Planning Board Meeting

Good evening. I'll call the Village of Croton on Hudson planning board meeting for Tuesday, 09/08/2026 to order. We had two items of new business on our agenda, but the first item, Alex and Dorothy Morales, was postponed, so we will not be hearing that piece of business tonight. The second item on the agenda is a referral from the village board of trustees to review local law introductory number 13 of 2026, the CAF and the EAF to amend chapter two thirty zoning of the village code to provide clarification and streamline review of land use applications to better serve the public. So and I would like to say hey, Janette. How are you? Welcome. I'd like to say I definitely appreciated the presentation of this, both in the fact that the local law that we got was marked up in a way that was legible in terms of what was and what is proposed, which sometimes we've had a difficult time with that, so thank you. And then the other aspect of it is a thorough review that we got from our planning consultant at Nelson Voorhees. So having said that, I think we can pretty easily go through this.

Robert, it makes sense to just do a little context background about why this is being presented and how it came about. I think that would be lovely. Yeah.

Sure. I'll kick that off. Again, Bill Brady from Nelson Pope Voorhees. My colleague, as as noted in the memo, Valerie Monastra, worked on this, and we're looking at this for several other communities that we work with. Earlier this year, as stated in the memo, New York State changed the requirements for development proposals, primarily housing proposals that are now exempt from seeker review. It was done during the budget process, so it's a little bit different than an official while. Let Jeanette, if you have any questions on that, that's a little bit probably don't have to get into that. But so in in an effort What's the bottom line? Yeah. The bottom line is is is Making it not subject to Basically, it's residential developments up to a 100 units in the village are now multifamily developments are now exempt from Seeker. And in your village particularly, the sites have to be previously developed. Pretty much a lot of sites in your village that are gonna be developed with multifamily housing now would be exempt. It doesn't mean zoning can be overridden by a development proposal. It just means that development would now be coming into the village even up to a 100 units could just be going through site plan review as opposed it would simply similar to when you look at a type two action, a type two action where it's not required to have any kind of secret review, things that are small. It's the same kind of category if I say that correctly, Jeanette. And so and and, basically, what this is trying to do is shore up or tighten up a lot of that a lot of the issues and and concerns, environmental impacts that would be taken care of in the checklists and things like that that the lead agency would,

be able to look at and actually required to look at along with the applicant. It's putting those in your things like the site plan review. So everything from traffic impacts on schools, impacts on public services, things like that. And we we'll talk through those and how we've proposed to make sure we put those put those in the code and amending your site plan review. It's shoring it up. You know, there's a major development proposal in the village right now that if I recall, the village, the is still gonna look at it as per seeker,

under seeker. And

EAFs had been provided environmental assessment forms have been provided. So those things, those checklists had already been submitted for that proposal, I believe. And I believe it's still gonna continue to be reviewed under Seeker even though it's not quite a 100 units, but it's a major major development. So but so, again, theoretically, develop site, something that normally you'd, you know, list as a type one action or an unlisted action because of its size and the nature of the proposal for multifamily housing developments, they could have no secret review. This shores it up. This puts those checklists, beefs up your checklist, beefs up your ability to ask them questions about these things and have that provided under, site plan review. And if if we can still require all these outside professional reviews of,

you know, how taxes are impacted, how traffic's impacted, the other, you know, steep slopes and the the the two or three that I've left out. Why change the law at all? Well, if we're if we if we can go through the same reviews You

know what? What's triggering Well, we'll look at this because some things either were may have only had a minor mention. So maybe we we we've put in there language a little bit more specific about impacts on village services, more language on traffic.

And No. I'm asking why I mean, just so I understand Yeah. Yeah. How we got today. Why did why did the state even go about this if we still have the ability to modify technical reviews of applications?

Sure. So I think a lot of development review has relied on Seeker. One, relied on Seeker to be the the backdrop for review of development. And check just use the word checklist again. It's a checklist. You have to look at impacts, even this this this soft stuff, visual impacts and and character and things like that. So for decades, we've relied on that. What a big part of this is, I think, what the state would like to do is speed up local review. Right? So if you're not say something if something is a type one action, there's months and months, perhaps even a year or two, that would follow your large project review. Right? But there are public public meeting requirements and things like that. You have that for your site plan review as well. That was, I the thinking, I think, of why this is done. It would take out Seeker, rely on your on the books code requirements. But if you look at any municipality's code requirements, as you know, everyone's got different codes. Right? So they're similar and they're different, written over the last hundred years, say. It's our recommendation that you make sure that someone can't say at a meeting, it doesn't say anything in the code about requiring this and that for traffic or this and that assessment of impacts on schools and impact on village services. You're just doing site plan review. Site plan review doesn't say anything about, you know, perhaps village services, impacts on fire, police, things like that. So it's putting it right in the code so when you're doing site plan review, it's adding to that list of items that you can request and that you should request for depending on the project. So

