Planning Board Minutes - March 8, 2005

MINUTES

Regular Meeting of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday March 8, 2005

This meeting took place on March 26, 2005 due to cancellation because of inclement weather.

Meeting called to order at 10:15a.m. Saturday March 26, 2005 at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Joseph Cosentino

Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Doug Hertz

Members Absent: Ralph Vigliotti

Joseph Morreale

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Whitney Singleton

Chairman Cosentino began the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Cosentino: I would like to thank everyone for coming out this morning to the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2005. The first thing on the agenda is the minutes from February 8, 2005.

Stanley Bernstein: I make a motion that we accept the minutes of February 8, 2005.

Doug Hertz: There are some revisions. Page 25 line # 41. I believe the sentence should read concern with the safety of the space and that would be program. Program should replace plan. Line #44 Event is eventuality. On page 28 Line # 51 should read just add the words at the end after but not at. It should read why are we looking farther up and not at that. There is one more. Page 32 Line #47 after would show would show no impact.

Anthony Sturniolo: I have a correction on page 24 line #26 it should read 7,000 square feet not 70,000.

Chairman Cosentino: Do we have a motion?

Stanley Bernstein: I made the motion.

Anthony Sturniolo: Second.

Board all Ayes.

Chairman Cosentino: Under conceptual application we do not have any. The public hearing we will postpone until the next meeting. It is Crème De La Crème and there is no one here from Crème De La Crème. The formal new applications: August Pond 151 Sarles Street. Please identify yourself for the record.

a. August Pond - 151 Sarles Street

Steve Coleman consultant for the applicant

Steve Coleman: We submitted a formal application to you. Based on our conceptual meeting back in February we are here to see if there are any questions on the application. At the time you wanted to set up a site visit to look at the area.

Nanette Bourne: You need to initiate SEQR. When you finish your comment.

Chairman Cosentino: Does anyone have any questions?

Stanley Bernstein: A wetland of and acre?

Steve Coleman: It is a small intermittent area. It is approximately a half of an acre. .73 is the total size of the pond.

Stanley Bernstein: Another words the wetland will be a good part of the area.

Steve Coleman: What will be converted I can show you on the map.

Doug Hertz: On your area calculations it says area subject to wetland disturbance, is that what we are referring to?

Steve Coleman: It is .14. It is an intermittent channel that was carved into the pond area.

Stanley Bernstein: As to The berm, according to the dialog, the one hundred year storm won't reach the berm?

Steve Coleman: That is correct.

Stanley Bernstein: If there are a number of storms like we have been having you know that paradigm of the hundred year storm will go out the window, because in the last five years we have had three of them.

Steve Coleman: There is an emergency spillway, which would handle in the event.

Stanley Bernstein: Where does that water go, if it does reach?

Steve Coleman: What we have is a channel that will connect into the existing water cushion.

Stanley Bernstein: Where does it end up?

Steve Coleman: It ends up going down onto the adjoining property and dissipates.

Stanley Bernstein: How does it dissipate?

Steve Coleman: There is no mechanics it is just all gone and just spreads out. There is no real defined channel.

Stanley Bernstein: How do you feel about the wetland disturbance?

Steve Coleman: When I did the investigation and this particular water it is really an intermittent water course. It doesn't meet the criteria to be considered wetlands. There were no hydric soils. It is an interesting area; it is all different assorted rock. It looks like there is a perched water table and it is just accepting drainage from the hillside. There are no hydric soils or vegetation to speak off. They are looking at it to be an amenity to the estate property.

Doug Hertz: What is the ongoing to keep this pond in good shape? What ongoing maintenance or what systems would be put in to prevent it from becoming brackish?

Steve Coleman: With that type of pond and depending on the water source and the type of nutrients around the area, you can prolong it based on the natural characteristics. The one good thing we have here is this will be a wooded area so there will not be any nutrients from lawn areas or anything else going into it. So we have a chance to sustain it longer. We will be monitoring it on a regular basis and if we do get algae then we will look at a chemical treatment. From the get go what we are doing is putting aeration in and we are doing subsurface aeration and then we are doing a lot of wetland edge plantings which will help with the nutrients.

