Minutes

Planning Board Minutes

June 3, 2003

Cortlandt was conducted at the Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, New York on Tuesday evening, June 3, 2003, at

Mr. Steven Kessler, Chairman, presided and other members in attendance were as follows:

CHANGES TO AGENDA BY MAJORITY VOTE:

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to add this item to Correspondence, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor “AYE.”

APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETINGS OF APRIL 1, 2003:

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 1, 2003, seconded by Mr. Bernard.

On the question, Mr. Foley said I submitted a change to our stenographer regarding a change to the word McGuire, either Road or Lane, on page 5.

RE: PB 20-02, Application of Geis Auto Mall for a 1,000 square foot building addition to the existing Geis Buick-Olds/Nissan Dealership located at the corner of Westbrook Drive and Route 6 as shown on a 2 page set of drawings entitled “Geis Auto Mall Write Up Center Addition” prepared by Peder W. Scott, P.E. latest revision dated March 6, 2003.

Motion was made by Ms. Todd to approve Resolution #19-03 granting the applicant’s request, seconded by Mr. Hoch, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: PB 8-03, Application of Bilotta Realty & Briga Enterprises for Site Plan approval for a Contractor’s Yard and a portable concrete plant for property located on the east side of Albany Post Road approximately 450 feet north of Trinity Avenue as shown on a drawing entitled “Amended Site Plan Proposed Contactors Yard” prepared by George Mottarella, P.E., latest revision dated April 7, 2003.

Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to approve Resolution #20-03 granting the applicant’s request, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: PB 19-96, Application and Final Environmental Impact Statement dated February 21, 2003 for the application of 37 Croton Dam Road Corp. for Preliminary Plat approval, and Wetland and Steep Slope Permits for a proposed 62 lot major cluster subdivision of 118 acres located on the west side of Croton Avenue, 500 feet north of Furnace Dock Road as shown on a 12-page set of drawings entitled “Final Environmental Impact Statement Plan for Emery Ridge”, prepared by Timothy L. Cronin III, PE, latest revision dated May 16, 2003.

Preliminary Plat Approval for a 10-lot major subdivision of 6.6 acres located on the north side of Locust Avenue, 500 feet east of Gabriel Drive as shown on a 4-page set of drawings entitled “Preliminary Subdivision, Hillside Estates” prepared by John Delano, PE, latest revision dated January 25, 2002.

RE: PB 4-03, Application of Thomas Dickson of Spain Oil Company, for the property of Mid-Valley Oil Company, Inc., for amended Site Development Plan approval and a Special Permit for the conditionally approved convenience store and canopy at the Mobil gas station located on the northwest side of Roa Hook Road on the Annsville Circle as shown on a 7 page set of drawings entitled “Cortlandt Mobil, Annsville Circle” prepared by Morris Associates, P.S., LLC, latest revision dated March 20, 2003.

RE: PB 13-02, Application of the Cortlandt Medical Building Associates for approval of an amended Site Development Plan and A Special Permit and a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed building addition of 364 sq. ft. of office space and to construct 2 parking lots located at the Cortlandt Medical Building at 1985 Crompond Road as shown on a 5-page set of drawings entitled “Proposed Office Building for Cortlandt Medical Building Associates” prepared by Lawrence Belluscio, P.E., latest revision dated April 21, 2003.

Director of Teatown Lake Reservation, Inc., requesting a one year activity permit for Teatown’s Community Supported Agriculture farm operation at Cliffdale Farm on Teatown Road as shown on a 1-page drawing entitled “As Built Map, Cliffdale Farm North” prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E. dated April 24, 2002.

re: PB 3-98, Application and Final Environmental Impact Statement dated February 21, 2003 of Commercial Real Estate Management for Preliminary Plat approval and Wetland and Steep Slope Permits for a 30 lot major subdivision of 128 acres located on the south side of Maple Avenue and on the east side of Dickerson Road and Hilltop Drive as shown on a 7-page set of drawings entitled “Preliminary Plat prepared for Abee Rose Estates” prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE, PC latest revision dated February 6, 2003.

Mr. Hoch said the Board conducted a site inspection this past Sunday. Four of the members went to the site; three made it through, Mr. Bianchi had to leave a littler earlier. My impression is that this site has been quite difficult through this whole process but going out there Sunday morning in the rain, we did observe quite a bit of water coming off of the hill. Also, I was invited on the property of an adjacent homeowner who had considerable water flow coming off of his property. I still have great concerns about this project and the ability to put this in such a steep sloped area and to control the amount of water coming down this hill. Also, to dispose of the sewage. I will say that one of the things that I thought was not going to work were lots 23 and 24 across from the wetlands from the main entrance road. The lots that have also been proposed for removal, the lots on the top of the property, 7, 10, 12. I still have a huge problem with the length of this cul-de-sac and the amount of maintenance it is going to require, the burden on the Town, and the burden on the homeowner’s association. There is just such a great amount of cut and fill to try to put in this road and it is an incredibly long steep driveway. I still think this project has a long way to go. Those were my observations. We just saw water running in rivulets and little streams coming off of the hill in tremendous volume.

Ms. Todd said I think from leaving Dickerson Road, we counted at least 5 or 6 streams coursing down the hill. That is before we even reached the first driveway is going to be. I agree, I think lots 23 and 24 would require massive amounts of fill through a State protected wetland. I do not see that the wetland impact that is required is balanced by any value those 2 lots may have. There is one other point I want to make about the FEIS. There was a sad attempt at the biodiversity assessment given in that. At some point, in mid-day of a July day, someone from Tim Miller & Associates went out and counted frogs as a way of describing the biodiversity on the site. I think we all know that is in no way a fair way to do any sort of assessment of biodiversity. Determining amphibian population should be done at the right time of the year, April through June. Egg masses should be counted. You just don’t go out and count frogs. I want to make sure that was pointed out. In my opinion, there has not been a reliable professional biodiversity survey done for amphibians, reptiles, or for breeding birds for that matter, much of which we are doing for other sites.

Mr. Bernard said it was a wonderful site visit. It was a great day to really see what was happening on that site on a particularly wet day. I, too, have great reservations about the amount of fill that is proposed in this lot. I don’t really understand how drainage is going to be successfully controlled over time. Although, I’m sure that the engineers can prove to us the first day will be fine. I am concerned about the 10^th day, the 100^th day, 500^th day, I’m concerned down the line how these things function. I do believe that this particular site suffers a great deal from a previous development that is largely up hill. This site is suffering a log of drainage that wasn’t addressed on that previous development, which occurred 20 years ago or so. That being said, the reality is it is what it is. I just don’t believe that this site justifies the number of homes proposed. Also, the onsite sewage plant, I still do not believe that’s to be properly (?) sewage on this site. It just encumbers the Town as another custodian to maintain over time. I don’t agree with it.

Mr. Hoch said I would also like to ask the applicant, on the site visit, we were talking about the discharge from the sewage plant would now be piped into the wetland area and diffused. You had mentioned that this was a method favored by the DEC. Do you have any correspondence from the DEC, anything from them that states this is what they prefer? Mr. Mavian replied I don’t believe they provided anything in writing. The person who met with DEC, Ralph Mastromonaco, is here this evening. Do you want to address that? Mr. Mastromonaco replied I think we provided in the FEIS some information on the 2 potential discharge locations. We had 3 previously. We were there with Tom Rudolph from the DEC. He went over both of those out in the field. The one that is near the central part of that wetland, which was actually originally a stream, that is a valid point of discharge. Of course, you have to remember that we are talking about nearly pure water. This is the highest level from a sewage treatment plant that you can have. It is a discharge from an intermittent stream. The water that is coming out of the sewer has been sand filtered. I think the DEC recognizes that there really would be no impact from that. It is a small amount of flow, about the flow of a garden hose. You saw that on the site trip, the amount of water. Imagine a garden hose in comparison to that. That is what we have been saying all along. More importantly, at some point in the process, we will be able to get a permit from the DEC. I think that we can’t obviously do that until we go through the SEQRA process. At that point, your questions will be answered by the DEC. We think that we have made our case to the DEC. We have gotten basically no opinion to the contrary. We meet all of their standards. So we believe that we can get the SPEDES permit and approval to build a small plant there. I don’t know if that answers your question, but… Mr. Hoch said it does. It is one factor in this and then, of course, there are all the other factors where it would be maybe better to put less houses out of the wetland area with 8 or 10 of them on a septic system and avoid a lot of the drainage issues that have come up. Mr. Mastromonaco said interestingly, we did originally have septic systems for this project. We did all the testing for them. Right after we did the testing, the County changed their policy and basically wiped out the probability for a septic system because of the change in 15% of slope. They wouldn’t let us go above a 15% slope. It really left us no alternative. Sometimes you try to help things, but… Another thing that I would like to point out is that these little plants, we don’t see them too often because they are not cost affective on a project with only 27 lots. In this particular case because of the value of the homes there, that would be a feasible solution to sewage treatment. You probably won’t see this too often. You won’t see it with a lower number of houses. It would be harder to do with houses with a lower value, obviously. But we think in this particular case if the applicant is paying for this plant and frankly, there is really no burden on the Town whatsoever. Someone mentioned it would be a burden to the Town. It is not putting a burden on the Town at all. All of this is entirely private and entirely paid for by those owners. I don’t know where anyone got the impression that the Town would have any burden at all. Mr. Vergano said the proposal here is to set up a transportation corporation, which is a private entity that would own and operate the system. Mr. Bernard said I remember that at previous meetings and over several variations that there are associations that are unable to handle their plant maintenance. The inevitable result is it gets turned over to the Town and the Town has to deal with it. You know, you bring a up the point, Ralph, that 27 units may not be cost affective with a plant of this type but it may also mean that the plant operator can’t also operate it efficiently. Sewage plants need a particular amount of flow, and it usually has to be a fairly consistent flow, in order to operate properly. What happens in the summer when the homeowners are on vacation or wherever people go and the flow is reduced? Mr. Mastromonaco replied that is a very good question. The plant actually runs better in that case. This is essentially a septic tank. Secondly, it is a trickling filter; they don’t really need a whole lot of flow. Further, there is an equalization feature in the whole plant so that it stores water for the times of low flow. This system is designed for a variation in flow. Mr. Bernard said it sounds like similar to the structure that Valeria has. This is a more modern version but a more similar type. Mr. Mastromonaco said that is a classis technology. It is an old technology, a trickling filter. But we have added all of these other ozonation, sand filtration, and actually we remove chlorine before it goes in the water. We actually re-aerate it before it actually hits the stream. It has to reach a certain DO, dissolved oxygen content. Frankly, what happens in that case is that the water coming out of that plant is actually cleaner than the run-off coming down the roads. Experts realize that there is really no impact on the wetland because it is essentially pure water. Again, I think that decision is generally made by the State. I think we’ll be able to get that permit. If you want to speak to the DEC, that is fine but I don’t think it is fair for you to say it is not… Mr. Hoch said no, it is not. My question is do you have anything in writing from the DEC yet? Mr. Mastromonaco replied we’ll get our permit; that is what we’ll get in writing. Mr. Vergano asked Ralph, what is the feasibility of discharging treated effluent to a subsurface disposal system area rather than a septic system? Mr. Mastromonaco replied that would work, too. We can do that; that is fine, too. We haven’t gotten to that fine of detail yet but it can be done. Mr. Vergano said so that is an option. Mr. Mastromonaco said yes.

Ms. Todd said when you think of how many gallons a septic holds, I think of my house, and you multiply my house by 27 houses… Mr. Mastromonaco said it is a different system. What I’m explaining to Ed is that it is a diffusing system. We diffuse it out over 100 to 150 feet. It wouldn’t have to be taken up by the soil. Mr. Vergano said the septic subsurface disposal systems have been proposed and accepted by the Westchester County Department of Health. That is untreated waste. Basically, everyone has a septic tank and from the tank the liquids go to a subsurface disposal area. In this case, it would actually go to a treatment plant. This subsurface disposal area would receive treated waste as opposed to untreated waste. So it is certainly not… Ms. Todd asked is on top of the ground? Mr. Vergano replied underground, it is subsurface. You have to find an adequate area. I don’t know if a soil investigation has been done in that area. If the soil is reasonable, that is a viable option. Ms. Todd as opposed to a pipe going directly into the wetland. Mr. Vergano said yes. Mr. Mastromonaco said or you could take the outpour and break it up into 4 little outpours, straight out over that stream line. All of those things are possibilities. We don’t object to any of them.

Mr. Hoch said if this project goes down in the number of units, at what point does that plant become an economical issue? Mr. Mastromonaco replied the houses become more costly. Mr. Vergano asked what about during the course of construction? 27 houses don’t just appear over night. You may want to explain to the Board during say 5 houses get built the first year, 5 houses the next year, so the plant fully operational could be functioning just on 5 homes. Mr. Mastromonaco said if you see the type of plant, as I described before, having 1 or 2 or 3 homes, the plant would still work fine because the plant is designed to work with no flow up to 14,000 or 15,000 gallons per day. Mr. Hoch asked at what level does that plant become unfeasible? Mr. Mastromonaco replied the developer is building the plant; there are no capital costs involved for anyone. I would say that you are looking at… When you are paying $5,000 per year per home, that sounds like a little bit too much but there really is no cut-off because anyone that buys this is going to know what that cost is. I think the figure is about $35,000 per year. There really are no moving parts. It is a passive plan except for maybe inspections. I don’t know the exact schedule. Maybe every 6 months they have to remove the septic tank sludge. I don’t know .03 per gallon, 14,000 gallons, what is that $1,400 every 6 months. It is really not the cost. Mr. Bernard asked and the cost of the plant? Mr. Mastromonaco replied actually, the cost of the plant is somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000. The cost of the equipment is about $150,000. Then, you have to build it and so on. It really is not that big. Putting the sewers in is costly, too. But again, that is all paid for by the developer. Bonded and paid for.

Mr. Foley said I couldn’t be at the site visit, but I did make comments at the May 6^th meeting. Mr. Bianchi said likewise.

Mr. Verschoor said also, at the site inspection, we were given an alternative plan for the road access onto Dickerson Road. Is this now the proposed or preferred alternative? Mr. Mavian replied it is going to be presented as an alternative for consideration by the Board. Mr. Verschoor asked so it is not preferred by the applicant? Mr. Mavian replied it is preferred, I guess, but is not going to be part of the actual proposed official 30-lot plan. We are going to present this as an alternative access. It could be applied to the 30-lot plan or the alternative 27-lot plan.

Mr. Hoch said the other thing that came out of the site inspection, which John had bought up while we were out there, the critical need for maintenance in this drainage system. Again, based on the amount of water that we saw coming down the hill, can this system work with the road intersecting the water? We had talked about getting some more information on exactly what would be required if this drainage system were engineered and supposedly would work in theory, what level of maintenance is required, when is it required, so we know what the burden on the Town would be. This was one of the issues that we had discussed with the applicant.

Ms. Todd said I would also like to state, too, at the worksession we were talking to Mr. Vergano about detention basins in the Town and basically, about 95% of the current basins in the Town are not working right now. Those are really important issues for us to consider for whether or not we want to approve this. Mr. Vergano said just to clarify, I agree that 95% are not functioning as designed. They are functioning, but not quite as designed. They have to be maintained. Unfortunately, we have not been keeping up with the maintenance. I don’t know too many municipalities that do. Sometimes, it becomes a real burden just to keep up with the proper maintenance and keeping siltation out of it, making sure that the outflow structure is functioning as originally designed. It becomes a chore.

Mr. Zutt asked may I make a follow-up comment on that. It has been a subject of your concern, Mr. Hoch, and others as well, about the long-term costs. On the very specific question, detention basin maintenance, during my tenor as your attorney and for many years before that, it was commonly the case that subdivisions were approved with detention basins but no requirement was put in place for the formation of a drainage district or a taxing district to provide a fund for the Town to access to maintain these detention facilities. It wasn’t until I’m going to say sometime in the early 90’s that started to become a regular feature in a major subdivision. But until that point, they really weren’t being setting up. They were being maintained almost on an ad-hoc basis by the Highway Department when they had the men and the equipment available. I think the Town has come a long way in the past 10 years in terms of gearing up to fulfill that function. Mr. Hoch said I think, since I’ve been here quite awhile, part of this because of the increased taxes generated, the Highway Department has some fundings available. But because of the complexity of these systems over the last 8 to 10 years, they are much more complex and you can have many more detention basins and water quality treatment basins, the systems themselves are much more complicated. The more complicated they are, the greater the reliance on regular maintenance. I think that is where we are coming to a dilemma in some of these projects now where we say ‘wait a minute, there isn’t enough tax revenue generated to the Highway Department to take care of a very complicated system.’ The way that it may needed to be taken care of, and that is the other issue, is that we really don’t have a handle on is what is it that needs to be taken care of and what is the projected cost. Mr. Zutt said we’ll try to get additional information on that. To round out this question on cost and long term maintenance and so forth, mention was made of a transportation corporation. That is the vehicle that is used. There is a bond requirement for the completion of the plant. But more importantly, and beyond that, the State law actually requires a bond for at least 5 years for long-term operation by the developer. So that from project completion on a going forward basis, you have this bond in place for the first 5 years of operation. I really just learned about that today. We’ll have it somewhere in the FEIS.

