July 1, 2003

Planning Board

Washington Trails

Hillside Estates

Cortlandt Medical Building


The REGULAR MEETING of the PLANNING BOARD of the Town of Cortlandt was conducted at the Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt Manor, New York on Tuesday evening, July 1, 2003, at 8:00 p.m.


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

Mr. John Bernard

Mr. Thomas Bianchi

Mr. Robert Foley

Ms. Loretta Taylor

Ms. Susan Todd


Also Present:


Mr. Edward Vergano, Director, Department of Technical Services

Mr. Kenneth Verschoor, Deputy Director for Planning

Mr. Chris Kehoe, Planning Division

Mr. Lew Leslie, Conservation Advisory Council

Mr. Art Clemens, Architectural Advisory Council

Mr. John J. Klarl, Esq., Deputy Town Attorney





1.  Public Hearing Sign Notification Process


           Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to add this item to

Correspondence, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”





           Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 1, 2003, seconded by Mr. Bernard, 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 8 page set of drawings entitled “Cortlandt Mobil, Annsville Circle” prepared by Morris Associates, P.S., LLC, latest revision dated May 19, 2003.


           Motion was made by Ms. Todd to adopt Resolution #25-03, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”



re:  PB 19-99, Letter dated April 24, 2003 from Gail Abrams, Executive 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.


           Motion was made by Ms. Taylor to adopt Resolution #26-03 subject to the conditions contained therein.  For the record, I would like to make note of Condition #2 that states that the applicant will show a copy of the traffic log every 2 weeks to the Planning Board and Condition #3 states that there will be no on-street parking on Teatown Road, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”





RE:  PB 14-98, Application of David Gable for Preliminary Plat approval and Wetland and Steep Slope Permits for a proposed 4-lot major subdivision of 58 acres located on the west side of Washington Street, opposite Teresa Lane as shown on 7-page set of drawings entitled, “Washington Trails Subdivision” prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, III, P.E., latest revision dated September 17, 2001.


A Public Hearing was conducted on the subject application. 

Record of this Hearing is attached to these minutes.



re:  PB 36-99, 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.


A Public Hearing was conducted on the subject application. 

Record of this Hearing is attached to these minutes.



re:  PB 13-02, Application of the Cortlandt Medical Building Associates for approval of an amended Site Development Plan and 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.


A Public Hearing was conducted on the subject application. 

Record of this Hearing is attached to these minutes.





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.


           Mr. David Steinmetz, Zarin & Steinmetz, introduced himself to the Board and said we are here tonight for two issues.  One, the review and discussion of the Findings Statement, which was previously submitted.  My understanding is that your professional staff has reviewed it and made some revisions.  That has been circulated.  Two, is to present to your Board the response to the rather extensive discussion that we had at the last Planning Board meeting, a revised landscape aesthetic and visual analysis of the central green proposed for the Emery Ridge Estates project.  As you all know, we have 32 attached units around a central green area surrounded by 30 single-family homes on the outer perimeter.  At your request, we have asked a landscape architect and planner to spend a great deal of time analyzing that area and presenting you with different alternatives.  My suggestion is that we can do the visual first and then discuss the Findings Statement thereafter.  Mr. Kessler said I think we can discuss the Findings Statement relatively quickly.  We received this on the 25th.  I don’t think the Board is ready to discuss the Findings Statement.  I don’t know if staff has reviewed it.  Mr. Verschoor said yes, we reviewed it and made some revisions to it.  However, our SEQRA consultants have not reviewed it.  If the Planning Board wishes us to refer this to our SEQRA consultants, that will result in an additional expense that will have to be paid for by the applicant.  Mr. Kessler asked how does the applicant feel about funding a review by our consultants?  Mr. Steinmetz replied the applicant’s position is that we have spent a great deal of time working on the preparation of the Findings Statement in accordance with SEQRA.  It was reviewed by Mr. Verschoor’s office.  Revisions were made.  I think you have an excellent document in front of you.  Obviously, the decision remains with your Board as to whether or not the Findings Statement needs to be reviewed and examined by your consultants.  If the Board were to decide to do that, our main goal at this point is that it be done expeditiously.  There have been times where referrals to your outside consultants have sometimes unnecessariously delayed the process.  We think you have a great document.  We have all spent a lot of time on this particular EIS at the Public Hearing process.  The decision, fortunately or unfortunately, is yours, Mr. Chairman and the Board.  Mr. Foley said I would like the consultants to review it.  It is a major project.  You, yourself have said how long it has taken.  I would like it looked at by them.  Mr. Kessler said it is 21 pages so hopefully, this is not going to be a long process with the consultants.  Mr. Verschoor said we can fax it to the consultants tomorrow and get a cost and pass that along to the applicant.  Mr. Klarl asked do you think you can make a request to have it done by the next meeting?  Mr. Verschoor replied yes, absolutely.  Mr. Steinmetz said I think you need to.  Remember, we are up against a time issue.  Ms. Todd asked will this also include Adler consultants?  I would like to have that.  Mr. Steinmetz replied John just walked out.  John, as you all know, has spent a lot of time on this.  We have incorporated his proposed mitigation measures.  There is reference in the Findings Statement.  The record should reflect that Mr. Verschoor, who reviewed this, made some changes but by no means made extensive changes because the Findings Statement represents where we are in the SEQRA process accurately.  It is your latitude, Ms. Todd, whether or not you want Mr. Canning to look at it.  We’re happy to do that.  Mr. Vergano said we’ll get an estimate from Mr. Canning.  Mr. Steinmetz said my client’s main goal, Mr. Chairman, is…  August is fast approaching.  Mr. Klarl said we have a Board meeting on August 5, 2003.  Our September meeting is the 3rd.  We would need an extension to September 4, 2003.  Mr. Steinmetz asked what happened to August, John?  Is there a meeting in August?  Mr. Klarl replied yes, there is.  Mr. Kessler said this will be back and we will discuss the Findings Statement.  We’ll have the consultants’ reports and we’ll have comments from the Board.  Hopefully, we can wrap this up.  Mr. Klarl said we’ll get direction from the Board and we’ll have a September resolution.  Mr. Steinmetz said what you are indicating to my client is that your Board is prepared to take action on the Findings Statement at the August meeting.  You will endeavor to get whatever advice, if any, that you want between now and the August meeting.  Mr. Klarl said we are anticipating that right now.  Mr. Steinmetz said it is 21 pages.  It doesn’t take a consultant that long to go through it.  Mr. Klarl asked what happens is we prepare a resolution and we don’t anticipate, the Board doesn’t anticipate tonight, giving us that direction.  We’ll get the direction in August to write a resolution for September.  Mr. Steinmetz said I guess that prompts the question that is on our minds.  Why can’t the Board ask for professional staff to begin writing that resolution so that in August you can decide whether you are in a position to vote that night or whether you need to defer it to September?  Mr. Klarl replied they can write the resolution in that space of time but they have to give us direction.  They are not giving direction tonight.  They probably will give us direction in August that prompts the September resolution.  Given that, we need a September 4th extension.  Mr. Steinmetz said if we have an understanding that the Findings Statement will be acted on in August, we will be prepared to extend until September for the Board to take action on preliminary approval.  Mr. Kessler said that is our intent.  Mr. Steinmetz asked is there a reason why my client has to commit but you don’t?  I’m being honest.  You are asking my client to wait…  Mr. Kessler replied we received the Findings Statement on the 25th of June.  I think what you are saying is do all of us have the time to read 21 pages between the 25th of June and tonight?  The answer is no.  We may want to read it and have comments on it.  We are not prepared to do that this evening.  If we got it the 20th or the 15th, perhaps.  But we got it the 25th.  The meeting is here now, July 1st.  That is 6 days and we do have other things to do.  This is not our full time job.  Mr. Steinmetz said I understand.  Mr. Klarl said in answer to your question about commitments, you can turn to Mr. Santucci and ask him for his commitment.  We can’t turn to the SEQRA consultants and ask for their opinion.  Mr. Steinmetz said John, you and I both know that our clients turn to us and let us know what our commitments are and what our deadlines are.  Those consultants are clients of this Town.  I would hope…  All I’m asking is for you to turn to your consultants.  Look, I’ll call them.  I know them as well as you do.  I’ll ask them…  Mr. Klarl said Mr. Verschoor will call them tomorrow and ask them for that direction.  Mr. Bernard said or we can vote?  Do you want to vote?  Mr. Foley said I don’t believe we received them on the 25th.  I mean I looked at the date, and I stand corrected if I’m wrong.  I did look through it and have a bunch of questions.  I’ll give you a heads up on some of them if the Board wants me to.  Mr. Klarl said you have a commitment from Mr. Santucci and we’ll direct our consultant to have it done by our August meeting.  Mr. Steinmetz said I appreciate that.  Mr. Foley said the fact that it is only 21 pages, maybe it should be a little more. 


Mr. Steinmetz said what we would like to do, Mr. Chairman,

is to present to you this evening a rather extensive study that was prepared by our landscape architect and planning consultants on the central green area.  Mr. Kessler said we would like to discuss that.  We did receive in our packets over the last week a letter from Tim Miller with 4 copies of the plan.  Mr. Steinmetz said I would like to introduce Steve Lopez.  Mr. Steve Lopez, Town Planner and Landscape Architect, Tim Miller & Associates, introduced himself to the Board and said I have 30 years experience working in the metropolitan area on various types of land development projects.  I work for Tim Miller & Associates and am the Director of Planning Services for his office.  I was asked to look at this particular project from a standpoint of what could be done to improve the potential for open space.  I would like to run through these plans and explain a little bit about them.  There are 4 alternates.  I would like to run through each of them so you understand the options.  Essentially, what we focused on was the inside of the loop on the interior of the site.  You are aware, of course, that the plan is concentrated on the northeast corner of the site.  In looking at the project, we initially, of course, looked at the location of the site, the road arrangement.  The area that we were asked to look at more specifically was the area enclosed by the internal loop road.  Within this area, in first looking at it, we decided that we really had to take a look at the footprints of the existing buildings.  We were able to use a footprint that greatly increases the open space in and around the buildings because they are much more of a market type of unit with direct access into the parking off of the street.  We reduced the pavement around the front of the buildings that you saw previously in this interior loop with the duplexes and the triplexes.  Secondly, we looked at how we could access this interior space.  We looked at three different access alternatives.  We looked at a center block access alternative.  We looked at an alternative of removing most of the units from one side of the block to have an open view, an access physically into the interior of the block.  That was actually alternate 3.  The fourth alternate, we looked at access points from the corners of the block.  The 4 alternates have 4 interior shapes or designs or layouts.  These are interchangeable pretty much with any of the 3 ways of access to the interior space, the center block, one whole side of the block, or the corners of the block.  But we feel that there are significant differences in both how you access this interior space and how the interior space is used.  You also got a copy of the Planning Advisory Service Memo both from your planner, as well as from our office.  That was put out by the American Planning Association, which is the sponsor of the American Institute of Certified Planners of which I’m a member.  In New York State, since there is no licensing for planners, the AICP takes that role to national accreditation.  Just to run through these 4.  The first alternative shows the center block access points that I talked about.  These center block access points are about 100 feet wide.  We have maintained 30 feet between all of the buildings.  We are also providing around the back of each of the building units an outdoor patio space, which are the 2 black bump-outs at the back of the duplexes and the triplexes have 3.  We are figuring we have about 10 feet out, 10 by 10 roughly for patio units, and another 8 to 10 feet for open space.  We hedged outside that space, planted outside that space.  That is a private ribbon around the back of the units.  Within that private ribbon, enclosed by that, is the community space, a space that is open to the community.  Around the fronts of the units, because we eliminated a lot of the parking and pavement, that opened up quite a bit of space around the fronts of the units, we are showing all of the units with a landscape treatment, which we usually think is nice and would be a tremendous asset to this development as well as the Town’s.  It is foundation planting for all of the single-family homes as well as all of the duplexes around the interior circle.  We are showing the access points with special landscaping to accent them.  There could be an access informally through some of these other openings between the openings but we tried to discourage that with plantings to focus people on these access plans.  Mr. Kessler asked what is going on in the upper left?  Mr. Cronin replied that is the gravel access drive to the pump station.  Mr. Lopez said this alternative #1 does not change the single-family arrangement at all only the arrangement interior to the interior loop.  Alternatives 3 and 4 do change those and I will get to that.  Mr. Steinmetz said that has always been there, that access to the pump station.  Mr. Kessler said I didn’t know if something changed or not.  Ms. Todd asked do you have a list of your landscape plantings or do you have that figured out yet?  Mr. Lopez replied we haven’t assigned an actual species at this point but we have a pretty good sense of what types of material we are going to use.  For instance, these trees (indicating) in terms of sizes would be your typical 2 to 2.5.  We would typically select for a site like this species that are indigenous to the surrounding area.  We feel comfortable that they would do well here.  There are half a dozen or a dozen species.  As far as the ornamental plants go, there are a wide range of plants that we could use.  Ms. Todd said the interior of say alternate #1 is pretty densely planted more like a forest area.  Mr. Lopez said that is correct.  We had a suggestion to develop alternative #1 from your Town Engineer.  This is the Town Engineer one.  In defense of your Town Engineer, he thought that there was some direction from your Board for this type of approach.  The one that you might be interested in looking at the implications of, and this was specifically designed when we met with the Town Engineer…  Ms. Todd said I feel like I need to know more of what these circles are (indicating).  Are these low shrubs?  Mr. Lopez replied the large circles and the stars are trees.  The medium sized circles are minor trees.  The smaller circles and smaller stars are shrubs.  On a plan of this size, we wouldn’t show a shrub or minor tree that we anticipated would be larger than 8 or 10 foot in diameter.  It just wouldn’t show at this scale unless we show the shrub mass.  We do have some shrub mass that I should point out.  At the front of the units, if you look at the triplex, T3, between the 2 driveways, there is a shrub mass in there that could be half a dozen or a dozen azaleas.  Except for that particular center, we show it also on the backs with the patios where they would likely be moderate sized shrubs to give people a sense of privacy but also visual access into the open space to kind of extend their sense of open space.  Those would probably be a shrub to waist or chest high.  But we haven’t specified them yet.  There are quite a few shrubs that would work well.  Ms. Todd asked in alternate #1 when you are on the road and you turn into the sidewalk, there is the area that is white.  Mr. Lopez replied that is the label that says access.  This plan has the gazebo as the center focus.  Let’s talk about this plan; I’m glad you raised these questions.  The concept on this type of plan would be the whole thing would revolve around the community facility in the center with a more heavily vegetated space.  It is not our preferred alternative and I’ll get to that later.  There are reasons why.  To have a full acre of space, which is approximately the area that is proposed in the back of these buildings, focused in on one structure and not allowing other types of play activities and socializing to occur that I think we get to in some of the other alternatives, I feel does not really take full advantage of the space.  This type of amenity and this type of community, typically, we would encourage more development walkways for people to use to walk their strollers or do whatever and socialize in some open areas to put out some blankets and picnic or play a game of catch or whatever.  In this plan, while it is much more heavily planted, is not going to achieve that.  The plantings here are not going to have the same affect for the intent that you would have if you were preserving a mature stand of trees.  In that situation, there is obviously another intent.  Ms. Todd said or you would have to plant very large trees.  Mr. Lopez said you could never achieve a mature tree planting from day one.  At any rate, that is pretty much the alternative #1.


