Board of Trustees Work Session
So welcome to our July 22 work session. Our first time in our business will be considering authorizing the manager to reject bids received for trade services for HVAC.
Whereas the village of Cortlandt Hudson solicited sealed bids for trade labor services under bid number 22 of 2025, whereas this bid was broken down into the following categories allowing vendors to individually bid on the categories applicable to them, general construction, plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, masonry, and roofing, and whereas six bids were submitted by the deadline of 01/22/2026. And whereas of the six bids received, three vendors submitted proposals for the HVAC portion of the bid. Whereas since that time, the bids initial initially were drafted, the scope of work has changed necessitating a new bid to be undertaken. Now therefore be it resolved that the village managers hereby authorize to reject the bids received for bid number 22Of2025 for trade labor services HVAC.
Second. Motion by, trustee Nicholson, second by second by trustee Simon. Discussion? All in favor? Aye. Great. Okay. And then next is a discussion of increasing the income limits for rent regulated property occupied by certain senior citizens or persons with disability. Manager, would you like to first introduce the broader regulatory regime Sure. Of scree injury, is what it's called? Yep. So, basically, the
scree injury is the senior citizen rent increase exemption. That's the scree part, and DREE is the disabled, rent increase exemption. And so this is, a program that the village board authorized a number of years ago through the, village code to provide an exemption in the increase in rent for qualifying renters in certain rent controlled, which village doesn't have, or rent regulated, which are our ETPA properties. Alright. So if you are a renter in one of our six ETPA properties Mhmm. And you meet the income limit, which is less currently, it's less than $50,000 a year, you could potentially apply to New York State Homes and Community Renewal to be considered for the Screer Dre
It's biannually. So every two years. And so, how that process works is you fill out an application, you provide the qualifying documentation, you submit it to HCR, HCR reviews it, they'll either approve it or deny it. And if it's approved, they then forward it to the village, and the village is required to pay the landlord the difference in that in that amount. So I did look in the you know, we did not have anyone apply for it last year. Mhmm. 2024, we did have two applicants, both from Barry Manor that were approved. The total was about $2,000 that we that we paid for that. And so they're on that two year cycle. So they would be renewing one is renewing December of this year, and one is renewing, I believe, in May '27.
Can I ask a couple of questions? The first one is, can you remind us what the six ETPA properties are?
It's Barry Manor, the Van Wyck Apartments on Grand Street, the Mercado Inn on Truesdale. There's one on Benedict. There's yeah. There's one on Benedict. There's there's one at the it's the house at the very end of Benedict next to the parking lot there. Right behind Baked by, Susan? No. Next to the firehouse, that house. Oh, oh, right. Yeah. Okay. Mhmm. The one on Grand, I believe, is $87 or it's it's in the area it's in the area of the Van Wyck Apartments, the house on Grand Street.
Sorry. I I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I was since you mentioned that there were six, I just thought maybe I wasn't the only one who did And I was wrong anyway. There's only five. I just pulled up the memo from 2023. So it's yeah. So it's 8383
Grand Street, 51 Benedict Boulevard, 74 Truesdale, 31 Old Post South, and 94 Grand Street. Those are the five. Okay.
And how do we let these is there some way that we let because you're saying one year, nobody I think what you just said was we got no applications one year, we had two applications the next year. Is there some way we let people how how is this communicated to people? Do people know this exists?
I mean, obviously Obviously, two people do, but I mean, other you know? Yeah. I mean, I you know, it's the income, as I said right now, is less than $50,000. So, you know, I there's probably not a lot of people that necessarily qualify for that. Right? You know, I would have to go back and look and see exactly how it was publicized when it was first, enacted.
But, you know, there is an opportunity, especially if we're making a change to it, where we could announce it and, you know, make sure I just want people who should be taking advantage of this to know about it so that if we're taking the time to do it, that they can benefit from it. Yes. That's the reason I'm asking the question the way I'm asking it. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
So if we if we take it up to 75, it was, obviously, we we may get a few more. There could be a few more. Correct. Yeah. But I think it's it's certainly I think it's worth worth doing, you know, particularly given inflation and all the other things that that have been going on. And our exposure, think, won't be that great. Yeah. I mean, there's only a total of a hundred and
Sorry. I did calculate. I did not that right. It added six and seven together. It's a 131 units that are covered. It gets charged to the refund of real property that we it's basically the budget line that we use for tax certiorari. So, like, if somebody files, grievance against the village, we take it out of that line. So we have a so we have, a reserve fund that covers those costs. So, yeah. Like like I said, it we had there was no there were no applications last year, so there was no cost, and the year prior was about $2,000.
And we only instituted ETPA for we had one ETPA building, and then we added. Right? So we've only had ETPA for five buildings since 2023. Correct. Right? So, you know, this is this is something that the folks the tenants in these buildings wouldn't have had access to before 2023.
The four or the five. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So so it is possible that those tenants may not know much about this program. Right. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. So there's definitely an opportunity if we If we forward. If we do this, we'll Thank you. Yes. We'll start with the seniors on Friday.
Yeah. I mean, like, it's it's not a huge amount of people, so we could just do a mailing to them. Yep. That would be fabulous. Yeah. Yeah. So
and do we have a sense of what other did you say this already? What other communities are doing? Are all the communities on this list I mean, I see that they're listed Yeah. And what it's listed at now. But do we have a sense of this is a trend. Is everybody doing this? Are we Over trailblazing?
Right. So you you know, every few years, it gets amended in the state code, and then over time people will increase it. Yeah.
I mean, think you could see from that chart, right, that not I don't think everybody's even at the 50,000. Right? So, yeah, so people people change things over time.
But I would imagine that most of the places that are at the 50,000 are probably going to That was my question. Are we gonna are these ones that we see at 50? Sorry. But I haven't I haven't done I didn't survey. I I don't I couldn't say that for now. I was just wondering if you have that information. It doesn't really impact my feelings on it, which are positive.
Okay. There's consensus on raising the cap? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Be a code amendment. Yeah. So what It will be a public hearing? Correct. So we will,
we can draft this law for the next meeting to schedule a public hearing. Okay. Great. Alright. Great. Okay? Thank you. Yep.
And what's the date it becomes so then if we if if we do a mailing, when will the mailing when what's the timing for that?
Well, it would have to be after the law was adopted. Right? So it would be we August 19, we call for the public hearing at potentially the first meeting in September. You would adopt the law at that point, and then we'd have to file it with the state. So early October? Great. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think there could be, some correspondence
prior to the public hearing with the landlords so they understand that this would not impact them financially.
Yeah. The the landlords got made whole. Okay. Yes. Because whatever whatever the tenants are exempted from, the village makes up. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. So if they if they can we can communicate that to them and they know that, that Yeah. I mean, definitely, I I the Bury Manor landlord
understands that because they know. Yeah. Because we we've dealt with them already on this issue. But the other four, we could certainly Yeah. Ensure. Regulated
the increase of rent that they can do? Yeah. Although, that's what the ETPA so those five buildings that are under so ETPA, trustee Murtaugh, right, is the emergency tenant protection act, and that governs the the Westchester County rent guidelines board sets the annual rate rent increases for all ETPA Okay. Buildings. So the board meets and sets the rate, and then that's what the that's what the landlords are allowed to charge. Yeah.
Yeah. And just in case anyone hadn't seen up up till now, as we talk about this in the next, you know, just informally with folks, there's a good definition of disability in the letter. So that's Okay. Okay. What we wanna be talking about in terms of people's eligibility based on their disability. Yeah.
So just because trustee Simon said this, if you're gonna talk about it on Friday, I guess I just wanna make sure like, I don't want people to leave their feeling confused. Absolutely. Not that you're gonna confuse them, but I I just wanna make sure that I don't wanna even if there's, like, a very brief, very high level fact sheet or something that if we're gonna talk about it on Friday, the our seniors liaisons could be manned with and womaned with. If that if that's okay. Just because I don't want it feels like there's a lot of room for confusion and distress Yeah. If this isn't communicated, right. Although, we're talking about it now, so it's appropriate, I would say, to talk about it Friday. I just don't want people to I want people to leave feeling reassured, not nervous.
Because I mean, again, as we started off, this only applies to a small Right. Subset. So, I mean, it could very well be that it doesn't apply to anyone who's in the senior club. Right? So
yeah. And not everyone in the club comes to the meeting on Friday. Mhmm. Yeah. So, ultimately, this is gonna need to be, you know, to trustee Nicholson's point,
a communication going out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well and, you know, typically, what we try to do is just let them know on Friday what we've been working on on Wednesday. And so we'll just, you know, make make sure to put it in the right context. Mhmm. Last week last week, they were very they're very happy about the the Cleveland Drive repaving. They just wanted to make sure they could get into the library. Mhmm. Very important. Yep. And
just I did a quick hit. You know, when we sort of converted these additional buildings to ETPA, there was conversation around what the rent increases would be, and there was feedback from the landlords. They were concerned about sort of keeping up. So over the past couple of years, in 2025, the rent increases were 23% respectively for one and two year leases. And this year, it went up. So they were the landlords were able to increase rents by three and a half percent for one year renewals and four and a half percent for two year renewals. So just interesting because, you know, we we really did have a lot of deep debate and conversation around this with the with the additional buildings going into ETPA back into 2023.