Mr. Hoch said the only other thing that I would like to say to the applicant is to give you sort of, I think we have been doing it up front as much as we can over the years as we go through this process, but the sense of the Board is that this is a very complicated project. There are some major issues. I wouldn’t predispose to tell you how anyone would vote. I can tell you that your FEIS is going to be critical. There are so many issues here that are serious that give some of us some great doubts about the feasibility of this.

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to refer this back to staff, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: PB 16-99, Application of SB Acres, LLC, for Final Plat approval for a proposed golf course pursuant to a Special Permit and not more than 85 town homes and six (6) single family homes on 252 acres located on the north side of Oregon Road, on the east side of Adams Rush Road, and at the end of Beverly Road and Casperian Road as shown on a 2-page set of drawings entitled “Subdivision Plat of Hollow Brook Golf Club” prepared by Glen Watson, P.L.S., latest revision dated May

20, 2003 and on an 8-page set of drawings entitled “The Townhouses, HollowBrook Golf Club” prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., dated April 10, 2003 and a 31-page set of drawings entitled “Hollowbrook Golf Club at Cortlandt Manor” prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE, latest revision dated April 10, 2003.

Mr. Balter said we are here for final plat approval. The most major item that needs to get done prior to you passing the resolution on the final plat is the County of Westchester Department of Health approval, which we are quite sure we are going to have hopefully, by the end of this week. We are requesting that your Board authorize staff to draft a resolution for passage at your next meeting subject to… The resolution would not be conditioned upon the Health Department. We expect to have that and are not asking you to add that as a condition in the resolution. We understand that you would not vote on it if we do not have the Health Department approval. If at all possible, since you are scheduling a special meeting, we are requesting that if possible you add this to the agenda for that special meeting. It would be very helpful for us. Did you set a date for that? Mr. Kessler replied June 17^th. Last time, there were issues with the golf course with a stop order? Mr. Vergano replied that stop work order was lifted yesterday. It will take a little bit of time to explain everything that has been done since we last discussed this. But briefly, the area where the encroachment has occurred, the remediation plan was acceptable to my staff. It was acceptable to the environmental monitor. We were able to determine that there was some minimal encroachment in some other areas. It was anything of a significant nature and we felt that at this point it was appropriate to allow them to continue with the construction in that area.

Mr. Foley said I just want to address one of the issues of the resolution, the sidewalk issue, is that moving along, the right-of-ways, from residents, etc.? Mr. Balter replied I can’t speak to that. I don’t think it pertains to the subject plot, but I’m happy to talk about it. What Mr. Foley is referring to is the condition in the resolution that says we will build a sidewalk not only on our property but along all frontage of Oregon Road between the two ends of our property to the extent that the Town will provide adequate rights-of-way. What we did in an effort to make sure that it didn’t become something that didn’t get done is that we took it upon ourselves to get an as-built survey prepared of all of Oregon Road from one end of our property to the other including all the properties that we don’t own. We had determined that there are adequate rights-of-way. I walked the property with John Bernard and with Ed Vergano and we talked about the sidewalk and where it would go in, what we could do exactly, and I think that I certainly was comfortable, John was comfortable, and I think Ed was comfortable that not only was it viable but it is really going to be terrific. Mr. Foley said so in other words, we don’t really see the location of it. At some point, we do, or what? We’re now asking for the preparation of the final plat approval resolution next month, correct? Mr. Vergano replied yes, we need a design plan. That is what we’re asking for. Mr. Balter said the sidewalk plan, that is not something we’re supposed to do. We were supposed to basically build a sidewalk where the Town asks us to. We are taking it upon ourselves not only to do the asphalt but to do the design. I think what you are asking about is does the Planning Board review that? And, I think the answer is no. Basically, it is at Ed’s discretion and I assume the Town Board if they want to get involved. I don’t think they are going to but. Mr. Vergano said I know that the Supervisor is very interested in this project and it won’t take a very active role. I did describe the scope of the project, the location of the sidewalk in general terms. But, we still have to walk it with the Supervisor. Mr. Foley said so, it’s what I said at previous meetings about the sidewalk. Also, I don’t know if it is appropriate now on the final plat in preparing the resolution, there’s a question on the walk trail and the location. Did that ever get resolved, the access to it? It has been an issue through the whole project. Mr. Balter asked are you talking about the multi-use trail and sidewalk? Mr. Foley replied the walk through trail has been bought up since the Concept Committee. Mr. Balter said in terms of what is in the resolution and what has gotten… Mr. Foley asked it is really up to the Town Board, correct? Mr. Balter replied there are a couple of different issues. I’m not sure what you are referring to. Mr. Vergano asked are you talking about access to open space, Bob? Mr. Foley replied yes, what has been discussed for the past 4 years. Mr. Vergano said that is something that we have to work out. Mr. Foley said I don’t want it to get lost. That is what I’ve said in the past. Mr. Balter said in terms of it getting lost, Bob, there is a condition in the final site plan approval that speaks to that. Basically, it says that we will provide access, I’m paraphrasing, if the Town will indemnify us we’ll provide access in an accessible manor. Mr. Foley said hopefully, from Oregon Road.

open space area from the borders about not having ATV’s in there? Mr. Balter replied actually, when you and I were walking the property the other day, I asked about these and were told that there were some. Ms. Todd said we didn’t see any. Mr. Balter said I didn’t actually ask to post the property but the ATV traffic has gone way, way down. Ms. Todd said I just wondered about the far side. Mr. Balter said I talked to a lot of Putnam Valley neighbors when I was up there and they said it has gone down but I have not walked it. I’ll find out for the next time that we meet.

Motion was made by Mr. Foley to prepare a resolution for either the special meeting on June 17^th or the July 1^st meeting dependent upon the Health Department’s response, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor ‘AYE.’

re: PB 3-01, Application of SB Acres, LLC, for Final Plat Approval for a 3-lot major subdivision of 5.192 acres located at the end of Michael John Amato Drive East and on the north side of Oregon Road, as shown on drawing entitled “Subdivision Plat, Lot 1, ML Realty Investors, Inc.” prepared by Glen Watson, P.L.S., latest revision dated May 22, 2003 and on a 2-page set of drawings entitled “Proposed Subdivision at Oregon Road” and “Details/Profiles/Notes” both prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, PE, PC, dated February 11, 2003 and a request for the 1st 6-month Time Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval.

Mr. Balter said this is very similar just a lot smaller. This is a 3-lot subdivision. Basically, nothing has changed to the preliminary plat. This is like the golf course. We are expecting the sign-off from the Health Department this week and we are requesting, because this is part of the whole property for us, that you authorize staff to draft a resolution assuming that we do get the Health Department approval for consideration at your next Board meeting.

Motion was made by Ms. Todd to authorize staff to prepare a resolution for the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Hoch.

Health approval, the 3-lot subdivision is not connected to the golf course to the Peekskill sanitary sewer system. Mr. Balter said no, but you still need Health Department approval. Mr. Kessler said I thought we already had a 6-month approval. Mr. Balter said it is the second extension. Mr. Imperato said the reason that this is on for an extension is that the first extension was granted for 6 months and it expires tomorrow, June 4^th, 2003. Since the resolution won’t be considered until the next meeting, we need another extension. Mr. Kessler said so it should be the second 6-month time extension.

re: PB 1-98, letter dated May 12, 2003 from James P. May requesting approval for new signage for Geis Hyundai located on Route 6.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to adjourn this item since there are a number of issues for the Geis Hyundai use of the property from previous approvals that need to be resurfaced, seconded by Ms. Todd.

tonight for this application? Mr. Kessler asked what happens now? Does Code Enforcement go out? Mr. Verschoor replied no, the owner/applicant should meet with staff to go over the approved site plan from 1998. It may mean a new application to the Board or an amended site plan of that property. Mr. Kessler said so you will write a letter to the applicant. Mr. Verschoor said yes, they are aware of it.

re: PB 21-93, Letter dated May 5, 2003 from Dr. Bruce Bumstead requesting the release of a $3,000 Letter of Credit for the Montrose Animal Hospital.

Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to approve Resolution #21-03, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor ‘AYE.’

RE: PB 9-99, Letter dated May 4, 2003 from Stephen Coleman regarding the Phase I Biodiversity Report for Furnace Dock, Inc.

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to receive and file, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor ‘AYE.’

Letter dated May 9, 2003 from Rev. Eric Cosentino regarding a handicapped lift for the church of the Divine Love located at 80 Sunset Road.

Mr. Anthony Giordano, parishioner of the Church of Divine Love, introduced himself to the Board and said we’re here because as the Board knows we made an application to try and make our church more handicap accessible to handicap people and the elderly. If you have ever been to the Church of Divine Love, you’ll know that it is a very small church located in Montrose off of Sunset Road. The purpose behind us is that the only access to the interior of the church is a group of steps. They are difficult steps to maneuver for the elderly and the handicap because the doors start out narrow and you have to step down without any kind of railing. You have to reach over to the left or to the right. For people who have problems with mobility, it can be a dangerous situation. The church decided how best to do this and a ramp was considered but because of the size of the Church, it was deemed that it would be an eyesore. We came up with the proposal of having a lift put in. We submitted the application to the Board. We received a copy of a letter sent to the Chairperson with respect to suggesting that the design be sensitive to the existing structure of the building. This building is 150 years old. It is built with bricks that are 150 years old. I have a photograph here. Basically, what it shows that there is no way in the world that we are going to get bricks to match this. That is only one of the problems. It is a slate roof. The suggestion from the drawing proposed by Mr. Clemens, and I’m sure that he thinks it is for the best, is a two-story structure of stone. The lift itself is a $25,000 projected. You are talking about a 2-story brick structure with a stone roof and you would be probably doubling the cost. It is a small church. If we have 25 people at a service, we think we are doing fine. I do have a copy of what is proposed, the glass enclosure. It is a very modest… Maybe, I can pass it around. I don’t think anyone is more concerned than the people of the parish as to how the church looks. It has been there a long time. The parishioners have decided that this is not only adequate but enhances it as best as possible for the purpose involved. We just ask that the Board consider the building costs to make the changes that are being recommended and allow us to put the lift in as is. If I can answer any questions, I’d be happy to do so. It is the picture on the top (indicating).

is enclosed? Mr. Giordano replied I think because it is an exterior lift, I think it is best because of inclement weather and things like that. I think that is the best way to go. Ms. Todd said I have seen lifts that were just floor that go up. Mr. Vergano said just to give the Board a little bit of background on this project and process, this request came into my office. This does not have to come to the Planning Board. I could have administratively approved this and everyone could have went on their way. My concern was that we are talking about a very, very unique building, a 150 year old structure. Again, I certainly don’t want to come across as sounding insensitive to your needs. I’m very sensitive to your needs but I’m also sensitive to preserving the integrity of the structure. I deferred to Mr. Clemens, our Architectural Advisory Board. I got involved with his Board and Art and I visited the church and did a site inspection. We came up with some suggestions, which one suggestion would be to possible put the lift on the inside of the building. Maybe, do some minor modifications to the interior to accommodate and so that the structure wouldn’t be so apparent. Again, you have a beautiful, unique building. To preserve the aesthetics are very important to us. Mr. Giordano said we understand but it hasn’t declared an historical site. Number two, to do something on the inside, there is not enough room on the inside as it is. To have the lift go on the inside would defeat the purpose.

Ms. Jean Breining, introduced herself to the Board and said I was on the original plan. For two years, I was out looking. We had considered a metal ramp. That didn’t work out because we would have had to make it go up one way and back the other way. One of the engineers said He would have to run it all the way to Dutch Street to get a decent lift. I was at the VA on my hands and knees at a warehouse looking at their lift going up and down. This is a (?) type operation that goes up. The reason for covering the unit is that we want it not to be just a platform is because Sunset and Montrose Point Road have hardly any houses around. There are woods on one side and a cemetery and our building. Kids could get up there and get hurt and on one would know it. People will walk in and take the elevator from the inside of the church. The elevator will be kept up on that platform all of the time. It won’t be down on the ground where kids can play with it or break it. That is why we wanted it enclosed. We aren’t going to have something gaudy with crystal and silver and shiny. It is going to be sort of gray, like plexi-glass. It is not real glass. It is going to be muted colors, maybe bronze. If Ed had left it alone, we would have already had our elevator!

Mr. Clements said as Ed said, he called us in to take a look at what was being proposed from an architectural perspective and that is what we did. I’m very sympathetic to the needs and to the concerns of the parishioners. We understand the concerns about the cost. We are very sympathetic about that. We were asked for our opinion from an architectural perspective and we gave it. We do not think what is being proposed is in keeping with the building that is there. What is being proposed is an unfortunate addition but maybe that is all we can do. I have to dispute what Mr. Giordano says about not being able to find brick or slate. I personally have been in the architecture profession for over 40 years. We’ve done lots of this type of restoration. Brick and slate is available; it can be found, albeit with a cost. No question about that; I can’t dispute that. All I can do is say that we don’t think it is appropriate architecturally but again, that’s all we can do.

Mr. Fred Gillen, parishioner, introduced himself to the Board and said I have done a lot of research on the type of lift that we are proposing and the areas where they are right now. There is an awful extensive list of buildings and communities that these things are on the way that we are proposing. The other communities don’t take any exception to it. It seems a little strange, Scarsdale Music School, which is quite an old building; PepsiCo Headquarters at Purchase. There is an extensive list and this is very partial. No other community takes exception to these things on some very similar structures.

Ms. Donna Edwards Borden introduced herself to the Board and said I also wanted to say that the building itself when it was initially put up and no, none of us were around then, I’m not that old, and it was not what it is today. Jean Breining can tell you more about it than I could. It had a bell tower. It had a rectory next to it. All of these things have changed through the years. We are only doing this because we really want to help our parishioners. We may not have many but we’re not getting any younger either. This would be a way of access. It has been very, very difficult for some people to get in. We know that there is a law that any place that has a group of people meeting should have access for the handicapped. Mr. Vergano asked how many people would use this facility? Ms. Borden replied right now, we have a lot of people who are making it up the stairs but I couldn’t tell you how many more that we would have if we could get them in. We can’t get them in if they are on wheelchairs. I know that Father Cosentino has received calls from about 4 or 5 people. Mr. Gillen said we have had many come from the Bethel Home who have not come back because they haven’t been able to get access to the building. Bethel Home is close to us. We want to serve the community. We are having a difficult time doing it for a lot of the people in the community. That is one of our big concerns as a church. We are an outreach community.

Mr. Foley said I know originally, when this was bought up, there was talk of a ramp that was explored. With the amount of property that you have around, as I recollect the intersection, maybe a longer, gradual ramp. Mr. Giordano said the building is so small and the amount of elevation that you would need to go up, it would really be the eyesore. Ms. Breining said if you made a ramp, it would have to come in from the front right next to the altar. It would have to lift the parishioners. There are two steps, one to get up to the altar and the altar is raised again. We would have to take that step out to match the door and bring it all the way down. We would lose possibly one, maybe two pews. Right now, if we have a confirmation or something like that, the place is packed. We can’t afford to lose space. We are trying to get the young kids to come, the children. Without space, we won’t have anyone. Mr. Foley said the other question that I have and I don’t know if Ken knows this, is this on the list of historical…? Ms. Breining replied it is not. We never applied. Mr. Foley said there are several lists. Mr. Verschoor said the Master Plan Committee is working on a list of historical structures around the Town. It is not one that I’m aware of that is recognized. It is one that the Master Plan Committee has put on the list for the Town so it is locally recognized but not in the State. Mr. Foley said I recollected seeing it on a list someplace.