           Mr. Lopez continued and said alternative #2, the access to the center of the block is the same.  It is an 800-foot setback.  The distance separation of the units has the walk access to the center.  The units’ arrangement around the perimeter is identical.  What happens with this particular alternative is that the treatment of the interior space is radically different.  It may not be that obvious from a plan view.  The gazebo is no longer the center of attention.  It is at one end of quite a large interior, enclosed open space.  It has a path, which runs around the perimeter of the public space and defines even more clearly the boundary between the private spaces of the units and the open space in the center.  In this particular design, while we have groups of plantings around the walks and obviously, the same plantings around the rear of the units, there is much more opportunity to develop open space in the middle for the pick up games of kids and so on, running around in the grass areas and the curb.  Not to forget we have the whole balance of the site out here is woods.  There are lots more nature oriented things that could occur in the preserved portions of the site.  Mr. Kessler said I don’t think there are any woods out there.  Mr. Lopez said no, not this but this with the streams and brooks and all of that.  I’m just pointing out this is an extraordinary valuable resource and important recreational and educational type of land to preserve.  When you get into the center though of a clustered development, the whole focus of this becomes quite a different type of animal.  This particular design will allow us because of the irregular or naturalistic shape to develop the topo.  We have some drawings to show you how that would work.  We could develop some mounds and so on here (indicating) so that this whole thing could have flat areas to play and still be able to develop a topo in a way.  It will be a much more interesting site.  As I mentioned, the units and landscaping all around the perimeter stay the same.  This is all about how the interior of the space is treated. 


Mr. Lopez continued and said the 3rd alternative responds

again from a suggestion that we have, at least from your last Board meeting as it was reported to me…  I’m sorry, I have the wrong number.  Alternative #4 was developed directly as a result of a report back from you.  Alternative #3, though, takes the access off the corners of the interior space.  In opening up the corners to be wide enough to allow that to happen, we pulled 2 duplex units out and put them out in the northeast corner.  We bumped out the turn-around here in the northwest corner about another approximately 300 feet to allow the displaced single-family units in this corner to come over to this portion of the site (indicating).  This costs about 1/8 of an acre of additional disturbance.  This rearrangement of taking a couple of the multi-family units out of the center and buffing out the northwest corner.  I just want you to be aware of that up front.  If you say you like that, you need to be aware of the implications.  It takes about almost another acre of open space out of this corner of the property.  There is some additional disturbance.  The same is true of alternative #4 where we open up a significant amount of space along the southwest boundary to the central space.  In plan view, this looks very crisp.  This is what we call the egg.  We could put the egg on any one of these alternatives.  We could put on the amoeba or the bug or the triangle.  That is what they are affectively known as in our office.  They are interchangeable.  Really, the important thing is not only the shape but what happens around the perimeter of the space.  If I could reprieve back to that Planning Advisory memo, there were a number of points that were hit on the back of that memo.  I believe Tim covered them in a memo to your Board.  In the first one, the community green should be bound by the dwellings it serves ideally on all sides to establish a sense of ownership and security.  Professionally, and from what I’ve worked with and my sense of design and sense of community space, as I mentioned from the start, any one of these can be built.  Of course, we are looking to your Board for a decision on this.  I have to say my professional feeling though is that the openness of this side of the block is going to give you the feeling that the backs of all of these units are open to a public street.  I think that is going to detract from the privacy of the interior space and what is gained by opening it is…  I just don’t visually see it paying off or opening the side.  The oval is attractive as a graphic element in plan view but as I visualize this built, any very regular geometric shape almost dictates as being treated as a flat space.  The irregular shapes or the more naturalistic shapes can be dealt with informal moundings.  But this type of design will almost certainly have to be treated as a flat space.  I think that the end result, while again, it is striking in plan view, I think would be lacking in some of the attributes that some of the other potential designs have. 


Mr. Lopez continued and said to come back to the alternate

that we had felt would be most desirable for this type of space, it meets the first objective of having dwellings on all sides and entry points designated to reflect private space.  It should not appear as a public park.  Dwelling units should have private space that faces the green.  There should be a buffer between the private space and the shared space of the green.  The green should be scale, not too long, not too vast.  It should include amenities that encourage and facilitate a sense of community.  We have only shown in this open space a gazebo plan but it is large enough that we could develop a playground here.  We could have more things but we didn’t want to clutter it up at this point.  I want to show you a 3-D modeling program that we have.  We took 2 angles, one from the southwest access point and one from the northwest access point.  We modeled the buildings to 3-D to give you a sense of what the view would be like from east-end points into the open space.  You have to bear with me because some of the elements that are here may not appear as realistic as an actual photo would.  This particular angle is from this access point (indicating) and it shows these caterpillars on either side.  The hedges with long shrubs on either end and a view across to the gazebo at the south end.  The angle actually is northwest of the entrance half-way across to where the gazebo is.  I know that you have all been out to the site so you recall that there are low hills to the south and to the west.  This is fairly realistic.  We take photo images of the site and digitize them into the computer.  Realistically as possible, we drop the various tree elements, buildings, models in 3-D, and roadways into it.  Then, of course, everything is put in a natural perspective.  If you look at each of these buildings and the placement of the plants around them…  For instance, this evergreen tree (indicating) is the star on the north corner of T-4.  That is a symbol that we typically use for evergreen trees.  This deciduous tree just to the left of it is the circle with the 3 lines coming out in the center.  Next to that, I mentioned the so-called caterpillars, those are the hedges will have shrubs at the end.  You can look at this and compare it to the plan view.  We spent quite a bit of time on this.  It is actually a very realistic rendering.  More difficult to see are these mounds but we felt that we could easily put 3 to 4 foot high mounds that would extend 50 to 75 feet so that you would have these nice undulating sweeps in the landscape.  It lends itself beautifully to this kind of layout because you can shoulder a mound in a corner of the walk.  For instance, the gazebo we built a mound.  That is why it is sitting up higher here.  With this walk, we come in between the mound that the gazebo is on and the mound on this side.  Now, a 4-foot high mound you can easily see over to the yard.  Mr. Kessler asked which building is that?  Mr. Lopez replied I believe it is building #D6.  It is partly obscured by the tree in front.  That is #D5.  The tree in front of #D5 is the tree on the right side of #T5 just behind the corner of the buildings.  It is right next to the walkway hedge. 


           Mr. Lopez continued and said we have another perspective as well that, as I mentioned earlier, is from a camera angle and is approximately at the back of #D3.  When we were initially modeling it, we did not show the plantings that would see if you were inside a private space.  We asked out modeler to include those.  You can see here that this tree and this tree (indicating) are these 2 trees here in the back of #D3, the west unit.  The camera angle is from here down toward the gazebo on your left and across to #T4 and #T5.  I believe this unit directly behind the gazebo is #T3.  #T4 is next to it.  This is the opening between #T4 and #T5.  You can see the very small scale hedge and shrubs at either end with the plant massing right in the front of it, which is at the end of that access path off of the southwest corner of the space.  Actually, in this space, you can see much more clearly how we developed the mounding within the space.  Again, the mounding thought was that we would do something on this end and something in this corner and probably something here and leave enough of an irregular open space in the center and flat space for the kids to play ball.  We assume that there will be a pretty significant number of people using the outdoor space for various types of informal activity.  Those are the 2 views.  Again, obviously, it is your Board’s pleasure but there are 4 alternatives for treating the interior of the space.  We felt that this was most amenable to utilizing this space as a focus of the community and really pulling the whole community in and around that community space.  One of the reasons, I don’t recall but someone might have asked it earlier but we could put a playground in here.  We anticipate having some play-yard equipment.  We hadn’t really thought through whether playground equipment, and certainly not a basketball net, but swings and slides and that sort of thing as a small grouping would be appropriate here.  I guess in a very private space the kinds of concerns that you would have are noise and hours of operation.  We are open to thinking about that.  It seemed a place to gather for the community with open space and lots of plantings, privacy, forming a center nucleus of the development were the objectives.  Mr. Kessler asked when we spoke last time as a Board, the concern was how do all of the other homes that don’t border the enclosed community green feel that their a part of that community green?  Mr. Lopez replied the little access points are not actually so little.  There is over 100 feet between these buildings.  The walkways have no gates.  There are no fences.  It is open.  The walkway has a following hedge with an attractive flowering shrub on either side leading the way in.  Anyone who wishes to enter the space, we try to be as democratic as possible by putting 3 entrances at the most significant sides.  As I mentioned, there could occur leakage between other areas informally.  We were just trying to direct traffic to these areas.  Our sense is that the most important thing is that people who live in this community will know that this is everyone’s open space.  Everyone is contributing to this maintenance. 


Ms. Todd asked how is the ownership of this parcel going to

work?  Mr. Steinmetz replied no final determination on that has been made.  We actually had a discussion about this informally with your staff a couple of months ago.  It could be a common interest or homeowner’s association.  That is what we believe is most likely the form of ownership that we would want to pursue that would allow each of the unit owners to own fee-simple title to their respective units.  Everyone would be a participating member in the homeowner’s association, both the multi-family units’ owners and the single-family unit owners.  That deals with the concept if people are getting bills each month for the upkeep, maintenance, insurance, etc., on that common area, you can be certain that they know that they have the right to go there.  Indeed, the Attorney General’s Office will require all of the units owners receive prospectuses that lay this out both in terms of budget and in terms of legal rights and obligations.  I think we can handle that to the satisfaction of your Board and the Attorney General’s Office.  Steve, is there anything else that you would want to cover?  Mr. Lopez replied unless the Board has questions.  Mr. Steinmetz said that essentially concludes our presentation. 


           Mr. Clemens said the Architectural Advisory Council reviewed these proposals on Saturday.  We concur and agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Lopez’s approach.  We feel that for the space to be successful that it really needs to be defined.  Whereas, with scheme #4, it leaks out and sort of looses its definition.  That large opening, we felt, would work if it were a park in a very congested area and then it opens up.  It is a nice relief.  But here in this setting we feel that the definition formed by the townhouses make it very successful.  The other thing that we felt was probably not so successful was by opening up these corners like in scheme #3 and #4, you wind up putting 2 of the duplexes out on the outside of the road.  We kind of like the hierarchy of having the single-family residences on the perimeter and the townhouses towards the center.  Our recommendation to the Board is to go along with either scheme #1 or #2 with our preference being #2.  We were hoping to see it more developed as we see tonight.  I think you have done a great job. 


           Mr. Bernard said Art, while you are there, I agree with your Committee’s preference for this particular plan with the exception that would it be possible for your Committee to work with Mr. Lopez and perhaps on these more formal entrances to maybe look at some opportunities there to spread that landscaping a bit and maybe insert some benches in there just to make it even more for people to come into the area?  Mr. Clemens replied we would love to see further development of this as I mentioned.  There are 4 architects on the Board and everyone would defer to the landscape architect.  But we would like to see it and comment on it, absolutely.  Mr. Lopez said we would be more than happy to work with you.  Mr. Kessler asked is the intent that there is going to be a sidewalk, walkway, or jogging track?  Mr. Lopez replied yes, for walking or strollers.  Mr. Clemens said what is also nice about scheme #2 is that the center area is like a meadow like Central Park on a smaller scale, obviously.  Scheme #1 is almost like you have a shrine in the middle.  We aren’t so sure on the appropriateness of that.  Mr. Kessler said just so I’m clear, we talked about some undulating mounds.  Is that going to occur in the middle?  Where is that going to occur?  Mr. Lopez replied I think they are most visible on the camera angle photo more.  Generally, the area enclosed by the walkway, we felt we could build up a mound here in this corner and this corner (indicating).  Mr. Steinmetz asked Steve, you have a lot of flexibility on that, right?  Mr. Lopez replied shape-wise, access-wise, and theory-wise, we feel very strong with this preliminary drawing.  As far as the species of trees, benches, bench design, gazebo design, those are details that we will work out more fully with your Board. 