So, Steve, it's it's kind of slotting in some of the SEQ requirements are encoded into our

into our zoning laws. Right. I think it will have an impact on judicial review. SEQR has a whole overlay of judicial review that can slow projects down. So that goes away with Seeker no longer applying. You would still be able to with these amendments examine and and think hard about the environmental impacts of a particular project. But the seeker process put a big overlay of of process in that involved hearings and then also involved judicial review.

So I think that's a big part of what we're Yeah.

And and again, some of the softer parts of it, not so much nuts and bolts that, you know, the engineer and we look at site site specific things. You know, again, it's the services impact on the greater village, consistency with your comprehensive plan, which you probably already do if you have a big proposal coming through, but this codify codifies it and says, no. No. We're making you write a narrative about how this is or isn't consistent with your comprehensive plan, where someone before these changes may say, I know we feel a comprehensive plan, but we're exempt from Seeker, and, we're just here to talk about how this impacts this site. And so this, you know, tightens

it up. So can we get clarity on how this if this the process is we gotta write a recommendation, goes back to village board. They ultimately approve this new local law, goes into effect. Is it retroactive? How does it impact the application Not that it's across from ShopRite?

I'm gonna take a look at the effective date provision the way it's written.

Yeah. I'd have to check. I'd to check. That's a very good question. And again, it seems to me they've already applied. Right? So we're we're the It's

gonna be basically if if I I would say that it's highly likely that if an application has gotten in before this local law becomes effective and you don't have a provision requiring traffic studies,

you could probably still ask for it as a It seems to me everything that's here, we can still ask for. I think that's true. Think I I don't know how much Whether it's steep slopes or traffic or schools or taxes It provides the chance. To ask for any of that. There's some

yeah. There may be some new things added with with this new local law that we Don't normally couldn't do in the past.

Such as?

We'll go through it. I'll I'll point those out. I'll check those out. I wouldn't know. So alright. So this this local laws will take effect immediately upon a file upon filing With the state. With the New York State Secretary of State. So whatever. Could be months from now. Geoff, where are reading from? The very last page. Thank you. It's 02/25/2010.

Yeah. The very last sentence.

So it could be, what, a couple months. This is already in flight, this project.

So Something in flight.

Well, the applications is what I'm saying. Yeah. The seeker law change, that took effect with the budget Some time ago. Yeah. Mhmm. January 1, was it? April.

It was in the spring. That's right. Yes. Spring. Okay. So

this came in after that Seeker law the application across from ShopRite came in after the Seeker law change. So then it will be governed by this the new Seeker law change, I guess, is what we're saying here.

It's exempt from Seeker. Theoretically, it's exempt from Seeker. So and you as whoever's a lead agency will make a tech just like you do a type two action. We're gonna proceed on reviewing this application, and we're not gonna need to follow Seeker. You don't declare a lead. You don't have to declare you don't declare a lead agency. It's Type two. It's exempt. It's basically type yeah. It is a type two action. Right, Janette? And so the the board who's reviewing it or boards are gonna review it, you know, as per your your code. So, again, no no none of the seeker required steps and none of the seeker required time frames and none of the seeker required require on on public hearings and things like that. You have your own requirements, but they're simpler, and this puts more I don't wanna say teeth, whatever, but it's kind of backing up a lot of the topics

and things that you can ask for. Just just to be persnickety on that point, and I'm playing devil's advocate just a little bit for my own clarity. The only thing the applicant's done on that project is file an application. There hasn't been a public hearing. They haven't presented their proposal yet. So is you what you are saying being covered simply by the fact that there was a date on which they filed an application with the engineering department? Or could let me finish my question. Yeah. Yeah. Or could one argue that they actually have not really gotten their teeth into the application process yet simply because they filled out a form and submitted it to the engineer's office. Nothing else has happened to you. Right. And and, again,

I just have recollections. We had, you know, the one or two long meetings, and I do recall You had one meeting. You had one meeting, and I do recall them saying we're gonna be continuing this project under the current CECA regulations, I think. And and Who's they? Who's they? The the applicant. I I recall the applicant. Decide that?

