Planning Board Minutes - January 15, 2005

Minutes

Regular Meeting of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Thursday January 13, 2005

Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, Mount Kisco, New York

Members Present: Joseph Cosentino

Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Ralph Vigliotti

Members Absent: Joseph Morreale

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Michelle Robbins

Whitney Singleton

Michael Stein

Chairman Cosentino began the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Cosentino also took a few moments to thank the board and staff for a good year and to look forward to this year and lots of projects and challenges. Chairman Cosentino announced the retirement of Byran Parker and well wishes to him. Anthony Sturniolo has moved to Vice Chairman and Stan Bernstein will take over as secretary.

Mr. Bernstein motioned to accept minutes as amended. Vice Chairman Sturniolo 2^nd. The board voted all ayes.

A Continuing Review

Cr�me de la Cr�me: - Morgan Drive

David Steinmetz represented the applicant Cr�me de la Cr�me.

(Audio tape and mic. Were not engaged for this portion of the meeting)

Nanette Bourne: Purposed a Public Notice Hearing for Cr�me De La Cr�me regarding the wetlands, special use and site plan modification. A review of the SEQR Negative Declaration was reviewed

Chairman Cosentino: set the date to be February 8, 2005.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: motioned for a Public Hearing to be set for Feb 8, 2005

Mr. Bernstein: 2^nd the motion

The Board All Ayes.

Old Iron Estates II - Cary Place

Alan Pilch from Evans Assoc., and Dominic Ferrovecchio from Ferro Development Corp., representing Old Irons Estates II

Alan Pilch: It is zoned as steep surface commercial. We appeared before you last autumn as you recall with a residential proposal, we are now back here with a proposal to put a warehouse building on this property. The warehouse building, which is depicted in this site, is 8,130 square feet in footprint. There are 8 parking spaces which are shown located in the back of the property access are obtained by a 25 foot drive by the north property line. All of the parking and building is located on the upland side of the 100-foot wetland buffer. The site itself is gently sloping from north to south and from east to west and gets steeper as you get closer to the watercourse. There's been fill over most of the property. Only the fringes of the steep slope here on the southern portion of the property, kind of west of the property itself has any vegetation the rest of it is essentially weeded over.

Chairman Cosentino: When you say storage what will you are storing?

Dominic Ferrovecchi: It will be cars for myself also there will be spots for people to store furniture and distributing from there.

Chairman Cosentino: So there will not be any physical work being done within the building?

Dominic Ferrovecchi: No repair shops only store my own cars there.

Chairman Cosentino: How many boxes will you have for storage?

Dominic Ferrovecchi: I was thinking of 6.

Anthony Sturniolo: They will be locked 24 hours a day; people can go in and out?

Dominic Ferrovecchi: Yes

Chairman Cosentino: If somebody stores something in there they will be allowed to go and get what they need?

Dominic Ferrovecchi: Exactly, It would like a clothing store holding their inventory.

Chairman Cosentino: The building would be locked?

Dominic Ferrovecchi: It would have a cast through door and one roll up.

Chairman Cosentino: One roll up?

Dominic Ferrovecchi: One or two on both sides depending on the code.

Anthony Sturniolo: As we as were looking at the staff summary I think Michelle was about to respond to this that you need to show what outside plan would comply with the buffer requirements regarding parking spaces. This not something you need to answer tonight this is only a conceptual and that is later down the road.

Michelle Robbins: The other thing you might need to show what percentage of the property is steep slope. Also the wetlands would need to be verified.

Alan Pilch: Ok. There is a village-regulated wetland and a DEC wetland, which was flagged by our office a year ago and we certainly can verify.

Chairman Cosentino: This certainly sounds like a better plan. Be in touch with AKRF and come back with a formal application.

Anthony Sturniolo: Mr. Chairman Can we also get the building inspectors comments on this conceptual?

Chairman Cosentino: Once we get the application but not at this point. The building inspector will go and check it out.