And separate from the kind of the global rate increase, there's also the specialized individual apartment improvement increases as well as the major capital improvement increases. The individual apartment increases typically you see that because they got rid of the vacancy deal control and there's no vacancy bonus. Regulated rent applies to the new apartments as well or to a new tenant. But often when you change over, sometimes there's need for rehabbing the parcel or the unit. And this allows for the landlord to recover more when there's that kind of turnover and improvement. I think these days it's 20,000 and then major capital improvement is like a building wide improvement like if they change the HVAC system, modernize the HVAC, they can also recover that. Anyway, but that's not information that we need to present at the seniors lunch. Please don't. DHCR has fact sheets on Screentree the Screentree one is I think like,
maybe it's one page double sided, so it should be pretty reasonable. Yeah. Well, you know, they're going to see The Odyssey, so I think, you know, they can handle complicated. Okay.
Well, that should have been a short discussion that turned into a long discussion, which does not bode well for the rest of the agenda.
We're moving along. Okay. On to secret. Yes. Valerie, would you like to join us? Sure.
Alright. So I know there's a lot in your agenda tonight, but I think once we start moving through some of these items, you'll see that a lot of it is, it's more information than, you we necessarily have to go through page by page. Some of it is actually a language that we we just kept in there so you could see exactly where in the, regulations it's being included. But, I wanted to start off with, talking a little bit about some of the new seeker regulations, is the State Environmental Quality Review Act. I'm sure this board is familiar with it. But, basically, it's a New York State environmental conservation law. There's the and then the implementing regulations is the state environmental quality review act, and what it does is require, basically all projects, to be looked at in terms of their environmental impacts. And the law sets different thresholds. A type two means that they the state does not view that as having any significant adverse impact. A type one requires additional review, and sometimes it ends up with an environmental impact statement. And then anything that doesn't fall under a type two or an unlit, or, a type one action becomes an unlisted action. As part of the, budget that was recently adopted by New York State, they created, they made amendments actually to the New York State, environmental conservation law. And what they did was they created these things called qualifying actions, which means additional projects that don't require any sort of seeker review. The projects that really particularly affect, the village is, new residential units, that are connected to public or sewer systems and are located on previously disturbed sites. And that definition of previously disturbed site is very, very flexible. Basically, it just means that there cannot there any sort of improvement
that has taken place on a property two be two years ago or more is considered a previously disturbed site. So, therefore, the village of Croton On Hudson, to a larger extent, most of your properties will be considered previously disturbed. As a result of that, any community or any community that falls within a census defined urban area, which the village of Croton On Hudson does, now has new qualifying, a qual new qualifying action of residential developments of 300 dwelling units, or less. Now no longer needs seeker review. So this is where that really does affect the village in terms of, the seeker regulations. A couple other things deal with just, a couple other things deal with, like, parks in terms of, like, new trails or those types of aspects, and then also, water and sewer infrastructure, like, replacements and stuff like that. But for the most part, the I think the biggest impact is going to be the residential the development. But what the new seeker or the new environmental conservation law amendments, they don't they don't override any other federal, state, or local law. So as long as you have local laws already in place, those will still any project still has to abide by those rules. So what we did was is we we looked at your zoning and your and other environmental codes within the village code. I'm specifically looking at what are the areas in when we typically would do an environmental review for Seeker. What areas are typically required in terms of environmental review, and then does the village code actually have language within it that would allow for your land use boards to still be able to look at those environmental impacts. Right? We're not necessarily creating, like, new wetlands regulations, but we're just making sure, like, does something in within your zoning or your village code allow for your boards to look at wetlands, right, and the impacts of wetlands? So what we provided to you was a chart, that looked at all impacts that are typically done under Seeker.
And then, also, we provided you information whether your site plan review requirements already in your zoning, allow for review of the particular environmental topic area. And then we also provided you some suggested, amendments that you might wanna consider to strengthen the ability for those land use boards to take a look. So, I'm just gonna highlight a few recommendations that we are suggesting. So one, for example, in your site plan review requirements, you do ask for conformance, of the proposed, development site development to the master plan of the village of Croton On Hudson, and we're recommending that this just be updated specifically to refer to the comprehensive plan and LWRP, your local waterfront revitalization plan as opposed to master plan. One of the others is
comprehensive plan has a lot of Yes. That's correct. It would incorporate all those amendments associated with it. One of the other impacts that Seeker typically, requires is looking at historic archaeological, scenic, or cultural resources. And you do have a couple different provisions that already, already incorporate a number of those items, but we're we're suggesting that you add a review criteria to see if the project site, contains or substantially contiguous to a building or archaeological site or sensitive area or district which is listed in the natural state of historic places. This is typical of, like, a seeker review, and it would actually help the applicant because if for some reason there is, a natural national or a state historic reserve, historic excuse me, state register of historic places, if that particular project, does affect that, they probably would have to deal with the state historic preservation office. This just kind of, like, gets that, review taking place sooner in the process than something down the line where it would potentially maybe get discovered. The other is a critical environmental area that that this also be is included. You do have one within the, village of Croton On Hudson. And also recommendation that, the LWRP, get specifically, identified in the site plan review, and we're recommending some changes to your waterfront revitalization law. Specifically, your waterfront revitalization law asks for or requires that all projects that that would appear to specifically to apply to that require seeker review would automatically have to go to the Water Fund Advisory Council. And what we're suggesting is that we re amend that so that it's not just projects that require a seeker review, but projects of and I think we put forth, like, of six units or more, and any special permit
would require your Water Fund Advisory Council to review. Right.
Now right now, it's well, it's usually the board of trustees that send it to the WAC, but would it be the planning board? That's correct. It would be the planning board. Sending it to the WAC? That's correct. Okay. Another item And is it required or it's just based on their discretion whether That would be required.
Right. So we would amend we are proposing to amend the Water Fund Consistency Law to require that any units, six units any projects with six units or above or special permits would automatically have to go to the WAC. Okay. Where where currently, it was it was tied to seeker, the type of level of seeker review. But since projects of three of 300 units or less are potentially gonna be exempt Right. We're recommending make those changes.
Well, that was just so, I worked with your the village manager, specifically because a lot of larger projects are probably gonna fall under the special permits. So we wanted to capture maybe some of the smaller projects. But that is a policy decision from this board, and we can amend it to whatever
units you would prefer. Valerie, could you, just move the mic a little closer to you? Sorry. It's okay. Okay. The what
the rationale behind six was that generally, know, five could be a mixed use a a mixed use building. Mhmm. Right? Like, if there was a a storefront that, you was adding apartments above or something like that, that would be five units. But anything six or more would probably be something bigger than your standard mixed use. So.
But I think if the question is kind of environmental impact, it's probably less to do with units, more to do with just dimensions, period. You can have a very large mixed use property in theory with that had, like, two apartments on it. Right? Depending. Correct.
Yeah. I I mean, I think what, like, Valerie was saying is the vast majority would already be covered through special permit because most of your residential multifamily require a special permit already. Mhmm. So, I mean, you like we said, it's a policy decision. You can change it to whatever whatever you'd like if you wanted it to be based on square footage or something like that.
To make it a little more use neutral, what you we could do is take the minimum apartment size for six units, multiply that by multiply six by minimum apartment size, make that the square footage. So regardless of the actual composition of the uses, whether it's three units with a big first Floor mixed use or whatever. It's based on square footage versus the number of units. Yeah. But equivalent to in size to the minimum size of a six unit building. Uh-huh.
another, impact that typically gets reviewed under Seeker is community services. So you already have a couple things in your site plan review dealing with adequacy of fire lanes and emergency zones and police. However, police schools and EMS are not necessarily addressed in there. So we're recommending that, we add some language dealing with the impacts to schools, police, fire, and EMS if requested by the planning board. Not every particular project needs to have, like, a school projection review, but there are some that you're going the the planning board might want to take a look at to see what the those impacts are.
So you actually it is it is covered, on the actually, it's coming up. Yep. Yeah. It is it is coming up. But that you actually do have a decent amount already there that we're not necessarily proposing additional language for. So, for example let me just find where I have it. Utilities. So under submission requirements, you currently have the location of all proposed water lines, valves, and hydrants, and of all sewer lines with profiles indicating connection with existing lines and alternative means of water supply or sewage disposal and treatment. So that is a pretty, large catch all so that the planning board would have plenty of, flexibility to require the additional information as part of the submission process and review process. Thank you. So fiscal is another one that we recommended adding some additional information. You do require it as part of your special permit process, as especially, and especially with certain special permits. But we're just recommending that, again, if the if the planning board does request a fiscal impact, that they would be able to do so. Mhmm. Traffic, again, you do have some language in your site plan review for traffic, and we were just we suggested tightening up the requirements to include impacts on adjacent and nearby intersections as well. I think that's a great build.
