Minutes

Planning Board Minutes

March 4, 2003

Cortlandt was conducted at the Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, New York on Tuesday evening, March 4, 2003, at

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

CHANGES TO AGENDA BY MAJORITY VOTE:

2. Memo from Town of Cortlandt, DES re. Revised Procedures for Processing Applications for Minor Projects

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to add these items after Correspondence, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”

APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 7, 2003:

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to approve the minutes from January 7, 2003, seconded by Mr. Bianchi, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: PB 25-93, Letter dated December 26, 2002 from Bernard Zipprich, AIA regarding proposed changes to the conditional site development plan approval for Roundtop at Montrose.

Motion was made by Ms. Todd to approve Resolution #11-03 with the following changes we discussed at the worksession. The first one is in the third paragraph:

‘Whereas, the proposed changes are relocating the entrance roadway at Route 9A, identification of a future right-of-way over the applicant’s property.’

‘The applicant’s actual placement and construction of any and all proposed changes to the entrance roadway at Route 9A to accommodate the new access road to be designed, funded, and constructed by the Town of Cortlandt are subject to the approval of the Director of Technical Services.’

RE: PB 15-02, Public Hearing: Application of Equity Enterprises, LLC, FOR Site Development Plan Approval for a change of use to a contractor’s yard located at 2 Bay View Road as shown on a drawing entitled “Site Development Plan for Equity Enterprises, LLC” prepared by Cronin Engineering, PE, PC, latest revision dated December 23, 2002.

RE: PB 18-02, Public Hearing: Referral dated January 22, 2003 from the Town Board of a Resolution of Intent for a proposed Zoning Amendment regarding a proposed funeral home on Oregon Road submitted by Matthew F. Carlone for property located on Oregon Road known as the former Robinson’s Greenhouse.

RE: PB 3-03, Public Hearing: Referral dated February 12, 2003 from the Town Board of a Resolution of Intent for Zoning Amendments regarding various changes to Chapter 307 (Zoning) of the Town of Cortlandt Code.

RE: PB 1-88, Application and Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated November 25, 2002 of Peter Praeger of Mount Airy Associates for Preliminary Plat Approval, Wetland and Steep Slope Permits for an 11 lot major subdivision of 48 acres located at the end of McGuire Lane as shown on a 6-page set of drawings entitled “Lakeview Estates” prepared by Ralph G. Mastromonaco, P.E., dated July 25, 2001.

Mr. Kessler said I know you want to move into the FEIS phase. The Board has some comments on the DEIS that we would like to see included. Mr. Hoch said this has been around for a long time and there is good reason for it. This is a very tough site. Some of the issues I made notes on, some specific notes, but the one that probably bothers me the most is the cul-de-sac. The fact that we should add a 1,740 foot cul-de-sac onto an existing cul-de-sac that the applicant would then donate to the Town for us to maintain, I have a real problem with that. There are issues of drainage basins in the wetlands, the percentage of steep slopes on this property, fire pumps, ponds, cut and fill discrepancies, and whether or not there is a potential road connection to Vista Ridge and what developing this property in several different configurations might do to that. There is a school district deficit with no mitigation proposed. There are no conservation easements proposed on a very difficult parcel. I would dread seeing some of these homeowners decide to build swimming pools between their wells and their septics. More than 50% of this site is steep slopes over 20%. We are in the midst of revising our steep slopes ordinance, which of course wouldn’t apply to this; however, conventional thinking now is that it is too great of a steep slope percentage to be building on. There is this up-in-the-air issue of septic regulations. You are or you aren’t subject to the existing regulations. There are old regulations, which aren’t as strict as current regulations, and while there is reference to a number of conversations in this document, there is no written proof from Westchester County as to what regulations you are subject to. There are questions about groundwater and potential groundwater supplies and the affect on existing homeowners should wells be dug for all 11 of these houses. DEP approval, I made myself a note on page 3.2.11, it talks about the fact that projects within the watershed area must receive approval from the New York City DEP for certain activities. Your document then goes on to say that regulations applicable to this application deal primarily with storm water management, although there are other restrictions related to pesticide use, hazardous materials, storage, etc. We don’t accept ‘etc.’ I want to know what regulations apply to what activities. I can’t guess. On page 3.2.10, table 3.2-2, you have several lots that have a depth to groundwater of only 3 feet. A few others are as shallow as 5 feet. To me, that is a potential problem for some future homeowner. What if the water table rises, you are going to have flooding. There are questions on 3.2-15 about vegetative strips and the DEP regulations regarding vegetative strips and their use on steep slopes where they are ineffective. On 3.2-16, the long-term maintenance, which would be a Town responsibility of a complicated drainage system. The easement and the gravel road to get to the drainage basins also seem to possess some problems. That is the basis of my comments.

Mr. Leslie said I must agree with Mr. Hoch’s comment that this is a difficult site. You might say it is one steep slope. At the bottom of the slope there are some wetlands. On the way down the hill to that wetland, there is a stream, which makes for a very difficult site. There is one occurrence on that site that I want to note for the record that I don’t know what to do about until lots are approved and where lots are going to be and possible housing is going to be. That is on this site there is the occurrence of two stands of Maiden Hair (sp?) fern, a very rare plant. It doesn’t appear very often in New York State. It does appear in a couple of places in Cortlandt. We, the CAC, will have some further comment to make about it if there is an approval of lots and this site is developed. We will want to try to protect those plants.

Mr. Foley said I have a question for Lew since he just discussed it. Are they very rare ferns? Are they in two separate locations? Mr. Leslie replied they are separate locations but they are close to each other on the slope downhill. I don’t think it appears as an endangered species on any list but I don’t know where else I can find it in Cortlandt except right there. Mr. Foley said some of the concerns that I have are what Ken very adequately expressed. I agree with what he is saying. Also, the potential tree cutting percentage, I forgot what page it is. It seems to be a pretty high percentage. The cul-de-sac lane is also a concern that I have. I’m trying to recall from the site visit, four years ago or maybe 5, I was fairly new on the Board. Also, the fact that the storm water drainage goes into wetlands and buffer areas. I was also wondering about the DEP involvement and how involved they have been in the process. The consultant, Clark, has a reference to blasting impacts. I had a concern there, also. I believe it was from our consultant in his January letter. Maybe, it is in the document, also. That pretty much covers what I can recall from my notes in January.