Nanette Bourne: At the previous meeting with the board having identified themselves as lead agency issued a positive declaration for the project and requested that the applicant return with their draft scoping outline. That scoping outline is included in your packet. The procedure is for tonight to go through and give me your comments and the issues you have and any additions to the scope. At the following meeting we will have produced a scope that meets what I think will be your issues. If this is acceptable to you can then schedule a public hearing for the public to make any comments on the scope. We are looking for the site plan approval for a two phase plan. I think we had some discussion to clarify we are requesting site plan approval for phase one, and conceptual approval for the second phase. The details that are provided are maybe 50% engineering details for phase one and 10% for phase two. The applicant is purposing two phases, one would be completed in 2008 and the second to be completed in 2013. Because 2013 is way out there instead of doing the engineering and getting permits all the details for the second phase it is typical for that phase to be presented in more of a conceptual fashion. All of the engineering detail warranted would be met in phase one. If construction drawings represent a 100% of all of the detail, because construction drawings are what building permits are issued on, they would be something less or they would asked to be reviewed by the building inspector and by the village engineer and the planning board. This is what the applicant is proposing to do. It is some number that gives you the flavor and enough detail so you know what is involved in phase two.

David Paget: I would just like to reaffirm something that was discussed the last time. We will be looking at the environmental impact of both phases at the same time.

Ralph Vigliotti: I don't know if I want to approve any conceptual date at this point, beyond the environmental piece.

Anthony Sturniolo: You bring out a very valid point of potentially handcuffing the future board with the thought or idea.

Chairman Cosentino: My understanding we are strictly doing phase one, and phase two is for another time.

David Paget: In terms of site plan approval.

Chairman Cosentino: Now my understanding and it is very confusing that we are doing a conceptual for phase two.

Nanette Bourne: It is conceptual in a sense that you want to see phase one context with phase two.

Chairman Cosentino: We know what phase two is going to be.

Nanette Bourne: I don't think you want to be put in a position in 2005 approving anything on phase two. You want to know what the full picture is. As far as the environmental impact in 2005 you want be able to see the whole realm of impacts, so that you can come to conclusion. Having really thought how the findings would be.

Anthony Sturniolo: It would be a partial finding statement in essence.

David Paget: We are seeking among other things a rezoning, the entire site in contemplation of the build out of both phases. We are obligated under the law to present in the first instance for your consideration an adoption. It looks at the environmental impact of both phases. That is our obligation under the law. We can't do less than that. What we are talking about is differentiating between phase one and phase two and the term that Ms. Bourne is talking about is really a level of engineering detail that doesn't really bare on the fundamental requirement that we have to present the environmental impacts. You have to consider that. That will have to be considered by the board when it acts in respect to the re zoning and the findings will have to reflect the consideration of the entire project.

Nanette Bourne: Going back this statement the action also includes site plan approval for the two-phase plan. That needs to be clarified.

Whitney Singleton: They went through a process establishing comprehensive development plan for the village. That did not approve any particular site plan. It just charted for the future particular areas for the village. Then as follow up to that people could bring individual applications whatever they have before your boards or other boards, and they should be consistent with that site plan. They have long term goals and they don't want to come to you and say here is our plan today and once that is constructed come back to you and say this is what we really want to do. They want to chart out for you a full picture of what their long-term goal is.

Anthony Sturniolo: That was articulated in several meetings last summer that the village wanted a hospital master plan.

Whitney Singleton: Yes. They are going to evaluate and present the information to you to help you evaluate what those impacts will be for both phase one and phase two. They are going to ask you to undertake some action when you start to look at the rezoning of the site plan, that will help them at least to build up phase one at this point in time. It is giving you the full picture now, so there is no deception. I think Mr. Paget is trying to indicate to you not only are they doing that but also they are required by law to do that.

Anthony Sturniolo: I understand the legal requirement but somewhat surprised to hear this now in this late date in this application that we are cutting up the pie a bit.

Nanette Bourne: This is the first phase that they are looking at site plan approval. In order to get that there is considerable amount that has to be done. Engineering, architecture site plans work. That work would be reviewed by a number of people in a lot of detail. There would be enough detail in the second phase so that you can get the picture of it. You can understand what is involved, with the level of detail or that is should be delivered on the site plan approval. It is not for you to understand it but not enough for you not to grant a site plan approval on it.

David Paget: To respond we are not handcuffing the board at a later date.

Anthony Stuniolo: How would this get clarified, in the form of what type of document?

Nanette Bourne: The action also includes site plan approval for phase one.

David Paget: What we need to make clear is the scope of the action for the purposes of environmental review encompasses the two phases. With respect to the action to be taken at this juncture by the planning board it's with respect to the site plan for phase one. So we would make a very sharp distinction between what the scope of the environmental review which we are obligated by law and then what it is that we are asking of this board at this juncture.

Chairman Cosentino: This is 2008 on completion which is three years away and then 2013 on completion on phase two. If the whole environmental impact is being done, something is bound to change in five or six years. Are you going to come back and say this was approved already?