Yeah. The other question is what about taking into consideration major events?
Yes. Well, I think that's where and that's a very good question. In your in your zoning already, you have certain requirements for parking and loading regulations. And so the planning board already has that ability so that if it's an unique event that they could ask for additional information or a parking management plan or something associated with that. But a traffic study would also specifically focus on, the use of the property, and the use of the property if events are going to take place would be, like, the peak typically would be the peak, traffic, period or time that they would, look at and analyze in terms of traffic, impacts.
So I would just suggest adding We can. You know, like, you know, for discussion. But, yeah, taking into consideration major events if relevant to that particular, yeah. We can Location.
Great. Events or, like, even I'm just trying to think about, like, not just events.
Facilities too. Right? Like Right. You know, if your if your property is next to the train station. Right? Right. You know? Yeah.
Or a restaurant or Yeah. You know, anything that sort of has sort of Go ahead. Traffic Mhmm. That would be yeah. Yep.
Yes. We could do that. We can provide additional language for that specifically. We did put in right now, the way the traffic that the specific language that we're proposing is let me just find it.
Okay. All proposed vehicles, public transportation, pedestrian, and other modality of transportation that will serve the site development plan shall have adequate access and with great alignment and visibility and be located on a roadway capable of adequately and safely handling the additional modes of transportation. Proper mitigation will be implemented if the project will result in substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial new demand for transportation facilities or services. A traffic study addressing projected trip generation, peak traffic periods, site distances, parking demand, and any other proposed intersection, roadway, pedestrian, bicycle or improvements may be requested by the planning board. So we can specifically, also add in something about major events and Yeah. Facilities.
And where would we add that the planning board has the right to request an independent study funded by the developer? Like, in the case of a traffic study, if the planning board wanted to
to do that, would that would that be in a different That's yeah. That's already in the code. Yes. That's already It's it's a it's a separate section of the code. Right. Yeah. And I did look in because there's specifically something for setting up your escrows, and I did look at your escrow language. And your escrow language does, is more flexible, and it does speak to studies or professional services, as required by the Mhmm. The the planning board as well. So they so they are required
to submit a study. Right? And then the planning board can decide that they want to retain a third party Mhmm. To review the accuracy of that study. Mhmm. And then the applicant pays for that review as well. Yeah. Thank you.
So the next, area that we're recommending maybe modifications again is traffic and dealing with, should add a complete streets policy as a review criteria, which, we have recommended and and put forth as, potential changes to your site plan review requirements. The other one is dealing with, threatened or endangered species or habitats. Again, this is just, adding a review criteria to make sure that the project site doesn't contain any of those species or habitats. This is something that if it does, it's gonna require New York State DEC approval. So it's just, again, hedging those you know, identifying those situations sooner in the process than later. Also, tree removal, you do have you clearly have your chapter 208 trees, which does require tree permits. And you do have specific language dealing with under under the required submissions, single trees with diameters of six inches or more. We're also recommending that you that we add a tree removal plan as a submission requirement and that we specifically reference chapter two a 208 trees as part of the submission requirements.
So I just wanted to add some additional thoughts for discussion here because I think when I look at the steep slopes and, you know, the environment within Croton, there seems to be some opportunity to strengthen tree protection. And I think first, the local law number 13 of 2025 significantly strengthened regulations for the protection of trees. So I think like a lot of good work was done by this board or folks that aren't here now. But I think opportunities exist for Croton to further strengthen the protections after the twenty sixth SECRA reforms. So and that's because some qualifying housing projects may receive less environmental review under the revised SECRA framework, and we can strengthen some of our local code. And I I think this all depends on how far I think this board is is willing to go or not go, but some ideas are, you know, regulating urban forest clearing rather than only individual tree removal. I think when I look at some of the resident issues that surface, it tends to be around clearing on a pretty large sized prop you know, property.
We sorry. I don't wanna interrupt you, Trustee Nachtala, because I know you have a a lot there. But we already clear cutting is regulated under our code.
You gay up to have a permit? Correct. Yeah. So this is yeah. And this is different. It's not I'm I'm not suggesting just to permit it. So stricter regulations around it.
Limit the size, the percentage of clear cutting on a property. So if if you I mean, I'm I'm not, you know, on the planning board. I'm not an architect. But if you're looking to build a home and your home is, you know, 1,500 square feet but you're clear cutting and you're taking down significantly more trees than what you're looking to build, that's something that, you know, we should consider.
The planning board can already do that. The planning board is the approval authority for tree removal permits when they have an application before them.
And so, yeah, manager, what is what are they allowed to consider? Like, what's their scope? Could they just say we think it's too many trees, period? Or is there
I mean, I I'd have to go through the Okay. The whole section of the code, but, I mean, that's that's how it was that's why it was written the way that it was written. Right? Because I think we had conversations
around percentages of property of number percentages of trees cut down on a property.
We we did. We said if under the old code Mhmm. People could cut down as many trees as they wanted on their as long as they were outside the setback area of the property. Okay. They cut down as many trees as they wanted without needing to tell anybody without having to get a permit. There was no rule about that. With the new code, we said if you are taking down three or more trees within any one year on your property, regardless of where they are, you have to come in and get a permit. Which has been happening,
and Yeah. They get a permit. Mhmm. But the amount of clear cutting has been significant and shocking to residents in certain instances. And so I'm questioning whether we need to strengthen the code that we have. I mean, it's fine to give the planning board the special permit, and it's up to them, you know, what they decide. But do we need do we need some tighter parameters so that, you know, somebody doesn't come into the village, you know, and just tear down every you know, what percentages
are in the code right now? In in a couple in a couple communities, they have adopted for, like especially for site plan approvals that if you are taking down trees, you have to replace 50% of the diameter breast height that you're removing. So it kind of forces the plant or they have to pay in lieu of. So, like, I know Dobbs Ferry does that. The town of Ossining does that. I'm pretty sure we have that. You do have a replacement requirement.
Reception. Right. You do have But I think I think you have to replace nine 90%. The tree has to be, like, 90% of the Yeah. Value.
The you know, there's a way to calculate that. Also important is that it's the value, so it's not
You can't cut it you can't cut a 20 inch wide tree and replant a one inch wide tree. Right? You know? Right. Well, there's a calculator that the
Oh, oh, sorry. That's if they violated. A violation is a 120 of the tree do more if it's if they if they cut down a tree without a permit when they were supposed to get a permit Right. Mhmm. Then what they have to replant is great is a greater value than what they So I guess what, you know, to to trustee point,
we've given a lot of discretion. Right. Right? We've given discretion to the engineering department to grant this permit, and we've given
really, it it really isn't their discretion. Right? Well, just engineering to just give a permit.
Yes. Yes and no. Right? I mean, if it's a if it's a ministerial action, right, somebody comes in and says, wanna cut down 50 trees. No. No. I'm not saying, I wanna cut down three trees on my property. Right? And they're saying, I wanna cut them down because I wanna my living room is too shaved, whatever it might be. Right? Just for whatever reason they wanna cut those down. The code gives the the submission requirements. Mhmm. Right? And the staff, generally, we don't have discretion. Right? Because it's a ministerial act. They apply. They meet the requirements of the code. Engineering issues the permit. Mhmm. If it's going to the planning board as part of a site plan review or a special permit application or any other thing that goes to the planning board, the planning board has discretion. Right? That's how they can add additional conditions, negotiate to, like, try to say, okay. Well, maybe you don't need to take down this tree because maybe maybe you could just trim it a little bit so that you still get the sun in your living room, but the tree is able to stay. Right? But the engineering department really doesn't have you know, we're we we follow the code that's been adopted, and we implement that code. Does the engineering department issue the permit
Do they issue the permit for that? It it it depends. If it's part of a site plan review or if it's part of a special permit application, then no, they wouldn't. But if it's not, if it's just somebody coming
saying, I wanna take down 20 trees, I'm gonna pay you per tree like it says in the law, and I'll replace them with little tiny whatever.
Well, they wouldn't be able to replace them with little tiny whatever. They have to replace them with they have to replace them with something that's of a of a slightly lesser value. Right? The it's the 90% figure that's in the code. Mhmm. Or if if they don't wanna replace them, then they have to pay into the tree fund, which the village uses that money to plant trees. Right.
large trees. Well, that's that's what there's a there's a calculator that the I I think it's from the Arbor Day Foundation or or some what a group like that that you input the information on the tree. You know, it's a maple tree. It's, you know, 16 inches. Yeah. Right? Yeah. And it comes and you enter all this information, and it gives you, a replacement value for the tree.
