Planning Board Minutes - August 9, 2005

Minutes

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Regular Session

Tuesday August 9, 2005

Meeting called to order at 7:50p.m. In the Board Room at the Municipal Building, Mount Kisco, New York

Members Present: Joseph Cosentino, Chairman

Anthony Sturniolo, Vice Chairman

Stanley Bernstein, Secretary

Douglas Hertz

Joseph Morreale

Ralph Vigliotti

Members Absent: Sol Gibbons

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne AKRF

Whitney Singleton, Board Attorney

Michael Stein, Engineer

Austin Cassidy, Building Inspector

Lester Steinman, Board Attorney

(333 N. Bedford Road Project)

Jill Slankas, Fredrick P. Clark Planners

(333 N. Bedford Road Project)

Chairman Cosentino began the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Cosentino: Do we have a motion to accept the minutes from June 28, 2005?

Stanley Bernstein: Motion to approve the minutes from June 28, 2005.

Doug Hertz: Second

Board Voted All Ayes, minutes from June 28, 2005 approved.

Formal Applications:

Chairman Cosentino: We have before us this evening a formal application 333 North Bedford Road. This application is the former Grand union Distribution Center.

Michael Gallin: It has been a while since we have been in front of you so I thought it would make sense is to give you briefly the evolution that has occurred from the Conceptual application to the application to date. We have a few technical things that we would like to walk through with you and some of the more difficult processes from here on out. The original conceptual application was to sub divide the existing building on the property for mobile tank use. The current application is following along those same lines. We have gone ahead and supplemented the application with a variety of things to make the application more pleasantly received by the town. We have done that in conjunction with many meetings with the Mayor and with several members of the Planning Board and also with your Planning Board Consultant. Trying to gather input into what would be desirable in the town in relation to the application. We can walk you through what we are currently showing on the application. The site plan here is amended to show 15 tenants which are the maximum that we would propose to occupy the main building on the site. The site plan has been modified from the conceptual site plan to show a series of landscape islands distributed through out the site. The landscape would be with a variety of trees. I can walk you through some of that. We are also proposing as part of this application the building of a baseball field or a little league field at the southern portion of the site. That would be rented by the town or used by the town.

Chairman Cosentino: You used the word rented?

Michael Gallin: Yes rented at no cost.

Neil Alexander: The agreement would be rented at no cost.

Anthony Sturniolo: You would not dedicate the property to the village?

Neil Alexander: That is correct.

Michael Gallin: It would be continued to be owned by Diamond Properties.

Chairman Cosentino: Their deeded right?

Michael Gallin: That is correct.

Chairman Cosentino: Not by a deeded right, am I correct in saying that?

Neil Alexander: It would be a long term lease agreement.

Michael Gallin: In addition to the baseball field the Mayor has requested interest in some space within the building for the storage of municipal; specifically he was referring to the Library. Which I understand is going to go under renovations and they are looking for space to store books during their renovation period. For the long term it could be used to store for any municipal use. As long as it is within the code limitations of the building. It couldn't be hazardous. That would not be appropriate.

Neil Alexander: It would have to comply with the New York State Building code.

Michael Gallin: There would have to be a lease agreement at no cost to the town. In addition to the landscaping improvements and the ball field and the municipal storage space that we discussed. We are proposing eliminating the majority of the lighting fixtures. Currently there are flood lights on the site up on the water tower that are 100 feet high, on the face of the building on a series of poles around the perimeter, that are projecting horizontally. This could present a problem to surrounding properties. We are proposing eliminating all of those flood lamps and replacing it with down lights poles which would emit the photo metrics to that effect. The concept there is to keep minimal levels of light across the property while maintaining code compliance. On the north side of the site we are proposing a new landscape island. Lined with a series of flowering pear trees. In addition locust trees primarily and some maples throughout the landscape islands on the property. Shrubbery perennial beds at the main entrance to the property. One of the major improvements on Ice House Road we are proposing re-curbing the entire street, re-paving the entire street. Currently there is paving along the perimeter of the street that has cars that are in disrepair. We want to eliminate the parking of all those cars that are in disrepair and replace it with landscape beds and this area with evergreens to provide some screening from the properties behind it. This would be perennial flowering beds. One of the main things that we are also proposing as part of the application is the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Ice House Road with Route 117. That traffic light would be an off set traffic light so it would also control the traffic from people exiting and entering from Brookside development on the east side of Route 117. That would be the primary entrance and exit points to the site. In addition it would allow right turn in right turn out only from the northern entrance. Which would eliminate traffic concerns in relation to left turns out at this point and left turns in considering that there is no control at that location of the intersection?