David Paget: At such point we would come back for approval with respect to the second phase. There would have to be consideration of whether so much has changed within the period of time on the first phase and the time of the second phase. We would have to address the question whether there are changed circumstances, which is the phrase that the law uses. Such as to necessitate a supplemental environmental impact statement.

Chairman Cosentino: Is there something that a final resolution that says phases two if there is any further impacts would this change that resolution where they would have to come back to us again for environmental for phases two? I understand that the law imposes that. I am just worried at to what happens to the law between five and six years if changes are you saying that you are grandfathered in here, we have nothing to do with that.

Nanette Bourne: You are saying what happen if the law changes.

David Paget: If the law changes then we are operating by a different set of rules.

Chairman Cosentino: My question is that, is that grandfathered in to the old set of rules?

Syrette Dym: I think what you are saying is that if in fact the action does not fit with what was analyzed in the environmental impact. Something that was not analyzed in the environmental impact or a major change they are required to be analyzed.

Chairman Cosentino: That is an answer to Mr. Vigliotti question about being handcuffed into something that may change later on. That should be written someplace.

David Paget: What I am suggesting to you that deem appropriate is that is exactly what the law requires.

Chairman Cosentino: The way the law is you get the attorneys before you and say this was grandfathered in here this is not going to change because we talked about this. In all do respect something has to be addressed to that effect.

Nanette Bourne: The action including site plan approve for the two phase plan isn't really correct. The applicant is requesting site plan approval for phase one not for phase two. The scope of the environmental review will include both phases. Question on page 3. The cancer treatment center out patient service one story.

Syrette Dym: As the architect has explained we are still in the process of understanding the entire project. It is my understanding that this relates to build out of the shell. 2^nd story. This is in fact at grade and therefore is the first story the other is the below grade story. The one that is actually built, as we go through in plan and section this one according to grade there will be four stories eventually of this which two are in phase two. First one is considered ground.

Chairman Cosentino: How many floors?

Syrette Dym: The cancer center treatment is one floor.

Chairman Cosentino: The building will have two floors.

Syrette Dym: This refers to the existing shell.

Chairman Cosentino: You keep repeating the existing footprint; it is not the existing footprint. We need to change that word. It is not the existing footprint and I would like that change. It is larger that the existing footprint.

David Puget: What was approved?

Chairman Cosentino: What was approved was approved. You have the street floor there is no basement it is the street floor. Then you have another story above that. That is the story that is unoccupied correct?

Nanette Bourne: What you are referring to is that one story is that one story of unoccupied space.

Chairman Cosentino: Four stories would be coming in on phase two.

Anthony Sturniolo: That is in reference to 3c?

Ralph Vigliotti: Shall we talk about 3a? It is interesting you talk about floors in 3b and c but you mentioned parking spaces only for 3a, which it says north parking, garage 649 spaces. How many floors is it?

Chairman Cosentino: That is in phase one.

Richard Rath: In parking garages we would normally say levels. Two of which are low grade.

Syrette Dym: We can add six levels to the scope.

Ralph Vigliotti: We had lots of conversation with that in regard to how much parking garage we wanted exposed on that corner. I don't think we were in agreement that we were going to leave exposed six stories. Two were going to be completely under. I think in A I would like that in written form and just 649 spaces. The four levels does that include the top level or is that a fifth level?

Richard Rath: There are six levels.

Ralph Vigliotti: Two on the ground.

Richard Rath: To be perfectly clear the mid point of the grade occurs half way between them so technically speaking there are one and a half levels for below grade. 3 � at the edge facing Moore Ave. In fact there is an additional 40 feet there is one more level.

Ralph Vigliotti: Does this match our building code as far as height requirements?

Whitney Singleton: Keep in mind there has been a change to the zone so this part and parcel of the application.

Richard Rath: This is described exactly that way. It has a 35-foot height limit, 30 feet back from Moore and a set back of 40 feet.

Whitney Singleton: This has a roof. I am just trying to clarify. They are purposing a certain development in building coverage and they are actually purposing a floor ratio. Under our code this structure would constitute a building, not just a structure.

David Paget: This is not really a scoping issue.

Ralph Vigliotti: Getting back to clarification 3B it says three stories above ground floor. Now is the ground floor below ground level or on ground level?