So So why do you think residents are not happy with instances that have occurred in the village? What why?
I I could try I I think I think some other people should try to answer that. I mean, I think part of the reason is that incidents happened before the tree law was passed. Right? So, I mean, part of the reason and one of the blatant blatant sort of or or they didn't follow the law. One of those two things happened. Right? So, you know, blatant disregard for the law, Piney Coin property, disregard for the law. The old law. Yeah. Which was less strict. Which was less strict. Yes. But disregard for the old law. Based on that, we went in and made this law, the tree law, existing tree law, stronger. Case in point, Mount Airy taking all those trees down, that was done before this was in place.
The the permit was obtained right before this law went into effect. Right. So I think the incidents that residents are thinking of,
they're they're before this law existed. Mhmm. Not to say that we don't have opportunity. No. We're right. It's only been in effect for a very short time. Yeah. But we did work two years on it. We did spend a long time on this law. Yeah. Yes. Okay. But I think that there there are as current memory for residents is really egregious actions
that begin Yeah. In sections of the bill. There was also the tree topping incident along the yeah. Which again happened before this law was in effect because Which
I would maintain was always illegal. But if we feel more comfortable, and I think we are more comfortable or believe that we're in a more robust situation legally, if it were ever tested to have explicit provisions for tree chopping in the code, which we now do, I think we're protected. That being said, I think we're protected that in that instance as well. The challenge was that
Didn't wanna well, because, I mean, it was it You know The topping happened on not the private property,
but on public property, not owned by the village or the county. And the public entity where that was ostensibly the victim of it didn't actively pursue Yeah. Justice against the malefactor. Yeah. So, obviously, it was that specific action was illegal because it was somebody doing something not on their own property. And, I mean, we can make all the inferences we want based on its location of where it happened and who might benefit from that that tree topping. But for whatever reason, that case fell apart.
Mhmm. And I should just, you know, clarify what I said. We worked on it two years. That includes great work by the conservation committee. Yes. First chance, Onehan and and John Eiler.
To allow to reiterate what Nora said, like, the three probably most infamous cases of tree removal in the village. Have one that was legal, but pre the amendments to the code. One that was illegal and not successfully prosecuted for a variety of reasons that I alluded to. And not be also because we didn't have jurisdiction to Yeah. It wasn't ours too. That was the other mess. Yeah. And but I think that would have been is definitely covered by our code now, I believe, and probably And would have been covered before then the third was the the situation of p people who had approval and then exceeded their approval. And I know that there's a sense in the village that the parties there wasn't enough accountability for those parties, and I wouldn't describe what happened as necessarily. Well, fines were issued in the Yeah. They did. They was adjudicated in the court. That was a legal sanction, but in addition to this, I would say that there were very serious consequences for the property owners in those cases, was having to restart their planning for the application process in a world where time is money. That was probably more significant of a sanction, if we're being honest, than the fines that were issued for the tree removals themselves. Yeah. Mhmm. And I mean, in that case, you know, we we don't need to live in the past, but what went to the planning board and was approved was a very innovative and elaborate plan to minimize the environmental impact of construction on a difficult site. And then as we saw wild deviations from what was approved, Not to live in the past. But Yeah. So, Stacy, I think that addresses some of the reasons Yeah. The most instant Thank recent instances. But I look, there's no issue with revisiting the tree law, and I think that this is a productive conversation. You've given me a lot of ideas with this, but in a world where we are
also trying to navigate the changes to secret, I think that we can, if you will, table this conversation while we proceed with the secret changes. But I think that there's definitely something that we can do here. Mhmm. You know, I I like the idea of the conservation for wooded parcels, but as the attorney will probably tell us, you know, the devil's always in the details. But I think on the more vigorous version of that, you might run into some taking issues where depending on what kind of activity the government prohibits, you know, a court might say, attorney, do you want to pipe in here rather than me have to try to remember first year?
Well, the US Supreme Court has has handed down a number of cases recently about exactions, and this we'd have to tread very lightly in this direction.
Yeah. It's a question of, like, at what point does it become an uncompensated taking by the government
I do think it's interesting that your point of tree root disturbance. Right. And is that part of our steep slope?
We had when we were going through this tree law, we had a a long conversation about the root zone and how to protect the root zone. And, you know, I I did a search of the code for root to see and we I, again, I have to go back in my notes and try to recollect that conversation, but we must have decided not to include specific protections around the root zone. I mean, I remember talking to the former village engineer Mhmm. About it and, you know, him explaining that it that was going to be very difficult to enforce and and maintain. So I think what there must have been there must have been a reason why we did not include specific root zone protection.
Okay. Well Yeah. Know, if we're if we're tapering this, but Yeah. Doesn't mean we can't move it. The issue. I mean, personnel's policies, they say, and there's new engineering. Maybe we can have a Another conversation. Conversation, see what his thoughts are. Yep.
Yeah. I think that the the root zones one is, yeah, is very important. And then also just do we require applicants right now to demonstrate that tree removal has been avoided or absolutely minimized? I mean, I know you're saying that's at the discretion of the planning board, is but that that anything we would consider in a code? Or
I I don't know exactly what that would, how they would demonstrate that. I mean, that would be something we'd have to
talk through and see. No. I but I hear what Stacy is getting to. Right? It's like, say, hypothetically, you have a permit for a 2,000 square foot house. Yeah. And they're like, but I'm gonna take out 6,000 square feet of trees to do this. Exactly. Because, you know, I want a view of my yard or whatever, say whatever. Again, I think we can have a review. I think that there may be provisions for that. I think that there's some proportionality requirement, but I think we can do a review offline and get back to you. Mhmm. Yep. Fine.
I I'm thinking also about the it's, you know, you can say this is the size of the trees that you're gonna cut down and it's this value and you're gonna replace it with these trees and so the values are equal. But the actual impact of cutting down the tree once you cut it down is can be substantial to the people who are around the area where it happened. And even if it is completely, you know, obviously, we make the law. It goes to the planning board. It's it's very well thought out. But the reality is once the tree is gone and the neighborhood is substantially different than it was before all the trees that were allowed to be cut were cut, one or two of the ones that weren't. And to me, it there's not a spot for that, but I think that's what as a you know, in a in a very simplistic way, as a person that lives in a neighborhood with trees, that's how I'm thinking about it. You know, if my neighbor were to come in and cut down all the trees in their yard because they're gonna do something that's totally within the realm of it would changes the whole entire neighborhood. Right? And they're allowed to do it, and they haven't done anything wrong, and they're gonna plant all these great little saplings that are gonna be a equal trade off, it's really at the end of the day, it's it's not equal. So there's no spot for it. I I don't but I just I don't even there's not really a place to put it. But, you know, and saying that there's an emotional value to it is probably the wrong way to say it, but I think that there is an emotional value to what we're doing here. And I think that a lot of my concern around the relaxation of these laws to
increase the rate at which things can be built. Not necessarily here in general. Oh, okay. Right. Not no. No. Not us. I'm saying in the state of New York. Yeah. That is where I'm feeling this in a way that I don't don't know how really how well I'm articulating, but that's how I'm feel like, I have an emotional reaction to this whole discussion because, you know, we all want to be able to provide more housing, but there is an emotional value to the way our neighborhoods look and feel right now. And some of these changes, no matter how careful we are, are gonna have a negative impact on the people around where the activity is taking place. There is no way to write. I don't it's not like I'm asking you to write that into this, but I do I do it is that's as as we go through all of these topics. That's what I'm thinking about.
Alright. So the next, the next topic, is on page four, because the you do have, you know, you do have definitely enough provisions for, like, landscaping, recreation, open space. Flooding and development and flood plains, you do have the chapter one twenty nine flood damage prevention, but we're just recommending since we're already making amendments to that just to specifically put it in there and refer to that chapter. The next is water wetlands and water bodies. Again, you specifically have under submission requirements, the location of existing water courses, marshes, and other significant existing features. And we're just recommending that we should specifically, include wetlands as well and then also refer to, like, chapter two twenty seven. I have a question about storm water control.
Yes. So it's really just about our existing code. Do we feel because removing tree canopy changes storm water runoff, trees absorb rainfall, and, you know, that so changing them can trigger, you know, soil erosion, downhill flooding risks. So do we feel like the stormwater control in our code right now is is strong enough? Or
Well, the, any property that's any development, right, that is larger than an acre in size has to provide a stormwater pollution prevention plan that what's commonly called the SWEP. Right? And so, that's a state requirement. Right? That's, you know, it's a it's a state requirement, but it's a it's a locally administered, plan. And so that gets submitted and can be reviewed just like any other study or plan that gets submitted. So it would be submitted to the planning board, either our, engineer would review it or a third party engineer would review it and, you know, come up with a determination that it's consistent with general stormwater practices.
And you also have additional regulations in your local code for land disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more requires certain storm water elements to be worked in as well. So so you even have some additional protections beyond the state regulations.