Chairman Cosentino: How wide is Ice House Road, do you know?

Michael Gallin: As completed 28 feet.

Chairman Cosentino: Is that going to satisfy trailer trucks coming up and down?

Michael Gallin: Yes. It will be two way traffic.

Chairman Cosentino: Michael (Stein), will you check into that?

Michael Stein: Yes.

Michael Gallin: We submitted as part of this application a traffic report.

Chairman Cosentino: When I say trailer trucks one going in and meeting the other coming out.

Michael Gallin: Yes. We submitted a traffic report as part of this application and received comments back and have gone ahead and set up a meeting and unfortunately that meeting could not occur prior to this meeting. That brought this in terms of dealing with your consultants on that. It is currently in progress. We actually have come to a better resolution with the consultants prior without spending too much effort of your board's time focusing on traffic. As part of this application we spoke about it briefly the last time we meet several months ago. There is currently an existing flooding problem in this location on the property. The flooding property is a result of mitigation that was done to extreme over here after hurricane Floyd several years ago. It was done by the town or by a town's consultant. We have proposed as part of this application an effort to mediate the flooding problem. Peter Catizone is here and can briefly talk to you about the technical issues with relation to that.

Peter Catizone: I just noted simply the northern portion of the site drain is collected by the storm system and drains to this tributary parallel to the the railroad tracks. The southern portion of the site is collecting by a storm system which formerly drained to a small tributary along the southern property line. Do to the emergency repairs resulting from hurricane Floyd this pipe was obstructed. What we are simply providing here is a pipe which has been designed not exceeds the capacity of the existing pipe which will discharge at a point at the southwest corner of the property where the elevation of the stream is much lower and can accommodate the flow from that. From that discharge point.

Anthony Sturniolo: How will that impact the village of Mount Kisco? When your theoretical discharges in that corner?

Peter Catizone: It is no different than the previous conditions. The flow which was normally discharging in this tributary would ultimately flowing to this junction here and then flowing to the south. Basically we are not increasing the flow we are just changing the location of the discharge point. The flow exit in the site will be equivalent or slightly less than the flow under the unobstructed condition.

Anthony Sturniolo: So the additional water that is currently flooded in the parking lot is now being encapsulated and discharged into that corner of the site location. So if the Village of Mount Kisco has a flooding problem tonight (pretend) you also have a flooding problem on that site? Right?

Peter Catizone: That would be correct.

Anthony Sturniolo: Therefore if you discharge to the far corner are you not going to already exacerbate the existing flooding problem that would happen down stream? Where is the water going to go?

Peter Catizone: The water goes down stream to the south. Again the flow that is going to be generated that is going to be going through those pipes is less than the flow that would be going through the pipe before the hurricane Floyd repairs. In essence we are not increasing the off site flow we are just simply trying to get this back to a predevelopment condition. Pre-repair condition.

Anthony Sturniolo: We are already dealing with an on going flooding history in this village down stream. You are now going to take how many gallons of water that sits in that parking lot and add it to our down stream flooding condition.

Peter Catizone: Yes you are. Let me just clarify that. Maybe this will help out a little bit. The capacity of this pipe because the slope is so flat. It is only about 20 cubic feet per second. This is enough to convey the two year storm event. So any larger storms where you are having flooding problems downstream will still cause ponding in this parking lot. I don't think we are really adding to the storm event that the board may be concerned about. The focus is to discharge the water for the equivalent storm of the existing condition. Again we were restricted to the two year storm event. Any larger storm a flash flood in the summer they are going to have flooding in the parking lot.

Chairman Cosentino: What size pipe?

Peter Catizone: It is a 24 inch pipe.

Chairman Cosentino: What size was there before?

Peter Catizone: The size that was there before was a 30 inch.

Stanley Bernstein: I think you reversed it.

Peter Catizone: It is a 30 and a 30. They are both 30.

Stanley Bernstein: The original was a 24.

Peter Catizone: No the original was 30. If I may show you on the plan?

Stanley Bernstein: I don't care what it says on the plan I am sure it was a 24. It was below the grade.

Anthony Sturniolo: I thought it was 24.

Stanley Bernstein: In the narrative it explains that you are replacing a 24 with a 30. The original 24 carried 16.27 per second. The new carries about 15.2.

Peter Catizone: The pipe exiting the manhole closest to the garage is 24 inch. There is another manhole which is at the edge of the parking lot just off of the edge. That manhole also takes in water and at that point where the pipe is increased to 30 inch. None the less we are comparing the new proposed pipe that has much less slope that the previous pipe.

Anthony Sturniolo: Do you agree with the statement that you should really be prepared for the 25 year flood as far as the outlet of the pipe goes?