Richard Rath: This where the confusion of the cancer treatment center comes in. It states between a number of levels or floors verses a number of stories. We have tried to be consistent and using stories as a number of floors above grade or as to reference in our master plan the first floor level would be considered the grade or the hospital building. The cancer treatment center that exists today the one story, is on the ground., is relative to this cross section actually is the ground floor and therefore ultimately will be below grade from the Main Street side. There are four levels or four floors in the medical office building. Given the way the floors are numbered at the hospital the first floor that is the main entry floor that is floor number one. That is actually the second level.

Anthony Sturniolo: We need to have to come up with language. That we all agree on and define what a level, what a story is, what a floor is. We are going to going through this review process for a long time. We need common terminology, which we can all agree on and understand.

Chairman Cosentino: To me a floor is a floor. Right now I am on the second floor of Village Hall. I am not on the third floor; I am not on the first or fourth floor. Downstairs is the first floor. On the cancer center I see floor number one as being the doors on the first floor where you walk in. I see above floor number two. That is the way I interpret a floor.

Richard Rath: When you walk into the main entrance of the hospital what floor do you think you are on?

Chairman Cosentino: When you are walking into a building that is on ground level and you are not walking down a set of stairs it is ground level that is the floor.

Ralph Vigliotti: Whitney are we allowed to have a four story office building.

Whitney Singleton: You are allowed to have a seven story building right on this site.

Anthony Sturniolo: This whole thing is hinged on the anticipated zoning.

Whitney Singleton: In this evaluation you are going to determine whether appropriate action is approved.

David Paget: We hope you would reserve judgement and observe all the facts.

Nanette Bourne: Another scoping item on this page is under B 2005-2008 should be moved up since we are already in 2005. It should be a more realistic date.

Davis Paget: We believe it is a realistic date.

Nanette Bourne: You will have a building finished by the end of the year?

David Paget: We believe we can accomplish the program that is described here within the time frames.

Chairman Cosentino: The question is on the year 2005-2008 page 3 that the work will be done by 2008 on phase one.

Nanette Bourne: I am not challenging 2008 that it is not likely to start in 2005.

David Paget: The operative term here is the date by which the full build out will be accomplished on phase one.

Anthony Sturniolo: So we should make it 2006?

Nanette Bourne: That would be more realistic 2006 - 2008

Anthony Sturniolo: At the top consistency with when village comprehensive plan. I would like to see that in little bit more detail how it is consistent with current comprehensive plan.

Nanette Bourne: So for the scope what are you asking them to do?

Anthony Sturniolo: Take the village comprehensive plan to go to the section referring to the hospital. Explain why this is going to be consistent. Also further down 3 & 4 the potential significant adverse impacts and the mitigation of necessary. Do we want ask what the mitigation is?

Nanette Bourne: They don't have to identify what the mitigation is.

It is premature.

Anthony Sturniolo: In B #3 on the same page.

David Paget: This document identifies the tasks to be addressed. It isn't the expression of the accomplishment or completion of those tasks. I would submit to you the words that can be written that this says and would only be understood to say that we have to do exactly what you want. We have to address whether what we are proposing is consistent with the village's comprehensive development plan. That is the task that this particular provision specifies. The actual effort to demonstrate that wouldn't appear in the scoping document it would appear in that section of the draft environmental impact statement. So I hope I am being clear between the distinction of what it is we have to do which is what the scoping document is intended to accomplish and then with the completion of that we are in conformity which is specified here have to do those things in the DEIS.

Nanette Bourne: You just wanted to be clear in the scope. What it is you are expecting them to analyze.

Anthony Sturniolo: Going back to B # 3 the analyst. I would like to see where it talks about the description of the proposed zoning text amendments and how that relates to Boltis Street specifically.

Nanette Bourne: I have that same comment if you can just hold for a moment.

Anthony Sturniolo: In that case going to visual resources C. It was either at the last meeting or two meeting ago. That Dr. Morreale brought up a point of the medical commercial office building on the corner Moore Avenue and Main Street having a potential canyon effect in relationship to the existing Westchester County building on the other corner and the massiveness of adding another building similar to the one on the corner. I would like to see that discussed in this scoping document.

Nanette Bourne: On that note I would like the board to consider visual resources. I think visual resources are an important one and what is it that you are specifically looking for? Are you looking for them to look at the site from the ground and various vantage points? What kind of visual analysis are you looking for?

Anthony Sturniolo: From several vantage points in the village in addition to just street level ground.

Nanette Bourne: So you want street level impact as well as distant impact.