Chairman Cosentino: We need a SEQR determination.

Nanette Bourne: You need to declare your intent to be lead agency. We can circulate that. It does require a disturbance to natural resource it does require a public hearing, so we can initiate SEQR and if you want to schedule a public hearing it requires a fifteen day notice.

Chairman Cosentino: Why don't we do that all now.

Nanette Bourne: By motion you can declare your intent to be lead agency.

Chairman Cosentino: Do we have a motion to declare lead agency?

Stanley Bernstein: I make a motion to declare of this board (the intent) to be lead agency on this project.

Chairman Cosentino: We have a motion by Mr. Bernstein, do we have a second?

Doug Hertz: I will second.

Chairman Cosentino: Will the secretary poll the board?

On the Motion

Mr. Bernstein: Aye

Doug Hertz: Aye

Anthony Sturniolo: Aye

Chairman Cosentino: Aye

Board All Ayes

Anthony Sturniolo: On your short EAF form page two needs to be filled out.

Steve Coleman: The town or the village usually does that.

Nanette Bourne: It is the village's practice to fill it out or you can.

Steve Coleman: That is ok.

Anthony Sturniolo: The source of the water is going to be two wells that are privately owned on the property. I need to see some analysis and also an understanding of any potential impact. As you drain down from those wells to build the pond what impact that has on the well field at Leonard Park.

Steve Coleman: We retained LB Engineering and they did an engineering analysis, which was part of our report. The difficulty is we have a very small watershed. We need to supplement with the wells and the estimate is less than 5 gallons per minute. Which is less than a typical residence would use to supplement the pond. Their analysis indicated there would be no draw down, because it is such a small amount that would be used.

Anthony Sturniolo: The draw down however small it may be, is that the same aquifer that is tied into the well field in the park?

Steve Coleman: I do not believe so. I will have the engineer look at that and provide a report on that.

Anthony Sturniolo: The village has a well field behind second base on the little league field. My concern is that your two wells would draw down if this is the same aquifer feeding your wells as well as the park.

Steve Coleman: That I do not know the answer to, but I will have the engineer look at it.

Chairman Cosentino: We also have to set up site visit.

Steve Coleman: The other thing I want to point out is the August's (Current owners) switched to village water supply. Just recently this past summer the wells were taken off line. They use to be used to serve the residence. So the amount of water that will be used for the pond will be significantly less.

Anthony Sturniolo: They are on city water now?

Steve Coleman: They are on city water now. They just hooked up this past summer.

Chairman Cosentino: Didn't they have an old lead line coming up there?

Steve Coleman: They were fed by well and they just took it off line.

Chairman Cosentino: The old line that was there two years ago when the Chase went into operation. We went up there and we were told that they were being fed by an old lead line from Sarles Street up. As a matter of fact they wanted to tie into the tank and since then the question that I asked at the last meeting was what happened to that line and the answer was they now have a new copper line coming up. So you might want to check on that.

Steve Coleman: They had a well house and a pump that had an old lead pipe that was connecting from a private source.

Chairman Cosentino: Please check on that so we can get the record straight.

Anthony Sturniolo: So the swimming pool is also fed off of the village water as well.

Steve Coleman: It will be, yes.

Anthony Sturniolo: When we go up we need to look at that and we should also look at the issues of the screening, the storage tanks at Chase in the back part their property. It has been a couple of years since we have looked at it.

Chairman Cosentino: Why don't we set up a site visit for next Saturday April 2, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. to meet at the Municipal Building.

Stanley Bernstein: Nothing mandatory about this, but I would ask you to have the owner consider a conservation easement especially on property that adjoins to the Marsh Sanctuary. It might be to their benefit as well as ours.