Mr. Kessler said let me give you a couple of items. I would like to see some discussion on the extent of wells on the adjoining properties and how they may or may not be impacted by your proposal. Ken mentioned the financial aid deficit; can you also look to revise those numbers given what is being talked about in terms of changes in State aid and how they may affect the fiscal impacts? On page 1-8, you talk about a 1,770 foot cul-de-sac, whether it is 1,740 or not. Also, I agree with Mr. Hoch that we need to see some positive statement from the Department of Health on the septic and what aspect of the regulations is involved. Mr. Andrew Mavian, Tim Miller & Associates, introduced himself to the Board and asked may I raise one point? We will, of course, be sending out this document to the Department of Health as an involved agency once it is accepted. I would expect at that point… Mr. Kessler said I think the issue is how can you accept it when you make a very broad statement that says ‘based on conversations.’ I don’t think ‘based on conversations’ is sufficient for us, or at least for me, to make a decision on that. I understand that ultimately they have an approval but I just am of the opinion why waste all of our time if there is a major issue with the septic system, which you seem to say that there isn’t. Mr. Mavian said that is based on conversation. I don’t have anything in writing from them. Mr. Kessler said you can ask them. Mr. Mavian said we will try again. We have tried. Mr. Kessler said that is a very big aspect of this, that representation of this issue. In terms of the extra fill, can you give me some sense also about the number of trucks? I should know these things, but I don’t, in terms of how many trucks that you require to remove that extra fill. On page 3.5-4, you talk about projects pending under construction. Some of that information I don’t think is current. You talk about things that are under construction that are in fact built. For example, Blue Mountain Estates. So that chart needs to be bought up to date. You make a comment on 3.5-5 that the driveways will have grades of generally 12% or less. I would like to know specifically who is generally and who is not. Are there issues in terms of the driveway grades? For staff, when we laid out the scope, the 4 alternatives, did we specify the number of lots in the alternatives or did we specify conditions? Mr. Verschoor replied we’ll check the scope on that. Mr. Kessler said my point here is on alternative #C, you say 11 homes, you have to move the storm water basins and there is no access for future road connections. I’m just wondering is that because you chose to keep 11 lots? Certainly, you could accommodate that if it wasn’t 11 lots. I’m not sure if this is a real alternative or not. You set it up so that it is still 11 lots but you can’t do all the other things. If you change the number of lots in alternative #C, can you still accomplish those other important aspects like access to future development? The gravel road access seems to… It doesn’t require construction; I don’t know what that means. Again, why don’t you go back and see exactly what we have. Mr. Verschoor said Alternative #C was just alternative locations for the proposed retention pond, not in the wetlands, and wetland buffers to reduce potential impacts on existing wetlands and buffers and alternative driveway locations to reduce effects on steep slopes. I don’t see that it specified a certain number of lots. Mr. Kessler said I think you probably should have not made that leap to exclude the access to the other lots. I think Alternative #C needs to be rethought and then presented in the spirit of the Scoping Document. Mr. Mavian said we’ll take another look at that.

Ms. Taylor said I don’t have very many comments. Mr. Hoch covered them all. One of the things that I would like to bring to the table at this point is based on the letter from our consultant that they are saying your descriptions and your language in the report, generally, leave something to be desired. There are discrepancies in terminology like ‘adequate.’ Mr. Mavian said we received the comment letters from the consultants. Ms. Taylor said there is no need to go through all of these things but I think one of the things that came up is that they are asking that you go back and change language to be more specific provide examples that actually parallel to things that we are discussing. For example, there is something at the end of the Charles Sells report, page 5 or 6. You are saying that this project is somewhat of a take-off of other projects that are comparable to it. As you discuss this project, you actually say that this… You say ‘the storm water management system for both projects is designed to comply with the same NYC DEP regulatory standards. Unlike the Arrow Crest (sp?) basins, the Lakeview Estates basins will be planted with wetland vegetation to provide additional biological,’ etc., etc. Now Sells’ office says ‘we are unclear with how the Arrow Crest basins were left unplanted if the project was subject to the same DEP regulatory standards.’ In other words, you are saying that it is like this other project. But in fact, you are saying about something that is critically important like how you use the basins, what plants are going in the basins. You are saying that it is like this project. But what they are asking is this project like this project or is it not? You need to deal with this. Actually, I’m looking at a number of other places as well in their report that sort of suggests that there are a lot of discrepancies that need to be resolved so that we can say this is a done deal. I doubt in view of this and the scope that this is a project that is going to pass anyway. But this report needs to be a little more consistent with comments. (Tape unclear.)

Mr. Hoch said on page 3.2-6, it talks about the water quality sampling program. In accordance with the scope for the DEIS the sampling program is being reviewed by the New York City DEP. Do we have any results yet? Mr. Mavian replied no, we have not had correspondence from them. The situation is that once we have this accepted, we certainly would get correspondence.

Mr. Kessler said so where we stand now is that we have reports and comments and the consultants don’t feel that this is complete. What is the process now? Do we revise the DEIS? Mr. Verschoor replied yes, and they resubmit it. Mr. Mavian said we are still waiting for the biodiversity study. It has not been submitted yet.

Motion was made by Ms. Taylor to refer this back to staff and to set a site inspection for March 30^that 9:30 a.m., seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: PB 4-02, Application of William D. Hay for Final Plat approval for a two lot major subdivision of 20.6 acres located on the southerly side of Revolutionary Road and the westerly side of East Park Drive between the Peekskill/Cortlandt Border and Fox Hill Road and shown on a drawing entitled “Subdivision Plat prepared for William D. Hay” prepared by Donald J. Donnelly, PLS latest revision dated February 3, 2003 and a drawing entitled “Final Subdivision Plan prepared for William & Margery Hay” prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, III, P.E. latest revision dated December 27, 2002.