Mr. Bernard said the brick that is on there, based on that picture, it should be relatively easy to mass. It is of a very mixed coloration and readily available. Also, have you had contractors actually look at this? And, you are now at $25,000. Ms. Breining said that is with no brick. Mr. Bernard said that is for this glass housing. Ms. Breining said and breaking into the building. You have to realize there is no door. Mr. Bernard said you are going to have to make a structural opening. Ms. Breining said there is no door there, you have to break into the building itself and remove a window. Mr. Bernard said the lift is $15,000 to $18,000. There is no doubt that if you follow the sketch from the Architectural Review, you are talking about $40,000 to $50,000 I would guess. Mr. Bianchi said rather than brick, you could go with a type of wood finish. Is there anything available? Mr. Bernard said you could do a synthetic stucco finish. (Cross conversation). Mr. Clements said our committee was hoping that something could be done that would be more sensitive to the building. Mr. Kessler asked are you under pressure to get this done? Mr. Giordano replied no, not at all. Ms. Breining said we are looking for donations.

Motion was made by Mr. Foley to set a site visit for Sunday, June 29, 2003 at 9:00 a.m., seconded by Mr. Hoch, with all in favor ‘AYE.’

RE: PB 9-03, Letter dated May 20, 2003 from Bob Tall requesting that his application for a fruit stand at his property on Albany Post Road be withdrawn.

Motion was made by Ms. Todd to withdraw this application, seconded by Mr. Hoch, with all in favor ‘AYE.’

re: PB 1-88, Letter dated May 23, 2003 from Tim Miller, AICP, regarding revisions to the Lakeview Estates DEIS.

re: PB 21A-84, Letter dated May 23, 2003 from Estelle Roman requesting the use of a tenant space at 525 Albany Post Road for a Nursery School.

Mr. Verschoor said we were wondering how many staff would be at this facility. Ms. Estelle Roman, applicant, introduced herself to the Board and said they are toddlers so there is usually 1 per 5 children. We will have anywhere between 35 to 43 students from 18 months to pre-schoolers. The higher the age, the less staff that you need. So it is 7 to 1, you can have 4 and 5 year olds. I would say between 8 and 9 staff members on site. Mr. Verschoor said because the Cortlandt Business Plaza was originally designed for office and retail. There is some storage use in the back in the lower level. This is in the upper level. Basically, the parking requirements are 2 spaces per staff. If you are telling us that there will be 7 staff members there at one time, that will mean 14 spaces. Ms. Roman said I spoke to them today and there are actually 75 parking spaces on the entire lot. On our side there are 31 parking spots. For the 2,000 square feet that we are planning to lease, there is not much use of the parking spaces there. There is a doctor’s office, a pediatrician, and I believe there is an office that is rented right next to ours for some sort of school where they do resumes. What she said to me was that the doctor’s office at one time usually has 3 or 4 different spots that are used and that the school uses their spots at night and on the weekends. So there is ample parking there. Mr. Verschoor said we copied to the Planning Board a copy of the site plan. If you could explain to the Board, are you taking up half of this building here (indicating)? Ms. Roman replied we would be renting the side of the building. There is actually more than 2,000 square feet there. On the corner there is the school that I told you about that does the resumes and the whole area would be right here. Mr. Klarl asked is that the area where the photo store was? Ms. Roman replied I don’t know what was in there. There is one office and 3 vacant. Mr. Foley said this is on the side of the building. If you are on 9A facing it, this is the part that goes way? Ms. Roman replied as you drive in, it is away from the road and there is a ramp that goes up. It is the second floor. Mr. Verschoor said basically, what they are requesting is a change of use for this portion of the building that was used as office space before and now they are going into is a nursery school. Another concern is when parents drop off their children in this location, is there going to be enough room for them to also park, back-up, and leave the site? A lot of times if the parking lot is full, how is a car going to drive in there and drop off a child and then turn around and leave. Ms. Roman said I don’t foresee that. Parents usually stay about 5 minutes tops. Mr. Klarl asked what if a car is dead-ended in that parking lot? Ms. Roman replied I don’t think they’ll be dead-ended because as I said in the front, there are 31 in the whole area. If they go to the back also, there is additional parking space. They will be there at different times so there will be ample parking. Mr. Kessler asked should we take a look at this? Ms. Roman said also, sometimes parents have two kids that they bring in at once. Mr. Kessler said we’ll be there right after church. Ms. Roman said honestly, I think this is something that is needed. I have a 3 year old and I had a tough time trying to find a daycare for her. I think that we would be performing a service to the community because a lot of parents do need a place to drop their kids off. Mr. Kessler said we will come there at 9:30 on Sunday, June 29^th. Mr. Verschoor said also, you should try to be there so you can show us what space it is you will be renting. If there is some way that the landlord could identify what parking spaces are available to you that would help.

Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to set a site inspection for Sunday, June 29^th at 9:30 a.m. and refer this back to staff to review the parking, seconded by Mr. Foley.

On the question, Mr. Hoch asked is this building on a septic system and if so, how does that impact this if it is a nursery school? Mr. Vergano replied it would be appropriate to get a sign-off from the Health Department that there is a change in use. We would be looking for that. Ms. Roman asked I would call the Health Department? Mr. Vergano replied you could call my office and I’ll give you the information.

re: PB 18-98, Letter dated May 23, 2003 from Anthony Russo of AKRF transmitting comments on the Valeria Draft FEIS.

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to receive and file and to set a Special Meeting on June 17^th at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the document, seconded by Mr. Bernard.

RE: LETTER FROM TODD PAWELL DATED MAY 28, 2003 REQUESTING 2 TIME EXTENSIONS.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to approve Resolution #22-03 granting the time extensions, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor ‘AYE.’

re: PB 7-03, Application of Marijan Juncaj for Preliminary Plat Approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision of 3.6 acres located on the north side of Lockwood Road, approximately 400 feet northeast of Peekskill Hollow Turnpike as shown on a 7-page set of drawings entitled “Juncaj Subdivision” prepared by Leonard Jackson, P.E., latest revision dated May 16, 2003.

Mr. Steve Sparaco, introduced himself to the Board and said what you see is a 3-lot subdivision on 3.6 acres. What we’ve done here is that we’ve shown an open plan for the 2-lot subdivision. As you can see on the outer edges, the light green area is undisturbed. Inside the lighter green area are 2 houses and ultimately a tennis court and a pool. We’ve checked sight distance for each driveway and it is adequate. We have contacted the Westchester County Sewer and they have no problem with it. It is just a formality to submit the forms. We’ve spoken to John Deavney a few times about this. We contacted the Town water department and they said there was adequate pressure for the connection. We realize that there is a variance required for the tennis court and pool eventually for lot 1 there. This site fronts 2 roads, Lockwood Road to the south and Peekskill Hollow to the north. Mr. Kessler asked what do you need the variance for? Mr. Sparaco replied we need an area variance. Mr. Klarl asked is that a set back variance or…? Mr. Sparaco replied just a bulk. We were informed by the Town Planner that we could need an area variance. Mr. Verschoor said this property has dual frontage so technically the back of the house is also a front yard, which fronts on Peekskill Hollow Road. Typically for a subdivision plan, Code requires where the location of the houses are going. There is no septic in this case. What they did was to show an in-ground pool and a tennis court. Once the subdivision is approved, later on, they would have to get a building permit for. If necessary, they would have to go to the Zoning Board.

this. Mr. Verschoor said the next step would be to set up a site inspection of the property and then discuss any issues at the next meeting. If you are satisfied, then set a Public Hearing. Ms. Todd asked is this a hardship case? Mr. Foley replied it is 2 lots, it is a minor subdivision.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to set a site inspection for June 29^th about 10:30 a.m., seconded by Mr. Bianchi.

Verschoor replied perhaps the location of the houses if you could stake out the property and if you could be there so you could explain what is going on. Mr. Foley asked can we also look and see since the greenhouse used to be there, especially if you are having a pool, is there any soil testing of this type? I don’t know. I haven’t been involved with a situation like this. Mr. Vergano replied was there any testing when you bought the property? Mr. Sparaco replied none that I know of. Mr. Foley said it may not be anything but there was an existing greenhouse facility for quite a number of years.

PB 12-03 Application of John DeMaria of Hemlock Hill Farm for Amended Site Development plan approval for the placement of two produce wagons and related parking located at Hemlock Hill Farm located on the east side of Croton Ave. approximately 400 feet south of Maple Avenue.

Mr. John DeMaria, owner of the property, introduced himself to the Board and said Ms. Susan Lounsbury is here and works at the farm and has prepared most of this application. It is for a parking permit for 4 months, 3 in the summer, to sell produce, which we sell at the farm. It would be in an area where there is an existing gateway for the past 100 years on Croton Avenue. We have been selling produce at the farm for quite some time. We would like to move the produce to that area as a matter of safety. Instead of doing it at the driveway, we’re asking for an additional 7 cars, I think we’re allowed 3 in the code. We would like to increase that to a 10 car limit at this time. That is basically what we came for in this application. I have 2 produce wagons there, which are portable. We can move this for the summer. Mr. Kessler asked the wagons will remain there for 4 months? Mr. DeMaria replied they will be removed daily. We won’t leave them overnight. This would be about 50 feet in on the road. Mr. Kessler asked is there no parking there now? Mr. DeMaria replied no, it is basically in an open hayfield. Mr. Kessler asked so you are proposing to set up in the designated parking area? Mr. DeMaria replied yes.

stake out where you are proposing to have the parking area and produce wagons. As I remember seeing this location driving that road, it is very difficult to park on that road. Ms. Lounsbury said that is why we are moving it to the field. It gets everyone off of the road. This is much safer for everyone. Mr. Verschoor said we do need a site plan that is sealed by an engineer. I know that you were working on it. As soon as you obtain that, please submit it.

here you are mentioning 4 months. It is no big deal. Mr. DeMaria said farmers work with weather. Ms. Lounsbury said we were hoping in June. Mr. DeMaria said in November, we do turkey. So we put the farmers market in Peekskill the second week in November.

re: PB 13-03, Application of Hollow Brook Golf Club, LLC, for amended Site Development Plan Approval for the relocation of the proposed Maintenance Building located at the Hollow Brook Golf Club on the north side of Oregon Road, east of Adams Rush Road as shown on a drawing entitled “Maintenance Building Site Plan” prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., latest revision dated May 22, 2003.

Mr. Balter said what you have before you is an application for essentially a variance to move our maintenance building on the golf course. Where the maintenance building was approved, when we got out in the field, the first issue, which none of us realized was that it was approved in a location that was on top of a County trunk sewer line. We had to move the building and we could do that without needing a variance. But when we moved it, when we saw where the building was going to be on the site, it was quite clear that it made absolutely no sense to be there. So we staked the building where it was approved and where it is proposed in the application that you have. 6 of the 7 Board members came out to see where we are proposing to move it to. We also had invited neighbors out to see the property. 3 out of the 4 neighbors, who would have any sight of this, inspected it. The letter that I just passed out was them agreeing that the location that we are proposing to move it to is better than the original location. Mr. Kessler asked how far are you moving it? Mr. Balter replied it is currently 75 feet from the property line. We are now moving it so that it is 40 feet from the property line. But because of the topography, by moving it, what we are actually going to do is build it with retaining walls so that we can build it into the hill. I don’t know if you can all see this (indicating) but basically, in the new plan, instead of it being a one story building with a pitched roof like a house, we’re building it as a block building with essentially retaining walls on the side so that from Casperian, you will not see the building at all. You are seeing the earth. Essentially, you are seeing landscape because we are building it into the hill. The neighbors are supportive of it because they will look right over the building. They won’t see the building. On the site plan, it also shows that we are going to be putting screening between the neighbors on Casperian and the maintenance building. We are also going to fence in the area so that we won’t have kids being able to walk on the roof or get into the maintenance building area.

say is that we were before the Architectural Review Board on Saturday. In addition to making recommendations to this Board on everything having to do with the golf course, we asked them to look at the maintenance building since we knew that we were coming to this Board. I believe they have written a memo to Ken. Have you given a copy of that to the Board? Mr. Verschoor replied yes, that has been copied. Mr. Balter said this basically says that they also agree that this is a better location for the building than the location that it was approved in. On this matter, we have a little bit of urgency here because the maintenance building is something that we would like to start construction on, basically, as soon as possible. Mr. Bianchi asked what happened to the fourth neighbor? Mr. Balter replied the fourth neighbor just couldn’t get out there. I talked to her. She didn’t have time to go out and she just couldn’t get there. I did talk to her and she sounded satisfied. I couldn’t schedule her to get out and see it. In terms of the process, this is a variance that unlike most variances would be granted by your Board. John, do you want to speak to that?

Mr. Klarl said we talked about this, Ken and I, at some length today. We did our amended language on the special permit for the Country Club. In part of that language, we put in a section #307-52.B that said the dimensional standards and limitations set forth in subparagraphs 2 through 4 above may be varied by the permit granting party upon showing of any sub-variance that is consistent for the purposes of this section and will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. So that is the standard in the section. The special permit language starts out by requiring a Public Hearing for a special permit. We did that at the Public Hearing for the special permit. It doesn’t require one specifically in the language for the varying of the conventional requirements of the area. Mr. Balter said so essentially what we are asking from the Board here is to grant the other variance and granting an amended site plan approval just relating to this one move. Mr. Kessler said a variance because you are 40 feet from the property line. Mr. Balter said yes, in the residential zones, we probably wouldn’t need a variance. I think the front yard is probably 20 or 30 feet. But because this whole property is governed as a golf course, it requires 75 feet from all buildings, all yards. One other thing that I should just mention. We are actually 80 feet from the nearest property line of a home; we’re 40 feet from Casperian Road. We are actually pretty far from any of those homes.

Mr. Hoch said there is one element to this and that is moving the sidewalk. Mr. Balter said you are talking about the sidewalk that we are going to put in. Mr. Hoch said the sidewalk that you are going to put in, taking it off that bend in Oregon Road and actually running it through the site overlooking the stream. Mr. Balter said I had shown the Board members on the site walk. When we put in the sidewalk in the location that I talked about with Ed, and I think the Supervisor is aware of it as well, the sidewalks are going to go along… Ed, is that called Old Oregon Road, that spur? Do you know what that is called? Mr. Verschoor replied it could be. Mr. Balter said instead of the sidewalk going on Oregon Road, it is going to go on the spur to Casperian and then up Casperian. It brings people to a really bucolic area. In the approved plan, if we built the maintenance building as it is approved, I truly believe that everyone who walked by this area, would say ‘why did you put a maintenance building there? It just blocks the view of the lake.’ We are building a seven-acre lake there and it is really gorgeous. It has become the number one tourist site in Town as far as I’ve heard. People drive by and look at the lake that we are building. If you put the maintenance building there, it just really defeats that deal. By moving it, we get it out of that view shed.

to the idea of… You can’t look at the lake as you are driving on Oregon Road, otherwise, you would drive off that road. I never was in favor of the sidewalk along that stretch of Oregon Road anyway. In fact, I think I bought it up a long time ago. It is dangerous and we would have to put a lot of fencing. And I did envision it coming away from the curve and through the forested area there anyway. But the questions that I have are about truck traffic in and out. Have you looked at that? I talked about it with Bill briefly today. The purpose is you have to bring trucks in and out, correct? Mr. Balter replied yes. Mr. Foley asked can there be a condition of approval about no left turns? In other words, have you ever tried to turn on Casperian heading westbound even in a car? It is very difficult where the light is. Mr. Verschoor said there is a traffic light at Casperian and Oregon. Mr. Foley said but if you are a truck, it is narrower. I don’t know what size trucks would likely be using the facility. The existing spur road coming down Westbrook, the truck route, to make a right into the property, you would have to come westbound on Oregon Road and then go down into this maintenance building area on the spur road, correct? What happens if the truck misses it and tries to turn on Casperian? I don’t know what signage or what could be done. Mr. Verschoor said you would like to keep trucks off of Casperian. Mr. Foley said other than getting out, smaller trucks could come out of Casperian and make a right turn to go to Peekskill. Mr. Balter said Bob, what you are asking is that trucks can’t make a left coming out of Casperian and I also think you probably don’t want them to make a right coming from Putnam Valley going to Peekskill. You don’t want them to make a right. I think that is fine. We’d agree to that. Mr. Foley said it would be impossible without a road guard or whatever. Mr. Balter said both of those are fine.

realize the road would also be utilized there, there won’t be any further tree cutting. Mr. Balter said I actually went out on my way here to look at that. I don’t think they’ll have to take any more trees down. Mr. Foley said those trees are basically in the wetland and water course area, if I recollect the area. Mr. Balter said we are actually going over what is left. Mr. Foley asked who is going over the existing spur road or whatever you want to call it? You aren’t taking anything on either side. I’m asking because the purpose is to try to preserve that area and to try to run a sidewalk through there. Mr. Bernard asked are you repairing that old masonry culvert that is underneath that road? Mr. Balter replied I don’t know what we’re doing with the culvert exactly. We’ll have to repair the road. If the culvert requires a repair, then we’ll work it out with Ed what we need to do. Mr. Foley said so the integrity of the existing so called ‘pristine’ wetland, trees, watercourse cascading down, I call it the ‘Root Canal’, as I mentioned it before because Root Street is on the other side, that will not be disturbed. Mr. Balter said you are talking now on the south side of this road we’re talking about. We don’t own the property if it is the south side. You are talking about Oregon Road and the sidewalk in that area (indicating). Mr. Foley asked you don’t own that? Mr. Balter replied no, we don’t own that site. Mr. Foley said then you won’t be disturbing it.