Steve Coleman: I will do that.

Nanette Bourne: Would you like to schedule a public hearing for the SEQR? It requires a 15-day notice so the next Planning Board meeting is the 12^th and I don't know if you could get it in the paper by Wednesday?

Chairman Cosentino: If it can't then let us know. We will set the public hearing for the 12^th providing we can get it in the paper. Otherwise it will be made in the last meeting of April 26^th.

Anthony Sturniolo: Right now the area of the pond is it covered with snow?

Steve Coleman: There is still a little bit of snow. Hopefully by next Saturday most of it will be dissipated.

Chairman Cosentino: Ok then we will see you next Saturday.

b. Bet Torah - 60 Smith Avenue

Lee Wright architect for the applicant, Allen Westerman architect for the applicant.

Lee Wright: When the project was approved months ago and the project went out for bids the construction costs were higher than the budget and we had to make some engineering decisions to reduce the building and size and some internal modifications in order to meet the budget. So very simply we took off some area of the building. The first element was the second floor of the classroom building. It was indicated as an alternate in your approval initially. We would only build it if we had the funds to do it. The building is planned so it could be done in the future. Obviously the budget was over extended and we didn't have the funds so the second floor is not being considered and therefore the stair that marks the second means of egress from that classroom was eliminated.

Allen Westerman: Currently it extends to this portion here. This piece above on the second floor is the alternate.

Lee Wright: There is an addition on the first floor where we reduced the size of this enrichment room by cutting off this portion of it. Over in this area was proposed to be the Rabbi suite with an office for the Rabbi and Assistant Rabbi, the Cantor and his secretary. What we did was we illuminated this new addition left the building footprint the way it is. Put he Rabbi's office in there and are located the other offices internally.

Chairman Cosentino: That is going to be open spaces?

Lee Wright: This will go back to being as it is now open space pervious material. This is the same as the pervious material as with this. We made some internal modifications. This is going to be exactly the way it looks now.

Chairman Cosentino: Your ARB approval was with the addition?

Lee Wright: That was one of our questions whether we should return to the ARB.

Chairman Cosentino: I think that the ARB did give you an approval with the addition. I think you should go back to them and let them know what you are doing. You are changing what you originally proposed.

Lee Wright: We expected that we should do that. We wanted to come here first. We modified the roof of the sanctuary some. We lowered it. The exterior appearances virtually the same. We did eliminate a window in the library that I know is an issue with the ARB. We will certainly go back to them.

Chairman Cosentino: You need to go back to them.

Doug Hertz: There was an issue in what direction they wanted it, or was it controversial?

Allen Westerman: There was a window in the middle.

Lee Wright: Right now there is no window.

Allen Westerman: Currently there is no window. The existing sanctuary is being turned into a library. We tried to offer some additional lighting to that space. As a result of meeting the budget the pieces of the existing sanctuary the arc in particular is going to remain there. In the arch there is some 15 feet taller and would block the entire window not allow any light into the space. Between that and the cost structurally to open up an existing wall and put a window in we took the window out.

Chairman Cosentino: You need to address the ARB.

Lee Wright: I think the issue was the size of the window, so my guess is that when it goes back to the way it was they will be ok with it. All in all we are reducing the footprint by 770 square feet. The parking, driveways, landscaping and the site lighting, screen planting all are exactly as you approved originally with the exception that we've got a little more pervious material than we did with the addition.

Doug Hertz: I have two questions. We are being asked for a modification for this site plan and it is a lesser scale. I wasn't involved when this was put together and I know the lighting suggests, the lighting plan that you have been working on Tony is fairly new. Do we know whether or not the lighting plan is approved in this complies with your suggestions that you have been working on?

Nanette Bourne: You made numerous changes so that you complied with the existing lighting requirements. I don't believe any of the changes that are being contemplated would affect this at all.

Whitney Singleton: You are looking at the entire site.