Mr. Bernard asked would you normally have a bit of site

drainage installed in that center area.  If we had heavy rains for a week, it wouldn’t be lost for a month.  Just some site drainage, dry wells or infiltration.  Mr. Cronin replied I would expect that depending on where the ground is going to change with the topography, we are definitely going to have some structures in there, some yard drains, probably some 3X3 catch basins with perhaps a 20-inch oval rim on top.  But there will definitely be something.  Mr. Bernard said with a permeable base underneath.  Mr. Cronin said no, it would more than likely be connected to the drainage system and discharged to the storm water basins.  You’ll lose them.  They will be off to the side or perhaps buried in the shrubs. 


Mr. Foley said I was going to ask the same thing.  I am a

hard guy to please.  I think this is very good.  Mr. Lopez is a tremendous asset to you.  His presentation is very good.  I think this is very good.  I preferred, when I first looked at this the other night, alternatives #1 and #2.  I tend to agree that although #1 is interesting with the little jungle aspect to it, I think #2 is more practical in my view.  The idea of the benches is also something that I was wondering if it is doable.  I think something like that maybe you have already planned it, would be helpful.  People would want to come in and sit down and so forth.  The problems I had with #3 and #4 immediately was the locating of those triplexes and duplexes off the northeast corner.  Since day one, I have been concerned with the number of units that you do have.  But this has been very helpful.  I wish you did something like this with some of the other projects in the Town.


           Mr. Bernard said if it is possible for the next meeting, I would like to ask for clarification for the mining arrangements.  When I go back into the FEIS and look at the mining section, I can’t come to an understanding exactly what the stipulation means.  Basically, it seems to boil down to two comments in the State’s stipulation.  One says that if the applicant is granted approval to build a residential development that the residential development will reclaim the mining areas.  Mr. Santucci said that is correct.  Mr. Bernard said that speaks to the whole property because they refer to the mining areas of the whole property.  The second instance that if you are not granted approval for the residential development, then there is a time range, 30 days or 90 days wherein you have to start reclamation of the entire site and you have 2 years to do something.  Both instances seem to speak to the entire site.  It was on the entire site and the reclamation of the site that the original development plan was put forward under 42 homes or I’m not sure how many.   Mr. Santucci said 92.  Mr. Bernard said we whittled it down with your help in changing things around and trying to eliminate roadways in acreage, it has gotten down to 62 homes.  But I’m still confused as to what the original stipulation calls for.  Mr. Steinmetz said there were 2 different issues that I think you are touching on.  One is what does the original stipulation say as we all attempted to draft it, John’s office, my office, some representatives of the State…  Mr. Bernard said I’m speaking to the actual stipulation that was filed and agreed to by the State.  Mr. Steinmetz said I agree but what you need to understand, Mr. Bernard, is that the State was somewhat involved in that but the predominant author of that document was Mr. Wood.  It was reviewed by our office and revised.  Ultimately, it was accepted by the State as a stipulation to settle the litigation.  However, in answering your question, it is best to go back probably a year or so.  It was really Mr. Foley at a series of meetings here who asked me a number of questions in his mind as to what the issue was to reclamation, what was our obligation, and what we needed to do in given areas of the site.  In March or April of 2002, when we had a series of different meetings with your Board, some public meetings of this nature and other round tables, the issues were raised.  As a result of those issues being raised by Mr. Foley, we asked Robert Martin, the New York State Mine Land Reclamation specialist from Region 3 who is responsible for this property to come out.  We bought him out to the site and said no one is exactly sure what the reclamation obligation is.  We can’t read the stipulation differently.  You are right.  There is no question.  There are things in the stipulation that aren’t quite iron-clad clear on reclamation.  Moreover, I know what the reclamation plan prepared by Mr. Santucci and his predecessor’s geologic consultant was.  It was a life of mine plant with a major reclamation concept of the entire site being ultimately leveled out.  That was a reclamation plan.  We had all these different concepts.  We bought him out there, Mr. Bernard, to tell us in writing what is required.  He came out with our engineers and told them where they had to do 2 on 1 slopes, where they had to hit with hammers, and where they were actually going to be doing blasting.  We, at least, came away from that, Tim and Ron correct me if I’m wrong, with a clear understanding from the State that this is what has to be done.  That was incorporated in the FEIS.  I agree that the stipulation may not give us the clarity.  I think the May 2002 letter that we got from the DEC gives us that clarity.  We believe we are guided by what the DEC told us in May of 2002.  Mr. Bernard said in that letter, that is where the basic areas are to be reclaimed and that is what amounts to approximately that 3.2 acres.  Mr. Steinmetz said that is precisely correct.  Mr. Bernard said the other thing that is confusing to me in that same letter is that it says there will be no processing of materials on site.  I thought in the plan there was a rock crusher set up and that the rock was going to be used for roadways.  Mr. Steinmetz said I don’t have the letter in front of me.  I don’t want to quote what he says because I don’t have it.  My understanding from Mr. Martin is that he understood that there is a processing of material in connection with the development of the subdivision.  In the construction of the roads, rocks are going to be used in a construction manner in connection with the infrastructure of the roads.  I believe, and again I’ll defer to the engineers on this, that what he was saying is that it could not be used as a processing facility to then take processed rock off site.  We can ultimately go back to him for any clarity.  But my consultants understand and Mr. Santucci’s understanding is that all of us walked the property for over 2 hours with Mr. Martin.  What we are doing in terms of the area of disturbance is that there would be processing and there would be work done and there would be reclamation.  What would be going on in the other areas of the site that are not impacted by the subdivision, we would not be processing any rock from those other areas.  Again, it says, Mr. Bernard, the material may not be processed or sold.  I think what he was attempting to communicate because that is what he told us on the site is that it couldn’t be operated as a mine.  The material is not to be processed for ultimate disposition off site.  Every construction site is exempt under the MRL, Mine Land Reclamation Act, the MLRA, because a construction site is not considered to be an area that the DEC permits for mining.  What he was telling us is within the area that we are doing our subdivision, we are processing and utilizing the rock there to form the roadbed and to grade out the site.  Mr. Bernard said that is not my understanding.  I hear what you are saying.  You are telling me you have a construction site where you process material.  But if you are processing material, you are in a mining operation.  Mr. Steinmetz said there is an exemption.  I can site that for you next month.  There is an express exemption in New York State Law.


Mr. Foley said on the same line, let me give you a heads up

on some of the answers I need by the next meeting.  I think you are right about the exemption as I read through this last night.  On the school issue, and I hope we do get a more definitive answer to the letter from the school district.  They do not agree with the method in calculating student costs.  I need an answer there.  Also, a letter was sent in by a resident, and I wondered about this myself, as to the stipulation in exhibit A, was there ever a monitor who is a professional engineer who was the monitor involved with the reports?  This was all part of the stipulation.  The other one is about blasting.  I don’t know if it is in the minutes from one of the previous meetings but I asked about noise levels.  I think you mentioned it in the FEIS, I believe there is a mention about off-site noise decibel levels.  It says such testing would be conducted adjacent to the site’s property lines.  (Inaudible)  Mr. Steinmetz said I don’t recall what you are referring to.  I do recall the stipulation saying that all measurements were to be taken at the property line, which I think is consistent with that.  There is a decibel limit set forth in the Town code.  Mr. Foley said yes, 65.  I don’t know if you have someplace 90.  That is another question.  On the walk trail, which I thank you for, is that parking going to be backed out?  Is it going to be safe?  Again, back to the traffic mitigation, the questions asked at the last meeting by myself about the levels of service and whether they would be the same or better.  I believe there was a letter that came also about that.  The other one was back to that map.  That is a heads up on some of my questions. 


Mr. Kessler said the consensus seems to be for the second

plan for the Village Green concept.  At the next meeting, you will have the review from our consultants on the Findings Statement.  At that point, we will give you direction.  Mr. Klarl said the applicant has agreed to an extension.


Ms. Todd said I have comments.  (Inaudible).  I did like #4

in the beginning but I see the value of #2.  I really like the idea of the mounding.  I am very concerned right now about the traffic affects on Furnace Dock Road and how Emery Ridge contributes to that.  We are looking at 300 more cars at peek hours traveling on that road.  Emery Ridge contributes to these cars.  I’m actually looking for a reduction in the number of units in this development because I don’t feel that the mitigation that we have so far really…  I think that the mitigation proposed so far is actually what we need now to manage the existing amounts of traffic.  That is a major concern of mine.  I also feel that you haven’t explored moving the boulevard entrance to the development to the northern part of the property, which I suggested numerous times.  I look very closely at the amount of the width of the road that you are proposing.  A 12-foot width on one side of the entrance and a 15-foot boulevard and another 12-foot road with underneath a 48-inch box culvert.  You aren’t going to get any wildlife going into a tunnel that long with that wide.  I feel you are really in error to think that is going to improve the wildlife getting to the wetlands.  I would really like to see you try the road coming in where it does now and I don’t really see that would hinder your plan so much or sight distance or any of those things.  I’m not ready to vote for this.  I see .3 acres of wetland impacts for no good reason…  I don’t see you have explored the other options.  Again, I still think lots 23 through 32, you have the lots too deep.  You haven’t had a tree survey.  I don’t really know what trees are in that area.  I feel that people are going to be fine with it.  They don’t need the opportunity to cut down all those trees on steep slopes.  They can do whatever they want to do.  They can create a driving range.  Mr. Steinmetz said Ms. Todd, there was a tree survey performed and submitted to the Town as part of the FEIS.  Mr. Verschoor said I would have to check that.  Mr. Steinmetz said it was supplied as part of a question.  Ms. Todd said o.k., I didn’t see it.  My other concern is that there are no sidewalks.  We need sidewalks in this Town so badly.  I want to go off on this when we talked about Locust Avenue, Hillside Estates because I think that is the way to slow traffic and keep pedestrian access.  You need places for people to walk and crosswalks.  I was in New Hampshire last weekend and was in a very busy area, a harbor area.  They had crosswalks in bright colors with little orange cones, pedestrians have the right-of-way.  People slowed right down.  It just created a pedestrian kind of feel to an area with cars.  I could see that happening on Locust Avenue.  I could see that happening in some places on Furnace Dock.  We are building this development, we should build it with sidewalks.  We should build it with pedestrian access.  You are doing such a good job on the community green.  I think Mr. Lopez should take another look around for sidewalks. 


           Mr. Verschoor said one other comment.  We did receive a letter from the school district, Susan Palamarczek.  In her letter, she would like an explanation regarding the way the cost revenue analysis was formed.  This letter was referred to Tim Miller’s office so if you could please respond to that letter.  Mr. Steinmetz said also, for the benefit of the record, we did receive a letter from the Westchester County Health Department indicating from Mr. Michael Salhala, PE, that the Health Department had no comments in response to the FEIS.


           Motion was made by Ms. Todd to bring this back under Old Business at our August 5th meeting, seconded by Ms. Taylor, with all in favor ‘AYE’. 



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.


NOTE:  Ms. Todd recused herself from this application.


           Mr. Kessler said I know we received a revised DEIS.  We do not have our consultant’s comments on this yet.  Mr. Verschoor said that is correct.  Mr. Andrew Mavian, Tim Miller & Associates, introduced himself to the Board and said I would like to say that we received the cost estimate and a check is being sent to your office.  We are hoping that we can receive those comments as soon as possible.  Mr. Kessler said again, I think the issue is one of time.  Counsel is here to keep us honest.  Mr. Mavian said we are still trying to get the DEIS accepted so that it can be distributed for public review.  Mr. Steinmetz said we would love to have a time deadline, though, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Kessler said I think at the next meeting we’ll have the consultant’s comments and we’ll have the Board’s comments.  Mr. Steinmetz said you believe that you’ll be able to get them for the August meeting.  Mr. Verschoor said as long as we receive the funds in time, we’re hoping that they’ll be able to do this.  Mr. Mavian said I would like to point out that it is not the entire document.  We provided those portions of the document where changes were necessary.  Mr. Verschoor said right, that was sent along to the consultants.  Mr. Mavian said we tried to make it easy by highlighting where the changes are. 


Motion was made by Ms. Taylor to bring this back at our

August 5th meeting, seconded by Mr. Foley, 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. Kessler said there was a site visit that I was unable

to attend.  There are comments from the Board.  Our other intention is to set a Public Hearing on this for our September meeting. 


Mr. Foley said there were 4 of us at the site visit.  We

looked at the sight line and the driveway.  I wondered about the drainage and the inground pool.  One thing I think I bought up in the past but I didn’t on the site visit day, because of the greenhouse that had been there in the past, would it be necessary to do any soil testing in view of the fact that you would also be having an inground pool on the site.  The reason that I was concerned about the drainage at the back end is because it goes right down onto Peekskill Hollow Turnpike and across the street and behind those homes is the Peekskill Hollowbrook.  The sewer main would be worked out with the DOT.  I know from past experience on that street the sewer connections, you would have to have your own lateral manhole before you went into the main manhole because of the integrity of the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District.


           Ms. Todd said I thought one of the things that we need to look at was a conservation easement on the forested area of the steep slope.  It is an area that you don’t plan to disturb anyway.  It is a way of insuring that future owners will keep those trees there.  I heard what Bob said about the drainage.  We discussed that a bit with Ken and Ed. 