Mr. Hoch said Bill, let me ask you a question. Is your timing such that we could have a resolution for the 17^th on this? Mr. Balter asked Ken and Ed, would we be able to make an application now and have a begin of the review process so that we can get a building permit once the resolution passes? Mr. Hoch replied yes, I would like to do this by resolution because it is a little bit complicated rather than a motion. I also don’t want to affect the time for it to get built.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to direct staff to prepare an approving resolution for the applicant to move the maintenance building and grant him a variance and also incorporate Bob’s suggestion about signage and turning, seconded by Mr. Bernard, with all in favor “AYE.”

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to adjourn the meeting at 12:01 a.m., seconded by Mr. Hoch, with all in favor “AYE.”

A Public Hearing (adjourned) pursuant to Section 307, Zoning, of the Cortlandt Code was conducted by the Planning Board of the Town of Cortlandt at the Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, New York on Tuesday evening, June 3, 2003, to consider the Application of Jesse Stackhouse and John DeIulio for Preliminary Plat Approval for a 10-lot major subdivision of 6.6 acres located on the north side of Locust Avenue, 500 feet east of Gabriel Drive as shown on a 4-page set of drawings entitled “Preliminary Subdivision, Hillside Estates” prepared by John Delano, PE, latest revision dated January 25, 2002.

Mr. Steven Kessler, Chairman, presided and other members in attendance were as follows:

Affidavits are on file in the Planning Office with respect to notice of this Hearing, which was published in The Gazette, the official newspaper of the Town of Cortlandt, and The Journal News. Notices to adjacent and across-the-street property owners were given by the Planning Office.

Mr. William Zutt, attorney for the applicant, introduced himself to the Board and said at the last meeting, we were asked to do three things. One, was to bring back the original drainage plan, eliminate the detention pond, restore the on-site storm water recharge system. We have done that. Second, was to develop and provide some additional statistical information supportive of the school population projections. We did that, as well. Mr. Delano’s office sent you a letter on May 23, 2003, which was based on the 2000 Census information. And independent of your letter, I also took a few minutes to look over some DEIS’s that you all had accepted on other projects recently. The results indicate that the figures show about .74 to 1.09 school aged students likely to be generated per new household. That is pretty much the range that you were talking about earlier. The third item that you asked us to do was to fund a traffic speed study, which we did. We just, tonight, received a copy of it. I haven’t had a chance to digest it just yet. Mr. Kessler said on that point, we also received a copy this evening at our worksession from Adler Consulting dated June 3, 2003. Our intent, so it is clear to everyone here for this application, is that we would like to have Mr. Adler come to our next meeting to discuss this so, therefore, we will keep this Public Hearing open. We think it is important for him to come. His results, I have to admit, were a little surprising to me. Rather than any of us trying to interpret what he did or how he said it, it is important for him to explain it especially to the public, his sight distance and traffic speed study. We’ll continue with the Public Hearing but the intent is that it will continue to the next meeting and Mr. Adler will come and present his study. I don’t know if we can summarize it. We can also make copies available. Copies can be picked up at the Planning Department’s Office.

said I moved up here in September. Let me compliment you on the veracity of your winters. I have never seen so much snow. Mr. Kessler asked where did you move from? Mr. Tortorella replied just from the Bronx, but I guess the snow is all here. I didn’t come on board until late with regard to this issue so I did as much cramming as I could. I pulled a few things off of the internet, actually from the Town of Cortlandt web-site. I just wanted to read them; I’ll be very brief. This is from the Westchester Department of Transportation. It is called ‘What is Sustainable Development.’ It says:

‘Sustainable Development meets our needs without compromising the needs of the future generations. It balances our economy, environment, and quality of life. It also refers to deciding our future together. This means crafting a vision for the region resolving conflicts with building and partnerships and remaining aware of future generations' social, environmental, and economic health. Planning for sustainable development can help to create more livable neighborhoods, address both regional and local transportation needs, encourage sharing of streets with pedestrians, bikes, and buses, protect natural resources, enhance our long-term economic vitality, improve the appearance along roadways, and promote cooperation among municipalities and agencies.’

I feel that all of these issues are pertinent to the development in question. I don’t know much about economics so I can’t comment on that. But from a practical point of view, regarding the other issues, I’m not sure this development really meets any of the other issues. I also just wanted to read one other thing also pulled from the Town of Cortlandt web-site. The Town of Cortlandt was named ‘Tree City U.S.A.’ It goes on to say how trees in our cities and towns help clean the air, conserve soil and water, moderate temperature, and bring nature into our daily lives. I feel that the cutting down of these trees will impact the environment inasmuch as Route 6 currently, spews a lot of pollution. There are buses and trucks; there are many cars, a lot of which use Locust Avenue to get to Route 6 from Oregon Road. Having lived there through the winter, I can tell you that I can hear those trucks and buses frequently. That is all I have to say. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Ms. Joyce Bendavid, introduced herself to the Board and said your comment that you want the guy who did the traffic report to comment next month, does that mean we are not talking about that? Mr. Kessler replied no, it is a Public Hearing; you can talk about whatever you want. Ms. Bendavid said I’m just wondering do they have enough sight distance or stopping distance or whatever the term is. Mr. Kessler asked Mr. Vergano to summarize Mr. Adler’s comment. Mr. Vergano said based on the conclusions of the study, again, there are two movements that the consultant focused on. Those movements are left turns into the site and left turns out of the site. Left turns out of the site, according to the consultant’s evaluation, and he did do a speed survey, which revealed that the design speed should be 38 m.p.h. not the 30 m.p.h. posted speed, which I guess we made a point at the last meeting is not really the criteria to use to do the sight distance evaluation. Left out of the site does not seem to concern the consultant. In fact, the consultant seems to think that the applicant actually has more sight distance than represented by the applicant based on the criteria used in his evaluation. However, left turns into the site, the consultant feels is problematic and is recommending that a restriction be placed of lefts into the site. Mr. Kessler said in other words, coming down the hill and making lefts into the site. Mr. Vergano said again, as the Chairman mentioned, we received the report this evening and we haven’t had time to digest his full comments. There are a number of questions I have for the engineer. Ms. Bendavid said I find that very hard to understand because I’m imagining coming out of that spot and trying to turn left as the cars are flying down the hill. How is it that is safer than if I’m flying down the hill? Mr. Vergano replied if you are going down the hill and making a left into the proposed road, you would have to stop at times to allow vehicles that are traversing in the opposite direction to clear before you turn. It is possible that there could be a longer one or two car queue. As you are coming over the hill, you may not have an adequate amount of time to decelerate if a car is stationed there waiting to make a left or again, waiting to clear the queue. He feels that is problematic and that is why he feels there should be a left restriction into the site. Ms. Bendavid said but if that is problematic, doesn’t it also mean that it is problematic to make a left out of there? Mr. Vergano replied no, not really because you are starting much further down the hill. He feels that again, based on his evaluation, that you would need 325 feet. It is based on the 85^th Percentile of Operating Speed, which basically is the design speed of 38 m.p.h., you would need 325 feet. He feels that they actually have, if I’m interpreting his results correctly, with some minor modifications to Locust Avenue, it looks like they can get the 325 feet that they need, which again, is actually more than what the applicant represented in his study. Mr. Kessler said all the more reason for him to come and explain it to us. Ms. Bendavid said because my thinking is that if you are coming out and you want to turn left and someone is coming down and needs to stop quickly, and there are cars behind that car that would seem even more dangerous than the first scenario. Mr. Vergano said no, the first scenario would be more dangerous because you could conceivably have a queue behind the car waiting to make a left into the site. You would not have a queue behind the car making a left. Cars generally wait for clearance and then they proceed. Ms. Bendavid said o.k. Mr. Vergano said again, he needs to speak to the applicant regarding his rather surprising conclusion that there is 325 feet of available sight distance. He does mention in his report that there are some road modifications that may be needed. As the Chairman mentioned, I think it would be more appropriate for him to speak on that. Ms. Bendavid said so that will be addressed more at the next meeting. Mr. Kessler said he will be advised for the next meeting to present his report. Ms. Bendavid asked is that going to be July 2^nd or the week after? Mr. Kessler replied it is July 1^st.

Mr. Tom Radocaj, 126 Oregon Road, introduced himself to the Board and said I have a problem with the water that is coming down from this development. Locust Avenue cannot handle the amount of water that is coming down now. The drainage there is horrendous. I actually walked all up the way up Locust this morning. There is a house, 290 Locust Avenue, has drainage going right through her garage and out through the back of it, which comes out in Primo Landscaping’s property right now. There is no where for the water to go. It is coming down thru the middle of my property, which I addressed to the Town numerous times for the last 8 years. We are working on an easement now but it is still not… Mr. Foley asked exactly where is your property? Mr. Radocaj replied 126 Oregon Road. Mr. Vergano said your point is well taken. You’re right; there are drainage issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Radocaj said I walked up there today and a lot of the culverts are busted. The pipes are broken. This lady at 290 Locust Avenue, who couldn’t be here tonight, she is very elderly, her garage is actually falling down because the pipe runs directly underneath her garage, right smack thru the center of it, which is broken, and she still parks her car in there! Mr. Vergano said right but this application is actually on the opposite side of the hill. Mr. Radocaj said it comes from that side. At anytime, I’ll take anyone of you people up through Locust Avenue and show you the water that comes from that side and comes down through. It also comes right here to Town Hall, the water comes down through that culvert. We are just adding more erosion to the process that is already eroding. Mr. Vergano said I think it would be appropriate for the applicant’s engineer to address this issue but I know that the retention basin that has been designed to continuate the peak run off. Mr. Radocaj said I looked at their retention thing and I feel it is inadequate for the amount of construction that they are going to do and have it come down Locust Avenue. There is just nowhere for the water to go. You let them build that new house on Oregon Road at the corner of Locust. The water is coming right through my neighbor’s property now because they backed-up the pipe that was there; they broke it off. It was an old drain that was there. They cut the pipe, smashed some fill up and it was all right. Now, the water is running down through his driveway. It is coming down through the back part of the church and across the road. I’m going to have more water and more traffic and nothing… Mr. Vergano said the discharge from this site will head towards the Hollowbrook. This is a different watershed area. This drainage area is different. This is the opposite side of the hill. This will not end up down by your house. I would like the applicant’s engineer to address this. Mr. John Delano, engineer for the applicant, introduced himself to the Board and said at the Town’s request from the last Planning Board meeting, we are no longer proposing a retention pond. We are going back to the on-site recharge system. I believe the run-off from this site will eventually head back out here (indicating) then runs along Locust Avenue and eventually under the aqueduct. Mr. Radocaj said there is no drainage system there, just to let you know. It is inadequate for what it is now. Mr. Delano said we are not going to be sending anymore water there now. Mr. Radocaj said it is totally impossible to build, cut down more trees, and do more excavation and not send more water down through a pipe that you just clearly said is on Oregon Road right now. It is not there. There are pieces broken. There are pieces here and there. I see everything getting lost and pushed to the side and everything just being washed away. It is already washed away, the sides of Locust Avenue as it is. These people will stand up and tell you that Locust Avenue cannot handle anymore water coming down through. The pipes and drainage are just not accurate. They cleaned it out today. Mr. Bernard said why don’t you give the engineer a chance to explain why there wouldn’t be any increased run-off. Give him a chance to let you know what it is he is proposing. Mr. Delano said we are proposing to capture the run-off and additional run-off from each lot and infiltrate it back into the ground. Eventually, a storm comes, more water will come, and it will go over land here and get into the drainage system. There may be some deficiencies in the current drainage system. I’ll have to investigate those and address them. The intention of the design is not to send anymore water or increase the rate that already comes off of the site. There are pieces of drainage system from this point here… Mr. Radocaj asked what about the sides of the road? Mr. Delano replied can I finish here? There are several other culverts that conduct the water over here to a point where it crosses underneath the aqueduct just to the south of Locust Manor Estates. Mr. Radocaj said it can’t handle the amount of water that is coming from the new development that they put up there a couple of years ago. The water is rushing right across the road there. Every rainstorm, they have guys up there cleaning up the silt. Mr. Delano said water from this project is already on this side of Locust Avenue. It won’t be going to the pipes, which are taking the water from this side. It is already on the opposite side of Locust Avenue. Mr. Radocaj said you are going to use a filtration system that is going to work into an area that is 90% (?) that is coming through that whole area. It is just not going to work. That is all I have to say. (Applause)

Mr. Liguri, corner of Locust and Oregon, next to the new house that was put up, introduced himself to the Board and said what Tom was talking about is the nursery. That water is running down and rushing through. It is coming down through the church right through the back and is coming right through my yard. It has washed out my driveway. Now, it is washing underneath the porch of my house. It has washed out all of the bushes. I don’t know. Like Tom said, it is a bad situation. No one seems to care about it. They put the house up next door to me, which was a stream that was coming down from the pond in the middle of the hill on Locust. They built that house; we all witnessed it. They never piped the stream in. They just buried it. Now, the water just comes on the top. All of that water comes on the top, crosses over my driveway. It is eating my driveway out, goes underneath the house, shooting across the road and going into Tom’s house. This is all coming down from Locust Avenue into that pipe that is all busted up. It is not a joke. Mr. Bernard asked when was that house built? Mr. Liguri replied it was finished last December 2002. It was started last April or May. Mr. Bernard asked how is that possible? Mr. Vergano replied again, those are different drainage facilities in that area. This application will in no way impact that as explained by the engineer and I have to agree with him. The discharge from the site will end up in the opposite direction. Mr. Liguri said in other words, there is nothing that can be done about it. Mr. Vergano said no, something can be done about it. I’ll make you a promise. I’ll be happy to meet with you. We have a capital improvement project list that we put together every year. Call my office, 734-1061, ask for Ed. I’ll be happy to meet with you. I’ll walk the site with you. I’ll evaluate it and I’ll get it on that list. Mr. Liguri said one more thing, I think the builder that built that house, there was a pipe in there and a culvert and he dug it out and now, there is nothing. Instead of filling it in with rock and dirt and raising it at least 3 feet above where it was, at least when it rained the water would stay there and go underneath the road and into the other brook. But now, the water has no place to go. It just stays on the dirt. That shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place. I don’t know he got away with that. I understand what you are saying but I’m the one that is suffering and everyone else across the street. Mr. Kessler asked Ed, why don’t you look at the site plan for that house? Mr. Vergano replied that is what we’ll do. Mr. Kessler said we’ll visit the site plan for that house and make sure it was built in accordance to the way that it was supposed to be built. The Town Engineer has made a promise that he will meet with you and walk the site. Mr. Liguri said thank you very much. Mr. Vergano asked can I have your number? Mr. Liguri replied 739-5708. (Applause)

Mr. John McLaughlin, 180 Locust Avenue, introduced himself to the Board and said when I was walking at the site visit in February, I think, I got the distinct impression that we were going to take in the Auth, Szeget, and Hillside Estates property. That was all one piece. I remember looking at the map and seeing that. I got the distinct impression from the Planning Board that should all be involved in one decision. I just want to know what happened with that. Mr. Kessler said I don’t know if combining the sites was what we envisioned. I think what we wanted to do was to recognize that there are two other buildable sites adjacent to this property and that we had to make sure as part of the planning process that were cognizant of those sites and that we didn’t do anything that would detriment those sites or any future ruling issues on those sites. Mr. McLaughlin said now, putting that in perspective that would mean that those sites should be more or less included in the whole process. Am I getting it wrong? Mr. Kessler replied there is no application for those sites. We can’t include them per say, but what we can do is… Mr. McLaughlin said maybe, I’m not articulating it correctly but our problem is that those sites are in with this site. With the right-of-way, our problems and concerns are that these sites will now all be included in a much easier way to put in those sites. Mr. Kessler said it is more viable is what you are saying is if this application were to continue forward. Mr. McLaughlin said there you go; you took the words out of my mouth. Is that the impression I received or am I looking too far into the future? Mr. Kessler replied I don’t think you are looking too far into it. I think there are issues that there have been some access granted to one of the sites from this site. We have to consider that. There is something called cumulative impacts and it is up to the applicant to consider future buildable conditions and address that as part of their application. Mr. Vergano said it has actually already been addressed. We did ask the applicant to consider the potential of those two contiguous sites in connection with traffic impacts, drainage impacts, sewer impacts, impacts on the infrastructure and the environment. We have that in the file. We have to share that with you.