Or maybe they said they again, let's you know, we have to go back to the videotape. So No. That's not that means nothing. Yep. So yeah. It's what our determination as a village is and what the court might rule. Yeah. I'm just making the point that Mhmm. I'm not sure that it's such a black and white answer right now. And no court has ever had to rule on this because this all is happening in real time. So I'm not sure what the answer is to your question based on this discussion.

I mean, I think we would have to actually actually assume that if the law changed at the state level and they and they applied after that, and they would be subject to where the law was from the state level Certainly as to seeker. That they made the application. That's the claim they'll make. Well, I think it's probably

legit. They may have been saying that they will go through the motions of seeker, but they know they're not subject to see seeker. They may be planning already to provide data to the to the various boards here, but they they know that. Which

they already started to Yeah. They did. Put together. You know, mean, we had traffic studies and we had some other things that would have come out as Mhmm. Normal secret review. But, you know, it seems to me that even if this puts teeth in the law in terms of our being able to review more similarly to a secret process than previously, let's say, gone. It actually doesn't apply to that project. That's

what I would presume. But, again, just to go back on what I asked earlier, that wouldn't stop us from requesting virtually any study that we think is reasonable and applicable to the new community regardless of what gets passed here. Mhmm. Yeah. I just wanna say that in the open. Right? Mhmm. Okay. I think that's right. Right. Okay.

And this would just, as was said, codify that just so any because if someone does for a future application, then then and we wanted to get some of these items reviewed Mhmm. From an environmental perspective that would have been required under Seeker, but not necessarily under our standard Mhmm. Site plan review. It gives us

very clear direction that that is within balance of I guess have been at without that. I guess it would only be an issue, any of this discussion, really, if that particular applicant tried to get out of doing a particular review that we felt or a particular analysis Mhmm. Review that we felt was a reasonable assay, you know, traffic or tax review kind of thing. Mhmm. If they said, no. We don't have to do that because the secret law changed. Mhmm. Then there's an issue that has to be determined. But unless they were to say that, and hopefully, they wouldn't Right. Then we don't really have a problem. Right? I I would agree with that. Okay. I'm just trying to be just trying to play out all the scenario game out all the scenarios that might come up over the next six months. You know? Yeah. No. I think it's real. K. So

because we have underlined things, I guess we can go it's not and it's not more than a few pages. If anyone has questions about some of these things that are underlying There's the condensed Hit those right away. Yeah. And then there's But it seems to me like a a very sensible underlining of this thing and and the things generally that would got put in there seem to make a whole lot of sense. But

right to where the changes Oh. This has the

I don't know if if someone has something to Yeah. I got a couple questions.

And, Vince, this might be for you. Just be section two thirty two thirty dash 68 presubmission. 23068. Okay. So that that is actually not prior the update. This is prior to the The one that we're reviewing. Prior to where the the changes take effect in zoning law. But I'll read it just so Mhmm. We can get a understanding. Okay. So this section, pre submission, site plan review. It's like a definition. Prior to the submission of a formal site development plan, the applicant should meet in person with the planning board or its designated representative to discuss the proposed site development plan so that necessary subsequent steps may be undertaken with a clear understanding of the board's attitude and requirements in matters related to the development. So just to be clear, this is not part of changes we're making tonight. This preexist, and it would stay the same with this local law. The question is this premeeting

presubmission meeting, is that

typically just you?

Believe so. So this one worked for this application anyways. If you guys wanna be a part of that or something, we could try to make that work. Or if Rob, you want us to be involved in that presubmission meeting or if you wanted to gate me to that either way.

I mean, I think in general, the way it's worked over the years relative to that is that the engineering department has kinda handled that pre submission meeting. Mhmm. And and I think that the board has been involved rarely in in that that I in my experience. Mhmm. Right. But doesn't mean that that if you felt, and I would probably leave it up to the discretion of the engineering department to tell us, you know what? This is one that we should probably get a little bit of a a feel from either one or two or the full

planning board, then I, you know, I think that that would be appropriate. Alright. Yeah. Sounds good. If there's anything that, like, comes up in the future that I think it would be helpful to have either one, any of you guys, I'll reach out accordingly.

So Does the village manager, at least in the past, wasn't he or she sit in those meetings when they initially bring developments

that they wanna chat about to the village? He wasn't in the meetings that I had for the this application that we're discussing at the moment. He wasn't in those meetings. It was mainly me, the assistant engineer, and development team. I

think in the past that has occurred. That's why I'm asking. So

just Maybe before I got here. Consistency and clarity. And I think more about from a sort of eye level

Particularly when it's a big proposal. View. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

He wasn't in the I mean, he might have been there before I got here, but Okay.