Doug Hertz: We are looking at the entire site.

Whitney Singleton: All of the modifications are slight.

Doug Hertz: I understand and I am not trying in anyway create a hardship for this project. I guess the question is based on the new proposal that we are going to be talking about I believe at the end of the meeting. Do we want to look at something like lighting? This is a very sensitive site with site lighting because it abuts a residential area. Certainly the parking area does. It is visible from two through main streets. Moore Avenue and Smith Avenue. I don't want to hold up the applicant but I would love to get a better take on how that lighting plan relates to the new proposal.

Nanette Bourne: I think that is very easy to do and I don't think it is going to hold this back. I think they can move forward and they can go to the ARB the next time they are scheduled. We can bring in their lighting plan. This would require a modification to the one that was approved. We will re-look at it and the proposed changes. Although I do not believe that those changes would affect it at all. In this case you might want to make some fine-tuning; you could do that.

Lee Wright: if my memory serves me our lighting we had many conversations with you and some of the suggestions I think in your new proposal were mixed in with that.

Nanette Bourne: Actually we made them comply with the requirements that we knew we were going to be working on.

Doug Hertz: Good.

Stanley Bernstein: What was the final decision on the fence on Moore. There was a lot of controversy on that fence. How is it being resolved?

Lee Wright: We brought a gate back to you and it was approved.

Allen Westerman: The final request was tiers at the end and metal gate.

Stanley Bernstein: The name is on it?

Allen Westerman: That was eliminated.

Stanley Bernstein: The wall was brick?

Allen Westerman: The tiers are going to be stone, but the low wall that was previously adjacent to the tiers was requested to be removed by the board and to add plantings.

Chairman Cosentino: You need to get on the ARB agenda.

Tony Chiappinelli representing the applicant

Chairman Cosentino: There are two letters here from Mr. Chiappinelli. We also have a letter or two from the building inspector.

Tony Chiappinelli: At the last meeting the board asked that we submit a long form Environmental Impact Study, which we have done. In addition the board requested additional photometry information on the existing lighting. Site lighting, which is not being changed and had been compliant almost five years ago. We have gone back to the lighting manufacturer and have re-submitted based upon the current footprint the photometry's analysis, which we submitted to Nanette Bourne. The other issue was I believe Mr. Sturniolo asked about the traffic impact. Our February 8^th letter to Ms. Bourne outlined and confirmed the facts that this is a very minimal traffic generator this current use. We revisited the original traffic counts and have done an additional traffic count to confirm that this will not have a negative impact relative to the requirements of the environmental impact form. The trip generation to and from the project is very low in comparison to other retail uses. We had submitted previously the actual counts based upon Sleepy's records.

Anthony Sturniolo: Nanette do we need to take those traffics analysis and verify it with Anthony?

Nanette Bourne: I will have him look at it. It is true in terms of volume it is really very small traffic generated and I suspect that when Anthony looks at the volume count he will come to the same conclusion. It is more of an issue of circulation in and out onto that main road.

Chairman Cosentino: I think something was brought up correct me if I am wrong with Mr. Chiappinelli who agreed with this and under the square footage of the building even though it is a long term lease. If Sleepy's should move out there would be some kind of a problem with parking. Am I correct?

Whitney Singleton: Under the current zoning the project is compliant. In the event that in the future Sleepy's vacates then the owner would have to come back to this board if the lease changed from the current use which is compliant with the bulk sales of household goods. That is what the current zoning is for that site.

Nanette Bourne: What would have to happen is if there is changes of use that required more parking and generated more traffic then the new tenants have to come back to the Planning Board. That is already in the code that can be restated.

Chairman Cosentino: I would like to have that restated.

Whitney Singleton: The problem that exists with that is exactly the problem that exists with Datahr. You are going to be put in a position where no matter what proposed use there is for the site if it is not warehousing or bulk sales of household items there is no way they are going to be able to comply. I just want to make sure you understand that.