Thank you. Yep. Okay. Then on page so so geologic features, steep slopes, soils, you do actually have submission requirements, for those elements and specifically dealing with topographic contours and profiles, and you do have a whole steep slopes protection. So it there I you do have coverage in terms of what the, planning boards can request, for information on steep slopes, same with the excavation and fill, blasting and rock removal. But we are recommending that we add some additional criteria, for remediation for hazardous waste, and also including if, the project site or the adjoining property has been subject to remediation. This is something that, again, is typical in, like, the environmental assessment forms, and we think it's just important because it's good information to know when planning boards are reviewing site plan approval. And then your utilities, you do have, you absolutely have, regulations in place. You have chapter one thirteen, chapter one ninety one, and chapter two twenty three that all regulates electrical standards, sewer, and water, and then you also have submission requirements. So the last two components, really, we recommend, providing some additional information on is, our additional amendments, energy demand and savings and greenhouse gas reductions. This just could be specifically added as requirements to provide information on any energy saving components as part of, a site plan review. And then also construction phasing and staging. And the reason why we recommend this is it is important and some especially when you're dealing with, you know, some more of your densely populated areas to, you know, to really reflect on how the construction phasing and staging is gonna take place and not, affect your neighboring properties. So
with that, the oh, I'm sorry. Do we have anything on ecological
Yes. Well, we're we're proposing for you to add that so that you would identify any threatened or endangered species or potential habitats associated with them as part of the submission requirements. Thank you. Yep. So the the attached the other pages attached to this are are recommended, changes, which basically we just covered and are including, you know, either in two base in two very specific sections. One, the submission requirements so that there's additional information that's required to be submitted by an applicant. And then the other is review by the planning board, the components in which planning board, can consider reviewing, during their site plan development. And then the last piece is the amendments to the, waterfront consistency review, regulations in which we talked about earlier.
And going back to, the minor site plan approval by the planning board Mhmm. Under what is that, two thirty sixty seven b number three. Yep. So any proposed clearing of trees or earthwork on any property involving 20% or more of the site. So why is that under minor site?
So that just means in in instead of just going for a tree removal permit, they do require planning board review of it as well. Okay. So the planning board then could ask for additional information as part of that, you know, which could include erosion sentiment control or some of these other items that we just talked about as part of their review process. Okay. Thank you. Could you just could you just quickly explain the difference between minor site plan? Oh, sure. Yeah. Sure. So, so the village has so planning boards give site plan approval. The village has two tiers of site plan approval. One is called, one is the site plan approval, which requires a spec requires a public hearing. The other is a minor site plan approval. And minor site plan approval just it does not necessarily require a public hearing, but it does require review by the planning board. And it is done at a public meeting session, but it doesn't necessarily require a public hearing. So it's on an agenda, but there's no mailing done to the neighboring property owners.
Okay. Yep. But it does require the same level of review Correct. You know, by a board. It's just the, advertisement of you know, the public hearing piece is removed from the minor site plan. Mhmm.
Otherwise, do we have an opportunity to put something like that in a in the other category, in a site plan?
I mean, I'll I'll defer to the the board on that. I mean, that's because you have you have yes. The the short answer to that is this is your code, and you can make changes that you whatever changes you want to it. But, you know, generally, I mean, I looking at what is included for site plan approval versus minor site plan approval. Right? I mean, it's usually much bigger items that are included for, like, the formal site plan review process as opposed to the minor site plan review.
Because I under I know special permit has a lot of requirements. Yes. So are you saying that site plan has significantly more requirements than a minor site. So I just I could see how there's a benefit to residents in made aware that your neighbor is gonna be taking down possibly 90% of the trees.
Yeah. The the review requirements are this are pretty much the same under minor site plan versus site plan. It's just as Valerie was saying, it's in terms of procedure and, notification that it's different. So there's no public hearing. So, you know, potentially,
I mean, although sometimes the planning board has Right. What was that? I'm sorry. No. I I think that there should be a public I think residents should be able to have an opportunity to
give some examples of what would be a minor site plan versus a site plan review? Like I mean, it's it's right it's right in the code. So it's like minor site plan is any new construction of a residential building,
any enlargement of a single family Residential would be a single family home in that scenario?
I'd have to look up what the definition of residential building is in the code. Hold on. Because there was definitely more than a minor site plan involved with most of the multifamily. Oh, yeah. Well, yeah. Multifamily residential is not does not mean multi Exactly. Where are in the code? This is well, if you're in the PDF that was in the agenda, it's page nine. Okay. So it's any new construction of a residential building, any enlargement of a single family or two family home that brings the total habitable floor area to 80% or more of the maximum permitted habitable floor area. Any proposed clearing of trees or earthwork on any property involving 20% or more of the site, any change of use where no change to the building or site is proposed, roof managed solar systems except one on a residential structure. Non commercial swimming pools with an area of 300 square feet or more, that's that's new, that was just added. Residential accessory buildings that exceed 300 square feet or more, that was also new. Walls or retaining walls in excess of six feet and accessory cottages, but not accessory apartments. So those are all minor site plan categories.
Correct. So when we say just for those who may be watching who are not aware. Right? When we say notice to neighbors, that means an a letter being put in the mail and delivered to the house. Right? I mean, there is still notice given through our normal means of providing the agendas and notice to the newspaper, and that's all. That still occurs. Mhmm.
So what's the downside of shifting these, you know, opportunities or whatever you call these instances to The different the different categories?
I mean, it it's just it's just an additional it's an addition to the workload, right, of the of the planning board and the engineering department. Because the engineering department is the one that prepares all the mailings. And, you know, now the planning board is gonna have to hold.
And the mailing No. And the applicant has to pay for it. I mean, it's not No. We didn't do that. You didn't? No. The former former engineer was against that. We need well,
we should adjust that. That's a separate thing. Yeah. We can have we can have that conversation because I was in favor of that, but Yeah. We did the board did not move forward with that. Alright. We should do that. So
So that means if your neighbor's gonna put up a retaining wall in excess of six feet or put in a pool, you wouldn't be notified?
Yeah. Not not not through the mail. No. Right. I mean, there's a very there's a very limited category of very limited categories that require, a mailing to be done. So, I mean, when when this board has public hearings, we don't I mean, we didn't send out mailings, you know. I mean, if it was a special permit, we did. Right? But if if, you know, if you're adjusting the laws, you don't send out mailings to people to The mailings only go to the adjacent homes? It's within a it's within a radius. It and it and that also depends. Right? It it sometimes the radius is a 100 feet, sometimes it's 200 feet. It it's based on that many mailings.
No. It it's just time. Yeah. Right? I mean, it's just time. It's sort of like you're you're a resident in Croton. You own a piece of property. You wanna do some Mhmm. Put in a pool or build a retaining wall. I mean Yeah. It it sort of adds probably a month at least because
And just yeah. I mean, just remember, we made these changes six months ago, I think it was, Pools and and retaining walls and, you know, the other things that I listed here, noncommercial swimming pools, residential accessory buildings, walls or retaining walls, and accessory cottages didn't require any
minor site plan. Yeah. So I think it's the clearing of trees that gets at least affects me the most because I feel like that affects the character of the village. It affects the character and the landscape, the vista, the you know, it's you get accustomed to your the landscaping in which you're surrounded, and all of a sudden, it's cleared. I just think it affects the character in a bigger way. But, you know, if I don't have any support on that and
Yeah. And I do think I think it's fair to say that we heard that from people who've recently been through that. I think I I don't Yeah. I don't know if that's, you know, or maybe we. I heard that from people who've recently been through this. So I think that's why I can I definitely see what Trustee Nat Taylor is saying and can agree with what, you know, agree with the concept of what she's stating? Because we know people who have been recently in this situation, who've been through this, who have said the character of my neighborhood is permanently changed in a way that unless I live another hundred and fifty years so that these new trees can grow up this big, will never return to its original Yeah. Original whatever. Or, you know, there's
nothing we can do about like, they're able to do it, but the fact of the matter is But they're not able to do it. Well, that would That's reason why we have the tree law. The new law. Path. Yeah. New law. Right. Right. And that's why we spent as much time as we did on making it it harder for people to take down trees in that way. The example that you're sharing is someone that took down trees before our new law was in effect. Well What Yeah. Got got the permission to take them down before the new law was in effect. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Correct. So So I mean, that's and then this particular, it's, you know, it's it's what it's saying is if you're if you are taking more than 20 or involving 20% or more, then instead of getting a permit from the engineering department, you have to go in front of the planning board. So that it it adds another layer of supervision, eyes on, of that particular situation. So it adds more consideration for the neighbors because it does require it to go in front of the planning board. Now does it need to be noticed to the neighbors? No.