Lakeland financial numbers. I think your student generation is certainly in the ballpark but now that we have this new information, to see what the impact would be based on those latest statistics.

has their issues on this project. Mine is traffic. My concern is safety and traffic, getting in and out of that site, the issue of safety in addition to all of the other issues. I know we are going to hear from the expert who prepared the report but I just want it to get on the record to state that averages are averages and average speeds are average speeds. Accidents don’t happen at average speeds. To me, it is a make or break issue providing a safe entrance and exit from that site on Locust. I will listen to what the traffic consultant has to say but if I don’t feel comfortable… I’ve driven by there and have seen the traffic many times. If I don’t feel comfortable with that entranceway, I will not vote for something like this. Mr. Delano said Mr. Adler’s recommendation was not based on the average speeds. It was based on the 85^th percentile speed, which is higher. Mr. Vergano said that is the recommended design speed. AASHTO recommends this design speed. Mr. Bianchi said with all due respect to the numbers and what they mean, I go by what I think is safe and what isn’t. To me, that is the way that I vote.

Mr. Foley said on the same point, because we did discuss this at the worksession, the no left turn recommendation, Ed, which you discussed with a resident earlier, in effect, while it may be safer, the person may be excluded from returning to their home in this development. At the worksession, while we did say it was unprecedented, it is very rare. In some cases you can go around the block and get in. But in this case…

were at the last meeting and heard my comments about the origin to the access to the rear property and how it occurred over our objection. It is not anything that we promoted or advocated or anything of that nature. I just wanted that to be clear. Mr. McLaughlin said yes, I know.

Mr. Jason Cohen, Enrico Drive, introduced himself to the Board and said one point I want to make on traffic is besides the cars that are going down Locust Avenue, children walk along Locust Avenue. There are no sidewalks. They shouldn’t be walking but they are walking. If you start to increase the traffic that goes along Locust Avenue, take into consideration that there are no sidewalks. I know that I come off of Route 6 to go home through Locust and I know that children walk along it from living there now. People know that if more traffic is going to come along, someone is going to get hurt because they walk there constantly, night, dusk, dawn, it doesn’t matter. Please take that into consideration when deciding if this should go through or not. (Applause).

Ms. Kathleen Rosoff, 179 Locust Avenue, introduced herself to the Board and said I would like to know why that location was chosen for the speed study. It was right in front of my house and the McLaughlin’s house. I would say a third or better of the cars are turning into Gabriel Drive at the cut through with people living there. No way can you even go above 30 to make that turn. A third or more of the cars are coming out of Gabriel Drive. You are not going to get an accurate speed there either. Are we doing an average of that speed? Mr. Kessler replied again, what it sounds like the consultant did is look at the 85^th percentile. Ms. Rosoff said if that speed is 25 and someone else is doing 45 or 50, which is… Mr. Kessler said the way to do percentiles is let’s say there are 100 cars that came by. You were rated a speed from the lowest to the highest and you take the 85^th number, the 85^th speed, and that is your 85^th percentile. That is the number that he is using in the study. If there are 1,000, he takes the 850^th car, the higher speed of the 850^th car that came through. It is rated from lowest to highest and that is how he gets his percentile. Ms. Rosoff said over 100 of them alone probably turned in and out of my driveway with college students. I had 30 children in my yard last weekend. Mr. Kessler said I encourage you to come in to the next meeting and ask the consultant that very question as to how he chose the site that he chose to make the survey. Ms. Rosen the speed limit on the curve down past the site is a lot higher. It is 40 or better. I’m really questioning where they put it. You can’t get the momentum to come out of the hill off Gabriel. Mr. Kessler said I have to tell you that when I saw 38 m.p.h. knowing what I know about that road, as well, I was surprised by that number and that is why I thought it was important to have him come and explain it to us. Ms. Rosoff said it is a lot higher down a little bit. Mr. Kessler said I think intuitively, we all have that feeling. He though, empirically, came up with his numbers and we just have to make sure that we are comfortable with the way that he did that. We’ll do that at the next meeting. Ms. Rosoff said I had 100 of those cars in one weekend, two nights, in and out of my driveway.

Ms. Bendavid said about the right-of-way where they would be giving right-of-way to Szeged. If Hillside Estates is going to do all of their own… If they are not using Szeget land for drainage, do they not have to give right-of-way to Szeget? Mr. Zutt replied it is done. As I have said repeatedly before, it is done. Over our very strenuous and respectful objection, it is done. Mr. Kessler said you can’t unring a bell. Ms. Bendavid said even if they have their own drainage all within their own 6.5 acres, they still are going to give right-of-way to Szeget. Back to John’s question, we are still really talking about 40 or 50 houses, actually, over the next few years that will be developed once they get their road in. Mr. Kessler said we don’t know how many houses will be in the other development. There is no application before us for another development other than this applicant’s. But we have to consider the potential development. Ms. Bendavid said I just wasn’t sure if we’re still having to consider that or not. Mr. Kessler said yes, because he has a contract with that individual. Mr. Foley said I think the number of houses was asked and mentioned at a previous meeting. I think it was 12 or 13 potential possible homes. Ms. Bendavid said and the other property, too. Mr. Foley said that was another 11 or 12. I forgot the number. Ms. Bendavid said I think it was more like 40 or 50 total. Mr. Kessler said we can go back and check.

Ms. Bendavid said if there is going to be a left turn only going out, does that mean that they would be using the u-turn in the circle in front of my house? What does that mean? Mr. Kessler replied those are all things that need to be discussed. Ms. Bendavid said that would be another traffic study. Mr. Kessler said the question is if a person needs to make a left, how do they do that? We have to consider that. Ms. Bendavid said that circle is not safe. People come flying down there. It is really dangerous. If we can’t come next month, because we are away, what do we do? Write a letter? Mr. Kessler replied you can write a letter. All of our meetings are televised as you can see so you can certainly see what transpires at a meeting. It is shown 2 or 3 times a week. Ms. Bendavid asked do you all read the letter before the meeting? Mr. Kessler replied yes, as long as the Public Hearing is open, we put all correspondence on the record. It is formally placed on the record. Ms. Bendavid asked so we would just state our concerns, again? Mr. Kessler replied yes, and it would go on the record.

Mr. Bianchi asked can we ask Mr. Adler to sort of add a little bit to his conclusion instead of just saying no left turns on Locust? Can he look at the entire area and say ‘here is what I would do?’ Mr. Foley said also, picking up on what Mrs. Rosen said, ask him why he put it there and not south of Gabriel. Mr. Vergano said again, he had mentioned the approximate location is a critical decision point for motorists approaching the new road from the west. Mr. Foley asked did he consider traffic coming out of the new development? Mr. Vergano replied you would have to ask him that.

Mr. Zutt said we do have one request if it would be alright since we paid for the study. Could we contact Mr. Adler ourselves? We may have questions of our own. Mr. Vergano replied I have no objection.

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to adjourn this Public Hearing to July 1^st, seconded by Ms. Todd.

A Public Hearing (adjourned) pursuant to Section 307, Zoning, of the Cortlandt Code was conducted by the Planning Board of the Town of Cortlandt at the Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, New York on Tuesday evening, June 3, 2003, to consider the Application and Final Environmental Impact Statement dated February 21, 2003 for the application of 37 Croton Dam Road Corp. for Preliminary Plat approval, and Wetland and Steep Slope Permits for a proposed 62 lot major cluster subdivision of 118 acres located on the west side of Croton Avenue, 500 feet north of Furnace Dock Road as shown on a 12-page set of drawings entitled “Final Environmental Impact Statement Plan for Emery Ridge”, prepared by Timothy L. Cronin III, PE, latest revision dated May 16, 2003.

Mr. Steven Kessler, Chairman, presided and other members in attendance were as follows:

Mr. David Steinmetz, Zarin & Steinmetz, introduced himself to the Board and said as I think the Board is well aware, we are here tonight for a Public Hearing on a variety of different things in connection with this project that has been before your Board for a number of years. I just want to take a couple of steps back for the benefit of the record and members of the public that might be interested to review briefly. This is a piece of property that is approximately 118 acres located in an R-40 zone located at 151 Croton Avenue. The application originally filed with your Board was for a 62 lot single-family residential subdivision. It has gone through a variety of changes and I’ll take you through that in a moment. We originally filed an application back in 1996 for a 62-lot subdivision that would have essentially extended most of the property itself. The property as your Board is aware was historically utilized as an emery mine for approximately 75 to 100 years. The proposal, however, has now evolved into a development, which as you can see from the plan that’s before you, to predominantly develop the northeasterly corner of the property with 62 units. The mix of those units is 32 single- family homes and 30 multi-family residential units, a mixture of 18 triplex units and 12 duplex units. The property was purchased by 37 Croton Dam Road in 1986. It was mined for a number of years and ultimately there was litigation between the Town and 37 Croton Dam Road Corporation, which resulted with a Stipulation of Settlement. One of the components of that stipulation was that the property would be reclaimed and a residential subdivision would be filed and processed. The application was filed in 1996. Your Board ultimately was declared lead agency. There was a positive declaration issued on February 2, 1999. A scoping session was conducted in April of 1999. A DEIS was prepared and submitted to your Board and accepted as complete on July 10, 2001. Once the DEIS was submitted to your Board, we went through a rather extensive series of public hearings on that DEIS. The purpose of that being to analyze the proposal and to determine if there were additional ways to mitigate the impacts of the proposal and the project. As you will recall, we went through various iterations of the proposed layout with modifications and variations that were rather numerous ultimately resulting in a preferred plan that is acceptable to the Board. We went forward after that and prepared an FEIS. The FEIS was recently accepted on April 22, 2003. Tonight we are here for a joint public hearing on preliminary approval, steep slopes, wetlands, and tree removal. As I have said, the project has evolved over a number of years to what you have before you. The components of this project now involve a circular internal loop road, which is proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Cortlandt, a rather substantial area of the 118 acre site that is also proposed to be preserved as permanent open space either to be dedicated to the Town of Cortlandt or some land trust. We have a single boulevard entrance from Croton Avenue that went through extensive review both by your Board and your outside consultants, as well as your Engineering Department in the Town. We have proposed also to satisfy the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation with regard to a reclamation obligation for slopes and previously mined areas on the property. We have documented that with the Town and the DEC involved seeing that as part of the DEIS and the FEIS. We have also had a number of discussions with your Board and I think one of the issues that is still before you is precisely how to handle the question of the common recreation component of this project. The most recent design incorporates a large area in the internal section of the site where we are going to have the multi-family residential portion of the development. One thing that I neglected to say is that we have also incorporated into this proposal 6 affordable housing units that will be built in conjunction with this 62-unit project. The project also has public water, public sewer. We have applications that have been before the Town for extensions of Town sewer districts and an application that has been processed with the County in connection with the County sewer district. All of that having been said, Tim is there anything that you need to add as background? We are here in connection with the joint public hearing and we look forward to receiving comments and questions from members of the Board and members of the public. The next step for us procedurally will be the adoption of the Findings Statement by your Board. I believe a draft Findings Statement, which is the culmination of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for SEQRA process, is underway. We look forward to having that document in front of your Board shortly.

Ms. Todd said first of all, thank you for trying to work in the village green. That is a move in the right direction. I think it will benefit a lot of people that live in that subdivision. I do think though that it is not exactly in the right place. Right now, it would be very hard for people to access without feeling like they are walking into someone’s backyard. A number of us talked about this at the worksession and have some ideas about how you might be able to reconfigure it so that it is more open for people walking to it. John had a suggestion that may involve moving some of the houses back on the left hand side of the road as you go into the boulevard and reconfiguring it that way. I didn’t exactly understand what John had suggested but it sounded like a good idea. Mr. Steinmetz asked is that going to be shared with the applicant this evening? Mr. Bernard said I am not a landscape architect and I don’t pretend to be but Susan is correct. In the present plan, the community green is kind of locked in with the housing there. Somehow, it could seem as if the other single-family homes on that perimeter should view that as a green for the entire development. I think that is the roll and what you are trying to achieve here. Again, you have done some fabulous work to get to this point. We appreciate that. It seems like with a little tweaking it could be a much better plan. To accomplish that, you may have to move some of those houses back a bit. I understand that you don’t want to lose people’s backyards to the point that people can’t use them for some other purpose. But if it were possible to gain a bit of room by moving the road back in and relocating some of the multi-family units, I think you could create more of a horseshoe affect or something so that community green is more visible. Mr. Steinmetz said the question that I have, it sounds like 2 different types of concepts. Is the concept or is the issue providing better access to the community green? Or is the issue enlarging the community green? Mr. Bernard replied it is not so much access or enlarging. It is creating a community green that is in affect a community green rather than a chunk of grass in the middle of buildings that is called a community green with one that actually works and functions as a community green. Mr. Steinmetz said pushing aside for a moment the relocation of the road, one thing that you should know is how we are toying with this as a development team is how we would structure legally the ability of people to make use of this. The concept that we have at the moment is certainly for that interior green to be part of a condominium or homeowner’s association clearly owned by an entity with legal rights being vested in a variety of individuals and property owners. One of the things that we can certainly do, and we have not made a final decision on, is have a blanket homeowner’s association so that even the single-family lot owners would have express legal rights. As you alluded to, John, I think it is easier to envision that the 32 single-family lot owners will have the ability to make use of their own personal backyard. The advantage of having the green in the middle is that the multi-family property owners have a common space since they don’t have a backyard. Our goal is to do this in such a way so that we do invite the single-family lot owners and the kids to be able to enjoy recreating in that central area. Mr. Bernard said it sounds like we are on the same page. Not so say this is the goal, but if you look at that community green as if it were a ballpark and home base was in the upper right hand corner of that triangular shaped community green, then left field/center field those 3 units that are there, if they were removed or relocated, then that whole community green would have a much more open aspect to the rest of the units that are there except for those in the back. The units on the rest of the perimeter really need to have some better access or some more open access to that green. So take out the 3 in center field and maybe home base. I’m not suggesting that things have to be removed but that is certainly an option or if there is a way to reconfigure it so that the final goal is for the community green. Mr. Steinmetz said it is important for the benefit of the record and all of us that we have gotten to a point to propose 87 acres of this site. Originally, the applicant had absolutely no intent, desire, or goal and objective to do that. So, to some extent, we’re hearing something that is somewhat inconsistent with the direction that we were bought as a result of other concerns that were articulated by your Board and by some members of the public in terms of environmental conservation and concern for the site. More flexibility and latitude on the site, gives us more flexibility and latitude in that central area. I hope by now that everyone appreciates that.

the chase here. On the village green, which I’m glad you have come around to that concept; it was first bought up by Susan a long time ago. If it is really going to be useable besides accessible, I would like to see more of an easier access to it for people who would be using it. You are saying only the ones in the multi-family within the center portion would be using it? Or are people in the other homes going to be using it? Mr. Steinmetz replied that is not what I said. If it was unclear, I want to make sure it is clear. The concept, as I said, that we are toying with as a development team is to create legal rights, Mr. Foley, for all of the property owners including the 32 single-family lots so that owners can have rights. Mr. Foley said conceivably, the single-family homeowners could be using it. They would have to access it thru side yards or whatever of the homes in the center portion. I would like to see better access to it. There are examples of similar ones that have been built in the area, Society Hill II up on the hill where the playground is you have to literally go through side yards. Green Acres in Peekskill on Route 6 you have to walk around behind some of the units. Better accessibility and usability is what I would like to see.

today from the Lakeland Schools. I think we are still operating with a deficit here. I understand from what Mr. Miller was telling us the last time about the concept of more expensive homes and more revenue coming in with lesser impacts, if any negative, in which I agree with. So I have concerns there. The traffic mitigation I bought up at past meetings. I’m not so sure that is going to be a solution with what Mr. Santucci is offering with staff. I think we are still going to have a problem on certain portions of Croton Avenue. The parking, can you explain a little bit on where you have some off of Croton Avenue for access to the walking trail that we bought up at the last meeting? Mr. Steinmetz replied what we proposed, which I neglected to mention earlier, in conjunction with dedicating 87 acres to the Town or to a nature conservancy, we are also proposing to develop and leave the Town with a nature walking trail. We have spent a lot of time with you deciding where the trail would best go for environmental sensitivity and functionality. In addition, we talked about where best to allow people to gain access. Along Croton Avenue, and we did have a meeting with staff and talk about how best to situate that parking area so that it could be safe, accessible, and not conducive to traffic nuisance and problems, we have proposed 10 gravel parking spaces off of Croton Avenue. Mr. Foley asked would that be across from the old Egg Farm? Mr. Steinmetz replied yes, pretty much.

here, I think from Mr. Miller’s memo of May 14, 2003 about the road width. We had a long discussion about the internal widths of the road. Mr. Steinmetz said we expanded to 30 feet. Mr. Foley said the Town Code says 50 but the 30 feet is the workable part and then you have 10 feet of shoulder. How does that work? Does it have to be 50 according to code or is 30 acceptable? Mr. Vergano replied the right-of-way would be 50 feet. The pavement would be 30 feet. Mr. Foley asked where is the 20 feet of right-of-way? Mr. Vergano replied 10 feet on either side. Mr. Foley said so 10 feet of shoulder on either side and then there would be a sidewalk. Mr. Vergano said they are not proposing sidewalks. Mr. Steinmetz said so we are clear, the right-of-way is the area side to side that the Town owns legal title to. Mr. Foley said I was just wondering how that would be configured because I guess I was just assuming that the sidewalks were there. It was bought up last time. Also, you keep mentioning, just for the record, the 87 acres of dedicated open space to the Town, I just want to be clear, that 87 acres, this goes back a few years, is that all buildable acres? Mr. Steinmetz asked when you say buildable, is it buildable absent earth movement? No. Is it buildable with earth movement? Absolutely. Mr. Foley said even with the reclamation, the original proposed reclamation, all of those 87 could not be built on. Mr. Steinmetz replied no, not all of them. But a percentage absolutely could have been. There is nothing in the stipulation or in the DEC Reclamation Obligation that stands in the way of that having been built. The reason that it is not being built is a result of the SEQRA process and comments from your Board. Mr. Foley said we had concerns about some of the sites or some of the homes in that original plan. Mr. Steinmetz said and the amount of disturbance. Mr. Foley said again, I still have some other issues that I bought up at previous meetings and hopefully, will get resolved at some future meetings. I won’t get into those.