Mr. Tim Cronin, Cronin Engineering, introduced himself to the Board and said the final subdivision plans were submitted and the plans show the sign-off from the Health Department. We have requested that since the current plan is substantially in accordance with the plan that was approved for the preliminary that the final Public Hearing be waived and hope that the Board can proceed with adopting a final subdivision approving resolution. Mr. Kessler said one question that came up at the worksession is why do we have two agenda items tonight? Mr. Cronin replied we were at the last minute with the Health Department trying to get their final sign-off. We were unsure whether we would get that back from the Health Department in a timely fashion. We wanted to make sure that we had something in for the time extension in the event that we did not have the sign-off from the Health Department. If you approve the final resolution tonight, then we can eliminate the time extension in the correspondence.

Mr. Hoch said based on the applicant receiving Health Department approval and that we spent considerable time looking at this two lot subdivision and that the applicant had tried to move the house to accommodate the topography and the wetlands and drainage, I’m actually glad that he got this Health Department approval. It is one less issue that bothers me.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to adopt Resolution #12-03 granting final approval, seconded by Ms. Taylor.

RE: PB 3-02, Application of Manuel Inga for Site Development Plan approval for the on-site parking for business vehicles for property located on the west side of Roa Hook Road (Route 9) as shown on a drawing entitled “Site Design Plan for Manuel Inga” prepared by John Lentini, R.A. latest revision dated February 10, 2003.

Mr. John Lentini, architect for the applicant, introduced himself to the Board and said I would like to personally offer my condolences for the late Mr. Sloat. I haven’t been here in awhile. It is a great loss.

and I think we want to go out and take a look at the site on the 30th of March at 9:00 a.m. Is there anything else for us to do? Mr. Verschoor replied in our review memo, we also asked about what kind of equipment you have parked on the property. Can you explain anything about the number of trucks or tractors or equipment that this business uses? Mr. Lentini replied essentially, it uses trucks. We indicated on the site plan where the parking is for dump trucks. There aren’t large trucks. There are certain materials on this site. One of the review comments was that we can’t store materials on this site. That itself becomes a little bit of a hardship because he has to use sand. He can’t buy a little bit. He usually stores sand and it is something that stays outside. Often, maybe a little gravel and stones. Unless we have to build a storage shed, we would like to have some relief or be able to limit a certain size for storage. Mr. Kessler asked has code been out there? Mr. Verschoor replied yes, Code Enforcement has visited the site. Mr. Lentini said there has always been something stored there and that is one of the reasons it is taking a little time. Mr. Verschoor said we can perhaps get an interpretation from Code Enforcement if they are doing something that they shouldn’t be.

replied he is a stone mason. He is a specialty stone mason. He does sculptors. He buys property often just for the stone that exists there. This particular property he bought to run his business because he was working out of his house and he was unable to do that when Code Enforcement pointed it out to him. He came here thinking that an HC zone means that he could do it. There are some other problems that are going to delay it also. The house encroaches on the right-of-way. There appears to be at least a right-of-way to fire access. Mr. Klarl asked is this the stone business that you handed out in the New York Times articles to the ZBA? Mr. Lentini replied yes. The right-of-way is very difficult to use. It is probably the steepest part of the hill in terms of the fire access. I suppose a pipe could be bought up but I’m unaware of any water main that exists. Another discovery that that I had based on the fire inspection is there is only one well for the two properties. They are fed across the easement. It is a very complicated issue. I’m afraid I’m doing the rope-a-dope; I’m not sure what to do.

Ms. Todd said I have a question about the new paved driveway in the parking area. Is that just now? Mr. Lentini replied that was done. It was done apparently without a permit. We are legalizing that by the nature of this. Ms. Todd asked what new pavement is going to be added? Mr. Lentini replied everything that I showed that is proposed is there already. Ms. Todd said I have a question about the storm water system, the existing system. You are proposing this new driveway; I thought that maybe might need to be updated a little bit. Mr. Lentini said it works with the Annsville Creek, which is right across the street. There are very large culverts. There is no flow problem. Mr. Foley said you have never had it run into the Annsville Creek? Mr. Lentini replied actually, we have a collection system that goes from some of the property into a ditch that goes into a culvert that goes under the street that goes under Roa Hook and dumps into Annsville. Mr. Hoch asked John, did you say that you are before the ZBA? Mr. Lentini replied we were granted a variance to be exempt from the moratorium. Mr. Klarl said they came before the ZBA for the hardship from the moratorium. Mr. Hoch said so we may have issues here that send you back.

Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to schedule a site visit for March 30^th at 9:00 a.m., seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor “AYE.”

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 as discussed in our worksession, we have referred this to the consultants. There is a matter of funding the consultant’s review. We will be reviewing it as will the consultants. Mr. Verschoor said as soon as we get the funding, we can start.

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to refer this back to staff, seconded by Ms. Taylor, 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 February 18, 2003.

Mr. Kessler said the action is pretty much the same. We sent out a letter to you asking for money for the consultants to review this. We will refer this back. Mr. Verschoor said there is also an earlier request for funding for the cumulative traffic study, which the applicant still owes the Town money on.

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

RE: PB 43-85, Letter dated January 23, 2003 from Jennifer Moon requesting a sign for the Kumon Math & Reading Center located in the Carbone Building at 24 Old Albany Post Road.

Motion was made by Ms. Todd to approve the sign, seconded by Mr. Hoch, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: PB 10-99, Letter dated January 28, 2003 from Arthur Seckler requesting the fourth time extension for the Site Development Plan Approval for the Lockwood Plaza Office Building.

Motion was made by Ms. Taylor to adopt Resolution #13-03 subject to one condition that is the applicant agrees to convey to the Town of Cortlandt property of 3,000 square feet on the corner of Lockwood Road and Oregon Road needed for the purposes of road improvements, seconded by Mr. Bianchi.