But it does have the planning board's eyes on the fact that and their discretion of whether or not that would be an appropriate action. And we of course, the neighbors would, you know, be able to see it in the agenda, etcetera, etcetera. So It by the way, it's very common both in the planning board and the zoning board for the chair to ask the applicant, have you talked to your neighbors? Yeah. And and we get a lot of good information from that. And sometimes and and neighbors show up sometimes I would think and negatively.
I would think that if I I I don't remember the last time somebody went to the planning board, what saying I'm clearing 20% of my property. Mhmm. But I would think that the planning board would almost certainly wanna do a site visit if that was going to be the case. Right? I mean, so they're not gonna approve it in one meeting and be like, oh, this is done. You know? I mean, so it would be there would be multiple opportunities for the public to to know about it. Right. What I'm hearing again is a significant concern on tree removal specifically.
And I mean, I don't know. I mean, if people have very strong feelings that like a pool shouldn't be a minor, should be like a full site plan approval, I mean, this is an opportunity to share that point of view. I think a pool that doesn't involve the removal of significant number of trees isn't what people are concerned about. Mhmm. I just It's about the I used that as an example. I pulled it off the list. Yeah. Don't feel strongly about the pool. And so, again, I think if we wanna have a follow-up discussion on a tree specific amendment, we can have that. Mhmm. Mhmm.
If if we're if we're finished with this segment, I just wanna tell you, Valerie, how remarkable I thought this work was and I really how much I appreciate it. I think we all do. Thank you. Thank the the whole secret thing, of course, is a great unknown. But I think that you show that we can sort of confront that unknown and actually, I think, come out in many ways in better shape because you've shown us how to strengthen some of our existing codes. And the governor, you know, who and and others, you know, use the rhetoric that that localities will still have their existing powers, but you showed us the reality of that and and how how which which powers we still have, which ones we can still use, and which ones can be strengthened. So I think it's it's a great service, and so I really think this is this is kind of a case study or role model for for how how municipalities can can strengthen themselves in the post SECRA reform era. So thank you for that. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Before we conclude,
this has been a wide ranging and very fruitful conversation, but manager and or the plan or planner, you wanna just briefly recap any changes to that we think we may have agreed to? I think I think really and Valerie can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but the only changes that I had here were that
for the maximum unit size. Right? We were gonna we were gonna find out what the maximum unit size would be, multiply that by six. Mhmm. And that was gonna be the square footage for referral to the LWRP, for site plan. And then we were gonna add language on events and other locations, for the traffic study portion.
Okay. Yep. Did you have anything else? No. Those were the two things I have to do. We did very well. And then I was So can I ask another question? I would also say an asterisk just to trustee Nachtaler's request with regards to the tree. Yes. We'll Yeah. We can look at review. Yeah. We'll talk to the engineer. Yep. Root rootscapes, all that. Yep. Thank you.
How do we how does this how comfortable is our planning board with the changes? How do we communicate They're gonna have work. Changes there are to like, is there a process Yeah. Through which they're gonna be I don't need to consultant. I don't wanna I don't wanna suggest that they need to be educated, but I think that they probably This is going to go
this is through a normal zoning law review process. Right? Somewhat ironically, this is going to have to go through Seeker. Seeker. So it will it will be sent to the planning board for their review. Mhmm. They're gonna send you back a memo with their thoughts and comments. You're gonna get a memo from the WAC. You're gonna get a memo from the county planning board. You can take all of that feedback into consideration, make any changes you have, then schedule the law for a public hearing, and then finish your LWRP
review, finish your CECA review, and then ultimately And, manager, for the for the record, could you just say why this has to go through CECA?
Is there any way to expedite this process? Because, I mean, at this point, we've kind of have a draft law that
mean, it it's gonna yeah. It's gonna take it's gonna take too much I see the attorney just just So And I think that our next oh, sorry. Our So you would nineteenth meeting. You'll have you'll have it to refer to To refer out. Out. Then have to wait planning board. You have to wait a little bit of time because it's gonna take the county a couple weeks to get back to us. It's gonna take the planning board probably a meeting or two to look this over. Mhmm.
I mean how would that work? We we're already doing a review for that. Okay. Right. And so and we are raising all these types of questions. What we would like to do part of this part of this is not necessarily that the planning board doesn't have any ability to raise those questions now, but what we want is to prevent somebody from coming in saying you know, challenging that Yeah. The planning principality. The applicant has already their the applicant has already submitted initial, information under the original, like, seeker regulations. Right? So we already do technically have an environmental assessment form. We do have traffic impact. We do have water, sewer. So there's a number of different ports. Permit requirements too. Yes. A lot of it is also special permit requirements as well. So so because of that, there is a lot of information already have been provided by the applicant, and the applicant seems open to continuing to provide information. So And, generally, I I've I've observed that in the planning board process,
despite all the wonderful language, if the planning board says to an applicant, when you come back in two weeks, could you give me an analysis of this, that, or the other thing? Right. Folks are generally compliant on that. Exactly. They know it's in their own best interest Right. You know, to to to comply. Yeah.
But as far as giving the planning board and the overview on the secret reforms,
I don't know if you've done that already or that The the attorney is scheduled to talk to them next week. Yep.
Yep. And so the I'll work with Lori Lee. We'll put into a local law form. She'll review the final edits, make sure she feels comfortable with it, and then I'll come back to the board. Yep. Mhmm. Thank you. And
we can work together on those two, areas that will need some revision in addition. Yep.
Alright. Just many thanks to, trustee Nikhil Mukherjee her research on the trees. Yeah. It's incredible. Alright. Yes. Okay.
Yeah. We don't need to go into that right now. Okay. Mhmm. Be here all night. Well, we can give also credit, but while we're here, we can give credit to Westchester County planning for giving us the original model ordinance. That is true. We were it was based off the town of Greenberg's model ordinance, which the well, it was based off the town of Greenberg's ordinance, which the county put forth as a model. And then that was how we that was how we started the whole Yeah. Whole process. Okay.
So Lori Lee, I so I because I know she's she's remote. I'm gonna kinda go through the highlights of, you know, what the state law says and what we're proposing. And then if you have very specific questions on the law and stuff, Lori Lee is here to answer those. So so as you probably know, the village is, village has opted in in terms of retail cannabis dispensaries. And as a result, and I will caveat, you know, in case the public is listening, like, this has been a moving target since, like, day one with all communities, which I know a lot of municipal officials are very frustrated with. So what you thought was initially adopted in terms of regulations, like, you know, five years ago has has significantly shifted. So I'm just gonna kind of highlight what is now the current regulations. So the state basically prohibits and preempts municipalities, for making rules, dealing with dealing with, distances between, houses of worship, schools, and public youth facilities. So if if the cannabis dispensary is on the same road within 200 feet of an entrance of a proposed occupied exclusively, house of worship, it cannot it has to be at least 200 feet away. There's a distance requirement of 500 feet from the entrance of a building occupied as an exclusively as a school, and then also 500 feet of a structure or or its grounds occupied exclusively as a public youth facility and the if the municipality enacts it as a local law. And the public youth facility is now defined as a location or structural owned by a government or government subdivision or agency that is accessible to the public where the primary purpose is to provide recreational opportunities or services to children or adolescents
of whom the primary population is reasonably expected to be 17 years of age or younger. So, for example, a lot of communities, if they have community centers, that doesn't even that doesn't count because the community centers are open to all ages. So y m YMCA?
Did Membership. What I had told to Valerie was that and this doesn't apply to anything that we have right now. Mhmm. But there's no harm in putting it in. You never know what we may have in the future. Right? So dream. It's all about it. Right. Well,
I mean, isn't it something that we could sit around and discuss as potentially putting a youth center in the Upper Village somewhere?
I mean, we could have a discussion, but where? I mean, we don't own any. If we could name a Mary, could carve out space or But it has to be publicly owned. Not just not just leased or rented, it has to be publicly owned.
Yeah. But I think what you're suggesting is that we have that Right. Put it right. You should put it in. Right? And then if for someone I think getting getting a facility, I think Yeah. Is a great conversation.
Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. So the other the the state law does allow municipalities to regulate hours of operation, but they specifically say that dispensary shall not be operating from 2AM to 8AM, but municipalities cannot restrict to less than seventy hours per week unless the licensee agrees to do so. You can regulate visual architectural integrity of buildings within local historic districts, parking, traffic control, including but unlimited to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, odor, and noise. You are prohibited from creating regulations that pertain to the operation, registration, license, or permitting of cannabis businesses. Any unreasonably impractical regulations, limit the number of dispensaries within a village, or restrict the permitted locations such as the use that is effectively prohibited. Also, with minimum distance requirements, the state does have minimum distance requirements between, cannabis dispensaries so that within a cannabis dispensary within 1,000 foot radius of a retail dispensary license or micro business license that has been issued in a municipality having a population of 20,020 people or less. So there has to be at least a thousand foot radius distance between the different dispensaries.