Anthony Sturniolo: On D I will defer to you since we are both talking about Boltis and community character.

Nanette Bourne: My question here is community character is always difficult to analysis and so I think you should express what it is about community character that you want discussed in the DEIS.

Anthony Sturniolo: Quality of life issues, traffic issues.

Nanette Bourne: On the commercial district on the downtown as well as the residential area surrounding the hospital?

Anthony Sturniolo: Absolutely

Nanette Bourne: Anything else on the community character?

Stanley Bernstein: One comment. That section has to be tightened up and expanded and cover every base because during the public hearing that is what most of the comments will come from.

Nanette Bourne: That is right and it will have to be done in the DEIS.

Stanley Bernstein: I think it is covered well in the scope.

Nanette Bourne: Page 6

Anthony Sturniolo: My comment under F utilities and what municipal water supplies availability. I remember during previous document that appeared that water consumption is going to be doubled the current hospital usage.

Chairman Cosentino: I had that circled too. I think that is what was said it would double.

Nanette Bourne: We have had the issue of municipal water supply availability is something that the board has wrestled with the DEIS and never really found a comfortable place for determining the capacity. I would strongly urge this section be explored with the village engineer, so it is clear what information the village has to comply with the applicant and what information the applicant is going to provide to what we already have.

Chairman Cosentino: Number 6 sanitary source number 2. I do not know how many veins they have. One comes down Moore Avenue ties into a trunk line on West Street and from West Street blows out behind Lexington Avenue and then down into the sewer plant. I believe that pipe at times overflows now. Some of the houses are backed and what the highway department told is that one of the hospital trunk lines is involved. That should be looked at whether that is a fact or not and if it has to be enlarged or not.

Nanette Bourne: Similar to the water supply section I will work with Mike.

Chairman Cosentino: The water supply section one line comes up into to Boltis Street and one line comes up on Rt. 172

Michael Stein: Then for the sewer you want to include existing condition to make sure of the piping conditions.

John Partenza: We are still trying to figure that out. Right now we are working on one main line that we believe is coming in that goes on and off and we are not sure.

Chairman Cosentino: Please check it out it could be important.

Nanette Bourne: Page 7. Water quality considering storm water management is where you are considering water quality.

Anthony Sturniolo: Question regarding the existing smokestack.

John Partenza: We've tried getting rid of that for years I think it is an issue of draft with the power plant. We haven't found an engineering way to remove it. Natural gas is used. We have the ability to burn oil for generators and emergency generators. We primarily burn gas. The last two engineering reports we received said the stacks have to remain. The visual we don't like and the hospital would like to get rid of it. We just have to find an engineering way around it.

Richard Rath: Phase one does include some expansion for additional equipment. It might require expanding the envelope. Or again equipment for the additional square footage being built in phases one including the medical office building on the second floor.

Anthony Sturniolo: The existing power plant may have to be modified in square footage.

Richard Rath: It may have to be modified in square footage. It definitely has to be modified in terms of equipment.

Anthony Sturniolo: Possibly modified in terms of square footage to accommodate the offices. Going back to oil verses gas if oil were not an issue and gas producing less hydrocarbons when burning verses oil. Could conceivably that stack be lowered? It is an unfair question.

John Patetenza: Right now we are burning gas 95% time rather than oil. We were unable to remove that. We were trying for a number of reasons to get that stack out of there. The way the buildings are the way the power plants are my understanding is that the tower has to be that high for drafting reasons.

Whitney Singleton: With regard to the traffic I think it is everyone's understanding that this is going to be significant issue with application. I would just be mindful of the value of this issue.

David Paget: Traffic engineers specified these intersections.

Whitney Singleton: I am just saying the before we go down a path and you didn't ask to do this intersection it should be looked at.

Nanette Bourne: This covers the way you would like it to be covered.

Stanley Bernstein: There are some omissions. The omission all the way along Rt. 133. A very important intersection.

Nanette Bourne: To have a proper discussion you really need to look at the map and that Rt. 133 may be covered by another intersection.

Stanley Bernstein: I don't see how but if you say so. It should be specific in the scoping document that would be studied. Various intersection western entries to the village right through to the intersection of Rt. 133and Moger Avenue. That whole section is not touched upon. It is quite a difficult area.

Nanette Bourne: We will look at that. If you look down on to the no build, when you have such an exhausted list of projects, Anthony is probably recommending not 2% but 1% for the first phase and second phase.

Anthony Sturniolo: You are talking page 9?

Nane