On the question, Mr. Vergano said we should revise the wording to note that the additional property would be donated rather than to convey. I think we should specify ‘donate.’ Mr. Kessler asked is there any objection from any Board member? Mr. Klarl said we’ll state that it should be dedicated. Mr. Arthur Seckler introduced himself to the Board and said I was provided with a draft copy of the resolution this evening. I did fax it to the owner. They have reviewed it. They would like the language to read that they will work with the Town on working out an agreement. We don’t know exactly what portion of the 3,000 square feet that Mr. Vergano has described in the condition would be involved with the project. But if the language can be revised that we would work out the agreement in a suitable arrangement for the dedication of that land, we are agreeable. Mr. Vergano said if we were to add a lane on Lockwood Road, it is likely that it would affect Old Oregon Road. It probably would clip the corner of the property of the right-of-way. We don’t have the final design right now. It could be up to, it was mentioned that it would be 3,000 square feet; it will likely not require 3,000 square feet. It would require some portion of that property. Again, we do not have a design in final form yet. As I mentioned to Mr. Seckler earlier, ordinarily, these properties are just conveyed to the Town at no cost. If I’m understanding it correctly now, your client would like some compensation for the property. Mr. Seckler said that topic has come up, yes. But more specifically, they want to know exactly what property the Town is looking for. I did describe to them that it would be the corner of Lockwood and Oregon that you would be looking for the turning lane. They just ask that if the language stipulated that they would work out the specifics of it in the condition of the dedication that is what they would be looking for. Mr. Klarl asked would you rather adjourn the adoption of this resolution so that Planning can be involved?

premature. I would like to see where the turning lane is and where the road surface drainage is going to go. Is it going to come back down Lockwood towards the brook and into the private pond? I would like to see the plan.

DOTS work out an agreement with the applicant for a new resolution, seconded by Mr. Hoch.

RE: PB 4-02, Letter dated February 3, 2003 from Bill Zutt, Esq. requesting the first 6 month time extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for the Hay Subdivision.

RE: PB 19-99, Letter dated February 7, 2003 from Peter Sloan regarding a Community Supported Agriculture Pilot Program at the Teatown Lake Reservation.

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

RE: Town Board Resolution No. 88-03 regarding amending procedures with respect to Single-Lot Building Permits.

Mr. Kessler said we discussed this at the worksession and I think there was a problem with the resolution that Ms. Todd pointed out as it relates to the second paragraph. She proposes that it is not only for anyone who receives a building permit but for anyone who applies for a building permit. With that, reformation has to go back to the Town Board and have them amend the resolution. Mr. Vergano said I will make sure that is added to next week’s Town Board agenda. Again, that will be consistent with the wording later in the resolution. Clearly, the intent was to post a sign when an application is received.

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to refer this back to the Town Board for revision, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2003 FROM THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF DIVINE LOVE REQUESTING A REVSIION TO THE SITE PLAN FOR THE HANDCIPA ACCESSIBILITY.

Mr. Kessler asked if anyone was present representing the Church of Divine Love. Mr. Clemens said several weeks ago the Director of Technical Services, Mr. Vergano, invited me to come along and take a look at the Church of Divine Love in Verplanck. The applicant is proposing to construct an elevator lift, a handicap lift, on the outside of the church to accommodate a wheel-chaired parishioner, as I understand. What they have proposed is a metal and glass enclosure to be attached to the exterior of what appears to be a mid-19^th century building, brick and stone, a very attractive building. It is the opinion of the Committee that the proposed addition, as they have proposed it, is incompatible with the architecture that we would like to suggest that they find a design that is more compatible with the building. Mr. Kessler said staff will contact the applicant and convey that. Ms. Todd said I think all of us on the Planning Board at the worksession felt that was the direction to go, too.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to refer this back to staff and have them contact the applicant with ARC’s comments, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”

RE: DRAFT DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2003 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING A PROPOSED REVISED PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR PROJECTS.

Mr. Verschoor said the only change would be that we will take out the procedure about the Public Hearings. Mr. Kessler asked do you need us to take action? Mr. Verschoor replied yes, a motion.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to adopt the recommendations made by staff, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor “AYE.”

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 5 page set of drawings entitled “Cortlandt Mobil, Annsville Circle” prepared by Morris Associates, P.S., LLC, latest revision dated February 24, 2003.

Mr. Joseph Dennis, Morris Associates, engineer for the applicant, introduced himself to the Board and said as you probably remember, this project was looked at and received a resolution in June, 2002 where the site plan was given conditional approval subject to obtaining several items including approval from the State DOT, approval from the County Health Department, and several other items that were in that resolution. My company mainly focused on getting the DOT’s approval for the project including the entrance location and we are also working with the Health Department for getting approval for the septic system and the well, water supply. The main differences in the application that you see before you are the building elevation and the canopy elevation, as well. These are updated per Exxon Mobil’s new corporate standards and the property owner’s preference as far as what they want the building and the canopy to look at. I have a color rendering here that depicts what the building will look like in a perspective view along with the canopy in front. Also, the plan has a full complete elevation of the building and also elevation drawings of the canopy. I also want to point out the entrances were revised as per the DOT’s requirements. The last application was made and there was some contact made with the DOT but as I understand it, it was not carried through to the level that the DOT had a full understanding of the project. They came back with these engineering and traffic safety related comments and recommended changes to the entrances. Mr. Kessler asked are these new curb cuts DOT initiated? Mr. Dennis replied yes. There are also some changes with regard to the number of lights that we are now depicting on the site. It is based on looking at catalogue information for lighting and seeing where we have adequate coverage in terms of trying to get at least a half foot candle across the site. Mr. Kessler asked are there changes in the number of dispensers? Mr. Dennis replied no. There are 5 gas pump islands and 1 diesel. It is a change from what is there now but the same as what was approved. The square footage is the same but the façade is what has changed. Mr. Kessler said so the same square footage, same number of dispensers, different curb cuts, anything else? Mr. Hoch asked is it the same number of parking spaces? Mr. Dennis replied yes. Mr. Foley asked are there more curb cuts? According to this, it looks like DOT is asking you to… Mr. Dennis replied they have consolidated two of the cuts into one. I believe they have changed the direction of one of the other ones. Mr. Foley said the concern was the traffic circle, maybe the configuration. Mr. Dennis said yes, how vehicles and trucks would be getting into and out of the site in reference to the traffic circle. Mr. Kessler said I know the ARC just received these plans tonight so they will be looking at them. Mr. Clemens said we did get them in the mail last week and I apologize, but the Committee has not had a chance to look at them. Mr. Kessler said we will refer this back to our staff and our consultants and they will take a look at it. They will issue a memo and we’ll schedule a Public Hearing.

