence being shown on the revised plan is a six-foot high chain link fence.  The previous plan showed a stockade fence.  Mr. Palladino told the board that he does not know why Mr. Gemmola made the change in the fence.    

Chairman Kehoe referred to the previously submitted plan and pointed out that on this plan Mr. Gemmola is talking about straight parking calculations. Chairman Kehoe said that this would mean that Mr. Gemmola was not looking at the special permit requirements when he was calculating the parking.  

Chairman Kehoe summarized the issues to be addressed for the next meeting stating that among other items Mr. Gemmola is going to have to redo the parking calculations.  A more in-depth response to items (g) and (h) has to be provided.  Mr. Andrews referred to item (j) pertaining to the storage of dismantled vehicles and said that Mr. Gemmola should show on the floor plan where these cars would be stored. Mr. Palladino noted to the Planning Board that for this type of business – the sale of antique cars – they would want to make the place look very attractive.  

Mr. Aarons said that it would seem to him that items (g) and (h) are “game stoppers” for this application.  He questioned why, if these items might preclude this type of business from being allowed to operate, the Applicant is being put through the exercise of coming before the Planning Board.  Mr. Aarons said that he would think the Village Board should look into this matter and then, if this matter is resolved in the Applicant’s favor, send it back to the Planning Board.  The Village Engineer said that he would rather have the Applicant come back to the Planning Board with their responses to items (g) and (h). The Planning Board could, then, bring up this matter in their recommendation to the Village Board along with any other issues that the Planning Board would want the Village Board to consider.  Mr. Aarons questioned (again) why this board should be going through a site plan analysis if items (g) and (h) are “game stoppers.” Chairman Kehoe said that the Planning Board would raise the issue concerning (g) and (h) with the Village Board.  He (Chairman Kehoe) would think that, if the information requested tonight is provided to the Planning Board, the Planning Board could wrap up their review of this application in one more meeting. Mr. Gochman noted that items (g) and (h) both pertain to the issuance of building permits. He asked if, assuming that the Applicant is in compliance with all other items except (g) and (h) and, assuming that the Applicant, at some point in the future, applies for a building permit, the Applicant might be able to seek a variance at that time from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would think that the Village Board and/or Zoning Board would have to interpret what the term “building permit” means in items (g) and (h).  The Village Engineer said that he finds that the language in items (g) and (h) is somewhat ambiguous.  He would like to have the Village Attorney review these items and render an opinion.  Mr. Gochman said that one could say that if a building permit is not required for this application, then, these items do not apply, to which Chairman Kehoe said that, indeed, this is a position that the Applicant could take. The Village Engineer said that there would ultimately have to be a determination made by the Village Board with the assistance of the Village Attorney.

Mr. Aarons asked if the current position of the Planning Board is that the Planning Board would try to complete its review of this application at the next meeting, to which the Village Engineer said that he would think so, as long as Mr. Gemmola does what the Planning Board has asked regarding the calculations for the parking.

Chairman Kehoe noted to the Applicant that the January Planning Board meetings would take place on Tuesday, January 12th and Tuesday, January 26th, respectively.  Mr. Gochman said that he would contact the Village Engineer’s office when the Applicant is ready to come back before the board.


  • OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairman Kehoe said that the Village Engineer would like to discuss with the Planning Board tonight an issue pertaining to the Bari Manor apartment complex.  The Village Engineer said that the owner of the complex has applied for a demolition permit to remove the swimming pool on the site. Eliminating a recreational feature such as a swimming pool constitutes a change to the previously approved site plan. The Village Engineer said that the Planning Board should be involved in the replacement of a recreational use at the Bari Manor site.  The Village Engineer noted that the swimming pool is in poor condition and is considered a site hazard.  The pool should be demolished.  The owner of the property wants to limit their liability, so they do not want to install a play ground area.  The Village Engineer reiterated that demolishing the pool constitutes a change to the site plan, so the Planning Board has to be involved.

The Village Engineer noted that there is not a lot in the record on Bari Manor.  The sales literature included a swimming pool.  The Village Engineer said that three years after the apartment complex was approved, the owner of the property came before the Planning Board with an amended site plan application for the installation of a swimming pool.  

Chairman Kehoe said that he, personally, does not have a problem with the pool demolition, but he thinks that, now that the pool is being demolished, the owner has to provide another recreational facility for the residents.  Chairman Kehoe said that he would not want to hold up the demolition permit, especially since the pool is a safety hazard.  Mr. Aarons said that, with respect to recreational facilities at this site, he thinks it would be important to hear from the Bari Manor residents.  Ms. Allen said that she, too, thinks that the Planning Board should insist on some other recreational facility for the people in the complex. Chairman Kehoe questioned what the recreational facility should be.  Do we want picnic tables and grills or do we want something more elaborate such as a play ground?  Chairman Kehoe asked when the owner/Applicant wants to demolish the pool, to which the Village Engineer replied that the owner applied for a demolition permit two weeks ago. The Village Engineer said that it occurred to him late in the process that this is a site feature that was previously approved by the Planning Board. That is why this item is before the Planning Board for discussion tonight. Ms. Allen said that, in terms of the type of recreational facility for the complex, the Planning Board might want to involve the Village’s Recreation Department.  Chairman Kehoe suggested that, before demolishing the swimming pool, the owner/Applicant should come before the Planning Board to discuss this matter of a recreational facility.

  
  • APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Tuesday, November 24, 2009 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Luntz 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 10:26 P.M.

Sincerely,



Sylvia Mills
Secretary


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