He wasn't in the meeting. Len, can you comment on that? Has that been the history with the village? Just the because I don't know if we should codify that or not. That's why I'm for the record is a very good question. Just for the record, could you repeat the question just so Certainly. I was inquiring if in the past when more when larger or controversial proposals have come, if it's been just with the building department or was a member of the board of trustees and or the village manager involved in initial meetings? Good question. I think periodically,

over the years, there might have been a courtesy meeting at the very, very early stages, you know, where folks come in and say, hey, we have some interest in a potential project. But when it gets down to the the submission level in terms of the documents, to my understanding and recollection, it's always been at the engineering department level. Because then then you're making sure that the various aspects of each application are appropriately submitted, which is actually what the process that we went through on on 425 South Riverside. Thank you. And then we wouldn't have to codify that component. No. I wouldn't think so. Okay. You got it. I think oftentimes what I've seen is with developers that have been involved with years is that they will

sometimes have a contact somewhere in the village, whether it be the mayor or the one of the

board of trustees or it could be the engineering department or it could be the village manager where they'll

try to get a sense of how this might get received and reach out to someone that, you know, either has been recommended to them or they might know. Right. And those kind of meetings, I think, are generally informal and and Very much so. Be this necessarily this pre submission meeting, but they might be where

somebody's trying to get a sense of, you know, how much opposition am I really gonna take if try to do something. Right. Or how does how does this fit with your comprehensive plan? But as you know, chairman, as you know, the these would tend to occur very early in the process. Yeah. You know, we're introductory almost of a nature. So

I'm sorry. Yeah. If I may, typically, on the pre submission meeting that you have with people who are at the project, what's the requirement from your department for them to submit? The entire plan or just

For the pre submission meeting itself, there's nothing, like, formal. But during that meeting, we usually tell them what is required, like, what's in the code. Like, right here, two thirty sixty nine required submissions. We'll go over that with the applicant and let him know what he needs to submit to get on the agenda. At the pre submission meeting at that level, usually, they'll show us a site plan. Hopefully, we have some numbers of, like, floor areas and elevations so that we can guide them better. But there's no, like, actual pre submission checklist. It's more so we have a meeting, and we try to guide them

as best as we can. So as I said before, it's basically informal. Just inform the village engineer that this is what we're planning to do, and then they're gonna follow-up with the more substantial Correct. Point. Thank you. That's correct.

Thank you, Len. Thank you.

No.

That's fine. Appreciate the discussion on that. Those were discussed even though it wasn't in tonight's changes. So then as we start getting into our, well mine's later, a little bit later when I want to discuss. It is two thirty-seventy review by the planning board. This is b one. Conformance of the proposed site development plan with the master or comprehensive plan of local waterfront revitalization plan. I think all we're doing was adding comprehensive plan, substituting out master plan since that's an updated term. But the word conformance is is what I get tripped up on here because the comprehensive plan is kind of aspirational.

It is aspirational.

Absolutely. And we wanna do more of this. We want more of that. If we're saying that an applicant has to conform to the comprehensive plan, I mean, the law of the land for us is the zoning code. Right. Rather than the comp you know, the comprehensive plan is a is a guidelines. I don't know how best to handle that, Bill. And and, Janette, what your thoughts are on that, but I was thinking maybe something along the lines of

Consistency. Consistency might be good because it's how consistent. It still has a right? It's like it's very consistent or it's It's less rigid. Less the word that's where it is that was my first thought. Or is it consistent with spirit of Instead of spirit of the comprehensive plan. Something I like his better.

With. What what was your wording? Consistency with

instead of conformance. Yours is still more rigid than theirs. With compliance. Okay. If that's what you want. Do you do you want them to adhere? That does make sense. Yeah. I want them adhere to the comprehensive plan. So what's that? Do we want people to adhere strictly to the comprehensive No.

And that that's exactly so I think consistency is is it. I agree.

It's all you can hope for because we we we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot otherwise. Yeah.

So that'd be one recommendation we'd have. Consistency. Consistency instead of the word conformance

with the word consistency. It's a great point, Geoff.

Right. Conformance is a little bit more black and white. Mhmm.

Yeah. Because the next line is is a little bit better. This has to do with the complete streets policy. Consideration and application of the complete Village's complete streets policy. And, you know, in that case, it's just consideration. That's even, say, more watered down Right. Than formal. Yeah.