Mr. Bernard asked how many bathrooms are in this facility? Mr. Dennis replied there are two, one male and one female. Mr. Bernard asked are they both ADA? Mr. Dennis replied yes, ADA accessible.

Mr. Vergano asked will there be any work in connection with the underground gas storage tanks? Will they be replaced? Mr. Dennis replied there is a plan to replace the ones that are there.

Ms. Todd asked is this design of the building the only one that Exxon Mobil has? Or do they have other designs say of more of a country setting and less modern? Mr. Dennis replied this is somewhat of a custom building for this client’s use. But the overall tendency is to try to go modern with the Mobil Stations. Ms. Taylor asked that is their overall tendency but you do have other plans that could be changed for the client’s look of the building? Mr. Dennis replied there would be some latitude with that, yes.

Mr. Klarl asked were you aware with the previous application that because you are within so many feet of a State Park that you had to go to the State’s Park system? I don’t know with this revised plan, have you talked to them? You are within the Paddle Park. Mr. Dennis replied I’m aware of it. Mr. Klarl said the first time through, you went to the State Park’s Department. You revised the plans; you need to send a copy to that agency for their comments that is actually the approval authority if you are within 500 feet of a State Park with commercial development. You might want to check that out. Mr. Dennis replied o.k.

Mr. Foley said I am worried about the elevation of the canopy and how close it is to the front of the building. The impact, not only visually but light-wise it would have on the area. You have a view of the Hudson River coming south on 9. The Paddle Park was put in there. The DOT removed their old building. That was what I was wondering how different this was from the plan that we saw a year ago. Mr. Dennis said I know that coming south on 9 there is the Reef and Beef Restaurant that really pretty well obstructs what you see. Mr. Foley said once you get into the circle, your building is the one that you would see from 9 going across the Annsville Creek. How different is it from what we saw? Mr. Klarl said that is why the State Park Department has to comment on the canopy. Mr. Kessler said we’ll clearly need a Public Hearing on this.

Mr. Bernard said could you also let us know what the staffing is. Is this a 24-hour facility? Mr. Dennis replied I don’t believe they are planning on it being a 24-hour facility. Mr. Bernard asked could we know what hours they are planning on? Also, the staffing, is it one person running the whole show all the time?

Mr. Foley said the total elevation of the building is less. Is that what you are saying here? The height of the building, the modified elevations? Mr. Dennis replied I will have to check whether it decreased.

Mr. Clemens said I would like to request from the applicant if they haven’t already submitted it, copies of the color rendering. Mr. Verschoor said we do not have them. Can you leave us a copy? Mr. Dennis replied I can leave that with you.

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

RE: PB 5-03, Application of Wal-Mart Inc. for amended Site Development Plan approval to winterize approximately 7,373 sq. ft. of the existing Garden Center at the Wal-Mart Store located at the Cortlandt Town Center as shown on a 4 page set of drawings entitled “Wal-Mart Glazed Canopy Enclosure” prepared by APD Engineering dated February 21, 2003.

Mr. Vincent Savino, Snyder and Snyder Associates, introduced himself to the Board and said I’m here tonight on behalf of Wal-Mart and the application to winterize a small portion of their garden center, which is located at the rear of the property. I’m happy to answer any questions that you have on the application.

Ms. Todd asked are you going to continue to keep the garden supplies in that area or are you going to move that? Mr. Savino replied yes. Actually, the proposed enclosure will only cover a small portion of the garden center. Most of it will still remain open. So, yes, it will still be a garden center.

on a sturdier roof for this area. Mr. Savino said I believe around the fencing would be a roll of plastic to protect it from the wind as well. I believe that it should be just the fiberglass around it. Mr. Hoch said so there is no proposed heat in there? Mr. Savino replied I believe that there might be an idea at a later time to provide some heating, but… Mr. Klarl said when you were before the ZBA, there was some discussion about possible heat blowers of some heat. Mr. Savino said yes, into the fiberglass. But I’m not sure that was ever filed. Mr. Kessler asked do you have a sprinkler system in that area? Mr. Savino replied no, I don’t believe in that area. We can confirm that for you. Mr. Bianchi asked what is the reason that Wal-Mart wants to do something to protect that area? Mr. Savino replied right now, the existing roof is metal with a mesh screening over it. It is really to protect both the customers and the merchandise from the wind, the rain, and the snow. Mr. Klarl said in the ZBA application, you said the present roof can’t withstand snowfall. So whatever they put over the framing, they take down in the winter now. So they want to go to a stronger roof material.

Motion was made by Mr. Hoch to refer this back to staff, seconded by Mr. Bianchi.

On the question, Mr. Kessler said they will issue a memo if there are any questions on this.

letter regarding Teatown. Mr. Kessler said we referred this back. Mr. Klarl said he wrote a letter and the Board is going to look at it. Mr. Peter Sloan, 163 Teatown Road, introduced himself to the Board and said I wrote the letter. I just want to point out that this is not a pilot program at this point. We ran a pilot program last year without seeking approval. This year, they are expanding what was a pilot program into a full fledge community supported agricultural program. Again, without seeking any kind of approval for this activity, this is a new activity that was not in the original site plan or scoping that everyone signed off on back a couple of years ago. It seems to me, again, that there is a lack of desire for oversight for Teatown Reservation. They do claim that at some point they contacted someone in Town but again, who it was and what was discussed isn’t clear. Mr. Kessler said we sent it back to staff so they can talk to you and go back to the approving letter and see if it is consistent or not. Mr. Sloan said great, I appreciate that. Mr. Kessler said that is why we referred it back and it will come back on the agenda perhaps at a later meeting.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 p.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, March 4, 2003, to consider the Referral dated February 12, 2003 from the Town Board of a Resolution of Intent for Zoning Amendments regarding various changes to Chapter 307 (Zoning) of the Town of Cortlandt Code.