Chairman Cosentino: So that is automatic?

Whitney Singleton: I just want to make clear to the applicant of what they are proposing. It is an extension to the building an enlargement of the building and that I want it clear on the record that they are doing this of full knowledge of this.

Anthony Chiappinelli: The owner is very aware of the law as it relates to this site. Which was changed and any future ramifications are crystal ball at this point. If they have a 25-year lease sure they may go broke next month and none of us could control that.

Chairman Cosentino: You are aware of that?

Anthony Chiappinelli: Yes we are.

Anthony Sturniolo: Also I think he brought the analogy about bulk sale of household items mattresses; and what would happen if the analogy was turned into a small version of Best Buy or an electronics location that sold household items. In addition to traffic and the parking requirement would obviously be severely impacted as opposed to selling mattresses. It goes to the point that Whitney brought up it is nice to say yes to this and then a new applicant comes in down the road and starts to open the whole pleadings of hardship. You know you are going to make me rip out part of the store put parking spaces back in that whole kind of thing that we are potentially postponing the inevitable. I would like to have a little more farsightedness what could happen down the road in the future. I having said that if you look on the EAF it talks about 31 parking spaces reduced to 21. Also on page 10 where it talks about impact of transportation it is checked off no as minor to moderate impact and I think it is something that would be greater than that. I am not 100% comfortable as we go through this process that this is the right direction to go to reduce the amount of parking spaces on that building when regardless of the long term lease that Sleepy's may have with the property owner. That if something else comes in without any change of use required but selling something differently that it may have a far greater parking impact than we are currently in. Then we are going top through the whole hardship proceeding. That was the point that this board raised on August 24^th when this came to us initially as a conceptual application.

Chairman Cosentino: As many years as I have been on this board very few if any at all where reduced parking was granted on a site.

Anthony Chiappinelli: I sympathize with the board's points. However we have to go by the zoning that is applicable to this site today. I don't know who generates the zoning changes but the zoning was changed somewhere between five years ago and today to bulk sales from a previously higher use. So theoretically the uses of the building if you take the real-estate use you have limited the uses to bulk sales from retail use similar to that which surrounds the site. Previously this owner could have rented Sleepy's space to a retailer. Then maintained the 31 parking spaces however the tenant who has a 25 year lease from this point forward is asking for the additional space to be put onto the building and we are compliant with the parking requirements as applied to the site today. In the future none of us have a crystal ball. Hopefully Sleepy's will be around for 25 more years. I think the facts are the project is compliant today. I can appreciate the concerns about the what if's scenarios. I think today the tenant needs the additional space to conduct its business and the project is compliant.

Chairman Cosentino: Can you give me a definition in the code of bulk?

Whitney Singleton: Bulk household items?

Chairman Cosentino: Yes.

Nanette Bourne: While Whitney is looking at that I have two questions. One the landscaping that you are showing is that existing landscaping or what you are proposing?

Anthony Chiappinelli: No it is existing landscaping.

Nanette Bourne: So this is an opportunity to reevaluate the landscaping so that it can made to look a little more attractive. This should be the time to do it.

Anthony Chiappinelli: The owner has just recently re-landscaped it to replace the plantings that were previously there. Actually some were dug up and moved and some have perished in the environment. It is close to the road and it gets a lot of salt. It constantly has to have replacement of plants that cannot survive the salt from the highway.

Nanette Bourne: This is the board's opportunity to ask for any enhancements that you might want. On the lighting have you submitted a lighting plan?

Anthony Chiappinelli: When the issue first came up we re-submitted the parabolic to the board and to you. Then I believe it was Mr. Sturniolo asked for the actual lighting on the plan as opposed to the individual lighting fixtures. There are only 2 site lights. So we went back to the original lighting manufacture and had then prepared the photometries. I sent that to you on February 2^nd.

Nanette Bourne: I apologize it has been a long time.

Anthony Chiappinelli: I know it has because we missed a meeting as well.