Mr. Kessler said just a point of clarification, how did you envision the access to that center area? Mr. Cronin replied between some of the units you have approximately 130 feet here (indicating) and 60 to 70 feet here. It would be just before the units. Mr. Kessler asked there would be no formal access? Mr. Cronin replied I expect that once we develop this interior plan, we may show sidewalks and maybe an interior playground. Right now, there certainly is enough room at this location and it looks as though there is some distance here and here. We have at least one access, possibly two more. Mr. Bernard said the alternative that was talked about, and I would like to have it clarified in my mind, is that you we were thinking of bringing the road out like this. I’m just trying to see if there is a way to increase the amount of space because you have all those multiple dwellings kind of locked around this village green. Mr. Cronin said we wouldn’t like to eliminate units, certainly not. But coming down in this direction, this land does slope off quite steeply into the wetlands. An alternative that the Board may consider, I don’t know how much, is to relocate some of these single-family units here (indicating) possibly by putting a common drive out in this direction, we would be able to do it in a fashion that we wouldn’t have to meet Town requirements as far as the horizontal and vertical curvature of the road. We would be able to do that more in line with the grades that are there now. We could bring these single-family houses down in the back area and put the multi-families up in this location and that would open up this whole frontage here and have access to the green be essentially 600 to 800 feet of road. But that would require a different scheme if you will. Mr. Steinmetz said one of the other things that we are certainly prepared to do as we take the interior design to the next level is that we spent the last several years in the environmental review process. As we go from this point forward, we certainly commit to developing additional designs specific points of location. In fact, we are confident that we can show 3 specific areas at a minimum of 50 feet of width to provide children, family, bicycles, egress, and ingress to that central green. You have areas in there right now that probably have highway width end to end between the buildings in terms of that one area that Tim talked about. On the plan, at the moment, it may not look like you have easy free flow in between the buildings, but if you look at the relative size of the 30 foot road in gray and you look at the space between the buildings, you have several areas that are wider between the buildings from where I am and even to where Susan is that people can easily go in and out of these buildings. So, let’s not get lost in the concept of distance. We sat with your professional staff to realize a fair and livable building to building separation. We can tighten up the building to building separation but then what we end up doing is sacrificing people’s living area for just having a wider area for a bunch of kids to take a football to walk through to get to the central green. I think it is important to recognize that there are going to be 30 families living around that green. One of our design functions was to provide a livable function. Mr. Kessler asked approximately how big is that green? Mr. Steinmetz replied acreage wise we have about… Mr. Cronin said it is about an acre to an acre and a half. Mr. Bernard said I still strongly agree that that green would work so much better if it had a much more open perspective. If someone is driving along that wide 30-foot road, they’re taking quick glances in between the houses, whether there are 50 feet or 60 feet between the houses. It is still seen as an area behind those houses. It is still not openly visible. I think a conversation with a landscape architect who is familiar with common greens and those types of areas might be very revealing. I’d welcome seeing some other designs that would help you accomplish that. I think it is worthwhile. I really do. Mr. Steinmetz said we’ll certainly explore it; that’s fine. But just remember that unlike a lot of situations that you are envisioning as a green, it may really be a public park. This is not a public park. This is a neighborhood play area, a neighborhood congregating area. I can give you a lot of examples of neighborhoods on half-acre lots where you’ll see 15 kids congregating in the back yard of a level half-acre lot if it is conducive to kids getting in there and playing. Realistically, we’re all more likely to see the children of this neighborhood enjoying that green than we are to seeing the adults. That is not to say that we don’t want to make it functional for the adults but the children are going to know that there is an acre of level, green, and manicured property that they can play in. Mr. Bernard said I still believe that a huge central area like that is restrictive when it is surrounded by houses, whatever type of houses and however big that central core is, the use is defined differently by being hemmed in, as it were, by those houses. If those houses, for instance, were on the other side of the perimeter, it would be different. That entire area would be open and in full view. It is different; the use of that land is different. I think a landscape architect would be beneficial. Mr. Foley said I agree and would like to go back to that for a minute. When you say livable function for the homeowners, and you have kids coming through between yards, whether it is 30 feet or 130 feet tossing footballs or baseballs, are you going to have a buffer area or a sidewalk running in for the access, a tree buffer to block off the nearest house to that access path? Mr. Steinmetz asked a buffer for what purpose? Mr. Foley replied livability for the house that is closest to that access. Are the kids going to be traipsing over a lawn to get in? Mr. Steinmetz replied what we said is that we have committed to come back with some designs with at least 3 designated access points. That can be chips or gravel or otherwise, concrete. They will be like in any multi-family residential development. There will be a series of walkways. Mr. Foley asked and delineated from the neighbors’ properties? Mr. Steinmetz replied correct. Mr. Foley said it just seems that if you had lesser units there, it would do the trick, but you don’t want to talk about that. I have given you two examples where I have witnessed the so-called village green or play areas in the center of a condo or townhouse area. People go through yards or on the sides of houses to get to the playground area. Mr. Miller said Mr. Foley, first of all, I want to make sure you understand how this area of the multi-families is going to work. People will not have yards that will be subject to their own private usage in this central area. It will all be commonly owned by all of the parties that are located in there. It is not like having a back yard where you are going to go out and have a barbecue. Mr. Foley said the same thing is done at Society Hill and Green Acres. I’m very familiar with a common area. Mr. Miller said I just want to make sure that was clear to the Board. Also, I think there are ways of treating the side yards with landscaping that would provide privacy and still provide access. Keeping in mind, that an acre area is quite a substantial area. I have an acre pond on my property. I cannot toss a football from one side to the other. My twelve year old who can toss a ball further than me cannot either. It is a pretty large area. That community green can be treated a number of different ways to assure people who are living around the green… Mr. Foley said what you are saying is that the access could also be treated that way. Mr. Miller said the access can certainly be treated that way without a wholesale shifting of where buildings are situated. I think buildings could be possibly shifted to create more well-defined areas of access. I don’t know if they can be shifted in this context, John, to provide a full view into the green. But, we can certainly look at shifting things around. There is really no place within the development area to relocate those three buildings short of what Tim Cronin had suggested which starts to move some of the single-families outside the area that we had shown on some of the earlier alternatives of the project. Certainly, I think there are treatments that can be done to respond to your concern. I’m not sure that we can find a place to put those triplexes within the concept that we have right now.

Mr. Foley said I would like to get back to the traffic. Unless I’m reading it wrong, where they proposed mitigation for traffic and the road system outside the off-site road, the service level at both intersections remain the same, Ed? Mr. Santucci has been asked to mitigate in some form or another, what does the level of service become at the Croton Avenue/Route 202 intersection and Furnace Dock Road? Mr. Vergano replied I would have to take a look at the traffic report but there is clearly an affect. Based on the mitigation as proposed, the eventual mitigation, it is certainly going to improve the level of service. Mr. Foley asked is that what Adler said? Mr. Vergano replied with mitigation, yes, that is what he said. Mr. Foley said I thought it was the same.

Ms. Todd said I want to talk a little bit about traffic, too. I think with the number of cars that are going to be generated by this development, we are going to have a real problem at 202 and Croton Avenue. I know this is an intersection that has been on the radar for a long time. I wonder whether that might be something that we would ask the applicant to contribute to. Right now, that little building is for sale. I don’t know how much they are asking for that. But that might be another lane there. Mr. Vergano said you are absolutely correct. That intersection needs another approach lane, a left-hand turning lane. In speaking with the applicant, he has agreed to pay a fair share amount towards improvements at that intersection in addition to numerous other improvements along that corridor.

reiterate, sidewalks are important in a subdivision. Tim, you had mentioned sidewalks in the green area. Are you planning on showing us a plan with more amenities on it? Mr. Vergano said I think in connection with that center area, if the applicant could provide the Board with a more detailed design. Right now, there are a lot of issues to be discussed, how are you going to buffer the green area from the adjacent multi-families, etc. Maybe, you could give us some examples of similar type projects; maybe provide us with some pictures to give us a better idea of the type of open space that is provided as part of this project. Ms. Todd said in the New York Times, there is a big new development in Danbury where they have a town center. There is Bellefaire in Rye that has a town center with a town green. In all of these, the green is open space for everyone to see. I imagine when you go through that boulevard, this would be the place to see the green openly. The way the plan is now, it wouldn’t be something like a visual open space. I see the difficulty if you want to get those triplexes in there. I definitely would like to see additional plans to show those amenities and how you are going to treat this area with sidewalks and other amenities.

Mr. Hoch said briefly, on the community green. I applaud the concept but I do want to make sure that it comes out as a livable area that is usable and that the residents of the multi-family units don’t think it is their backyard and that the kids from the single-family homes are infringing on them. If that could be handled in a design manner, as Ed has said, I would like to see more detail. I do have a couple of comments on the FEIS. The recreation fee comes up in the document. On page 1-3, because we had eliminated the ball field, there is a statement that says the applicant has proposed to pay the recreation fee in lieu of the previously proposed recreation area. Then there is a second sentence that says alternatively, the applicant is amenable to a modified recreation fee in combination with the donation of the existing residence and surrounding land to the Town of Cortlandt for recreational use. For the life of me, I don’t remember what that means. Mr. Steinmetz said that is probably new because it came out of our meeting with staff since the last Planning Board meeting. We sat around a table and looked at different options. You may remember from the site walks. Ken, you and I have been on site walks there together albeit it was a number of years ago. As you enter 151 Croton Avenue, there is a small red home on the left side of the present driveway. That existing home is owned by 37 Croton Dam Road Corp. One of the things that we talked about with staff and with the recreation coordinator… Mr. Vergano said that was Kathleen Burleson; she is the Director of the Department of Environmental Services for the Town. Mr. Steinmetz said we discussed with her the concept of possibly allowing that structure to be used by the Town as some type of recreation center, teen center, some usage since it is a structure with a functioning well, water, and septic system. We could certainly do that and offer that area. The house is here (indicating). This is the access point that we all use to go into the property. We have the ability to create some level, functioning area in that vicinity and offer that to the Town. That was the hybrid or the modified concept. Mr. Hoch said I don’t know how feasible it is but I just wanted to understand that. Mr. Vergano said just for the record, Kathleen did forward a memo to the Town Board for their consideration. It is still being considered. Mr. Hoch said school revenue, as Mr. Foley alluded to before, Bob and I met with Dr. Sturm, Superintendent of the Lakeland School District and the Director of Finance and Operations, because we have for quite a number of years been trying to get any kind of data from the school districts that would give us a real check on the numbers that are submitted in various documents. They came back with a letter today; I don’t know if you have seen it yet. They did give us cost projections. In a letter dated May 30, 2003, Ms. Palamarzcek gave us a figure of calculating for the upcoming school year, the per student cost would be $15,563. The FEIS cites Lakeland’s 2001-2002 school budget at a per pupil cost of $13,673. I would like to see this amended for what it is going to be as a projected cost based on the most current data that is available. The other part of this, in her letter she states that this project create a deficit of $187,776. That is calculated by multiplying 40 students times the $15K number. That is a different way of calculating the costs that what you have done in your DEIS and how every applicant calculates in their DEIS. When we discussed this at our meeting with the Superintendent, we indicated that all DEIS’s deduct school aid from the State to come up with the cost per pupil based on the taxes that have to be raised from the population. She could not tell us at the meeting what percentage of that $15K would be generated by the taxpayers. Based on the DEIS, you had a figure of 60%. If you take the same 60% on the $15K number, you come up with a deficit, albeit not the $187K, she talks about. I would like to see some of the math based on the projected State aid. I don’t know if Lakeland has the number yet. I know that they are voting on their budget today, as well as all of the districts are. I did some quick math and I came up with a potential projected cost of $374,000, which would have a very small deficit because you are projecting $368K of revenue. I also don’t know if your revenue number came because of the potential of a higher selling price and therefore, a higher tax base. All I’m saying is that we now have some new data from Lakeland. The other thing we had asked them to do, which I don’t think they have done yet are student generation rates and this applies not only to this project but to Hillside, the next one on our agenda, and any other ones that may come up. But we do have the numbers we generated back in 1997. Just for review, we have student generation rates from Red Mill Crossing, which is 11 fairly large single-family homes and the rate is 1.09 students per house. Apple Hill, which as 43 homes, is .93. Peachwood Estates, 35 units, has a generation rate of .74. Conklin Park, which are attached 32 units, it drops down to .34 students per house. Wild Birch Farms, 95 attached condominiums, is .44. I think certainly, your number of 40 based on the mix of multi and single family is certainly in the ballpark. I know a number of residents have come in and say ‘well, there are 5 kids in the house down the block.’ I moved in to my house with my 6 kids and blew their statistics away. But overall, these numbers tend to be fairly accurate. What I think we need to do here is adjust the financial end of this and come up and say you are not creating a $40K surplus based on Lakeland’s current numbers and what is really going to happen here. Mr. Miller said Ken, I anticipated your asking the question and have circulated a memo that resulted from a conversation with one of our planners today with Mrs. Palamarczek, Director of Finance. Based on the information that we received from the Director of Finance, the total estimated property tax levy for all towns in the district is $66M. The balance of the budget, this is next year’s budget by the way, if it passes, that would come from State aid at $23.7M plus another potential $2.5M in building aid, Westchester County tax, interest and earnings. Basically, the amount that is raised from the property tax is approximately %69 based on the information that we got today, which is equal to about $10.6K per student. Using Mrs. Palamarczek’s assumed average assessment per unit of $8,500, I’m not sure where that came from, that would produce a total assessed value of $527,000. Applying the estimated tax rate, that is next year’s rates, to that evaluation produces taxes of $434,000. If we use the $10,677 cost per student, I think the 40 is a fair number based on national statistics, as well as the data that we gathered, I think we are in the ballpark here. This is what it boils down to. Mr. Steinmetz said Ken, certainly, in preparing the Findings Statement, which we are all moving towards to close out the SEQRA process, we could incorporate that information but as Tim said, it seems like the degree of differentiation is not as significant as it might initially sound. We appreciate the fact that Tim’s office was able to extrapolate and do that. Mr. Hoch said we appreciate that; you could have done that sooner and save me a lot of time. Mr. Miller said it was more fun this way.

Mr. Hoch said one other question. On 1-9, you talk about sewage pumps for some of the houses. Is there back-up power system in terms if there is a failure? What happens to those few homes that have pumps? Mr. Cronin replied if pumping is required for the few individual homes, it would be primarily just for the basement plumbing. Everything else out of the house would go by gravity. We are in the process of designing the infrastructure now, and in the event that we do need a pump for the entire house flow, then that house will be provided with a storage tank and an alarm, which would be battery operated. There would not be any standby power for an individual home. Mr. Hoch said but there is some mechanism if they were without power for 24 hours… Mr. Vergano said typically, there is storage for about 24 hours, presumably power would be restored within a day. Mr. Cronin said also, the storage is based on average daily flows. I would expect that if you did lose power, people in the house would realize that and cut back on consumption considerably but there is storage available for those homes.