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.

there are various definitions of a requirement for a contractor’s yard contained in this proposal. There is also a definition of playground equipment, garages sales, portable units, non-conforming use and conforming use. Also, included are zoning changes for the height of a wall and fencing, non-conforming trailers, box trailers, posting of Public Hearing notices for Planning and Zoning applications, and a special permit procedure for outdoor sheds and parking areas for outdoor eating areas. There is also a section on incorporating the AC-9A zone into the text of the zoning ordinance. That is something the Town Board did a few years ago when they established the AC-9A zone on Albany Post Road in Montrose.

said I’m here to speak in regard to the proposal of amendment 307.65.4 pertaining to the use of outdoor storage or sheds. The Planning Board realized the need and convenience of a retail outlet for sheds for residents by including this proposed amendment in tonight’s agenda. I wish to bring to the attention of the Board a potential problem that will prevent the retail outlet from existing with standards and conditions being passed as they are proposed. Mr. Klarl asked do you own a shed sales place? Mr. LeBlanc replied yes, I own the retail place on Route 6. Most of the local cities, villages, etc., and the Town of Cortlandt allow residents to own portable sheds of up to 100 square feet with little or no paperwork or additional taxation. Henceforth, 90% of the sheds purchased are 100 square feet. An 8x12 shed is 96 square feet and 9 feet in height. A 10x10 shed is 100 square feet and is also approximately 9 feet in height. For a successful shed business to exist and properly service its residents, these sheds must be displayed for consumers to see, the ability to see the amount of room inside the shed. Condition #4 states that the height of the surrounding fence should not exceed 8 feet in height. This fence should screen the display of sheds from the road. Condition #5 states that the sheds should not exceed the height of the fence. Henceforth, the sheds that are most in demand and allowable by the Town for residents to own cannot be displayed. How does this amendment allow the residents to properly be serviced or allow a shed business to exist? That is basically what this is about. One other thing that I wanted to know, and you might be able to explain this, I wanted to inquire why sheds are being considered an item that should be screened when there are other outdoor items that are not such as nurseries, automobiles, gravestone displays, boats, and pools, all of which are outdoor items.

Mr. James Tina, 18 Stevenson Avenue, introduced himself to the Board and said one of the issues that I wanted to talk about for quite a long time is the issue of VanCortlandt Place, which is directly in my back yard. My back yard goes up a hill. On top of that hill when I wake up and have a cup of coffee or have family members come over and I entertain in the back yard, I have to stare at a 40 foot tractor trailer, a back hoe, and other rusted equipment that hasn’t been used for about 10 years and hasn’t moved since I have moved into the house over a year and a half ago. I work for the Town of Greenburgh as a carpenter; I work with machinery. When I come home at night, the last thing I want to do is look at more machinery, not to mention the fact that it is on a hill, a 40 foot old rusted out truck that I have to stare at that looks like it is going to topple down and fall into my living room. I guess my question to you is does that constitute a contractor’s yard? I would say so, maybe even a junkyard. I would like to have the situation resolved and be able to go out and enjoy my back yard, the trees and the animals that are back there. Mr. Klarl said sir, maybe I can point out one thing to you. In the amendment, we define a contractor’s yard in a residential zone. You are in a residential zone. Condition #4 states as defined herein, existing contracting yards in residential zones shall be removed within one year of the affective date of this amendment. The Town Board is the legislative body of this Town and enacts this definition. Within one year of enacting that definition, that amendment of the zoning ordinance, the contracting yard would have to be removed from that residential zone. Mr. Tina asked is it safe to assume that this is classified as a contractor’s yard, correct? Mr. Klarl replied we would have to apply it. Mr. Kessler asked have you had Code Enforcement go look at this property? Have you made a formal complaint? Mr. Tina replied no, I haven’t yet. Mr. Klarl said there have been complaints. This property is before the Zoning Board now. Mr. Tina said there have been numerous complaints about it. It is an eyesore. Mr. Klarl said it is going to be on the next ZBA agenda. That will be in the middle part of this month. But to let you know, if there is a contractor’s yard in a residential zone, the definition now requires that the contractor’s yard in a residential zone be removed within one year of the affective date of this zoning amendment. Mr. Tina said that is all I have to say. I just wanted to see what you guys had to say. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kessler said we talked about this at the worksession. In terms of the contractor’s yard, I guess there was some issue about the 100 square feet whether that was a continuous area or that was multiple areas that added up to 100 and who was going to be responsible for counting that. Mr. Klarl said the definition didn’t talk about aggregating it. Mr. Kessler said I also feel fairly strongly that somehow there be some sort of enclosure or some defined space. It is just not in the middle of a lawn (?) that there is some definition of the area that is being proposed to be used as a contractor’s yard. Also, some definition of height to this 10x10 foot space.

Ms. Taylor said I personally think we should consider the height because most people will have a shed that is taller than the fence that surrounds the property. We need to keep that in mind. I still have a problem with this idea of the storing or keeping, which should be 21 days in a 3 month period, which has to be removed. If we don’t get a sense of enclosure for this particular resolution, then we’re saying that people can actually put things outside anywhere and just leave it there. I don’t think we should be passing anything that says in essence you can just drop it there and leave it there as long as it complies with the 100 square foot space. I think we need to be real careful about that. If you allow it, then it clearly has to be a time limit and a short one at that. Mr. Verschoor asked did you also want to restrict it to the rear yard or side yard? Mr. Kessler replied side and rear.

Mr. Foley said I want to reiterate what I said at the worksession, which I think it was explained to me, the part under #3 on page 2, playground equipment non-conforming use, the front yard, I was just concerned that there are occasions where a playground can fit into the front yard, which probably has to be site specific. I agree with all the problems that we have had with large playgrounds in the front yard but I just didn’t want to rule out any site-specific issues. Ken, you had explained something at the worksession in that regard. Mr. Verschoor said for the location of playground equipment. Mr. Foley said yes, if it is a large playground set up and is in the front yard because the rear and side yards are sloping, if it is fenced properly and not really interfering with the view of neighbors or the safety neighbors, does it have to then go…? Mr. Verschoor replied to the Zoning Board for a variance. Mr. Kessler asked does this allow for them to go to the ZBA? Mr. Verschoor replied yes, the ZBA can vary any such a request. Mr. Klarl said this is as-of-right legislation. If you want to do something different, they go to the ZBA. Mr. Kessler said the other thing that you mentioned were tree houses. Mr. Verschoor said yes, we will talk to Code Enforcement about that and we’ll do some research and bring it back to the Board.

the height of the sheds. I think that #5 on page 5 is a little too limiting. If I see a peak of a shed over a 6-foot tall fence, I think that isn’t going to destroy my day. Also, on the section on page 2, definition of a portable unit, we discussed at the worksession that we were going to take the Westchester County Planning Department’s definition of that.