But it also starts the whole paragraph. B starts with in considering and approving. Yeah. You know? So in considering it, you're gonna consider these items. Yeah. But

Okay. Maybe it's just for just consideration of to make it parallel. Consistency. And considering and approving the plan of abortion, take into consideration

So scratch and application? Application

of

So, two could reconsideration of the village's complete streets policy. End scratch and application.

We could. I don't know that. You could say consistency with for complete streets policy too. Right.

Alright. So those are those are two, say, recommendations we have in our letter to the trustees. I think that's a good word, consistency. Okay. So if I go down to seven on that same section. It reads in specific cases where the planning board finds it you guys you guys good?

Sorry. Where are we? So on number seven, so we're b

Numbers yeah. Seven b. B seven. Sorry. Were chatting. In

applicable cases. Training system layout, which for the best and then and your question, Geoff, was

Well, I was moving on to another one here. Okay. So in b seven, just going further down the same page. And this is just kind of a general question. In specific case where the planning board finds that the maximum setback distances from the front side or rear lot lines fail to maintain adequately the residential characteristics of surrounding residential properties, if any, it may require that such distances be increased. But in no case may it reduce set minimum setbacks. So I was vaguely aware we had that ability. I don't know if we've ever taken advantage of it or or had the need for it. It's got moved. Bumped up. Or That is that's That's success. That's you know, I wasn't really Pretty interesting.

And I I think the reason that says no case may re reduce that minimum set max because those would be Subvariant. To a variance. Yeah. As zoning board. But I didn't I didn't know I mean, we've never even considered, like, having somebody increase a setback.

So I just commented on, I guess, for information more than anything else. I saw that too. It was interesting.

Alright. I think that's that's all I got.

Yeah. In the same section, it's a question for me on section five. We refer to master plan of village, which is crossed over, and then we have a comprehensive plan of the village. What's the difference? Is it the

do we have master plan of village? We used to call it the same. It's the same thing. Yeah. It's or it's it's a comprehensive plan or master plan. Okay. Yeah. So it's the same thing with different Same thing over the past hundred years. It's been maybe moved more to comprehensive. Okay. That word because it maybe takes in a little bit more stuff. Okay. More comprehensive, meaning you're looking not just at certain few topics. It's any topics that the village wants to look at. And you can look at down to very, specific things in a comprehensive plan. So, you know, location and sizes of dog parks or something, you know, like, it most people don't have that in the comprehensive. Some of them do. So Mhmm.

Another question I have in that memo to the board of trustees. You have two type of provision. One is in green, one in red. What's the significance of that? So one in green, one in red. So we

could print it on the black and white. So now I I have it in green. I have it in red. I think maybe where Oh, green is where text has been picked up and moved. Moved. Right. And red is new text. Oh, I took maybe that. That yeah. You see how it's double doubles? I understand. Yes. Yes. Yes. Right.

But both have the same value as far as you can see. Yeah. But

the the green is intended to flag for you that this got picked up and moved up here. I see. Mhmm. Okay. This was moved to some other location. Understood. Alright. Thank you. Mhmm.

So, yeah, we can send you that comprehensive plan also tomorrow. Okay. If you wanna share. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, otherwise, I I I I don't have any other markups here really. I mean, I thought that on the last page, number 17, adequacy of construction phasing, staging, management of the drill site development. That is a good good one to have in here for us just because in the past, that's been something that I think has been subject of consternation. So having it clear in there, think it was it was a good ad. Lots of good ads.

I have a question, if I may. Okay. Bill, I'm guessing it's here somewhere. I'm just not sure where, but I'm gonna ask three subjects. I wanna make sure they're covered in here. Sure. One is which section addresses requesting of analysis of taxes from a new development and how that relates to the finances of the town to possibly increase infrastructure or police and fire?

Mhmm. You got 11. That's an adequacy of 11 ish. Really about taxes, so that's just adequacy of access. That's not really what I'm looking for. No. I know. Sorry.

Just saw it today.

Because that's a big one. Yeah.

Alrighty. Accuracy of utilities, that's number 10. Adequacy of public schools, facilities, other public services. That's number 12.

Yeah. So, I mean, to Steve's point, that that'll tell us that, okay, they're gonna add 10 students and we got capacity for 10 or or whatever. The applicant across from shop, right, in their application provided, you know, not only how many students they expect, but also how much revenue would be generated for the school district. Right. And then the cost, the average cost per educating the student. It was brilliant. I thought it was a great little table to have. Mhmm. And to have that thing that sort of thing going forward, I think would be a good thing to have.