Mr. Bernard said the only other thing that Bob did bring up

and it is a good point, the applicant may for his own safety and for his family want to do some minimal hazardous waste testing.  Nothing was disclosed when we walked the property.  You may want to do some minimal testing for the obvious things that a greenhouse operation may be using. 


Mr. Foley said there were a number of greenhouses that Dean

Ferris leased, whether or not…  But again, I don’t know if it is worth testing.  There was one other thing.  The drainage that may or may not go down Lockwood Road, I think we bought it up; hopefully, it will stay on the site because there is a problem with drainage going down Lockwood (inaudible).  It comes from two other locations, Lockwood and Country Wood.  Ed, on Sunday’s site visit, drainage for 2 houses and an in-ground pool, I don’t know if it should go down Lockwood Road off-site to any excess drainage going that way.  Mr. Vergano said you bring up a very good point.  That is a very real concern.  From what I know of the geology in that area, I suspect that much of that soil…  I think you have a lot of pockets in there that would be very gravely, which would be appropriate for an infiltrator.  It is something that needs to be evaluated.  We need some soil tests.  We’ll evaluate whether or not that is a viable option.  Mr. Foley asked is that partan soil, what you just said?  Mr. Vergano replied no, it is not.  Mr. Foley said I thought that was what we had when we all had septic problems on that slope.  Mr. Vergano said no, I think you are going to find some very gravely material. 


Ms. Todd said in the back of the site where the fence work

was, it looked like the previous greenhouse had actually done some drainage.  It looked like a swale.  You’ll see that when you go back there. 


           Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to refer this back to staff and schedule a Public Hearing for September 5th given the applicant knows that he has to get some of this information to staff, seconded by Mr. Bianchi, with all in favor ‘AYE’. 



re:  PB 12-01, Application of Todd W. Pawell for Final Plat approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision of 2.18 acres for property located at the end of South Hill Road as shown on a two page set of drawings entitled “Pawell Subdivision” prepared by Roy Fredriksen, PE, dated June 1, 2001.


           Mr. Kessler said I believe that the final plat is pretty much consistent with the preliminary and, therefore, will have a motion.


Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to waive the need for a

Public Hearing on the final plat approval and to have staff prepare a resolution for the August meeting, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor ‘AYE’. 



re:  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. Kessler said there was a site inspection this passed

Sunday.  Ms. Todd said they want to locate the produce wagons in a field.  Right now, it has tall grass.  There was an entrance through a stonewall.  We felt that this sight distance can raise some concern about parking and whether or not the ground could support parking.  I think at the worksession we advised them to have their engineer to go out and make sure the slope would be adequate. 


Motion was made by Mr. Foley to schedule a Public Hearing

for September 3, 2003, seconded by Mr. Bianchi.


On the question, Mr. Kessler said I think we have to notify

the applicant.  Mr. Verschoor said we’ll write them a letter and indicate that in order to have a Public Hearing for September we would need, at least by our August meeting, a plan signed and sealed from their engineer. 


With all in favor ‘AYE’. 



re:  PB 2-03, Application of William Clark for Site Development Plan Approval for an existing Automobile Repair Shop located at 521 Albany Post Road (Route 9A)as shown on a drawing entitled “Site Plan, Property of William Clark III” prepared by Barry G. Naderman, P.E. dated January 24, 2003.


Mr. Barry Naderman, engineer for the applicant, introduced

himself to the Board and said we were last before you back in February.  You may recall that this is an application for a site, which had originally obtained site plan approval in the 80’s.  Since that time, there have been some activities on the site, which had been inconsistent with the approved site plan.  We are now trying to remediate what is out there now.  Basically, we have applied for an amended site plan with the remediation to basically accept what is out there now.  The work that is really proposed at this point to remediate what has been done is limited to the rear of the property.  There is a gravel parking area behind the building and drive.  This rear area here (indicating) had been filled at one point and has a very sharp embankment.  We are recommending that embankment be bought back and cut back to a maximum of 2 on 1 slope.  That slope will be topsoiled, reseeded, and stabilized.  I should point out that the base of the slope is going to remain where it is.  I’m not going to make that slope gentler by extending the slope further out but rather by starting by the bottom and cutting back into the fill so that there is no further extension that is going to be filled but rather a removal of fill to reduce that slope.  Secondly, there was some cutting activity in front of the building over here (indicating).  Again, what we are looking to do is basically take that exposed soil and just topsoil it and seed it and stabilize that area.  Lastly, based upon a survey that was done for this application, it was determined that a fence that was installed actually extends off the side of the property.  Part of the application is to reconstruct that fence along the property line.  We have met with technical staff in the past.  There was a comment to supply some photos of the site, which we have done.  At this time, we would like to hear questions.


           Mr. Kessler said I think we are going to set a site inspection for August 3rd and discuss this at our next meeting and proceed from there. 


Motion was made by Ms. Todd to set a site visit for August

3, 2003, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor ‘AYE’.





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.


Mr. Kessler said we discussed this at the worksession and

we need a site plan application.  We would like to proceed but we have no application.  We don’t have a full site plan.  That is what we need. 


Motion was made by Ms. Taylor to refer this back to staff

and put this on the agenda for our next meeting and perhaps by this time, we will have the application, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor ‘AYE’.



re:  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. Kessler said there was a site visit by members of this

Board this past Sunday, as well as the Architectural Review Committee.  We discussed this at the worksession.  I think what we are looking at is approving it as it has been proposed with some condition of some recommendations by the ARC, which is basically 2 things in terms of the color of the metal and glass enclosure so that it blends in better.  I think ARC will work with them.  There also should be some evergreen plantings to better surround this enclosed elevator so that it gives it some sort of screening.  Mr. Klarl asked did they get a copy of the memo?  Mr. Verschoor replied no, they did not.  Mr. Klarl said maybe, they would like to see one. 


           Mr. Kessler said we will approve this by a motion tonight subject to the 2 conditions that are detailed in the memo from the ARC dated June 30, 2003. 


Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to approve the applicant’s

request pursuant to the recommendation of the Architectural Review Committee, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor ‘AYE’.



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. Kessler said we do have a letter.  Mr. Verschoor said

this was a phone call from the applicant.  We did ask them to submit it in writing but nothing came in.  Based on that phone call, it has been withdrawn. 


Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to withdraw the request by

the applicant, seconded by Ms. Todd, with all in favor ‘AYE’.



re:  PB 9-99, Letter dated May 30, 2003 from Ruth Pierpont, New York State Office of Parks, recreation and Historic Preservation regarding the cultural resources investigation of the Furnace Dock Inc. subdivision.


Motion was made by Mr. Foley to receive and file, seconded

by Mr. Bernard. 


On the question, Mr. Verschoor said also, we’ll refer this

to the applicant for a response. 


With all in favor ‘AYE’.



re:  PB 23-95, Letter dated June 11, 2003 from Jacqui Seidler regarding parked cars on Route 202 in the vicinity of Gymnastics City.


           Motion was made by Ms. Todd to refer this to the Town Board and to all parties that might deal with traffic issues, the Traffic Advisory Committee, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor ‘AYE’.



re:  PB 8-01, Undated letter from Steven Leardi requesting the second 90-day time extension of Final Plat approval for the VanCortlandtville Commons subdivision.


           Motion was made by Ms. Taylor to adopt Resolution #27-03 granting the applicant’s extension to October 6, 2003, seconded by Mr. Bernard, with all in favor ‘AYE’.



re:  pB 10-91, Letter dated June 15, 2003 from Bruce Fulgum requesting Planning Board approval of an expanded kitchen, a 160 sq. ft. expansion of the existing patio and the construction of a brick & stone wall for the safety of the outdoor eating area to his existing restaurant located at 33 Albany Post Road.


           Mr. Kessler said there was some concern as to whether there was an application on this.  Mr. Verschoor said yes, based on the approvals that you asking for at this time, it has come to a point where the Board really needs to see a site plan, a plan that shows the patio in the front.  You are expanding it by 160 square feet according to your letter.  You are proposing to construct this brick and stonewall.  There are some interior alterations to the building that you wish to make.  Would this also be expanding the restaurant area by moving the kitchen up to the second floor?  Mr. Bruce Fulgum introduced himself to the Board and said they are expanding the patron space by approximately 170 square feet.  Mr. Verschoor said that also relates to the amount of parking that you have on the site, which is also shown on the site plan.  Basically, during the Board’s worksession, it was thought that this would be better handled through the application process than by a letter.  Mr. Kessler asked is that clear?  Mr. Fulgum replied roughly.  Mr. Kessler said you have to get an engineer.  Mr. Fulgum said I do have one; Stuart Markowitz is working on the project right now.  What I was told was to simultaneously submit a letter to the Planning Board, which would be turned over to the Zoning Board because there isn’t any addition on the building.  It is just a question of increasing our patron space, which would require several or at least 2 or 3 more parking spaces.  Mr. Verschoor said that is correct.  If the applicant is unable to satisfy the parking requirement, a variance from the Zoning Board would be required.  That also depends on your approval, also.  If you decide that it is too much, then the Zoning Board may not want to grant the variance.  Mr. Kessler said the best way to do this is to get the application and the site plan for us.  We’ll look at it and maybe do a site inspection.  Based upon that, we’ll make a recommendation, hopefully, to the ZBA for them to grant the variance or not.  But first, we need all the information so that we can decide if a variance is warranted or not.  Mr. Fulgum said o.k.  The situation with the patio is a little dangerous with the traffic going back and forth, especially, coming out of Trolley Road.  I get the young kids flying out of Trolley Road.  Just two weeks ago, a car came out sideways and headed towards the patio, which is kind of dangerous.  I was wondering if there was any way that I can get some sort of wall put up for the safety of the patrons.  Mr. Verschoor asked you mean by not expanding the patio just a wall?  Mr. Fulgum replied a wall in front.  It would be on my property between the curb and patio but without tucking in the sides until I get the site plan to you.  This is for the sake of the patrons.  Mr. Vergano said why don’t you call my secretary tomorrow and we’ll arrange for a site inspection.  Mr. Kessler said we are going to refer this back and await a site plan application.  In the meanwhile, we’ll see if there is a dangerous situation that can be rectified with Town staff and the applicant. 


Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to refer this back to staff

and wait for a site plan application, and for the Department of Technical Services to set a site inspection to review the patio situation, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor ‘AYE’.



re:  PB 16-99, Letter dated June 23, 2003 from William Balter requesting the removal of Lakeland Acres and Jacobs Hill Crossing from the July meeting and placing them on the August 5, 2003 Planning Board meeting.


Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to receive and file,

seconded by Mr. Foley. 


On the question, Mr. Verschoor said I would like to note

that in tonight’s information that was handed out to the Board we also included copies of the minutes and pages from the FEIS concerning the use of this golf course.  That is for your information.  We were asked for them from the Town Board and I wanted to provide you with those copies.  Ms. Todd asked what do you think are the issues here?  Mr. Verschoor replied with regard to the use of the golf course, the private versus public.  Ms. Todd asked should we try and evaluate if this is a major change in use in what he is proposing now as a private golf course versus a public course and should that affect whether or not we go ahead and approve the final plan?  Mr. Foley said or whether or not we should re-open the Public Hearing.  There have been substantial changes.  Mr. Vergano said at yesterday’s Town Board worksession and it was mentioned at tonight’s worksession that we convene in Executive Session to discuss some of this detail.  Mr. Klarl said we will discuss that plan tonight in Executive Session.  Mr. Kessler said also, we were invited to a worksession with the Town Board on July 14th at 7:00 p.m.  This is a topic that will be under discussion.


           With all in favor ‘AYE’.



re:  PB 21-00, Referral from the Town Board regarding a Special Permit under Section 307.94 (Planned Village Development) for the Jacobs Hill property owned by Wilder Balter Partners, LLC, located on Route 6.


Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to receive and file,

seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor ‘AYE’.





           Mr. Verschoor said we handed out tonight a design of this sign that will be posted on the site for any Planning Board applications that have Public Hearings scheduled by the Planning Board.  One issue with regard to posting of the site for a pending application is that the code requires an application can be submitted 10 days prior to a Planning Board meeting.  I know in the past we have talked about having the sign out 20 days before a Planning Board meeting.  In regard to that, at this time, until the code is amended, the sign would be posted prior to a Hearing on the agenda say under New Business less than 10 days, possibly 7 days, before the meeting.  For Public Hearings, that can certainly be posted 20 days before the Public Hearing.  But I just wanted to let you know that until we are able to amend the code that the applicant can submit 10 days before a meeting and the sign will then be posted.  Also, we talked about the color of the sign itself.  That will be an orange color.  I think everyone is in agreement with that.  Mr. Kehoe said Color #021-C.  Ms. Taylor said if it is too subtle, they won’t see it. 


           Motion was made by Ms. Todd to approve the sign, wording, and color of our signs, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE”.





re:  PB 10-03, Application of Judy E. Hagerty for Preliminary Plat Approval of a 2 lot minor subdivision of 3 acres located on the north side of Red Mill Road approximately 50 feet east of Mill Court as shown on a 2 page set of drawings entitled “Subdivision Plan for Judy E. Hagerty” prepared by Tim Cronin, III, P.E. dated april 15, 2003.


           Motion was made by Mr. Foley to set a site visit for August 3, 2003 and to refer this back to staff, seconded by Ms. Taylor, with all in favor “AYE”.



re:  PB 14-03, Application William Geis Jr. for amended Site Development Plan Approval for a 600 square foot building addition to the existing Geis Toyota dealership located on the southeast corner of Route 6 and Westbrook Drive as shown on a 5 page set of drawings entitled “Geis Toyota” prepared by P.W. Scott, P.E. latest revision dated June 18, 2003.