Mr. Verschoor said one question on the sheds. Another requirement would be that a parcel of land that is selling the sheds would have to be fenced in. Do you agree with that concept or do you think that it doesn’t necessarily have to be screened or fenced in from the road? The proposed zoning amendment would require that the outdoor sales area for sheds be entirely surrounded by a solid wall or fence at least 6 feet in height. I think the speaker tonight mentioned that these sheds are normally visible on a residential property and should they be also visible on a commercial property if they are for sale. We thought that perhaps since this is something that is done outdoors and this would be an area where there could be several different types of sheds displayed that perhaps it would look better if it were screened but perhaps you would like it not to be screened. I’m not sure. Mr. Kessler said at this point, you don’t require that for anyone else. Mr. Verschoor said yes, like the sales of automobiles. So if you agree, we can also take that section out. Ms. Taylor said aren’t most of these places that sell them in commercial places anyway? Mr. Verschoor replied that is correct. Ms. Taylor said they should be allowed to show their wears.

Motion was made by Mr. Foley to incorporate the changes and things we discussed, bring this back at the next meeting, and adjourn the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Bianchi.

language and also investigate the tree houses for the next meeting? Mr. Verschoor replied yes.

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, March 4, 2003, to consider the Application of Equity Enterprises, LLC, for Site Development Plan Approval for a change of use to a contractor’s yard located at 2 Bay View Road as shown on a drawing entitled “Site Development Plan for Equity Enterprises, LLC” prepared by Cronin Engineering, PE, PC, latest revision dated December 23, 2002.

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

the Board and said as you are aware, this is a 6.38 acre site located on the southwest corner of Roa Hook Road and Bay View Road in the Town of Cortlandt. It is located in the M-1 zoning district and the uses that are on the site, and this was confirmed in our site walk on February 2, are consistent with what is allowed in that zoning. From what I gather, we have a contractor’s yard, some special trade contractors storing materials and products on the yard. There is an automotive maintenance garage on the site, which the owner uses to maintain his fleet of trucks. The other uses on the site were consistent with the zoning. I think that you could see that the site is in a much above average condition for properties located in the M-1 zone for industrial sites. The site is served by private well and a septic system. There are no municipal services provided other than police and snow removal of the road. As requested at that meeting, we did submit a list of contractors currently at the site. That is in the file. During the site walk, there was a question about a roof that was towards the back that the mason contractor had constructed over his materials. As requested at that meeting, that whole section has been removed as of February 13, 2003 and I believe the Building Department was out there at that time or shortly thereafter and inspected the site to confirm that it was down. What we are looking for tonight is an approval of the contractor’s yard as the site currently exists.

there. Is that the only issue at the site? Mr. Verschoor replied that I know of, yes. Mr. Kessler said one of my questions is that this is a contractor’s yard but there are multiple tenants with varying businesses. Does that all fall within the application of a contractor’s yard? Mr. Verschoor replied they would have to. As a matter of fact, we will be ruling on a definition of a contractor’s yard tonight. They would have to meet that definition. Mr. Kessler asked for comments on the application.

Mr. Hoch said there is a question as to whether the office trailer is a permanent structure or is it in fact moveable, but it is on the site plan. Mr. Cronin said it is on the site plan. It is a temporary structure. It is actually the office for the owner and landlord of the property. He is in charge of the primary fleet of trucks, the tractor trailers. But that is a temporary structure. What we saw out in the field was a texture 1-11 skirt that went around from the sides of the trailer down to grade. I believe that is still on wheels. That is definitely temporary.

Mr. Foley said I’m trying to recollect from the site visit, for security reasons, is there a gate that is closed before you go back onto Bay View Road? Mr. Charles Kilmer, owner of the property, introduced himself to the Board and said there are two gates. Mr. Foley said it was open for us. Is it something that you lock up when it is not in use? Mr. Kilmer replied yes, it is. Mr. Cronin said we had to spray it with oil before you go there to open up the lock. That is primarily locked. In this area (indicating) there is a secondary entrance as well.

boxes on the site. Mr. Cronin said yes, those storage boxes were, I think, located exclusively at the concrete fabricator’s portion, which is where that roof is that is to be removed is also located. Those storage boxes contain his wood products, metal supports, brackets, and anchors that he would then take to a construction job to form up the forms necessary for concrete. Then he would take those items back to the yard and use them on the next job. Mr. Hoch asked are the boxes permanent storage on the site or does he actually move those boxes? Mr. Cronin replied I would expect during a large job, he would move the majority of them. Some he may leave there where he is doing his form work. He may keep some where he has a table saw or a chop saw there to fabricate his materials for use at the next job. Mr. Hoch said the question is that they should be on the site plan. Mr. Cronin said we are showing the storage trailers. I think we are showing 16; there may be 18 when he comes off of a job and puts them in. There may be 12 when he is taking them off to a job. We have shown what we thought was a representative number of what is actually there.

Mr. Foley said are you as the owner of the property aware of what is in these storage trailers? I know you gave us a list of tenants. Do you have to be? Mr. Kilmer replied they are wood products, metal supports, nuts and bolts, and anything to do with the building of his forms. Mr. Foley said in the same regard, back to the chain link fence, the one that is on the property line with the two tenants, Paraco and Beacon, how high is that? Mr. Kilmer replied six feet.

dated February 26, 2003 from the City of Peekskill. In their letter they say they have no objections to the proposed project but they do note that the site plan should indicate that the northwest side of your property borders the City of Peekskill. Mr. Cronin said actually, the City of Peekskill boundary runs along Bay View Road. We will show that. Mr. Foley said but Bay View is a Cortlandt road. Mr. Cronin said if you look at a tax map, I don’t know if it is the center line, or the east side or whatever, but… Mr. Klarl said the City of Peekskill letter says the northwest side of Bay View Road is in the City of Peekskill and is the City of Peekskill municipal boundary. This is not shown on the site plan. Mr. Cronin said we’ll show it.

