VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2010
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Kehoe, Chairman
ABSENT: Mark Aarons
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.
- 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 – Request for an Adjournment
Chairman Kehoe stated that, as has been the case for some months now, the public hearing on this application for a preliminary subdivision approval is being adjourned. The Applicant’s engineering firm is still working on the revisions to their drainage plan(s) based on the comments provided by Dvirka & Bartilucci, the Village’s engineering consultants. Chairman Kehoe said that this item will be put back on the agenda for the next Planning Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 23rd.
- Historic Hudson Valley – 525 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.13 Blk. 4 Lot 35) – Application for an Amended Site Plan Approval for the Installation of Storage Units
Michael Natiello of Historic Hudson Valley was present.
Chairman Kehoe noted that there were no new application materials submitted for the meeting tonight.
Chairman Kehoe opened the public hearing on this amended site plan application. Ms. Delasho of 4 Piney Point Avenue came forward with three other Village residents from Hastings Avenue and asked where the containers are going to be situated, to which the Village Engineer pointed out the location of the storage containers on the aerial view of the property submitted by the Applicant. The Village Engineer said that the containers are going to be placed near the ShopRite shopping center at the northwest corner of the parking field used for the Great Jack O’Lantern Blaze event. Ms. Delasho expressed concern that the proposed storage containers would be seen by neighboring residents, to which Mr. Luntz noted that these containers would not be visible in the location being proposed.
Chairman Kehoe noted that, as was told to the Planning Board at the last meeting, the Blaze materials are currently being taken to Montgomery Place in Dutchess County to be stored away; a more convenient and less costly solution would be to store the materials on site. Chairman Kehoe noted further that the Applicant also implied at the last meeting that these containers are not going to be there permanently. Dorothy Wolfthal of 7 Hastings Avenue asked the Applicant if, indeed, these containers are temporary structures, to which Mr. Natiello said that they are “temporarily meant” to store materials from the Blaze. Ms. Wolfthal asked if this means “a few years or twenty years,” to which Mr. Natiello’s response was: “As long as the event is popular.” Mr. Natiello
said that these containers would be used for the foreseeable future. Ms. Wolfthal said that for several months she had a view from her home of the construction materials stored at the Historic Hudson Valley site, which were associated with the water main pipe going in. She was concerned that she would now have to look at these storage containers for a long time. Ms. Wolfthal said that the Historic Hudson Valley “has not been kind” to her in the past. She told the Planning Board about a property line issue that she had with the Historic Hudson Valley.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments from the public, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Mr. Kauderer and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Chairman Kehoe asked if the board had any further comments. Mr. Luntz noted that the photograph of the containers provided by the Applicant shows the word “Evergreen” in large white letters across the full length of the containers. Mr. Luntz said that he would hope that the surface of the containers would be monochromatic so that they could be camouflaged from view as much as possible. Mr. Natiello said that the containers would be painted green. They would cover over the “Evergreen” logo with green paint. Mr. Natiello said that there are invasive species of plants growing in the area where the containers would be located. The thought is that these plants would eventually grow over the containers to help screen them from view.
The Village Engineer asked what the dimensions of the containers are, to which Mr. Natiello said, 40’ x 8’ x 8’. Mr. Natiello said that the containers would rest on a two-inch bed of crushed gravel.
Chairman Kehoe asked if a building permit is required for the installation of the containers, to which the Village Engineer said, “Yes.”
Ms. Allen asked how water collecting underneath the containers would be drained, to which Mr. Natiello said that any trapped water underneath the containers would permeate the bed of gravel upon which the containers rest.
Mr. Natiello said that, pending the Planning Board’s approval, the grounds crew at the VanCortlandt Manor site would meet with the contractor who would do the ground preparation work and supply the containers.
Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments from the board members, to which there were none.
Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution. Chairman Kehoe said that an “advisory” condition would be that a building permit is required from the Village Engineer. Another condition would be that a monochrome, matte finish green paint be used to help camouflage the containers. Ms. Allen said that she would want to be assured that the containers are sufficiently screened and that the Village would have some recourse to action, should the screening of these containers become insufficient over time. The Village Engineer said that there could (also) be a condition in the Planning Board resolution about the screening. This condition could say that additional vegetation must be planted around the containers should the vegetative screening presently being proposed not have the intended effect. Chairman Kehoe questioned
if, after a certain period of time the screening fails and the containers are visible, the Applicant should come back to the Planning Board or if the Applicant could just work with the Village Engineer on a “new” screening plan. After some discussion, the board decided that, rather than come back to the board it would be sufficient for the Applicant to work on the screening with the Village Engineer.