Yes. But that's just the schools.

Yeah. And they did it I think they did it for public, for police and fire as well. But that I'm sorry. Go ahead. It's say I like that request. And it does say it says enter request of fiscal

school certain school student projection analysis and public service impact analysis. Where is that? So that's also in that number 12 where it starts off with the adequacy of public school facilities and other School student

projection analysis and public service impact analysis. Right. When deemed context appropriate. Yeah. That seems to

actually cover that. I think it helps. But Where where is that? I'm sorry. I'm not seeing 12.

Page Page three. Oh, you have a different

I might have had earlier version from Karen.

Thank you.

But is other public services referring to, for instance, fire and police? EMS. Yeah. I think that Well, why not make it more specific then?

Well, then you're gonna exclude something from Mhmm. Or you have to say police,

etcetera.

Could it be such as fire and police without police, and EMS. Such as if you put yeah. You put end other public services, comma, such as fire, police, and and emergency sorry. What do we call that? This is all about exercise So

Right.

And then so related to that thank you very much. Related to that is, let's say somebody comes in and they wanna put up, you know, 10 story building and maybe our code changes that they can, and all of a sudden we have to build a larger, you know, set of water pipes and electricity and whatnot. How do we protect against those infrastructure costs that might, you know, overwhelm the minimal tax benefit we're getting from a new community. I

would say this covers that.

Right. It says a couple instances, adequacy adequacy.

And over there. Public service impact analysis. Wouldn't

that be an Adequate also number eight and nine, adequacy of capacity of water supply and sewage disposal facilities, adequacy of emergency access fire lanes. Well, that's specific on that. Adequacy of utilities to sort energy.

I really do think 10 covers it. Yeah. The second sentence of 10. Mhmm. Yeah. I'm looking at a slightly different version. If

it's covering thank you. I don't see a u I think Utilities are referring to energy demand there. They're not referring they're not covering oh, here we go. Water supply and sewage up above. Okay. That's good. That's what I'm looking for. Yeah. Yeah. It does. Okay. Check that box. And the two other questions I have Mhmm. Thank you, guys. Are I know we're this is codified already, but what about steep slopes? That there's a whole section on that, I'm presuming.

Yes. That is in here.

Geologic features. It would have been in two thirty sixty nine three. And then Topographic and natural resource data. Of the first page.

And then we also have further down in

in in in in two thirty dash sixty nine four k. K.

Oh, yeah. And then four k. That's better, I think. And we cross referenced the steep slope protection chapter.

So some of the recommendations are also putting in cross references to other separate sections of the code on different topics. Okay. Thanks. Because I'm working in a different version again. Related to that,

some First case? Two

thirty sixty nine.

Yeah. Yeah. Steep slope. Anyway

It's actually technically two thirty sixty nine d four k. Thank you. D four k. Right. D four k. And it

goes up above arch there's a five architectural features. It's two paragraphs above that.

Thank you. Mhmm. I'm not gonna get the term right, but, FAR requirements, floor area Ratio. Ratio. Thank you. That's gotta be built in here somewhere. Right? That's in the code.

And and so this someplace references the code and and the bulk requirements. So we're not editing that. We're just editing other places that needed shoring up. Got it. And then the last question I have thank you for that. Sure. Sure. I really appreciate that.

I know that is gonna be an issue with, four twenty five, already is, I guess. But that aside, you know, in the zoning code, I know we're planning, but in the zoning code, one of the criteria that's required for review is that there's five of them and one of them is the character of the neighborhood. And I'm just wondering if in our planning code when we're just doing site plan review, do we have an ability to comment or adjudicate would be the the better word on character of neighborhood?

Should have this up so I could do a word search. Yeah. I know. It's easier. I'm trying to get it up here, but Yeah.

I think I saw something. If you have a flavor for it, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That, you know, it's something that we should be able to talk about in a planning board meeting with the site plan.

Two thirty o nine.

It's a side layout including the character and appearance of the

Where'd you say, Mary Bell? It's

237338. 230 So in specific cases, plenty of ward maximum setbacks, that does talk about characteristics of surrounding residential properties. That was that one we talked about with the setbacks that you've never used before, but you can't remember. Number six. It's b six under two thirty seven. Does at least have the words.