Mr. Bernard said a few quick comments. One, just to correct the record, on 9.1 of the FEIS, the community green is identified as .8 acres and not our estimated acre and a half that we talked about earlier. In the constructed wetland on 4-5, to insure its success, the constructed wetland will be monitored and maintained for the first 3 years by the applicant’s wetland consultant. I would like to request that time period not be 3 years and that you consider an 8 year period because constructed wetlands are so difficult to construct in the first place and make them functional. They are just not often correct when first done with all the best engineering and best intentions. A 3-year time period has proven not be an appropriate length of time to ascertain whether it is functional. Mr. Steinmetz said we are certainly happy to take Mr. Bernard’s comments under advisement and that we would entertain extending it to 5 years. Mr. Bernard said I appreciate that. In that same paragraph, it says during this period any invasive plants will be removed and plants that do not survive will be replaced in time. Of the invasive plants, I would hope that you could identify those and phragmites and purple loose-strife would certainly qualify as 2 of those invasive plants. I’m sure there may be 1 or 2 others in the plan. Mr. Steinmetz said it is definitely a detail that we should address. Mr. Bernard said it is just a detail.

Mr. Kessler said there are some issues here obviously with the layout of the subdivision. Mr. Vergano said I think we need more detail, that certain area, to see if in fact it does work as intended. I believe Tim and Tim have both mentioned that one of their options, of course, is to relocate some of those units to give a larger area outside the scope of this disturbed area, possibly with the cul-de-sac as we have seen in a couple of schemes. But we clearly need more information on the center court area. Mr. Kessler asked does that preclude us from closing this tonight? Mr. Steinmetz replied I appreciate your hearing us. Absolutely, it does not preclude you from closing the Public Hearing nor does it preclude you from ultimately granting preliminary approval. Why? Because the process is laid out in such a fashion that as you all know as we have done on other projects, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, the tweaking, the final detail takes place between preliminary and final approval. The details that are starting to come out like some of the comments that we’ve gotten from Board members tonight are all issues that we are not going to ignore that we are all going to have to wrestle with and address during the final approval process. We have gotten to a point where we have reached the culmination of the SEQRA process. We have achieved a layout of the concept in the area, a road network, utilities, a density that we have all gotten our arms around. I think we are at a point now with no public comment at all after a process of many Public Hearings that we all went through originally. We are at a point where your Board could certainly close the Public Hearing. Your Board can proceed to a Findings Statement, grant preliminary approval and I would assume that during the summer months, we are going to be dealing with these final issues. We will be coming back with layouts. The one thing that’s been a central theme for all of us tonight is for us to focus on the multi-family units and the green. We understand that now. It took awhile to get to that triangular area and that layout. Now, give us the opportunity to finalize that. Mr. Vergano said if we were to close the Public Hearing, we would have those 62 days, would you extend that for us? Mr. Steinmetz replied what I would say is that your Board accepted the FEIS on April 22. We all know that the SEQRA process requires you are to proceed from the acceptance of the FEIS to the adoption of the Findings Statement fairly rapidly. We have already exceeded that time line. What I would like to do is that I would like to try to set us down for July. I would like to close the Public Hearing tonight. I would like us to set a goal for consideration of a Findings Statement at the July meeting. If we find ourselves at the July meeting having some inability to get to preliminary approval, the applicant will certainly, Mr. Vergano, act in a cooperative fashion as this applicant has throughout this whole long process. But to lift that deadline when we are already going through one other deadline would be foolish.

Mr. Kessler said my only comment this evening is that I believe that the people in the single-family homes will use their yards. I think the people in the multi-family homes probably would want to consider that their own yard. I don’t know if I was living in a multi-family if I would want people in my backyard playing or whatever. But having said that, I think the effort to do something with that green is an effort that is worthwhile. But I will also tell you that I do not see how you can accomplish it, I’m not optimistic that you can do it, with the 62 homes. You may be able to create some magic in terms of moving them around but I think you may have some constraints that may not be solvable. You have 2 equations. Mr. Steinmetz said they may not be solvable consistent where the Board has encouraged us to go. Mr. Kessler said yes. Having said that, I believe if we are all in agreement to close this out and continue the discussions on the actual layout of the subdivision.

Mr. Foley said I’m not sure I agree with closing tonight. Mr. Steinmetz bought it up a few minutes ago that the public is not here to speak. May I ask a staff question? I know there was a Lakeland School budget vote today, an election tonight. So that may be one reason why some may not be here. I know there is an awards function at Panas tonight. I know for a fact that other people who have testified in the original document, granted their names are spelled wrong, could not be here tonight. If you say that virtually, there is no public here, there may be reasons for it. Mr. Steinmetz said we could certainly keep the written public comment period open for 10 days. Mr. Foley said I have a question for Mr. Miller. The document you prepared after you talked to Susan, has she seen this or did you talk to her on the phone? Mr. Miller replied no, she hasn’t seen this but it is based on the information that she provided. Mr. Foley said could I ask staff to check again further, I know there are some updates, August 22, 2002, on Emery Ridge. What I bought up earlier on the level of service of at least one if not both intersections, to check pages 7 and I think 6, but I could be wrong on projected impacts because I think it ends up being the same level. Mr. Vergano said no, with mitigation. I have had many discussions with the applicant. With mitigation. As I said that with that additional lane, the level of service will clearly improve at that intersection. Mr. Foley said with that turn lane, the extra waiting time at the light will reduce even though, in other words, there wouldn’t be a longer back-up of traffic going north. Mr. Vergano replied no, I’ll provide additional information on that. Mr. Foley said it just would seem logically that there would be a longer back up at that light especially at school hours. Mr. Vergano replied no, not with a dedicated left hand turn.

Mr. Bernard said one question to staff, given Mr. Chairman’s comments, that this may be an insolvable problem given certain parameters, if we close the Public Hearing, does that mean that the number of units is off the table for discussion or a revised plan to make that green work? Can all the conditions still be discussed and changed? Mr. Klarl replied when you do your resolution for the preliminary plat, you can either approve the layout he has or you can approve the preliminary plat conditionally. Ms. Todd said I am against closing the Public Hearing because I feel that if we do close it tonight that gives us just 60 days for them to come up with a plan that works for us with this new designed green and I would rather not feel that we are coming down to a deadline. I would rather have a little more time for them to come up with something and meet with a landscape architect. There should not be pressure for July. Mr. Steinmetz said there would be no decision in July. Mr. Vergano said I think it would be the August meeting, but short of the August meeting. Mr. Steinmetz said that is not a problem, if it is just a matter of days until the August meeting. Again, as I said, we are not precluding pushing the date out if there is a legitimate reason to do so. Though I appreciate your concern about giving us the time that we need to do what we are going to need to do to look at the landscape architecture in the village green. We’ll deal with that. There is a reason that the State process provides you with 62 days after the Public Hearing closes. That is because these processes are supposed to move along at some degree of speed. We have been here for over 7 years, understandable. Mr. Klarl said our next meeting is July 1^st. Do you know when you can have the village concept put together? Mr. Steinmetz replied certainly, in sufficient time for submission to the Board to meet your submission deadlines. And we look forward to being on that agenda and discussing that particular issue and answering any other questions. But again, you haven’t all spoken, but I must say I think it would be highly irregular for you to not close the Public Hearing in light of what has taken place and the issues that are before you. I don’t think they are insurmountable issues and there is no public comment.

Mr. Foley said can I ask staff, the public notice, whoever sent it out, who did it go to? In other words, what neighborhoods, contiguous properties, across the street… Basically, very few people. Did it go to the people that have spoken before? Mr. Kessler replied it went to every legitimate person that it went to for every other Public Hearing. Mr. Steinmetz said we don’t get treated any differently than any other person in the Town. Mr. Foley said so it didn’t necessarily go to people that testified at previous hearings. Correct? Mr. Verschoor replied that is correct. It did go to involved agencies. Mr. Foley said if we make a motion, I would also vote no to close the Public Hearing tonight. Something Mr. Steinmetz said earlier about the SEQRA process, it is also designed for the continual public input. There have been a lot of changes since previous hearings and I would like to know if there is any other comment from the public. Mr. Kessler said the only point that I make is that ultimately, what this Board is losing sight of is the fact the, for lack of a better word, the power is on this side of the table not on that side of the table. At the end of the day, as Mr. Klarl said, you can approve, you can deny, you can approve with modifications. That ultimately is the responsibility and the power of this Board. So if tomorrow, we had to vote on a resolution and you said for arguments sake, I would want an open green, I don’t want those 3 homes there, you can do that. They may not like it but you can do it. You have to keep that in mind. We can’t keep this thing open just because someone may want to come in and talk about it. You advertised it; you had the time and the opportunity to come. They are not here tonight, which isn’t to say that they haven’t been here over the last 4 years in numbers talking about this. We have gotten to the point with their input. It has been very important. What we are really coming down to at the end here is that we have significant issues. I think the onus now is on the applicant to come back with some plan that meets the requirements of the comments from this Board of what that green should look like. I want to see it. I don’t know how they are going to do it but they are the professionals; I am not. We’ll see what they come back with. In the end, you can craft that resolution, within reason, any way that you want.

Mr. Bernard said Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. If you do close the Public Hearing, the 62-day cycle is incumbent upon the applicant to do what they need to do to bring this to a close. The onus is on them to satisfy the need within that time.

Mr. Foley said I understand what you are saying, Steve, and I agree. But I’ve been through it before on both sides. That 62-day time is… Mr. Kessler said it is there for a reason. Mr. Foley said it works to some extent in some areas, but it doesn’t always seem to be happening. I still haven’t made up my mind about tonight.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to close this Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Bernard.

A Public Hearing (adjourned) pursuant to Section 307, Zoning, of the Cortlandt Code was conducted by the Planning Board of the Town of Cortlandt at the Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, New York on Tuesday evening, June 3, 2003, to consider the Application of the Cortlandt Medical Building Associates for approval of an amended Site Development Plan and A Special Permit and a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed building addition of 364 sq. ft. of office space and to construct 2 parking lots located at the Cortlandt Medical Building at 1985 Crompond Road as shown on a 5-page set of drawings entitled “Proposed Office Building for Cortlandt Medical Building Associates” prepared by Lawrence Belluscio, P.E., latest revision dated April 21, 2003.

Mr. Steven Kessler, Chairman, presided and other members in attendance were as follows:

Mr. Renaldo Garcia, engineer for the applicant, introduce himself to the Board and said this application before you is a proposal to add approximately 264 square feet to one of the existing buildings, 2 parking lots, containing a total of 23 parking spaces. There are 12 in one lot and 11 in the other. We are also relocating and adding some handicapped parking spaces within the existing complex getting them closer to the offices and just reconfiguring that area. The application was first presented to the Board last June. At a previous meeting, we submitted revised drawings, which included revisions that addressed the questions and comments from the Engineering Department in their memo of July 2002. We also included drainage and construction details and a landscaping plan, which we had at the previous meeting. This past Sunday, we did do a site visit and all got very wet and hopefully, you all got very familiar with the site. Also, our engineer, Lawrence Belluscio is here, too.

Ms. Todd said I think it was a great day for a site visit because we got to see how the drainage in the parking lot works or if it works. My impression was the parking spaces that are closer to Crompond Road, those up there (indicating), seem workable but I thought the other area was quite problematic. Right now, you have a lot of erosion going into the wetlands with the grade that is there now. What you are proposing is to grade the area. I don’t think that is going to work out and be sufficient. I think you have to put in a retaining wall in that area. Mr. Garcia said the erosion that is there now, all the vegetation is pretty much gone from this particular area where the original pavement was installed for a fire lane when the new building was done. They had to do construction in there, extending the sewer lines. Mr. Kessler asked who is they? Mr. Garcia replied the complex. Also, during the heavy snow in the winter, a lot of the snow is picked up from the site and put in there so yes, there is certainly low flooding. I think once this work is done and drainage is done and landscaping is done that will certainly alleviate those conditions. Mr. Kessler asked where would the snow go? Mr. Garcia replied they are going to have to find another place to put it off site or whatever. That doesn’t happen all the time, only when it gets severe. The snow and the cold weather, the snow doesn’t melt. That has happened in the past 5 or 6 years only a couple of times, this year being one of them. As far as the retaining wall goes, we can certainly address that. We would rather try to slope the area and landscape this whole area here (indicating) so that the existing vegetation and new vegetation would meet rather than have an abrupt retaining wall ending but we will certainly address that. Ms. Todd said I think you are going to need that, the vegetation in the area and the new wall. Right now, if you grade that towards where the cars are, you are going to pushing big fill into the wetlands. I think the retaining wall will protect yourself from falling into the wetland. Also, it will protect the wetland. You also need to do a wetland clean up. There is a lot of garbage in there, shopping carts, trash cans. That all needs to be cleaned out. It is being used as a dumping area for whoever does the landscaping for the complex.

which is only 370 square feet, and I think that was acceptable. I have the same concerns that Susan just expressed about proposed parking lot B. First of all, I believe the parking lot is in the wetlands or certainly is in the wetland buffer area. To me, it looked like it actually had been fairly heavily used, not by just some intermittent construction. The pavers were popping through the dirt now. I think people have been parking there and I think Code Enforcement can see that with the number of tickets that they give out there. The other thing that I think was Steve’s point is o.k., where are you going to put the snow now? I don’t think you have an area. Mr. Garcia said like I said, any time that we have a severe storm, they are going to have to take it off site. There is no place to put it. Mr. Hoch said I am concerned about the erosion over there. We saw some collapsed stone, which was a result of rain or snowplowing. It is a very difficult area. And, in fact, too, we need to get some feedback from the Fire Department in terms of if you are going to put some parking over there, do they think that is an adequate safety measure. Mr. Garcia said the original fire turning area pretty much will remain. When we originally added these 2 buildings, we created this area here so fire trucks could come in and pull right into this courtyard. The parking spaces are in an area that again, right now, are pavers basically in this vicinity (indicating). As far as the fire trucks, they would still have the same amount of space right now to be able to turn. It was adequate when we did the original complex. But they can comment on that, too.

Mr. Bernard said I think I know where the snow has been going. Instead of just using that area to stockpile snow, it is being pushed right off into that wetland. Mr. Garcia said it could very well be. Mr. Bernard said it is because what you have there in the place that it is convenient to push it all off, you have a broken headwall. It is collapsed because it has been pushed forward on into the wetland. You have remnants of the grass pavers all broken up down in that wetland area. The slope is continuing to get steeper in that area. With the repairs that you need to do to the existing structures, the headwall, etc., I think certainly you are going to need, and to support the edge of this proposed parking lot B, more than just a slope because that slope is going to have to be so extensive you are going to be in the main channel of that wetland. There is just not enough room. Mr. Garcia said so what you are thinking of is if we do a retaining wall, we do it far enough and leave an area that we will landscape beyond this parking. Mr. Bernard said you have quite a fill area to bring up the edge of that parking lot B in order to maintain some sort of a level parking area. The other thing that concerns me is the back of parking lot B at the end of that building. There is a very steep hill on up to the parking lot above, which in the plan, you don’t show, but that parking lot above there is high; it’s like 15 feet high. It is a big change in elevation. Mr. Garcia said it is about 10 feet. The building here has about 10 foot ceilings. So from here to here, this parking lot is about the same as this floor. So you have about a 10-foot height. It feels steeper when you are walking a short distance. Mr. Bernard said I’ll buy that it is 10 feet but what was surprising to me was how much water was running off that grass hill onto this proposed parking lot B. I was curious as to where in the heck that is coming from. When I walked up, I found there was a drainage structure at the corner of that upper parking lot and it was taking on a lot of water. But I’m wondering if that system is in tact. There was so much water… Mr. Garcia said it is coming off of the grass area. Yes, it goes into a catch basin down here (indicating). Mr. Bernard said there is a lot more water that is coming out of that hill than could possibly be falling on that hill. Maybe there is ground water that is coming out. I don’t know what is up above. Mr. Garcia said this area originally, when these buildings were done, there tended to be quite a bit of ground water in this area. Mr. Bernard said that is probably true. If that is true, then it is another thing that you would have to look at in the process.