Chairman Kehoe reviewed the three conditions for the approval as follows: (1) that the Applicant shall apply for a building permit for the installation of the storage containers; (2) that the containers shall be painted green with a matte finish to help with the screening and (3) that, if, at some point in the future it is determined that the screening has become insufficient, the Applicant must develop additional screening to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. Ms. Allen told the Applicant that it would be useful for the Applicant to supply to the Village a photographic record of the screening once it is put in place.
Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this amended site plan application with the conditions discussed tonight. The motion was made by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
- Croton View Properties, LLC – 40-50 Maple Street (Sec. 79.09 Blk. 1 Lot 30) – Proposed Tenant Space Addition – Discussion of Change from Brick to Stone Veneer
Chairman Kehoe noted that, prior to tonight’s meeting the Village Engineer had sent an email to the Planning Board showing the three different brick surfaces on the facades of the buildings at the shopping center. Chairman Kehoe said that the Village Engineer also provided the board with two elevation drawings, one showing a brick surface on the proposed tenant space addition and the other showing a stone veneer. The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board approved the brick surface when the tenant space addition came before the board. A stone veneer surface is now being proposed. The Village Engineer said that besides the stone surface another change would be to the windows. Instead of having stone going all the way up, they would infill the surface with (window) panels. The Village Engineer said that this change to a
stone veneer is being proposed because the Applicant has been unable to match the existing brick surface. Mr. Kauderer noted that there is also a stone veneer on the façade of the nail salon and the Post Office. Mr. Luntz said that, in so far as the building’s surface is concerned, it would not look good to have two bricks next to each other that do not match.
Chairman Kehoe asked if the knee wall by the nail salon is stone or brick, to which the Village Engineer said that he thinks this is also stone.
Mr. Luntz said that he, personally, does not have a problem with this change in the façade treatment currently being proposed. Chairman Kehoe said that, when he received the email from the Village Engineer, he thought it would be a good idea anyway for the Planning Board to have a discussion. He, too, does not have a problem with it. Chairman Kehoe said that he would think that it could not look any worse, given the fact that there are already three different brick surfaces on the facades of the building(s).
The Village Engineer asked if the Planning Board would agree to this change in the façade treatment for the proposed tenant space addition, to which the board members all agreed.
- Discussion of the Status of the Croton Colonial Diner Site Work
Ms. Allen noted that, with respect to the diner project, the Applicant/owner of the diner was supposed to provide a construction schedule of what was to be done and when, to which the Village Engineer responded that, indeed, it was a condition of the Planning Board’s resolution that a construction schedule be provided. The Village Engineer said that he has been told that the Applicant’s architect Edmond Gemmola has spoken to his client about the project. He (the Village Engineer) still needs to see the Applicant’s construction schedule. Ms. Allen said that she would think that the Planning Board should be reviewing the status of the construction at every stage in the process. This project was of great concern to the neighbors. Furthermore, in so far as the diner is concerned, there is a long history of
problems with the neighbors, property violations, etc. Chairman Kehoe noted that the barriers on the Hudson Street entrance were supposed to be put up within 30 days of the amended site plan approval. The time has almost lapsed. Mr. Luntz suggested that the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer could write a letter to the Applicant’s architect to this effect. The Village Engineer noted that the Planning Board resolution was recently emailed to the Applicant’s architect. Chairman Kehoe said that when the Village Engineer has more information on what is happening with the construction at the diner property he should let the board know so that the board can discuss it.
The minutes of the Tuesday, September 14, 2010 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Kauderer, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4-0.
The minutes of the Tuesday, October 12, 2010 Planning Board meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4-0.
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:35 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 for Historic Hudson Valley, hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located in the C-2 Zoning District at 525 South Riverside Avenue and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.13 Block 4 Lot 35; and
WHEREAS, this Amended Site Plan application is for the installation of two storage containers proposed to be located on the west side of South Riverside Avenue on tax lot #79.17-2-6; 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 a conceptual site plan received by the Planning Board on October 12, 2010 be approved subject to the following conditions:
that, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for the installation of the two containers.
that, for camouflage purposes, a monochrome matte finish green paint shall be used on the containers’ surfaces.
that, the storage containers shall be sufficiently screened from view. If, in the future, it is determined that the screening has become insufficient, the Applicant shall develop additional screening to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. A photographic record shall be taken of the screening once the screening is in place and deemed acceptable by 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
Motion to approve by Mr. Luntz, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Board member Mark Aarons was absent from the meeting.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, November 9, 2010.
Village of Croton-on-Hudson