There also has to be a 2,000 foot radius of two other licensees issued the same license type sought by the applicant municipality having less than 20,000. So one is if you have two different types of licenses, it's a thousand feet. If it's two specific licenses, it needs to be 2,000 feet. Other than that, that is all that the village is able to, unfortunately, regulate. So what we have provided to you is, some terms, and specifically regulations, regulation standards that fall with under the parameters of the items that you can regulate. And this would be as part of any sort of submission requirement, that we're specifically, identifying. We we provided, some of the language just reflects the state language so that you so that an applicant is aware of the regulations. But it does allow for planning board to put some screening in the hours of operation. We're suggesting that the cannabis retail dispensary shall operate shall not operate before 09:30AM or after 9PM,
Monday through Sunday. I think the seventy hours by the state is outrageous. I mean, we have businesses that are open less than seventy hours a week in the village right now. You know? I mean, some of their Yeah. That's ten that's ten hours a week. Close at three, and this is eleven, like, it's almost twelve hours. It's really it's it's Well, I mean, just outrageous.
It it doesn't it doesn't require them to be open ten hours a day. Right? It says that the village can't restrict them to less. But that's it's outrageous. I'm not Yeah. Not I'm not blaming you. I'm just I I know. Think it's just Yeah. Yeah. Seventy hours is Right.
Right. And that's why I wouldn't even our Yeah. Businesses Right. Currently.
And that's why I wanna make sure that you're aware of this because of the fact that, like, you know, if even if a member of the public is listening and saying, why are they allowing them to be open so often? It's because it's you're out it's out of your house. To. Right. Right. So And any zoning there's no zoning restriction we can do. Any any any Before we before we go to that, just wanted to finish with the hours for a second. The reason why we picked the hours that are listed is because that's what the planning board approved
for For the mindset. Yes. Nine nine nine. I mean, you could you could change that. Right? Because that's actually what is that? That is Eleven and a half. Eleven and a half. Right? So you could restrict those further if you wanted to. Mhmm. But that's we put those in because of
what was previously approved. Yeah. 09:30 is a little odd. Mean, I don't know.
Yeah. Mhmm. It it it's up to the board. It's a policy decision. So whatever you wanna I think we should do the minimum like, the the minimum that we can Let's not yes. Not make it more. You know, it's it's Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, so you could do 10 to eight if you wanted to. Right? I mean Mhmm.
How does everybody yeah. My understanding is that, you know, in terms of maximum number of hours, right, for the sale of alcohol, you know, does the planner or attorney have any specific insight into it? But it's it's a pretty lengthy window. And if you wanted to add it up, like, it's way more than seventy five hours a I You did. I'm glad we looked at the hours of, like, the liquor stores. Well, it was there's what they decide to do and what legally they can do. I see. And in many cases, right, they're small businesses where there are limits to the physical endurance of the business owner. Right.
on that point, other than can we regulate the hours absent the restriction of 70? In other words, we we couldn't say to them or may maybe I'm wrong. We couldn't say to them, we want you open from 8AM to 07:30PM.
want to clarify that. Yeah. You know, we we can only regulate The number? We we well, unless you know, we the we can we can regulate the the 2AM to 8AM, which I think is great. But
Hours a week. Right. They have to be closed between 2AM and 8AM. Within the context of the 70, it's really up to the individual proprietor
of what Right. I think once a business owner realize if a business owner, regardless of what you're selling, realizes you're not getting any business from 09:30AM to 1PM, then you're probably gonna start opening at 1PM. So I think that, you know, they want the possibility of making as many sales as they can in a period of time, but I don't if there's zero foot traffic during a specific period of time, I think we've all experienced trying to go to a restaurant in Croton and not having one open because there isn't the traffic to sustain a restaurant staying open until 10PM for maybe. So I think that part of this will I think that I agree with trustee Nachtaler that we should put some guardrails on this, but also the market's gonna dictate when this store is gonna be open Yeah. Is what I think is gonna happen. Yeah. Which is not a great answer, but No. And I think that's right. And I think just with the with the one particular instance that we have here of mindset, they were they were basing it on their Tarrytown experience of Right. A year and a half. Right. Well, I think
yeah. To your point, instead of restricting the we we kiss, we can't. We can't say the times, but we can say you you need to operate no more than the seventy hours that the state
Yeah. I mean, I I think you could do it either way. Yep. It it's the law the law in that regard is Mhmm. Broad in that it says it's seventy hours. Seventy hours is the minimum Mhmm. That you have to allow them. So
Well, then I I would support the minimum, the 70, and they'll flex to the hours to the business that Agreed. Suits them, that's best for them. But I don't think that
we should set hours that are above the state minimum. Well, I think that there's the question about I mean, look, we can have a conversation about the question of hours. But I think location, you know, when we're thinking about what people have concerns about, I I would say honestly, at least based on what I heard at, the planning board meeting, I think it's location probably trumps hours in terms of intensity. Yeah.
And, I mean, you know, my understanding is that we can't exclude them from an area where any similar retail is permitted and that that similar retail here is defined again as kind of like the regulated substances, alcohol and tobacco. But I don't have an objection to aggressively regulating all of those things. I mean, don't think that if we recall from 10 ago, there wasn't like a lot of enthusiasm about the location of the new tobacconist. And we, in fact, amended the code to make it so basically you can have it, you know, to prevent a repeat of that. And I have no issue with further limiting the zones for those. Yeah. And and by the way, I I don't wanna I don't think we should minimize
where we started out on this two, three years ago, that when you when you take the the correct distances required from schools and and houses of worship, you're limiting a very substantial portion of the village. So it's it's there's there's a built in large numbers of areas, you know, where this cannot occur because of the the February and the May. Yeah. Except the state except the state
changed the definition. Yes. Exactly. So Exactly. We went we went from I'm only speaking for as of tonight. Yeah. Yeah. We went we went from having what we thought were were strong protections naturally built in because of certain locations Yeah. To
I'm I'm just for looking at straight up zones and put doing the hard push on all these things. Mhmm. What I call, you know, the regulated substances. I would call them vices. Well, that is that and that's why Yeah. Adult entertainment zones. Right? I mean Yeah. And that's why, you know, in I think in either last meeting or the one before that, we talked about maybe in the next step of this actually trying to plot this on a map Yeah. You know, so that we can physically see what what, at least as of now, what's in, what's out. And and and therein lies your zones, I think. I mean, I
I don't know if Lori Lee is gonna opine on this or not, but I think you could have significant pushback if you decided to say that because, I mean, right now, you your adult entertainment is allowed in the light industrial, but That's it. Is very it's very small area. Yep. Right? So, I mean, if I I don't think you could zone all alcohol and tobacco and cannabis into light industrial. I think you'd have to put it somewhere else. And I don't know who would want to then become the owner of that somewhere else. Yeah. Right? I I have my suggestion, and that would be the 01,
which is basically the Hilbert Building on Riverside. And and 01 is right here. That's Wait. What what about what's the is Hilbert also 01?
Hilbert Hilbert is 01. And but 01 is also Alright. Well right here. We'll we'll do What do you mean when you say right here? Like, the the dentist office
On the on Riverside. Maria Monica Snow's old building that that Well, we'll we'll do we'll do the overlay, so it's just the o ones at Riverside, which is to say Hilbert in the North Riverside parcels. And you're gonna grandfather in existing businesses? Oh, yeah. I mean, you would have to. I
I think that we need to have we need to have a discussion about this. Yeah. I would I would suggest because there have been some recent court I mean, recent, challenges to the cannabis law, especially on Long Island about how many zones, particular community was restricting, and their their zoning was overturned. I would have I would suggest before we because I know I'd hate for you to spend time discussing this and then finding out, like, from your attorney that it's a no go
from But, know, it's it's excellent input, but it's our our decision as to whether we're willing to take the risk or not. Yes. I mean, that is true. Well, I would say it's a concept and an example. Yes. Right? And I rather than trying to do it of x feet from y use and then trying to draw the circles and then have OCM say, we disagree about what a school is. You know, let's just say these these are the zones and Yeah. Yeah. I mean I I like that idea.
Yeah. I did. I did. I'm hoping you can hear me. Yes. But the standard in a statute is very vague. It says unreasonably impracticable in the sole discretion of the cannabis control board. So you'd have to have a valid basis, and you could you could create a record to justify a limitation to certain zones for particular reasons. But, it it it the case law that Valerie is discussing was it was found to be unreasonably impracticable to put all these dispensaries in this little location, you know, like they did in Greenberg where it's only in the industrial area. So, you know, you'll you'd need to look at how it relates to your zoning district specifically.