Mr. Hoch said one more question. You have an above ground diesel fuel tank. Does that comply with all DEC…? Mr. Cronin replied absolutely. If you recall, there is a moat around that to keep further containment in the event of a problem or catastrophic failure. Mr. Hoch asked is that the only one on the site? Mr. Cronin replied there are two. Mr. Kilmer said one is an oil tank for the garage and that is in a self-contained moat also.

Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to close the Public Hearing and refer this back to staff, seconded by Mr. Foley.

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, March 4, 2003, to consider the Referral dated January 22, 2003 from the Town Board of a Resolution of Intent for a proposed Zoning Amendment regarding a proposed funeral home on Oregon Road submitted by Matthew F. Carlone for property located on Oregon Road known as the former Robinson’s Greenhouse.

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

Home in Peekskill, introduced himself to the Board and said we are an independently owned family funeral home. Our presence in the Cortlandt and Peekskill area dates back to 1891, so that is about 112 years in the northern Westchester area. Basically, our funeral home has been located at several locations in the City of Peekskill. At the present time, we are in a location where we are very strapped for parking facilities and room for expansion to meet the needs of our clients. The Robinson property on Oregon Road has been in flux for the last 15 years. Needless to say, we have been looking for a piece of property to potentially develop a funeral home. At present, the zoning is R-10 and we are looking to propose the building of a funeral home on that piece of property to expand our needs for the immediate future and the future of our fourth generation owner coming up. This is the essence of the main thrust of the project. The property is a nice piece of property. It is generally level, square. It is on a secondary artery, Oregon Road. It provides good exposure for the business. It is across the street from two cemeteries, which makes an ideal location for the use as a funeral home. The property has been generally in poor condition over the past 5 to 8 years. There has been an accumulation of trash and motor vehicles. I think a funeral home in that particular area would be a definite improvement to the general overall quality of appearance in that area. A funeral home would in most cases be designed to reflect an extension of the client’s home in so far as we do propose to put a building which is probably 2 or 2.5 times of what a client home may be. This would be a general residential type structure. So it would not be a commercial type or strip mall that you might see like the strip malls that you see on Route 6 or Route 202. I think the basic intent of a residential type structure in that area would enhance the appearance of the whole area and would be a definite improvement of the area in general.

Mr. Kessler said to be clear on this before we ask the audience for comments, we don’t have an application yet for this funeral home. This is purely a Public Hearing as to whether the zoning code of the Town allows for a funeral home on Oregon Road. Is there anyone that wishes to comment on this application?

Mr. Andrew Fischer, Traffic Advisory Committee, introduced himself to the Board and said it just seems like Oregon Road is a magnet for development. I agree with what the gentleman says about the concept of a funeral home improving the appearance of the property. It is pretty run down. I have no problem with a funeral home in general. But this particular piece of property… I initially thought this was going to include the house on the corner of Adams Rush Road, but it turns out that it does not. It is strictly the greenhouse portion. It seems to me that it is way too small to have any parking for this type of business. I’m really concerned that the overflow parking will just park along Oregon Road on both sides. There will be sight distance problems. It just doesn’t seem to fit. Maybe, Mr. Carlone, you would consider the two parcels behind yours that actually Mr. Balter was going to put two houses on Adams Rush Road. If you were willing to acquire that property, you would have a lot more for parking. It may even give you an exit onto Adams Rush Road. There are going to be a lot of trips generated from this, make no mistake. Mr. Klarl said Mr. Fischer, right now, this isn’t a site-specific application. For the audience, it is an application to amend the zoning code for the Town of Cortlandt. Specifically, we have section 307-47. Essentially, we have a request to change that code section four ways. Number one, right now, it is titled ‘Conversion of Dwellings to Funeral Service’. We are going to expand it for the construction of a funeral service facility. We want the zoning code to cover both a dwelling that is converted to a funeral facility or the construction of a new one. Number two change would be that we allow funeral homes on six roads in the Town of Cortlandt under the code and they have to have 5 acres. This would say or you can have a minimal lot area of one acre if it has frontage on Oregon Road, one of the permitted roads, and it is located within 1,000 feet of an existing cemetery. The third change, and Mr. Carlone alluded to it, is that the proposed construction should not be incompatible with the character of the residential neighborhood. The fourth major change in the code refers to something you just bought up. It says let no event as to parking may the requirement of parking be reduced below one space per 50 square feet, 4 spaces in assembly rooms, the waiting rooms. So there is a provision as to parking. If he made a site-specific application, he would have to be in line with the code. Mr. Fischer asked will there be another Public Hearing for that? Mr. Klarl replied absolutely. This is to change the code so that we can look at new facilities. If that code were changed, Mr. Carlone could make a formal site-specific application.

Mr. Foley said what Mr. Klarl just alluded to under point 5 in the resolution from the Town, does that mean that the requirement is below one space less for 50 square feet of floor space? With this resolution, are we reducing the required number of parking spaces? Mr. Klarl replied no, it says a certain schedule of parking and it gives the ability to the permit granting authority to vary the spaces. But it says no event shall that permit granting authority reduce the spaces to below one space per 50 square feet, 4 space assembly rooms. So that is a floor in the ordinance that you can’t go below in terms of the parking requirements.

Mr. Foley said Mr. Fischer, I didn’t understand the house on the corner of Adams Rush Road, are you talking the western corner? The only part of this parcel is just where Robinson’s nursery is, correct? There are no houses there currently on this property. Mr. Verschoor said there is a separate lot on the northeast corner of Adams Rush Road and Oregon Road that is not a part of the greenhouse property. Mr. Foley said there is a house before you come up to the old greenhouse. That is not part of it. Mr. Verschoor said correct.

Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to close the Public Hearing and have staff prepare a resolution for the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Hoch, with all in favor “AYE.”