           Mr. William Geis, applicant, introduced himself to the Board and said I just wanted to ask for whatever speed up in the process that we could have.  We decided to have this change just recently.  We will have to put a display inside.  Toyota is coming out with a new car, a little car and we are marketing to a special group of younger people.  They are going to bring it out the first of the year.  We have to be ready for it by the end of this year because they are going to inspect it to make sure that we have it the way that they want it.  Part of the carport on the outside, we are just going to glass in.  If there is anyway that you could possibly help speed it up, I would appreciate it.  Mr. Kessler said here is what we are going to do.  We are going to set a site inspection for August 3, 2003 and it will be back on our agenda on August 5, 2003.  We will be out to visit on Sunday morning and see what it looks like.  Mr. Geis said basically, almost everything is there.  We are just going to glass it in and open up one of those windows.  Mr. Bernard asked does the car get 100 miles per gallon?  Mr. Geis replied it gets up there in the 50’s and 60’s.  It is a real small, little car.  It is select just for the so-called ‘Y’ generation.  Mr. Kessler asked what is the name of it?  Mr. Geis replied the Scion.  I can add and subtract very good, but pronunciation, I’m not very good with.  So whatever you can do to help us, I would appreciate. 


Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to set a site inspection for

August 3, 2003, seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE”.





           Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to adjourn to Executive Session at 11:15 p.m., seconded by Mr. Foley, with all in favor “AYE.”



                                     Respectfully submitted,





                                     Donna A. D’Agostino





Washington Trails

Back to Top


                        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, July 1, 2003, to consider the Application of David Gable for Preliminary Plat approval and Wetland and Steep Slope Permits for a proposed 4-lot major subdivision of 58 acres located on the west side of Washington Street, opposite Teresa Lane as shown on 7-page set of drawings entitled, “Washington Trails Subdivision” prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, III, P.E., latest revision dated September 17, 2001.


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


                                    Mr. John Bernard

Mr. Thomas Bianchi

Mr. Robert Foley

Ms. Loretta Taylor

                                    Ms. Susan Todd


                        Also Present:


Mr. Edward Vergano, Director, Department of Technical


                                    Mr. Kenneth Verschoor, Deputy Director of Planning

                                    Mr. Chris Kehoe, Planning

                                    Mr. Lew Leslie, Conservation Advisory Council

                                    Mr. Art Clemens, Architectural Advisory Board

                                    Mr. John Klarl, Deputy Town Attorney



                        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. Kessler said we do have a letter dated June 30, 2003 from David Gable asking us that we adjourn this Public Hearing for 90 days.  Mr. Tim Cronin, Cronin Engineering, introduced himself to the Board and said as you know, Mr. Gable is still coming to grips with what he thought he had and what he now thinks he is realizing what he has.  He is now exploring the possibilities that were discussed both in front of this Board as well as discussions that we had with other representatives of the Town.  He is going in that direction but I guess it is just taking him a little bit of time to come to grips with what he may ultimately have at this site.  Mr. Klarl asked is he focused on the Planning Board activities and the engineering or is he focused more on disposing of the property or both?  Mr. Cronin replied more along the lines of doing something other than the Planning Board and engineering of the property possibly open space.  He is giving that serious consideration but just doesn’t think that one lot is really in his best interest.  He is going to be pursuing that further with representatives of the Town.  We’ll give him the time to further that process along. 


                        Motion was made by Mr. Bernard to grant the applicant’s request for a 90 day extension and put this on the October agenda, seconded by Mr. Bianchi, with all in favor “AYE.”



 Respectfully submitted,



  Donna A. D’Agostino   


Hillside Estates

Back to Top


                        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, July 1, 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:


                                    Mr. John Bernard

Mr. Thomas Bianchi

Mr. Robert Foley

Ms. Loretta Taylor

                                    Ms. Susan Todd


                        Also Present:


Mr. Edward Vergano, Director, Department of Technical


                                    Mr. Kenneth Verschoor, Deputy Director of Planning

                                    Mr. Chris Kehoe, Planning

                                    Mr. Lew Leslie, Conservation Advisory Council

                                    Mr. Art Clemens, Architectural Advisory Board

                                    Mr. John Klarl, Deputy Town Attorney



                        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. Stackhouse introduced himself to the Board and said Mr. Zutt is on vacation.  John Delano is at a previous meeting and said he would be a little late.  I don’t know if you want to carry on.  Mr. Canning is supposed to be here.  Mr. Kessler asked would you like us to put this off for a little while?  Mr. Stackhouse replied if you possibly could.  Mr. Delano said he would be here about 8:00 but it is past that now.  Mr. Kessler said we’ll put it back on as soon as he gets here.  Mr. Stackhouse replied thank you.


NOTE:  The Public Hearing continued 10 minutes later. 


                        Mr. John Delano, Badey and Watson, introduced himself to the Board and said I apologize for my tardiness.  I believe when we were last here with the Board, there was a request made that we update our school figures.  Sometime after that meeting, we were able to contact Susan Palamarczek from the Lakeland School District.  We have recent budget and State aid numbers.  We provide the school figures to show that we have little or not impact on the school budget with 10 proposed homes.  I have additional copies to leave with staff.  Also, at the last meeting, the Board read through a report from the traffic consultant.  I believe the report supported the location for our proposed subdivision road.  There was a question raised as to left hand movements into the project.  We have since looked at some possible mitigation to alleviate that concern.  We did meet with the traffic consultant to discuss some of those options.  A couple of those things that we are considering and we talked about, I’m sure the consultant will discuss those.  We discussed signs and a radar device sign that warns the driver of their actual speed as they are approaching the hazard so that they can be cautioned to slow down.  We also talked about the possibility of a sign that advises the traveling motorists of the upcoming intersection.  One other thing that would be viable in conjunction with a sign would be some wider pavement along the shoulder along Locust Avenue to give those drivers coming over the hill that don’t heed all the warnings a place to escape to avoid a rear-end accident.  We have information on that sign that we’ll show later.  I don’t recall if there were any other specific issues that were raised at the last meeting.  Mr. Kessler asked in terms of the school financials, do you have those numbers?  Mr. Delano passed out his updated report on the school data. 


Mr. Kessler said the whole purpose of this evening was to

have the consultant discuss the traffic study.  Mr. John Canning, Adler Consulting, introduced himself to the Board and said I believe we were originally retained by the Office of the Department of Technical Services to review the available sight distance at this intersection when looking to the right from the driveway.  We were provided with topographical survey data and site plan information.  Briefly, to recap what was in my report from last month, we conducted a field visit of the site.  We used the topographic data to determine that there is approximately 325 feet of sight distance available to the right.  The primary reason that number is higher than what was previously indicated by Mr. Delano is that he was measuring what is known as the ‘stopping sight distance’, which until 3 years ago, the requirement was that be measured from a height of 3.5 feet, which is the driver’s eye in the vehicle to a height of 6 inches, which is the height of an object in the road.  The intersection sight distance where a person is pulling out of a street or driveway and wants to see oncoming traffic in an adequate fashion to pull out and avoid unduly interfering with traffic is measured to a similar eye height of 3.5 feet.  It is 10 inches below the approaching vehicle.  That is basically set at 4.35 feet. Given the much larger eye height, we were able to get a 325-foot sight distance to the right.  But in conducting this measurement, we noticed that when a vehicle is turning left into the driveway, they have to stop a little bit before the road because a vehicle turns in a 15 foot radius circle and the back of the vehicle is 18 feet.  The obstacle in the road is further towards the crest of the hill than the actual location of the centerline of the driveway is.  Furthermore, the current requirement for stopping distance implies now because this is an object in the road and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials specified that the object height for something in the road be raised from 6 inches to 2 feet being that the rear lights of a car are the most applicable object that you would be looking for.  So the measurement of 3.5 feet to 2 feet, we thought that there was inadequate sight distance approaching the road from the west.  When we were originally retained, Mr. Vergano recommended that we place automatic traffic recorders in the road to determine the prevailing speed.  Again, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials specified that the sight distance should be based on the 85th percentile, that being your sight distance is adequate for most of the population.  It is sort of improved to design people to make them violate the law and drive 60 m.p.h.  Based on my experience in the area, I estimated that with there will probably be about 20% above the posted speed limit of 30 m.p.h.  We got 36 m.p.h.  I then factored in a car approaching the driveway at my decision point and that is where we placed the tubes approximately 300 feet from the driveway.  At that point, it was determined that the 85th percentile speed was 38 m.p.h., which is 8 m.p.h. above the posted speed limit.  Taking into account the downgrade on the breaking portion of the road just before the driveway, which is approximately 9%, we determined that the required sight distance is indeed 325 feet for stopping sight distance.  We determined that we had adequate sight distance to see the entrance approaching but when there were vehicles waiting to turn left into the driveway, there was not adequate sight distance to see them coming over the crest of the road.  This morning, I basically did a rough statistical analysis using accepted engineering methodologies to determine that there could potentially be approximately 200 rear-end accidents associated with the left turn at the entrance over the course of the next 20 years if this driveway was constructed as previously proposed.  As Mr. Delano has suggested, by installing a sign that is basically a radar gun and a changeable message sign and that sign states the posted speed limit is 30 m.p.h., the radar gun detects how fast the vehicle is going and the changeable sign posts the speed.  So if you are doing 38 m.p.h., it flashes a 38 against the 30.  There has been documentation that shows that these signs affectively reduce speeds typically in the range above 5 m.p.h.  These studies were performed for the Transportation and Research Board and particularly, they were performed over an extended period to determine if the initial reduction in speed lasted over time.  Basically, if the 85th percentile speed eastbound on Locust Avenue could be reduced from 38 m.p.h. to 33 m.p.h., I calculated that the number of rear-end accidents involving eastbound traffic could potentially be reduced to about 65 over the course of a 20 year period.  This road is going to be there for a long time once it is built.  In addition, as Mr. Delano has suggested, if an 8-foot wide shoulder was constructed for the 50 feet approaching the driveway so if a car was waiting or a car waiting behind that, if there were a taper out to that shoulder that started before the right-of-way widens, approximately 240 feet to the west of the driveway, then there would be adequate distance for vehicles that come over the crest which are going to fast to stop safely to move to the right and pass.  In sum, based on the review of the data, it is my opinion that the proposed road with a driveway warning ahead sign, a responsive speed sign, and a wide shoulder would result in a relatively safe intersection provided that the responsive speed sign can be shown to reduce the 85th percentile speed by 10% or more.  Mr. Kessler asked do you know what the 90th percentile was and how fast that was?  Mr. Canning replied I don’t have the 90th percentile; I have the 95th percentile, which was 42 m.p.h.  I guess the 90th was probably 40.  Mr. Kessler said so coming down the hill, there is a wider shoulder…  Mr. Canning said what you have is a prevailing condition where people are not conforming to the design of the road.  The applicant is proposing to modify motorists and drivers as they approach the intersection to eliminate the sight distance concern.  In addition to that, what they are proposing to do is for those who do not respond appropriately to the speed reduction sign is to provide a shoulder that is wide enough for them instead of jamming into the back of someone, they can pull over and pass them.  We measured the distance between the start of the taper and where the shoulder is 8 feet wide.  Based on engineering, it is sufficient enough so that you can safely pull over.  It wouldn’t do if it were a 50-foot distance; you would have to screech over.  Mr. Kessler asked coming out of the proposed development, you don’t have an issue?  Mr. Canning replied I would recommend that when the road is constructed, care should be taken in constructing the driveway that it doesn’t drop down significantly from Locust Avenue.  As part of the AASHTO conditions, the applicant determined pretty much that there is 325 of sight distance.  The topo shows that it is.  All indications are from an eye height of 3.5 feet to an object height of 4.35, you have appropriate sight distance. 


Mr. Bianchi asked why can’t you build a turning lane and

have it used for that purpose specifically?  Mr. Canning replied I would characterize it as a turning lane.  I would say that it would be used probably for every 1,000 cars that go by, it might be used 10 times.  For every 100 cars that go by, it might be used 1 time.  The probability of someone waiting and someone following behind them at the same time is quite small.  But from a safety perspective, I want to minimize that to the greatest extent practical.  The difficulty, in my opinion, in constructing a left turn lane is that you have to return the thru vehicles to the current road bend on Locust Avenue in a safe fashion.  There is a curve that begins shortly after where the u-drive is located.  It is pretty much at the existing driveway that goes up to the 3 homes on the south side.  I haven’t given it a detailed review but I would suspect that you would not be able to meet the criteria to get to transition back.  Mr. Bianchi said but in fact, the cars that are waiting there will have to still make that transition.  If there is a car waiting to turn left and there is a car behind them, they would still have to go around and go back into the lane.  Mr. Canning said yes, except that I performed an analysis today and it indicated that there is a projected amount in the evening of 4 left turning vehicles in the peak hour and a projected demand oncoming of about 400.  The capacity to make the left turn is about 1,200 vehicles per hour that could make the left turn if they wanted to.  Essentially, people are not going to wait.  They are going to slow down, no one is going to come, and they are going to turn.  Of the 4 cars, that isn’t going to happen pretty much all of the time.  It is going to be more the exception than the rule that someone is going to wait.  My concern initially was o.k., if someone has to have to wait, what happens?  I want to make sure that there is not an accident.  I’m not sure if you follow the logic.  Mr. Bianchi said I understand what you are saying but I’m not sure I agree with you.  I have a question on the speed sign.  You said that it historically will reduce speed by 5%, I think you said.  I think you are predicating your recommendation on 10%.  Mr. Canning said it was 5 miles per hour.  If I said 5%, I misspoke.  It is typically about 5 miles per hour.  Mr. Bianchi said so your recommendation is subject to a 10% reduction.  Mr. Canning said a 10% reduction to reduce the speed from 38 to 34. 