Nanette Bourne: So the information that you submitted with your existing lighting demonstrated that it was compliant? We need to take a look at that. You are not proposing any changes?

Anthony Chiappinelli: No additional lighting and no change to the wattage on the current lighting. It works just fine and works for the current use and it is compliant.

Chairman Cosentino: So what we are asking for is a landscaping plan.

Anthony Chiappinelli: We have already submitted that.

Nanette Bourne: This is the landscaping plan that he is submitting. This is an opportunity for you to see if it meets your satisfaction by driving by. If you want any changes, if you want it to be enhanced then that would be a comment that you should make at this point.

Anthony Chiappinelli; I think Mr. Parker he is not here today, but he was out to the site after we had replanted this past fall. When we were here in September is when we were replanting at that time and then the board asked for an updated plan as to where the location of the plants was.

Doug Hertz: Just looking at the photometry's that are provided they don't comply with the new suggested proposal.

Anthony Sturniolo: The average to minimum ratio is 10 to 1 that you are proposing. Doug what we are looking at is 4 to 1.

Doug Hertz: You are looking at 4 to 1 and also the maximum illumination is higher than the proposed. If doesn't comply with either of the new suggested proposal.

Anthony Sturniolo: Either current or future.

Doug Hertz: These are your photometries?

Anthony Chiapinelli: Yes. These were changed by the lighting manufacture of the lighting fixtures.

Nanette Bourne: I am sure they are accurate. It is just more than what the code permits.

Anthony Chiappinelli: Is there a new code that we don't have?

Anthony Sturniolo: It is the current code.

Anthony Chiapinelli: We thought they were compliant to the code.

Anthony Sturniolo: We also talked about the width of the parking stalls.

Everything is 9 - 6 x18 - 6?

Anthony Chiappinelli: That was changed.

Nanette Bourne: The aisle width is increased?

Anthony Chiappinelli: Yes.

Anthony Sturniolo: Where did that increase in the aisle width come from?

(Tape 1 Side 2)

Anthony Chiappinelli: The original aisle width was the width of the actual easement between the properties to the south, which is the John's Best property. That was imposed. When this project was initially brought before the Planning Board they asked that we have traffic flow through the property to the south. Similar to what the board did with the CVS and Staples giving the folks that come there an opportunity to exit through. Also in configuring in what had been an addition to the restaurant some years ago there was an issue of overflow parking during peak hours at the restaurant. The board asked the property to the south and this property to have the ability to traffic over each other for the beneficial use basically of the then proposed restaurant site. At night the store Sleepy's is closed and the ability of the restaurant to actually park in these spaces.

Anthony Sturniolo: If the aisle width is 24 feet how did you achieve that?

At what sacrifice?

Anthony Chiappinelli: We shifted the striping.

Anthony Sturniolo: Without changing the dimensions of the parking spaces?

Anthony Chiappinelli: We increased the curb at the western boundary, which abuts the Grand Union property. It is the fixed property line. The parking was the parking requirements with respect to the distances, which was just shifted. It has to be re-striped.

Anthony Sturniolo: Are you saying before that parking spaces were greater than 18 x 6 in length?

Anthony Chiappinelli: No.

Anthony Sturniolo: Unnecessarily so?

Anthony Chiappinelli: They may have been I do not know exactly. The aisle width was increased to 24 feet at the board's request. It had been 22, which was the width of east.

Doug Hertz: Are all these spaces compliant with current code?

Anthony Chiappinelli: No they have not been re-striped.

Doug Hertz: By your proposal?

Anthony Chiappinelli: Yes sir.

Chairman Cosentino: I get 9 - 6 here.

Anthony Chiappinelli: They were 9 feet before.

Doug Hertz: What is our code requirement?

Chairman Cosentino: So all these parking spaces are going to be 18 - 6?

Anthony Chiappinelli: They are going to be 18ft 6 in x by 9ft 6 in.