You're saying two thirty seven? It's

two seven dash seventy b

70. Six. 77. 2 3070.

70. Thank you. And it's that's the one that you mentioned earlier about the setbacks. Thank you. But it does say they maintain adequately the residential characteristics of surrounding residential properties. Mhmm.

The distinction. The city also says the same thing. Side layout including the location, character, and appearance. Hey, Saia. If you could speak into the mic so people at home can hear you. Yeah. Yeah. On 23070, B 3 B 3, it's a side layout including the location, character, and appearance of any proposed building or Oops. Of building or sign location Okay. With power and, you know, dot dot dot.

That seems pretty clear. I don't think we need to reword that. And that's existing here. Mhmm. Fantastic. Thank you.

So kinda going back to Steve's point about fiscal analysis. We've we've got in here a fiscal analysis can be requested by the planning board regarding schools. So I'm I'm referring to two seventy dash two two thirty dash seventy twelve. The adequacy of public school facilities and public services to serve the anticipated needs of site development with the option of our planning board to request a fiscal school student projection analysis and public service. I wanna make sure that we that when we say fiscal that, you know, we can we're we're we have the ability to say, tell us based on your projection of what the tax rate is gonna be for this building. Tell us what you how much you expected to generate for the village in taxes for the school district, for the the village, for town of Cortlandt. Right. So we can see those numbers, and and we can say, well, there's gonna be fire calls there. There's gonna be police calls there, and it looks like they're gonna generate enough revenue for the village to fund, like, one policeman or whatever. So I'd I'd love for us to be able to request that table that shows based on their best guess of what this building's gonna be worth. It'll likely generate this much revenue for the village. How do we hard code that into here so that we have the ability to request that?

I could look into whether that's something that we could add, you know, if it's yeah. I can get some suggested language in there such as, you know, like we had before Janette has such as or suggested little phrase saying comparison or we say Objection of It's a fiscal revenue. Fiscal school student protection analysis, public surface impact analysis, and so maybe a little bit more language on that those analyses.

It's a good one. Yeah. It's really helpful. I mean, the more data we can get, the better decisions we can make.

You know? Public service. Because you don't want Or they're doing schools, and then they're doing public services. And they request this? And or. Oh, like this. Yeah. I I have a couple of Yeah. It took little edits. Janette's picking up a couple little edits. So and then the last the last sentence there in that 10, the planning board may request a fiscal, comma, school Take take out the comma. We'll see how that reads, school's student projection analysis. And this is or public it may say and or. It's not so you don't wanna make make it look like either or. That's you know, that kind of thing.

Or you could actually really say the planning board may request a public service impact analysis including but not limited to Yeah. Yeah. A school student projection analysis

and and But, yeah, I just wanna make sure fiscal is in there. We want we wanna see the numbers that this is gonna generate. A fiscal public service. I maybe take call it a fiscal public service impact analysis. Yeah.

And, you know, even in the secret regulations that are not gonna be effective for this, sometimes it's very limited in the in the secret law too about how deep and what kind of analysis. And so you're going off of because kind of like professional practice over the decades, you know. You know, a typical multifamily development gets this kind of analysis. Mhmm. And this kind of fiscal numbers pulled together and staffing and and and impacts on taxes. So so this is kind of like basic language that the village can use as its tool.

Yeah. No. As long as it's specific enough that we can push for it and and request it. Yeah. And point to our code and say, hey. It's in there. We have the ability to do this.

Fiscal.

It's whether the school facilities and other Yeah. It's kind of like saying once or twice. And that's what's being considered. And then the next sentence is the same what the planning board can ask for. The planning board may request fiscal public service impact analysis

So the To enable it to evaluate. So our again, our colleagues

wordsmith this, you know, so it's a little bit more. It's always welcome too. It's always Alright. Beautiful language. So if you guys can get that language over so Karen can say it clear in our memo,

that would be fantastic. Would you be alright with taking out, in the second sentence, taking out school student projection analysis or I think that the the blanket phrase is fiscal public service impact analysis. You know, the first sentence or the first phrase of 10 says, it's what the board is going to consider, whether adequate public school facilities and other public services exist or can be created to serve the needs of the proposed site development period. The planning board may request a fiscal public service impact analysis. You could set you could leave it as written or you could take you don't really need school student What's a fiscal public service analysis?

I mean, we wanna find out the revenue that's being generated by potential revenue being generated by this building. I was And that'll that'll inform us about yeah. It might be enough for one employee. But we really wanna get at how much revenue this building is To gonna is gonna

include

Yeah. Otherwise other things. They can just kinda put whatever they want. Exactly. Exactly.