Mr. Kessler asked who is proposing to install and maintain

the sign in perpetuity?  Mr. Canning replied I don’t want to speak for the applicant.  Mr. Delano said it is our belief that it would be a permanent installation for it to be affective.  It is continuous.  It is not something that we would want to put up and have people get used to it and then have it disappear.  We have already been in contact with a few of the manufacturers.  We have been speaking with GM.  We might even be able to get such a sign in place on an experimental basis.  We are trying to track down where they have a data recorder in it so that it can keep track of…  Mr. Kessler said but ongoing, 6 months or 6 years from now, who would be responsible for that sign?  Mr. Delano replied that would be dedicated to the Town.  Mr. Kessler asked so if someone runs into the sign, we fix it? 


                        Mr. Foley asked what affect does this sign have on neighboring houses as far as light?  Is this similar to a flashing yellow?  Mr. Canning replied they are L.E.D.’s and are pretty much contained.  Mr. Foley asked would it be on the side of the road at eye-level?  Mr. Canning replied it would be on the side of the road.  I might add, if people are traveling on this section of road at 38 m.p.h. to begin with, it is a public benefit to have the speed warning sign especially on this section of the road to slow them down.  Mr. Foley asked is this done elsewhere in the Town?  Mr. Vergano replied no, not that I’m aware of. 


Mr. Kessler asked coming down the hill with this shoulder

extension to the right-of-way, is it a turn to get around it?  Mr. Canning replied the road is straight from the crest of the hill to the driveway.  The shoulder would develop over the course of about 180 feet.  Mr. Kessler asked do you foresee a sign that says ‘thru traffic, keep right’?  Mr. Canning replied no.  I don’t think it is needed.  I don’t think it is reasonable.  Traffic should be expected to say on the travel-way, travel at the speed limit, and respond appropriately to the situation ahead.  The purpose of the shoulder really is for those people who choose to ignore alternate direction that the legislature has given them by enforcing the speed limit and the setting the sign.  It is to protect them.  Mr. Foley asked what about the shoulder?  Won’t that be a hazard to a crossing pedestrian or a bicyclist who happens to be there?  Mr. Canning replied if there is no shoulder and there is a pedestrian or a bicyclist there, it is pretty much the same situation. 


Mr. Bernard asked what defines a traffic study?  What do

you study?  Mr. Canning replied it depends on what the problem is.  Mr. Bernard said let’s take Locust Avenue where this proposed project would be.  What do you choose to study?  You told us how you study traffic.  I guess cars.  Is that what the definition of traffic is, cars?  Mr. Canning replied 95% to 97% of the traffic that uses Locust Avenue are private automobiles, SUV’s, minivans.  Mr. Bernard asked is that because it is only conducive to the use of private automobiles?  Mr. Canning replied that is part of the reason.  It is a combination of things.  One, it is not particularly conducive to trucks because of its grades.  Two, it is a question of where the land uses that generate truck trips are located and how you can best get to them.  Mr. Bernard said o.k.; we have two elements, trucks and cars.  Is there anything else that might be defined as traffic?  Mr. Canning replied you look at the volume to trucks and cars and the speed of trucks and cars…  Mr. Bernard said trucks and cars.  Is there anything else that constitutes traffic?  What if you have a horse?  Is that traffic?  Bicycles?  Mr. Canning replied if you have a significant volume of horses on the road, you calculate it.  Mr. Bernard asked so in other words, you are only able to study what is there presently?  Mr. Canning replied sure.  Mr. Bernard said what I’m hearing is that you have a problem, which is people speeding.  This is creating a danger to the public.  The cure that I’m hearing is to set up an aspirin in the form of an electronic sign that will predictably according to statistics lower the illegal speed limit by 5 m.p.h. instead of the 8.  You are attacking a symptom.  Why not attack the problem?  Why not come to us with a solution that tells us how to get people to drive better?  In other words, how can we slow the traffic down so that they only go 30 to start with?  Why put a sign up that we have to maintain that tries to get most of the people some of the time to drive below 38?  Mr. Canning replied I’m sure that there are a number of solutions but some of them are not cost efficient and some of them are not politically…  Mr. Bernard asked how do we know that?  Mr. Canning replied I’ll give you an example.  If you want people to drive 30 m.p.h. on Locust Avenue, put a police officer out there every day if you have one.  Mr. Bernard said that, to me, is another treatment of a symptom.  I’m wondering how we can attack the cause of it.  Mr. Canning said another thing you could do is to have interactive signs that communicate with the cars.  The technology is there but it is just not cost affective.  So you couldn’t drive faster than the posted speed limit.  Your car interacts with the sign.  Mr. Bernard said part of your cure for the symptom is to widen the road by having a bail out lane, which is part of the argument for widening any road, instead of 2 lanes, let’s have 4 lanes, let’s have 8 lanes because then the traffic will flow better.  At least, the traffic by your count is cars and trucks.  Mr. Canning said what I am trying to do is to insure that if this development is approved, and that is your responsibility, that people are not in danger.  Mr. Bernard said I appreciate that and I appreciate your reference and you do a meticulous study.  You do the best traffic studies in the world.  The question is, is there yet another approach to your traffic studies?  Are there elements that you are missing?  Are there directions that we could think about as a Board that are not being presented to us because we are only as good as the information that is received?  Mr. Canning replied the answer is yes, but qualified by it is not specific to this particular application or one application.  We are looking at another road for the Town but we are looking corridor-wide at a problem and we hope over time to develop a series of measures that will effectively reduce speed again.  The problem is, on another road that is not dissimilar to Locust Avenue, the speed.  In this instance, you could institute a corridor-wide study for Locust Avenue to determine means that would affectively reduce the speed from one end to the other.  Part of that would require you to do an accident history of Locust Avenue to determine how significant the problem is from a physical condition like we are doing with the other road.  Essentially, the answer to your question is this application is at a specific point of Locust Avenue.  It is there responsibility to address conditions at that location.  Maybe it is something that the Board would deem appropriate to require them to look at all of Locust Avenue.  But that is really not for me to say. 


                        Mr. Vergano said John, in your opinion, are there specific traffic calming measures?  We all hear about the use of speed humps, narrowing lanes, cutting pavement grooves, and rumble strips, something that would help in this application to reduce the average speed.  Mr. Canning replied I haven’t looked at Locust Avenue in its entirety.  But looking at the level of traffic activity on it, it is not a simple residential road as many of the Town’s roads are in Cortlandt.  Affectively, it is a connector or a distributor road people use to get between Route 6 and 202 and various other places.  On such streets such as that, typically, it is not accepted in the engineering profession to put in speed humps because it disrupts traffic flow, it makes noise.  The houses near them are near the noise.  Speed humps are usually confined to residential streets that are primarily residential in nature but because of congestion at a nearby intersection, people come through them.  Other traffic calming measures…  I am really not prepared to say at this time that I know of specific measures that would be applicable to Locust Avenue in this instance. 


                        Mr. Foley said I wanted to get back to something…  I have a problem with the terminology ‘bail-out lane’ because that is what it appears to be.  I’m worried about what that can create.  A question was bought up at one of the Public Hearings about when you did your study the location of the tubes and why they were placed where they were.  I believe some residents had questioned that concerning cars coming out of Gabriel very slowly at that point and how you could have done an accurate reading of the speed.  Mr. Canning said they were actually placed as you approach the crest of the road, which is about half way between Gabriel and the proposed driveway location.  The reason that they were placed there is because we determined in advance with a reasonable degree of accuracy that this is the point where you have to make a decision.  That is where you see what is in front of you and you then have to react.  If I put the tubes right at the driveway, that is really irrelevant because by the time you are at the driveway, the damage is done.  The reason that the tubes were placed where they were placed was because that is where you need to make your decision.  It was approximately half way between Gabriel and the driveway.  We did note the possibility of putting a stop sign eastbound on Gabriel but we determined that by the time you got to the decision point, you would be going 35 m.p.h. anyway.  So that was sort of self-defeating.  Mr. Foley said if the tubes had also been placed in the northbound lanes, south of the proposed driveway, would that have helped establish a mean of speed?  Mr. Canning replied if we had placed them 280 feet south of the driveway, it would have helped in determining decision point information for vehicles traveling in the opposite direction. 


Mr. Bianchi asked is there sufficient room in the area to

widen the road properly to provide a legal turning lane making a left onto the site and for people exiting to get back on and head west?  Is there enough room there?  Can it be constructed?  Is it a matter of taking more property from someone?  Mr. Vergano replied in all likelihood, it would be a matter of taking more property.  Mr. Bianchi said yes, but it can be done.  Mr. Vergano said it could be done; it would have to be evaluated.  Mr. Bernard said then we wouldn’t have to worry about any pedestrians because there couldn’t possibly be room for one.  Tom, with all due respect, if we are going to talk about widening roads there, I would like to see a traffic study on widening Locust, the whole thing.  Since it is a thru-fare and because you are saying we really shouldn’t have traffic coming in and out of it because it is a thru-fare, let’s see it widened to 4 lanes.  Let’s create a thru-fare.  Let’s have limited access just like you have on a limited access highway so that we can really get those cars and trucks through.  I want to get them from A to B. 


Mr. Canning said let me finish on this.  Looking at today’s

volumes, I determined that during the busiest hour, a one-hour period, there is an 800’s of 1% chance that someone is going to pull behind someone to stop when they are turning left.  It is not 1% or 1/10 of 1%; it is 800’s of 1%, almost 1/10th.  20 years from now, if traffic volumes increase by 35%, that increases to just over 100th of 1%.  The reason that we are providing the shoulder is if you can determine that you feel that 100th of 1% is a small enough risk that you don’t need the shoulder…  Mr. Bianchi said again, my proposal to widen the road is intended traffic safety.  I’m looking at traffic safety.  Mr. Bernard said Tom, you are absolutely correct.  Mr. Bianchi said if you widen the road, provide sidewalks…  Mr. Bernard said we were out there and all saw how bad that traffic was; I’m agreeing with you.  I know that is what your opinion is.  I apologize.  It was not meant as an attack.  You are absolutely right; it is just an alternative.  Mr. Bianchi said whether it is the best one or not, I don’t know.  I don’t particularly like providing a lane for people to use just in case they need it, frankly.  Do it right or don’t do it at all, that is my thinking.  Mr. Vergano said for the record, earlier in this process, the applicant did propose this lane as an option.  I rejected it as a viable option.  I really, again, for much the same reasons that John is getting at, I felt that it was accommodating for mitigating a dangerous type of situation.  I just couldn’t follow the logic.  Quite frankly, I asked the applicant to look at other options and of course, that continued for a number of years and ended up with the reconfiguration of that road, as you are all aware of.  What Mr. Canning has done, and he always does a very thorough and professional job, as he has mentioned, he came up with a ‘what if’ scenario.  What if this was developed, what could we do to protect the traffic from the public?  This is something that would protect the traffic from the public.  Period.  John, one question though.  In connection with the tube speed indicators, is it possible in your experience that as people are approaching these tubes that they actually slow down because they see something in the road?  Meaning that the actual 85th percentile speed could in fact be a little bit higher than 38 m.p.h.?  Mr. Canning replied it is possible.  Based just on my experience but without any scientific data to back it up, people see these things quite a bit.  They don’t realize the difference tubes that are like this and tubes that are like that.  I really don’t believe that they slow down significantly.  If anything, I would say, it is probably 39 m.p.h. at the most. 


                        Mr. Foley said I think part of the problem here is that on Locust Avenue, and in other discussions with other applications, Valeria a few weeks ago, we end up changing to engineer for traffic and changing the character of some of these roads.  In the case of Locust Avenue, I don’t know how many saw the project across the street; I don’t know how much more can be changed.  It is unfortunate that the applicant has a parcel of land that has had everything else built out around it.  They are the last ones to come.  It creates the problem.  You had mentioned the driveway warning sign; I don’t know how much good that does.  It is just a bad curve and a bad crest. 


                        Mr. Bianchi asked what happens now to the right-of-way?  Mr. Delano replied there is not 50 feet of right-of-way.  The applicant on this project owns a 25-foot wide strip out there.  The parcel in the back has 18 feet; that is his frontage.  Those 2 sum up less to the required 50 feet to dedicate to the right-of-way.  Mr. Bianchi said this is without acquiring property.  Mr. Delano said there really is little or no physical real estate to acquire from further adjoinings to the east because their front porches are just a few feet off of the property line. 