Mr. Hoch said to pick up on John’s point, one of the things that we noticed when we walked the site, was the change in elevation from the buildings adjacent to the parking lot to where the actual parking spaces would be. It appears that you would have to put a lot of fill in there to make it level and, therefore, exacerbate the erosion problem to slow it down. Mr. Garcia said I would say that this area in here is the main concern (indicating) it falls off pretty much… Mr. Bernard said I don’t agree with that at all. I think if you shoot grades in there, you are going to see even in that upper reach to come out as far as you want to, you are going to have significant fill. Coming on down the road, it is extensive fill. Mr. Garcia said yes, a 2-foot fill, as I said, goes in here. Mr. Bernard said 2 feet is a good amount. Mr. Garcia said it is not a lot. Mr. Bernard said it is half as much as 4 feet. Mr. Garcia said yes, and twice as much as 1.

Ms. Joy Tolbert, 217 Lafayette Avenue, introduced herself to the Board and said I have a lot of concerns tonight mainly, the drainage that you were just discussing from the wetlands. My backyard is right here. My house is here (indicating). Mr. Garcia said you are at a higher elevation. All of our grade is going to be going out this way. Ms. Tolbert said your drainage is right here, which goes down here and this is wetlands. It is just going to saturate. I don’t think the drainage is adequate. It is going to spew out and make the wetlands wetter and make my backyard totally wet and unusable. It is definitely going to hurt the resale value on my home if I ever decided to sell. We haven’t discussed it yet, but in parking lot A, they have these dry well things, all detailed. Don’t you have that? There is no proposal for any kind of dry well or anything other than just spewing water back you into the wetlands raising the water table. Am I correct? Mr. Garcia replied you are correct. We are not proposing dry wells here because we already have an existing drainage system that comes off the upper lot down through here. Ms. Tolbert said and as you just said, when you did the walk through, you saw the water spewing out. Mr. Garcia said it was pouring while we were there. Plus what he said, it could be ground water coming out of here not that the drainage system is damaged. We’ll check it but it could very well be ground water. The reason why no dry wells are proposed in this area is because the soils in this part of the property are of clay. Down here, it is all course sand. The dry wells will work and not work here. Again, we have an existing drainage system that is there. Ms. Tolbert said I’m also concerned about the environment. You saw the garbage strewn all over the place back there. It’s disgusting. They make no attempt to maintain the area between my house and their property at all. I was here 5 years ago trying to fight for trees up here. I got my trees, 3 foot trees that took 5 years to grow into a little bit of a barrier. I just took a walk right before the sun went down and just looked at my property line next to the medical center. The nearest car to my property is 16 feet. I don’t know where you’re intending to put this out over here but that is kind of close. I think that maybe some kind of a stockade fence could be put up so that I don’t have to be so close to this. It is a security issue as well because I have had to call the police a few times. There has been drinking and cars racing through the parking lot, one time, at 2:00 in the morning. There have been people on my property because in the olden days, there is a little gate there and you can just walk through. I have a little 2-foot fence. For security reasons for my family, I think that a fence could be erected. It is pretty simple to enter my property especially because of the slope coming down. My fence is up to your ankles. But I’m really concerned about the environmental issues on these wetlands. I just don’t see how the wetlands can be protected when they are going to drain not only water, but also the debris, and the oil from the pavement and the cars. All of these things have to be considered. Why can’t the parking lot instead of being sloped, why it can’t it be sloped easterly over to Buttonwood. Then you can have drainage pipes going into your dry wells over there. Mr. Garcia replied we can’t do that because if we slope it that way, this means it is going to be higher and it is going to look pretty bad from the inside. Mr. Vergano said Rinaldo, to offset the increase in the run-off from that additional paved area, I understand that you have very wet soil, which wouldn’t be adequate for dry wells. Is there maybe up hill from that location in the existing parking area a place where you can locate a dry well that could intercept an equal amount or greater amount of parking area and discharge it into the ground rather than have it flowing and discharging over land to that point? Do you follow what I’m saying? Follow it backward up the hill a little bit. Areas that are discharging to that point, if you were to grab those areas, not the new area, the existing areas, and put in some seepage pits and let that discharge to the ground. Mr. Garcia said yes, we would be eliminating some of the stuff that is coming from here to here. Mr. Vergano said exactly, so you are offsetting the run-off. Mr. Garcia said yes, we can certainly test this area. I’ve never tested this in here. I’ve worked on this area and it was clay. But again, the soils are course sand here. I’ll take that into consideration and do some testing to see what we have. Ms. Tolbert asked is there sewage here? Mr. Garcia replied yes, there are sewers. They come across here and here and connect and go across 202. Ms. Tolbert asked is the water going into the sewers? Mr. Garcia replied no, the water doesn’t go into public sewers. They are sanitary sewers. You don’t mix drainage with sewers. Ms. Tolbert said that is my concern and I really hope that you consider it. Mr. Garcia said we have discussed with the Town Engineer and we are working on a drainage system that will address the issues of oils and things like that. We did meet with him and we are working on that. Ms. Tolbert asked is it a filtration system? Mr. Garcia replied we are talking about it. Mr. Vergano said there are a number of options. Again, they require maintenance, of course. But you can have inlets with baffles, which we do use in sensitive areas in Town. The baffles literally hold back the oil, which is naturally resting on the surface of the water, oil being lighter than water. At the end of a significant rainfall event, that is clean. Again, it requires continual maintenance but it is affective though. It will discharge and it will hold water. Ms. Tolbert asked who would be maintaining that? Mr. Vergano replied that would be the property owner. Ms. Tolbert said but you see they aren’t even maintaining the water that is flowing out of there now. Mr. Vergano said that is the number one problem with most drainage systems is the lack of maintenance. I’m not saying that these people are any more or less guilty than any other property owner. But you are right; maintenance is critical for these systems to function properly. There really aren’t too many fail-safe systems out there that won’t break the bank. Ms. Tolbert said I must tell you that my back yard since this center has been put up because I bought the house as it was initially being developed, that area has become much wetter than it ever was before. I am a little afraid that it is going to become saturated and so unusable. I really don’t think it is fair for the medical offices to infringe and to hurt my way of living and to depreciate the value of my home, as well. That is a huge area of my property that could potentially become unusable because it could become so saturated with water. I do think that if the proposed drainage is put into use, if this is the drainage that ends up being used, I would like to have an engineer come to my property and I would like drainage on my property. I don’t think that it is my responsibility to handle all of that water when it is not a natural thing. Mr. Vergano said Mr. Garcia just made the offer that he will evaluate other areas that could be appropriate to install seepage pits. Ms. Tolbert said I don’t want a seepage pit on my property. Mr. Vergano said we are talking on the applicant’s property. Mr. Garcia said to eliminate the amount of water… In other words, what we suggested is that we already have these parking lots coming down and draining into here and going in here. What Ed is suggesting is that if we can backtrack this drainage, we’re in essence intercepting it and making it go into an in-ground system. If this parking lot flows into here, it wouldn’t increase anything or possibly increase the amount of water that is already going into that. That is what he is talking about. We will explore that. Ms. Tolbert said if it is put into affect and I find that my property is completely saturated, what recourse do I have? Mr. Vergano replied that becomes a civil matter at that point. Ms. Tolbert said I would like to try and make sure that doesn’t happen. Mr. Vergano said of course. Mr. Garcia said we don’t want to damage your property either. They don’t want to do that. They have been there awhile and they want to be good neighbors. We’ll address it. It is an issue that we know about. Ms. Tolbert said again, I would like a fence erected because I do think it is a security problem right now. There are too many cars and too many transient people. Mr. Kessler said to be clear, the bottom part of your property there is part of a wetland? Ms. Tolbert replied it is the beginning of the wetland, yes. It is about 1/3 of my property.

the map? How far down does it go? Ms. Tolbert indicated on the map and said I have my section and lot number if that will help and you want to look at the maps later. Ms. Todd said I just wanted to know. When we walked that area, there was a wooden fence along… Ms. Tolbert said that is my fence but it is not wood. Ms. Todd said there is a stockade fence. Ms. Tolbert asked a stockade fence? Not on my property. It is on the other side; it is on Buttonwood. There was a stockade fence that was put up. Ms. Todd said I need to know where your property is. Ms. Tolbert said my house is up here and the property is all down here. This is the whole line of the property. You walked here. There is a rock wall here. Mr. Foley said her house is on Lafayette, the front. The back lower portion is what she is talking about. You said it has gotten wetter and wetter. Ms. Tolbert said yes, since it started. I’m really concerned. This is impervious material. Where is the water going? You can drain it off but if the water table gets to such a saturation point, where else is it going to go? The Dickey Brook pond is back there.

drainage, if there is an overflow, what type of a back up system do you have? If we have a major storm event, and your existing design drainage is not taking much… Mr. Garcia replied the system is designed to take storms that can generally… Mr. Foley asked is that a 100-year flood? Mr. Belluscio said a 5-year flood with a determination at the concentration time. You are looking at a storm of greater duration that would naturally fill up those dry wells and they would just back up. The drainage would most likely go down towards 202. Mr. Bernard asked how many 5-year events have we had this year? Mr. Belluscio replied I don’t know. 5 years is a statistical thing. It is a storm that you would expect in a 5-year period. You have 10 year, 20 year, etc. Ms. Tolbert said but you are talking about Buttonwood. Mr. Belluscio said that is what he was asking about in the event that those dry wells fill up, what happens? Mr. Foley said what about the one that she is near? Where does that one go? Mr. Belluscio replied that is a natural wetland and as I understand it, it feeds into a watercourse. It was wet before her house was built. Ms. Tolbert said yes, but not as wet as it is now. It is getting wetter. Mr. Belluscio said we are going to address that problem by possibly coming up with some alternatives in terms of trying to intercept some of the drainage that is coming off of the existing parking so that it doesn’t create a bigger problem for you. Ms. Tolbert said that is what I would like to see.

Mr. Foley asked is there a way to tell, Ed, with history what was wet when? Over the years, how much of a man made wetland may have been created over an existing wetland? Is that possible? Mr. Vergano replied it is possible; we do have some old topo maps. Rinaldo, is that from the 1986 aerials? Is that from Town topo? Mr. Garcia no, this one doesn’t have it. The topo is on the other map. Mr. Vergano said I think the question is has it expanded. Mr. Garcia replied it was the original topo that was used when the original buildings were done. We just used that. Mr. Vergano said it is very difficult to determine whether or not and how this has changed over the last few decades.

this. Also, was this put to the Board before because I never received anything? Mr. Garcia replied we just scheduled the Public Hearing. It was on but we went back and forth because they discussed whether they were going to do it or not. Mr. Kessler said it was first on the agenda in July 2002. Then it goes through a process until we get to a Public Hearing. We’ll adjourn this to another meeting until staff and the applicant get together to engineer the drainage.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to adjourn the Public Hearing, seconded by Ms. Todd.

On the question, Mr. Verschoor asked is this adjourned until July 1^st? Mr. Hoch replied if they can get their new submission in. Mr. Kessler asked will you be able to get together with staff? Mr. Garcia replied yes.

Mr. Steven Kessler, Chairman, presided and other members in attendance were as follows:

Ms. Gail Abrams, Executive Director, Cliffdale Farm, introduced herself to the Board and said I believe you have a letter that we submitted and I don’t have any additional information. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Kessler asked do you want to briefly tell us why we are all here today? Ms. Abrams replied basically, we have a community supported agricultural program as our final project. We went to expand it to 35 full shares this year. We held a couple of meetings in the neighborhood. We talked to neighbors; evidentially, we didn’t talk enough. We had some neighbors with concerns. We are trying to address those concerns with our neighbors. I believe we tried to do that and have done that and, therefore, are applying with this application for a 1-year activity permit. Mr. Kessler asked the 1-year activity permit allows exactly what? Ms. Abrams replied it allows us to have the community supported agricultural program. It basically allows us to have 35 full shares. That means that people buy a share of the harvest. Every week, we harvest the produce and then distribute it to them off-site. The people that are signed up for the shares will come to the farm as scheduled workers at various times to help run the farm, plant the crops, weed the crops, harvest them, and help distribute them. So we have a schedule like you would for a regular worker helping with the volunteer workers. They get paid for their time. They come to help work on the farm.

Mr. Tom Secunda, Teatown Road, introduced himself to the Board and said the neighborhood actually wrote a letter on the program. There was filed with this a traffic plan and a site plan of where everything was located. Given that Teatown will be coming up next year for a review of all of their programs, we are trying it for a year and seeing how this and the other programs affect traffic itself. We thought it was a fair thing to do. Mr. Kessler asked how is that traffic going to be measured? Ms. Abrams replied we have a traffic log. When a volunteer comes to work on the farm, they log them in as a visit with a vehicle. There will be a couple of times when more than one person will come and try to carpool, so there will be 2 or 3 in a car.

Ms. Todd said I read somewhere that you had secured a place for parking. Ms. Abrams said yes, the Croton Train Station. The Village of Croton said it is giving us a spot at the Croton Parking lot.

Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to close the Public Hearing and prepare a resolution for the next meeting, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor “AYE.”

A Public Hearing (adjourned) pursuant to Section 307, Zoning, of the Cortlandt Code was conducted by the Planning Board of the Town of Cortlandt at the Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, New York on Tuesday evening, June 3, 2003, to consider the Application of Thomas Dickson of Spain Oil Company, for the property of Mid-Valley Oil Company, Inc., for amended Site Development Plan approval and a Special Permit for the conditionally approved convenience store and canopy at the Mobil gas station located on the northwest side of Roa Hook Road on the Annsville Circle as shown on a 7 page set of drawings entitled “Cortlandt Mobil, Annsville Circle” prepared by Morris Associates, P.S., LLC, latest revision dated March 20, 2003.

Mr. Steven Kessler, Chairman, presided and other members in attendance were as follows:

Mr. Joseph Dennis, Engineer, Morris Associates, introduced himself to the Board and said we are here to go over with the Board the building elevations primarily the changes that were made from prior meetings. What you see here tonight is very much the same as what was bought to the last meeting with just a little different view from underneath the canopy and from further away from the building. Some of the features that are doing are incorporating a lot of fieldstone on the façade of the building that was requested from prior meetings. We changed the roof-line from what it was previously. We added some columns with a peak projection for the entryway so that this is somewhat different from what the applicant had come with originally with Planning Board comments and comments from the Architectural Review Committee. Mr. Kessler said also, with comments from the New York State Office of Parks and Recreation. We’re appreciative of all the efforts that you did to accommodate all those first views.

Mr. Clemens said I want to point out that the Architectural Review Committee is pleased with the effort that has been made. I want to point out that there were a couple of comments made by the Board at the last meeting namely the roof pitch and there was a question with respect to the wood rails. Also, a question with regard to the roof at the end elevation here (indicating). These have not yet been addressed but I’m not sure if the Board has an issue with it. The committee as a whole feels that the applicant has done quite an effort. I just wanted to point out those issues that were raised at the last meeting have not been changed. Mr. Kessler asked are you o.k. with the rendition as it stands? Mr. Clemens replied yes, we’re o.k.

Mr. Bianchi said that sketch looks like the approach is looking down. I think what we talked about was the approach going towards Annsville Circle. Is that where that view came from? Mr. Clemens replied if I may answer, I think as you are coming across the bridge from Route 9, you will be looking down. Mr. Dennis said to give you a little bit better idea from the street perspective, we did show that under the canopy. Mr. Foley said the redesigning, to make it less contemporary and fitting to the area, won’t be lost with the canopy. You will be able to see through it coming across from Peekskill approaching the Annsville Circle. If you are coming towards the Annsville Circle, at the end of the creek bridge… Mr. Dennis said yes, that is pretty much directly opposite over here from where the building is. You are looking at it similarly from the way that is shown. Mr. Foley said I didn’t realize it was down and the elevation is that low.

correspondence that we received. One is from the City of Peekskill dated June 3, 2003. I don’t know if you have seen a copy of this. Mr. Dennis said yes, Ken did fax us the City of Peekskill’s comments, as well the State Parks. Mr. Kessler said they had some issues for the most part about landscaping. Mr. Dennis said that is correct, which we did add landscaping based on the D.O.T.’s input and we added several features with the stonewall, the capstan bollards, and because of the islands and the way that they changed, we added landscaping modifications. Mr. Kessler said lastly, a letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation dated June 3, 2003. They were concerned about the location of signage.

Mr. Foley said the intensity of the lighting also, it mentions this in the letter. Mr. Dennis said we can provide a photometric if that would help evaluate the lighting levels. Mr. Klarl said that is what Peekskill specifically requested and elevations. Mr. Dennis said I think they should have received elevations in their original package. Maybe they just wanted an extra copy of them.

Motion was made by Ms. Todd to close the Public Hearing and prepare a resolution for July 1^st, seconded by Mr. Bernard.

comment period open so that Peekskill gets data if anyone wants to make comments.