Well, you know, I think No. But if you enough to allow you to ask for what you want. Right. The idea is to keep it general so that you can flex the need of your need, you know, what you're asking for.

You don't wanna get too specific here in a way because then you don't wanna box yourselves in. Well, I mean, but at the same time, you wanna be specific enough so they know what we're asking for. And they don't present us something and we say, no. That's not it. It's Come back again. This is what we really want. You think fiscal would not be interpreted to include taxes? I think it's way too loose. I mean, I I think what we're getting is how much revenue There may be better ways to phrase it. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. We can look for other phrases.

You're really looking for tax revenues.

Tax revenue and then how it impacts what the impact is of that development on the tax and the services and specific on the on the Yeah. What kind of services may be required. The last applicant across the guys across from Shop Break did provide that table, and it was, like, really eye opening

to see how much revenue would go to the school district as a result of this building. You don't know what it's gonna be taxed at. You don't know what the value is gonna be, but it's just kind of a general guideline. It gives you something to look at. Mhmm.

Can I ask a question? Sure. Yeah. You should. Would it also include, like, road maintenance? I mean, like, any increase in population is going to have fiscal cost beyond just

That's what I was raising before. Yeah. And so it's

will it cover everything? Cost services and the development will require schools, police, fire, road maintenance Mhmm. Sewer maintenance. Looks like the overall scaling of population.

Is it captured in that? So that the table that was provided last time broke it down into how much tax revenue estimated would go to the school district. And however the school district chooses to spend it is up to them. How much would go to the village? However the village chooses to spend it is up to them. It doesn't say this much will go to roads, this much will go to sewers, or But will it also I mean, I guess Yeah. But if you could use the microphone so people could hear you. Yeah.

Is it is it just the money in or is it also the impact of what it will do wear and tear or is that just for us to decide? Well, that's why we've protected ourselves in that other section Yeah. There's a to utilities.

There's a water section. There was a sewer mention, which I think addresses what the points you're raising. Yeah. I mean, I just also just general It's hard. You can't, like You can't capture everything, so you need some sort of generality. Whether you'll need a new sewer. Or what. Mean, we might know.

We're talking Well, a bigger a bigger pipe. Yeah. Yeah. It does get to But

Right. Okay.

I think that's as specific as we can request. I would And we talk about traffic. You know? That's the Right. That's the actual vehicles on the road and light timing and things like that. And there's some sort of

wiggle room. So in the future, if something we don't know happens, like, Internet came and nobody knew about it in the fifties. But, you know, sort of, like, does it leave enough room that if there's something we need analysis for in the future, it will allow room for that? I think we've we've tried to freshen up already by putting things like impact on energy and Okay. That may not have been back in the day.

Right. Sorry. Right. Adequacy of utility support, energy demand, and energy savings components. So Alright.

Yep. I think we got enough to

recall something together with your help. Yeah. Yeah. We're gonna take a look at that and get those key key phrases there too. The

village board. So

moving along, I think we just have our minutes of the last meeting to review at this point, which are here somewhere. Here we go.

The applicant's team is present. This meeting requested that they could give some thoughts on the project. I would change some thoughts to their full presentation. That's what they were angling. Well, that's what they verbalized they wanted to do, not just some thoughts but they wanted to deliver the full presentation and acting Chair Haynes said that the Planning Board felt that wasn't a good idea and they should wait.

Unless Geoff disagrees. No, that's what that's. Okay.

And then where it says the same paragraph, the last line, Lori Lee Dickson actually it should be I'm suggesting instead of Lori Lee Dickson said it should be acting Chairman Haynes said that the Planning Board was not ready to call for a public hearing. One more. Page three, third paragraph, third line. The phrase in some zoning districts I think should be changed to in zoning districts RA 5 and RA 9 because that's what I said.

So, Karen, I got one same paragraph that Steve's referring to. Just this exercise that this b section b refers to where we're we're reviewing local law 10 was to provide the village board with our recommendation. So I would just insert the last sentence that says, the planning board agreed to provide its recommendation to the village board incorporating these points. It just shows we had this was the action we took. Sure. Yep.

Agreed to provide

The planning board agreed to provide its recommendation to the village board incorporating these points. In In other words, once or mentioned up above.

Any other comments from board members? Alright.

Someone wanna make a motion to on the minutes?

Motion to accept the minutes from July 28 with the changes that we just went through.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you, everybody. With with that, we're adjourned.