                        Mr. Rocco Tortorella, introduced himself to the Board and said with all due respect to your profession and the methods that you use, it is pretty much fiction.  The tube that was laid down was laid down at the top of the hill, which naturally causes a car to slow down.  It is also before a curve, which will cause a person to slow down because of the limited sight distance.  It is also to the right of where you turn onto Gabriel Drive, which also causes you to slow down.  If it averaged 38 m.p.h. at that point on the road, you can rest assured they were traveling faster at other points on the road.  As a resident of the road, I can tell you that they frequently travel much faster.  As far as this sign that alerts you of the speed that you are going, there is one on the Saw Mill River Parkway as you enter it from the Taconic State Parkway.  I have never seen anyone slow down due to it.  These are adults driving to work.  Anyone who has ever been 18 years old, and we all have, know that those things mean even less to an 18 year old or 19 year old than they do to adults.  The fact that it says that you are going 35 or 40 m.p.h. is not going to cause a young man or lady to slow down.  I just think it is very unrealistic to think that you can put 10 new residents on that road, which would add 20 cars because everyone does drive up here.  To think that there aren’t going to be more accidents and as far as the lane that you can bail out into, people do walk along that road.  Suppose someone is walking in that lane when a car needs to bail out?  How many injuries or fatalities over a 20-year period are acceptable in that case?  The figures of 200 rear-end accidents over a 20 year period is 10 accidents per year.  Again, I think, that is very, very unrealistic.  I am on the road everyday.  It just doesn’t work out that way.  Mr. Foley mentioned something about changing the character of the road itself.  I actually would like to speak to that point as a newcomer to the area.  It was a year ago this month that my wife and I came up here looking for a house to buy.  As the real estate drove us up Route 6, I was looking around and thinking ‘oh my, I don’t know if I want to get involved in this kind of congestion again.’  I was moving from New York City and who would want that?  We turned right onto Locust Avenue.  We got passed the deli on the right and the gas station on the left.  As we came around the first curve, all of a sudden, Route 6 was behind us and more than geographically because all of a sudden you couldn’t see Route 6 anymore.  You couldn’t hear Route 6 anymore.  On your right, you had trees kind of hanging over the road.  On the left were beautifully well kept homes with well-kept lawns.  Obviously, people take pride in their homes.  As you went further down, there was more of the same.  There were trees and beautiful houses, each one individual with space in between with room to breath.  A little bit further down, up on the hill, there are, in fact, new developments, which I think speaks to the people of Locust Avenue that they are not objectionable to new developments but maybe just to development for development sake.  Do we have to put houses on a piece of land simply because a piece of land is there in spite of all the inconvenience and hazards it may pose to everyone who already lives there?  Also, I didn’t hear mention of the fact that school buses also go up and down that particular part of Locust Avenue.  As you all know, when a school bus stops, everyone behind them and in front of them is obligated to stop as well.  It is just another cause of traffic.  This might sound a little bit selfish, but if you are sitting in your yard enjoying a nice quiet day, having all of those engines roaring is not nice.  The entire Locust Avenue is nothing but hills and turns, which means that trucks and buses do have to rev their engines going up it and down it in low gear.  That is all I wanted to say.  Thank you for your time and attention.  (Applause.)


                        Mr. Foley said I am not in favor of changing the characters of the roads.  I have been an advocate of maintaining the character of the roads.


                        Mr. Edward Keon introduced himself to the Board and said I have lived on Locust Avenue over 40 years.  I live at the foot of Locust Avenue about 200 yards down from where the last turn is.  Speaking from experience, my daughter tried to get in my driveway one time and had her signal on.  A car came down the hill and tried to pass her on the inside and hit her door.  An accident.  Number two, I was in the yard one day and heard a noise.  My neighbor was trying to lift a car off of a baby.  A woman came down the hill and speeding she lost control of the car.  He and I tried to lift the car to get the baby out.  It was no use.  The baby died.  Number three, a flat bed truck came down the hill one day and lost his brakes.  He went right through the Jewish cemetery.  The top of the truck went through the cemetery and topped off all the stones.  The guy was fortunate enough to jump off and no one was coming down the other way so he didn’t hit anyone.  No one got hurt but the cemetery had some job removing all that blacktop from the stones.  That is 3 accidents that I remember.  I had a neighbor across the street.  He had a mailbox and he put it up temporarily.  A car came and hit the stonewall across the street and bounced across and hit his mailbox.  The guy had a real racket set up.  Every time he heard a car hit his mailbox, he rushed out there and got paid for it.  This guy ran a business.  I heard this from the safety engineer; I heard his jargon.  Has he set up his tubes for speed down by my house at the foot of the hill or at the top of the hill?  Number two, I heard about bicycles, people walking, and a horse for traffic on the road.  I don’t even know how a horse can get up the hill.  That is kind of foolish.  But anyway, I’ve seen kids come down that hill on bicycles.  You ought to see them down at my house.  I bet they are doing over 100 m.p.h!  I hope they have good brakes on the bicycles.  I heard about speed bumps.  That is a little cheaper than hiring a police officer and also putting red lights up.  Speed bumps are o.k.  Only the auto body shop will get quite a few jobs.  Maybe that is good.  One other thing, this one lane isn’t going to stop all of this.  Have it one way going up all the way from west to east.  The people from Gallows Hill Road will have to come back that way.  It means less traffic that way coming home.  That is another way of stopping things.  There are many solutions.  I don’t know what the right solution is but I gave you two ideas.  I hope no one gets hurt there anymore because I don’t want to go out and see an accident out there again.  That little kid is still clear in my mind being killed on that road.  That was terrible.  Safety, I heard about safety.  I worked for BOCES for 25 years in mostly architectural in Yorktown.  I never had an accident in 25 years.  I heard this safety inspector say that he is going to have 200 accidents.  I want no accidents.  How about that?  Now, one other thing, I heard at the last meeting this person say that he had the power to vote one way or another.  Also, remember, that as citizens we have the power to vote you out if we are not satisfied.  That is all I have to say.  Thank you.  (Applause.)


                        Ms. Karen Vogel, Floral Road, introduced herself to the Board and said I have a question about what Mr. Canning mentioned.  He said in the evening rush that there were only going to be about 4 cars.  I am confused as to where he got the number of 4.  The present proposal is for 10 houses, most people have 2 cars.  Forgive me, because I am new in the area, but I was under the impression that there was another development that was proposed to link up with this one.  Mr. Kessler said there is the potential for that.  There is no application for it.  Ms. Vogel said I was just thinking if there are possibly going to be 55 houses that is really more like 110 cars.  If there are going to be 200 accidents over 20 years from the 10 houses, what happens then if there are 55 accidents?  That is my question and my concern.  If someone could address that.  Mr. Kessler asked could you address that?  Mr. Canning replied everyone has 2 cars; they don’t all leave in 1 hour.  Essentially, that is why you don’t have 20 trips in one hour for 10 homes.  The study shows that 12 leave in one hour and the other 8 leave either before or after.  With regard to the property in the back, this application is for 10 homes.  If the property in the back ever came into development, you would have to revisit this whole issue.  Mr. Kessler said the traffic study measures traffic during the peek hour where you have the most cars traveling in the hour.  It is during that peek hour that he foresees 4 cars out of those 10 homes coming to that area. 


                        Mr. John McLaughlin, 180 Locust Avenue, introduced himself to the Board and said I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the amount of cars and an estimate was taken today on the amount of cars?  Today you did an estimate, is that what you said?  I just wanted to know if there was an estimate of cars on Locust Avenue today.  The reason I found that a little bit disturbing was that there is no school today, no buses.  That would lessen the amount of cars.  I also have another question about were any of the cars that were traveling on Locust Avenue, traveling under 30 m.p.h. or if it was taken as all of the thru traffic?  Was there a distinction made there?  Because I know that cars slow down going into Gabriel Drive to make a left and coming out of Gabriel Drive going onto Locust Avenue.  The flashing sign is another thing for another meeting.  We’ll have a lot of meetings.  Thank you.


                        Mr. Canning said the traffic counts were conducted in May, I believe from May 16 to May 22, 2003.  My reference to today was that I started looking at potentials for the accident history to date and what would traffic counts be.  And your other question, basically, the summary of the data when we looked at the eastbound direction, it says that 15% of the vehicles were traveling at a speed of 25 m.p.h. or less.  So 85% of the people were going at the 25 m.p.h. or more.  That answers your question.  Mr. McLaughlin said I wanted to follow up on that.  If that amount of cars traveling under 25 m.p.h., 15%, wouldn’t that up the percentage of cars traveling thru traffic from the 38, I don’t know what it would be then.  You would have to do the math.  My point is that the cars traveling out of Gabriel Drive making the right are the ones going the 25 m.p.h.  What I’m concerned about are the thru traffic cars traveling whatever they are traveling 45 or 50 m.p.h.  They are the ones that I’m worrying about that run by my house.  Mr. Kessler said the ones coming out of Gabriel Drive would not be part of this study because you have the monitors at the top of the hill.  Mr. Canning said no, the cars are part of the study because they turn right.  They go up the hill and the tubes were at the top of the hill.  So they do pass over the tubes; they are part of the study.  Mr. Bernard asked so the question is, is the 38 m.p.h. an average of all of the cars?  Mr. Canning replied it is an average of all cars on Locust Avenue traveling eastbound at the point where drivers have to react and respond.  Mr. Bernard said in that study, you also tell us that out of those cars that travel during a certain period, there were 10 or 20 cars traveling at 60 m.p.h. and 30 cars traveling at 15 m.p.h.  Mr. Canning said there were 11 cars traveling between 55 and 60 m.p.h.  Mr. Bernard asked in the course of what timeframe?  Mr. Canning replied 5 days.  Mr. Bernard asked what is the next number then?  Mr. Canning replied 24 were traveling between 51 and 55 m.p.h. over the same 5-day period. 


Mr. Foley said you said earlier that you looked at traffic

today.  You clarified by saying you were looking at the safety aspects today.  Mr. Canning replied this morning, I visited the statistical analysis.  I did a review of sight distances.  When we started to get into this discussion about the affect of reducing speed, I wanted to see what the potential was from a safety perspective because I didn’t want to leave that question unanswered.  So I sat down this morning and got out my engineer charts and computer and worked at it.  That is what I did today.  Mr. Foley asked so you don’t mean necessarily at the site today?  Mr. Canning replied no.   


                        Mr. Tom Radocaj, Oregon Road, introduced himself to the Board, and said this whole study is being done without the golf course being finished.  We aren’t going to get no more traffic from that being done.  I don’t know how many houses or condos are being proposed down there.  Mr. Klarl said 85 townhouses and 6 single-family homes.  Mr. Radocaj is this being all incorporated into those amounts of vehicles, too?  This accident ratio thing that you have, on the bottom of Locust and Oregon Road, there is at least one accident there a month.  At least one per month.  You can get the record from the State Police or Westchester County.  I don’t understand how on top of the hill where there is more of a blind spot, would there be less?  Mr. Canning replied with regard to the golf course, basically, in doing my projections over 20 years, I assume the traffic volumes at the worse case would increase by 1.5% per year for the next 20 years.  That figures out to about a 35% increase over time.  That more than accounts for the golf course.  With regard to the accident history and speed at other locations on Locust Avenue, there are two real issues.  The first issue is that the location of this driveway, to the best of my knowledge, so far is what the discussion here tonight has been about, as to how this driveway is going to impact motorists who use Locust Avenue.  But from the other perspective, the people who will be coming out and traveling to and from these 10 homes, they will be just like the rest of the people that use Locust Avenue.  Some will be faster; some will be slower.  They will all pass thru other potentially hazardous locations on Locust Avenue.  The question with regard as to how much of a safety issue that will be would be affectively if it is going to be, let me do the math quickly, 10 homes at about 100 trips, correct me if I’m wrong, in my letter, I think I said it was about 5,000 trips a day on Locust Avenue?  That would be 100 over 5,000.  Whatever that works out to be, a half or 2/10’s of a percent, 6500’s.  It is less than a half of a percent increase.  So, removed from this driveway, you could theoretically see perhaps a half of a percent increase in the number of accidents because you have a half of a percent more vehicles.  But if you were to apply that standard to every other development that is approved in the Town…  In every development, people drive.  From time to time, people get into accidents.  As engineers, we try to insure that all of the obvious causes for accidents are corrected as the development goes ahead and the Town reviews its roadway systems and tries to improve its roadway systems as time goes by.  Mr. Radocaj said as accidents ratio-wise, you just said so many after so many years would occur.  But I’ve seen at the bottom of the hill monthly accidents.  This whole theory to me is not really driving what actually is happening. 


                        Ms. Kathleen McLaughlin, 180 Locust Avenue, introduced herself to the Board and said I promised my neighbor Joyce Bendavid that I would read this letter from her.  Some of it may be repetitive of things that we have already discussed but I am going to read this:


‘I am away on vacation.  The following is a list of some of my concerns, thoughts, and questions.  Has Mr. Adler actually seen Locust Avenue or is he basing his findings on numbers, diagrams, and formulas alone?  Are you and is Mr. Adler aware that there is another very dangerous curve just past the proposed road as one travels toward Route 6?  Has the average or 85% speed of 38 m.p.h. from last month’s traffic study been assessed from an average of 30 m.p.h. and up as it should have been?  This would address the question of averaging in the reduced speed of drivers turning onto Gabriel or into or out of nearby driveways.


I would like to request that a hidden ‘smart cop’ or other traffic device be placed in an area on Locust where there are no intersections, no driveways, or roads within 200 feet so that we can try to determine a more accurate speed of travel on Locust.  When driving on Locust towards 6, turning left into the proposed road would pose more than one problem:


1.  There is limited sight distance because of the dangerous curve beyond it.


2.  There is so much traffic on Locust that a driver often has to wait for 5 or more oncoming cars in order to turn left.  I know this because when I approach my house from that direction, I turn left into the circle, which is very close to the proposed road, and traffic often builds up behind me.


3.  Also, it has sometimes been very scary for me to make that left because the cars come so fast from the other direction. I don’t feel safe as I am turning left that an oncoming car would be able to slow down in order to avoid smashing right into me.