Describing a general area, but I think you can knit together. And if you wanna call it an overlay in a zone, again, in the general Riverside area where you would have know, again, light industrial, for instance, has an existing bar in it. Right? And then if you say the if you wanna draw in some of the southern commercial areas, which that has a has a existing liquor store in it. And you can draw in a few other things. And look. If you're looking at LI again, that's also includes since the the old train station in the Hilbert Building is a good look I mean, would seem to be I'm not trying to force anyone into it, but it I don't think anyone could say it's an unreasonable location. I agree. It's right off the highway. I mean, it's like it's not, you know No. And again tucked away in some remote. Are just for the purposes of example. And if we need to make it a little more robust by drawing in a few more parcels into an overlay, we can have that conversation. But, you know, I I think that at least this way, right, if there's litigation, if there's a well, hypothetically, if this is challenged, does the OCM just, like, issue an order and then it's done, or would there be time for us to respond and defend
No. I agree. And amend by go to I mean, it doesn't go to OCM. It go go to court. It's
Well, OCM would find again No. Go to court now. No. You have you have to send your law to the office of cannabis management. The the oversight on the local law goes to them, and then they issue an opinion. Because they have to find they have to find that it is not unreasonably impracticable.
Oh. So you're But but well, that's fine. But that's even better, right, in the sense of, like It is. What I would be concerned is that an applicant comes in. They say this is unreasonable. They appeal to OCM, and then OCM says the applicant's correct, and now you have to agree to let them build wherever. Right. You know, if it's just about code and they don't like like, we have the moratorium. Mhmm. So we're protected. And if they don't like our proposed amendments, we can work on a little more, put in a few more parcels until they're happy. Mhmm. I like that idea. And it also gives us the opportunity to frame it
in a way where like, it is a know, it it's not a very remote area. It's, you know, adjacent to highway. You know? I think it's in the brain robust application,
and we were an original opt in community. We have an approved dispensary. It is not like we are in knee jerk on this issue. Mhmm. But we are responding to their surprising at least surprising to us interpretation. So, you know, this is our this is our response to that. What did we do with the tobacco tobacco store? We we did kind of what I was describing before of certain number of feed from this additional from this use. So we made the feed from a school zone greater. But I think Mhmm. Alcohol, tobacco, dispensaries, and adult use, if we wanna put them all on the same footing, we should just Yeah. Treat them the same.
I don't know if we need to go to an adult No. I'm just saying. We could. Yeah. We don't have to.
Yeah. I mean, look, we've disposed of the adult use issue, but also Yes, I we would say that in today's world, it's academic. There are basically no new adult businesses. Yep. Ever.
Okay. So why don't I set I'll set up a meeting with Valerie and Lori Lee, and we will discuss this in some more detail Mhmm. And then come back with come back with what we think could potentially work. Okay. Okay. We're good. Thank you. Okay?
Just you know, Valerie, one one one final you may not know the answer, but I guess, what is OCM, are they going in the direction of the entrance is the door,
you know, as opposed to the beginning of the property? Okay. The the door. This is this is exactly the kind of thing I don't want us to deal with. Right. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Which is you know,
Right. It's from the property line. Yeah. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. And now that doesn't matter. Yeah. Yeah.
Just looking to see if there would be any Does it affect any pending work? That that's what I'm just looking through the list here to see. I mean, I I don't think there's any pressing reason that we have to do this. But, I mean, I think it would just so that we don't have to necessarily have this do it. Have this at yet another work session. I mean, how do people feel about the animal changes? I mean, is everybody Yeah. Okay with trying that now? That's fine. Yeah. So I do we have to I mean, those that intensive do we have to pick a zone where those are I wish I I as of right now, another definition.
comes in with the use that Yeah. Would be intensive to Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's would be able to review it and say, no. No. No. That would fall into Yeah. I don't I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility that somebody may say, wanna open a kennel somewhere. Right? I mean, that I think that is so, I mean, I think we do need to have we should have that use listed Mhmm. Somewhere. So
So these are similarly, this would be a secret process? This this this law would be a Right. So since we're gonna have a separate secret process process for for the the secret secret amendments in effect, why don't we hold this until we're ready with the cannabis and then do them all as a second secret process rather than having to do three.
You you you'd still you'd be having two separate laws. Okay. So because the the changes to the cannabis
You know, just in terms of rules. You could definitely I I'm not saying you yeah. You could do them concurrently. I'm not saying you have to do this right now. Yeah. So we're People are I was just thinking so that in What? Sorry. The battery. People said they can't hear Valerie on the Oh, did the battery can you Miguel, can you go get another Thank you. Microphone? Take take my wait. This is why this is why we have two. Well, yes. Thank you whoever's watching at home. Whoever's watching.
I I no. What I was saying is that I I was just saying if we could have the discussion right now on just in terms of where those animal uses would be. That way we don't have to schedule this part of the discussion again for a future meeting. Yeah. We all But, I mean, we don't if you if you guys don't want to, we don't have to have that right of discussion, I think we're probably at at a consensus point. Was just Okay. In terms of next steps, you know, we Oh, yeah. Yeah. But I guess in terms of where the kennels right. So we're everybody's okay with saying animal hospitals are fine. We're gonna add that use. And what I had proposed in the schedule was that that would be in the
the Riverside commercial and the general commercial. That's where our two are right now. Right. Well, Valerie, were you proposing to change the name from hospitals to something else? Yeah. Yeah. We're going to be Hold on, Valerie. Yes. Wait for here. Oh, that's right. Forgot. Sorry. That's right. There you go. Thank you. The
use change was gonna be the definition change was gonna be animal related uses Yes. General. Right. Yeah. So yes. I think And that would cover that would cover animal hospitals to pet store, Yeah. You know,
So then the question is, like, in terms of larger kennels, you know, What I was thinking was that maybe you would keep those in the North Riverside Gateway, but then maybe with other conversations this evening, we don't we may wanna put them somewhere else. I don't know.
mean, the the gateway is getting pretty crowded, but It's very Yeah. But I mean I guess from a camel, I mean, you do need outdoor area. Well, that's what I mean. You couldn't you couldn't put it in a you couldn't put in an area where their parcels are small because you do need to have space for that. So that's what I'm saying. Like, the North End gateway, those parcels are pretty large. Yeah.
Yes. And we wouldn't want a kennel to be allowed in an RA zone. I would I would I would not think so. Right? You wouldn't you wouldn't want No. A kennel in a residential zone. Yeah. No. Yeah. Were you trying to say something, Lori Lee? I'm sorry. Already have barking issues with
I what I what I was saying is the general rule is if it's not specifically permitted somewhere, it's prohibited. So if you just wanted to add the animal related uses general and talk about adding an intensive classification at a later point, you're covering the reason why we made this suggestion, which was the animal hospitals, which are the general usage. So you don't necessarily need to determine where to locate those intensives or even add that definition in Right. At this point. Because if it's not included as permitted use, it's accepted that it's a permit a prohibited use. Oh, okay. Okay. That makes sense then. Okay.
So so in theory, in that case, if you don't add it in and somebody did wanna open a kennel somewhere, they would have to come with a zoning amendment. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. It it might be the better way to go because it gives you some time to think more, clearly
That's fine. About where the intensive ones would go. Right. And I was gonna I was also gonna say that if you if you decide to move forward with intense and start adding it, you're definitely gonna want some regulations associated with that, you know, like and maybe have that as a special use permit because, there is one located on North State Road, right in the border between, Newcastle and Ossining, and you can hear those dogs. Yep. You know? So you're really gonna wanna make sure that there is It's tough to put them near the train. Right.
That's where yeah. That's fine then. We'll leave that. We'll leave we'll just leave that out for now. Okay.
I just have a question about the zoning, the chart, the $2.30 attachment fee. What do you mean by accessory uses?
What is that? So What do mean? Accessory uses or uses that are not the predominant use, but will be a smaller subset of the principal use on that site. So for example, and these are what's existing now, but, like, for example, in residential, you have, garden house, tool house, playhouse, greenhouse. So if somebody wants to put, like, a tool shed or a garnet, they can do that on their property,
but the principal use is the residential use. Yeah. Another example would be like a doctor who has an office in their house. Right. Right? So that that residential structure is the primary use, but Right. His professional office is the accessory use. Thank you. Yep. Just the word accessory,
we use that for other meanings. So Yep. Because we have a lot of home based businesses. Yes. In Croton. Yep. And Mhmm. That's that's be a future topic. Future topic.
Well, that doesn't unless everybody has anything else. No. Just no. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Lori Lee. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Very, very much. Thank you, Valerie. Wait. Mayor, do you have some are you gonna make some appointments to committees this evening? There's was it? Was there something to do with Hart?
Oh, yes. Thank you for the reminder. Thank you. Caroline Whiting will be appointed as chair for the revised ad hoc hard committee, and all current members will be reappointed as ad hoc members. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, do you need a motion? Well, speak before we do that.
reappointing Caroline to PAC until this was resolved. No. Okay. Very good. Let's reappoint her to that. Also be appointed as chair to PAC permanent. Well, we're full term. Thank you. Alright. Well Now you can have a motion. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Motion by trustee Slipin. Second by trustee Simon. All in favor? Aye. Aye.