Driving out of the proposed road and turning left onto Locust seems dangerous to me.  Also, it seems to me that there is limited sight distance in both directions and that turning left would be dangerous and could cause problems.  Again, there is so much fast moving traffic that I would be concerned about cars piling up or stopping short on Locust from both directions.  A ‘no left turn’ restriction concerns me as well:


1.  If the restriction is only for specific times of the day, who will monitor it?


2.  Where will cars turn around?


3.  It would be very dangerous to have cars using the circle in front of my house as a U-turn location.  The circle is already often misused for that purpose.  This poses a danger to my children and my neighbors’ children who ride bikes and play basketball on and around the circle.  We also need to cross the circle on foot to get our mail and to get to our cars, which are sometimes parked on the circle.


4.  As I mentioned earlier in my notes, sight distances might also need to be checked at the circle. 


Thank you for considering my concerns.  Joyce Bendavid’


                        Ms. McLaughlin continued and said the only other comment that I would like to say is that no one talked about the snow and the ice when the weather is really bad on Locust Avenue.  No offense to the Highway Department but that road is not plowed very well.  There are lots of accidents on Locust Avenue.  People elect not to go out.  I would also like to say that I think the community has pretty much spoken about the traffic hazards on Locust and our general unhappiness with this development.  I just don’t understand why you don’t reject it out of hand.  There are enough concerns.  There are enough safety problems.  We haven’t even gotten to drainage and all of that.  There is no reason why this project should be approved.  There is no reason why we should all be jumping through hoops because someone cannot get the development that he wants.  Thank you. 


                        Mr. Vergano said there were a few issues in connection with drainage that were bought up at the last meeting.  I had asked the applicant’s engineer to address those issues.  I believe he has.  John, do you have anything to report?  The one important issue is where is this drainage headed.  There was some concern that the drainage would end up in the northerly direction down Locust to Oregon Road.  The drainage map that you provided us shows that the drainage heading in a generally easterly direction towards the Hollowbrook.  Could you clarify that?  Mr. Delano replied (referring to map on the wall) the green is the project site.  Just to the right of the project site, there is a heavy green line.  That is indicative of the ridgeline.  Any rainfall that falls to the left of that line would head off to the west and down Locust Avenue.  Any rainfall that falls to the right of that line or on the project site would run off to the east.  The drainage system proposed on the project site would collect and infiltrate most of the water.  The excess water would run off to the east and eventually cross under the aqueduct.  There is a 36-inch culvert that was built as part of the aqueduct improvements.  It would pass underground and up to the local network of ponds and streams that flow toward the north parallel to Westbrook Drive.  It would head down and across under Oregon Road and head into the Peekskill Hollowbrook.  (Mr. Delano pointed out the drainage system and continued discussing the drainage referring to the map.)  Mr. Vergano said to clarify that, nothing heads in the opposite direction at the intersection of Locust and Oregon Road, correct?  Mr. Delano replied nothing leaves the site and heads to the west.  Nothing goes west on Locust.  Nothing heads down towards Oregon Road by going west.  All the drainage goes off to the east and hits the local watercourses and goes north to the Hollowbrook. 


                        Mr. Bernard said these in-ground infiltration storm management systems, do they require any maintenance?  Mr. Delano replied yes, as does any storm drainage, they do require maintenance.  Mr. Bernard asked can you give us a quick review of what that would be?  Mr. Delano replied the principle form of maintenance is going to be to remove silt.  Mr. Bernard asked so they are designed like catch basins?  Mr. Delano replied the inlet structures on the drive would be trench drains.  The catch basin system in the road would direct it to the pipes and the structures to the underground locations.  Mr. Bernard said I’m just curious as to how you do that, that’s all. 


                        Mr. Bianchi said unless the applicant is going to come up with some alternate plans to mitigate this traffic issue, I propose we close the Public Hearing.


                        Ms. Kathleen Roseoff, 179 Locust Avenue, introduced herself to the Board and said I tried to come out of Gabriel when the speed tubes were there.  I tried to get my car up to 40 m.p.h. coming out of Gabriel.  I feel that where that speed tube was placed was totally inadequate.  The ones that were 15 m.p.h. were all the ones that were turning into my driveway, of which my college aged children had a party that weekend and we had about 25 or 30 cars there.  I totally feel that this road is unsafe.  The property was a bargain.  We do not need to make 10 houses on that road. 


                        Mr. Jack Alongi, 191 Locust Avenue, introduced himself to the Board and said I have lived on Locust in that house for 28 years.  Before that, my neighbor, Al Smith, lived there for about a total of 50 years.  He had a great engineering background.  Many times, we spoke about these pieces of property.  We walked through the back.  He always said that they would never put anything in there except but one house and it is basically a building lot because of all of the concerns about traffic and everything like that.  I can’t see why people build these lots at a reduced price and now they want to put 10 houses in there when for the last 50 years that property has been there and no one has built on it because they can’t get a road out to Locust Avenue.  It is dangerous as we have all talked about.  Now everyone, like the lady said, is trying to jump through hoops so that they can put 10 houses in there.  I don’t see why it should even be thought of never mind widening the road and putting things off the side of the road, flashing lights on Locust Avenue.  I don’t want it to be Disney World.  Thank you.


                        Mr. Ron Vogel, introduced himself to the Board and said I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board members for giving us this opportunity to speak about this.  My wife and I, as she mentioned, have recently moved in here.  I haven’t ever been involved with a Hearing like this before.  I just want to get a handle and an understanding what benefits to the Town these 10 houses would really have.  I have been hearing a lot of negatives and everything that everyone has had to say.  I just wanted to see what the positive side might be for this.  I’m having a little bit of trouble with that.  Mr. Kessler said the applicant has come before this Board with a proposal to develop the property.  That is his right to do that.  This Board has to review that, look at the impacts, and see if those impacts can be mitigated.  The application then may need to be improved, defined, or revised in some way so that we feel all the adverse impacts have been affectively reduced or eliminated.  The Town’s gain, in answer to your question, is the development of homes that presumably increase the taxes to the Town at a rate that is more than what it would cost to the Town to provide services to the homes and also the school district the same thing applies.  It would generate taxes to the school district so that it would support without a deficit the education of the students that may be generated from that proposal.  Beyond that, that is all this Board looks at.  Does this Town need homes?  The issue of affordable housing may come into play.  Some applicants come before this and provide something that is required by the Town.  We are required to have a certain number of affordable housing in this Town.  This application does not address that.  There is no proposal here for affordable housing.  Beyond that, I hope that answers your question.  That is the purpose of this Board.  Mr. Bernard said if I may expand on that, the benefit to the Town is to increase the tax base.  In this particular development, according to the information delivered this evening by the applicant, as far as the school goes, the taxes generated by this proposed development fall  $54,000 short of paying school taxes.  So as a benefit to the Town on this increased tax base right now, at least looking at the school side of it, it would be a deficit.  At the sale price these homes are going to go on the market at, at least at what they are projected, they will fall short, also, on police and fire protection, road maintenance, and all of the rest of the things that are provided by the Town to service those homes.  So there is no increase to the tax base.  It looks like a negative affect. 


                        Mr. Radocaj said I still have a problem with this water issue, the drainage.  He said only a portion of this would be going down one way.  But when I walked up the stream coming up the backside of the mountain, I reached the posted signs and everything else.  There is a steam going there but it is not on this map.  Ed said he would call.  Was I supposed to meet with him?  Mr. Vergano replied I had suggested to Mr. Delano to meet with you.  Mr. Radocaj said I had come in through the backside of the Rancho development.  Mr. Foley asked coming up the western side?  Mr. Radocaj asked where is Rancho Drive (indicating).  Mr. Delano indicated on the map.  (Cross conversation.)  Mr. Radocaj said there is a stream that comes up right through here.  (Cross conversation).  Mr. Delano said any water that falls on the surface of the ground right inside this line, the crest of the hill, is going to go down this way on the opposite side of the crest of the hill.  All the water from his property drains out this way.  Mr. Radocaj asked so with all the trees and everything else, no extra spill-off is coming down this way?  Mr. Delano replied that is correct.  The top of the hill is right here.  Mr. Radocaj said I walked up here, which I mentioned before, and this stream is not being shown on here.  Mr. Delano said this is not a stream.  The drainage course and the latest wetlands…  Mr. Radocaj asked what determines it to be a stream?  Mr. Delano replied Town building code and wetland determination.  Mr. Radocaj asked what I’m saying is how would the Town determine if it is a stream then?  It flows pretty naturally.  Mr. Delano said it is not part of the applicant’s property.  It flows away from the applicant’s property.  No run-off from the applicant’s property goes into this stream or wetland.  Mr. Radocaj said I understand but I have walked it and I’ve been in this lower part.  As I mentioned once before, this lady that lives lower down, this stream used to be a little bit of a run-off.  Now it is a roaring stream that is basically taking out her garage and it is cutting through.  That part of the stream is not even being shown on this map unless you walk it.  Here you are talking about self-containment of this here.  This water has to naturally go down the hill.  Mr. Foley asked is that possible at all, Ed?  Mr. Radocaj said I have actually walked up the backside of Rancho.  There is another new house being built up off of that.  Mr. Vergano said Tom, I’ll make you a deal.  What we’ll do is this.  You can meet with one of my engineers.  You can physically walk that area with one of my engineers.  How does that sound?  Mr. Radocaj replied the area I’m talking about is up here.  Here is the wetland buffer.  Mr. Vergano said Tom, what you are talking about really seems to be in another drainage basin.  That is what Mr. Delano is saying.  If you would like one of my engineers to walk with you.  Mr. Radocaj said no, that is fine.  Mr. Vergano said that is fine.  The offer is there.  Mr. Radocaj said I have made arrangements with you to walk once before and you came out with Steve.  Mr. Vergano said I met you at the site.  We tried to address your issues.  The applicant went one step further.  If you are not satisfied, I’m going to go another step.  If you don’t want that, the offer is there.  Mr. Radocaj said thank you, but…  Mr. Vergano said that is fine.


                        Mr. Vergano said one other question for Mr. Canning just to clarify the speed on Locust Avenue.  At what location on Locust is the speed significant relative to the proposed driveway?  Mr. Canning replied 325 feet west of the driveway.  Mr. Vergano said so the actual speed of other points on the road relative to the proposed driveway are insignificant.  Mr. Canning said it is not relative to the location of the driveway of vehicles approaching from the west.  The speed of the vehicles a ½ mile to the west or down by Route 6 have no impact on the driveway. 


                        Mr. Foley said one last question.  Was that property ever rezoned recently?  Mr. Verschoor asked what time?  Mr. Foley asked was it down zoned in the past 10 or 15 years?  Mr. Verschoor replied not that I’m aware of but we can certainly go back 20 or 30 years and check. 


                        Mr. Kessler said we are going to end this Public Hearing.  I think we would like to close the Public Hearing and bring this back at the next meeting so that this Board can discuss how to proceed.  The problem I think we have is one of the SEQRA clock, which gives us 62 days to close the Public Hearing and render a decision.  I believe that the September meeting does not meet that requirement.  We need the applicant, Mr. Delano, give us as an extension subsequent to the September meeting.  Mr. Klarl said the September 3rd meeting is 62 days away.  We would like to extend to a day after the September 3rd meeting to September 4, 2003.  Mr. Delano said fine.  Mr. Kessler said we’ll discuss this at the next meeting and decide what that resolution may or may not look like and have staff prepare it for the next meeting. 


                        Motion was made by Mr. Bianchi to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Foley.


On the question, Mr. Foley said I understand what you are

doing.  If this proposal changes in any form, this has happened in the past where an applicant…  Is the public closed out of this at that point?  Mr. Kessler asked changed in what sense?  Mr. Foley replied if they lessen the amount of units or reconfigure it, something like that.  Mr. Kessler asked are you thinking of doing that at all?  Mr. Delano replied we’re not currently contemplating a change in lot count.  Mr. Foley said so you are staying with the 10 the way that it is now.  Mr. Delano said correct.  What we are going to add to the plan are recommendations offered up by the Town’s traffic consultant this evening.  I believe part of his recommendation is looking for the applicant to offer proof positive that his devices will in fact have a reduction in traffic speed of Locust Avenue as it passes in front of the site.  We currently intend to go through and make that effort and get that information here to get an approval. 


With all in favor “AYE.”



Respectfully submitted,


Donna A. D’Agostino


Cortlandt Medical Building

Back to Top


                        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, July 1, 2003, to consider the Application of the Cortlandt Medical Building Associates for approval of an amended Site Development Plan and 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. John Bernard

Mr. Thomas Bianchi

Mr. Robert Foley

Ms. Loretta Taylor

                                    Ms. Susan Todd


                        Also Present:


Mr. Edward Vergano, Director, Department of Technical


                                    Mr. Kenneth Verschoor, Deputy Director of Planning

                                    Mr. Chris Kehoe, Planning

                                    Mr. Lew Leslie, Conservation Advisory Council

                                    Mr. Art Clemens, Architectural Advisory Board

                                    Mr. John Klarl, Deputy Town Attorney



                        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. Kessler said this is a Public Hearing but for the record, we did receive a letter dated June 18, 2003 from Rinaldo Garcia asking that we put this on the agenda for our August meeting. 


                        Motion was made by Mr. Foley to adjourn the Public Hearing to the August 5, 2003 meeting, seconded by Mr. Bianchi, with all in favor “AYE.”



                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,





                                                Donna A. D’Agostino