Peter Catizone: Do I agree with the statement?

Anthony Sturniolo: We are concerned about the 25 year storm.

Peter Catizone: Obviously from an owner standpoint the higher the design storm the less potential for flooding you have. However the flooding on this particular sight is restricted to this area here. It would be a different question if the flooding actually caused five feet of water throughout the entire parking lot, or caused a dangerous situation. You really just have localized flooding in one area.

Anthony Sturniolo: Does the flooding ever occur in the area where the applicant had been storing the illegally Acura cars on this sight?

Peter Catizone: I am not sure where the Acura cars were.

Anthony Sturniolo: Continue on.

Austin Cassidy: One of the concerns I think the board is trying to convey, is that to correct drainage and representing that it has not increased the flow, the off sight flow from previous conditions. Focusing on previously we had frequency of downtown flooding in our stores in major storms. For whatever reason the system is not working right now is that the water force behind this leaving its banks reassures that flooding has been diminished. So by restoring the drainage system to drain the pipe in a time frame that would be acceptable, add that water to the water force behind raising the water level up to increase the storing and frequency of down stream flooding. I think the board is trying to say to you that restoring to what it was is not presumed to be a good thing. They are saying they would like to find out what the impacts would be to restoring it to what it was downstream. For instance we had a rain event last February in which not a hurricane, but was substantial. The water course in the rear left its banks and flooded Shoppers Park and it started to reach the curb line on the distant side of the parking area. The next step would have been the doors of the stores. Had not water been held back up on that site for lack of rapid drainage certainly the water level down here would have jumped that curbing and affected the stores? So by getting this problem fixed we would like to know what the down stream impact would be.

Peter Catizone: We did not analyze the entire village water shed at the point where the downtown flooding occurs. The fact that this pipe is designed for a 2 year storm will sort of act as detention so it doesn't hold water back. In other words if you have a large rain fall event the peak flow at the downtown area will occur much sooner than the peak flow from this pipe. That is because we are not providing a 48 inch pipe here at 2% slope. We are providing a 30 inch pipe that is laid very flat, that just barely carries the 2 year storm event. In essence you are holding that water back and you are off setting the peak hydro mass from the downtown area to this discharge point.

Austin Cassidy: Based on physical description of the pipe that you are describing with a very low pitch. It would be subject to siltation finding its way to the drainage system. That would become problematic as well.

Peter Catizone: That is correct. That is a maintenance issue. Because the site is so flat there is a sewer which runs along the stream that is at a very flat grade. That is at ½%. That needs to be maintained. All the pipes on the site are relatively flat. Those need to be maintained. We design them and it is up to the owner to maintain them which I am sure they will do. As a matter of fact we met with the Village Engineer; Michael Stein had the same concern. The applicant had agreed to once this drainage pipe is installed to actually perform an inspection of the existing drainage system. Making sure it is not putting out any silt and making any necessary repairs that may be required.

Austin Cassidy: I made a note on something you said earlier. I was visualizing Ice House Road and I can't recall if there is a catch basin at the very crown of Ice House Road. Traveling south towards Ice House Road it is coming down N. Bedford Road towards the village and with Ice House Road there it will pitch off and go down Ice House Road, contributing to water to finding its way to this site. I am not saying curbing Ice House it is a bad thing; it will just further channel water into this site. When the question came up about trucks and the exiting for a trucks on Ice House Road, the last 25 feet is a very uplifting grade and tractor trailers that take off from that landing start it is difficult on a slippery surface in the winter time. Are there thoughts of changing any parts of the grading on Ice House Road? These are linked together because if you are going to change the grade of Ice House Road that could go to your drainage issues.

Michael Gallin: We may not be able to grade to divert the water.

Austin Cassidy: What may be needed is advance is something on Ice House Road that may not add to the quantity of water finding its way to the site.

Michael Gallin: That has been an existing condition contributing to the parking lot. The water is being collected from Ice House Road by the drainage system. Today there hasn't been a problem with excessive build up of water along Ice House Road. The problem is the lower portion. The grade at either side of Ice House Road is currently higher than the road itself. I don't think the curbing is going to contribute to more water being funneled down.

Austin Cassidy: Not more just channeling more directly to find its way to the locations.

Michael Gallin: Again the grade at the edge of Ice House Road although not curbed, but towards Ice House Road. In essence any it is already channeling the water down Ice House Road. It might be a slight impact by pursuing a non permeable curb there as opposed a rough edge curbing. In essence all that water is being channeled down currently.

Chairman Cosentino: The curb is there right now correct?

Michael Gallin: We are actually reducing the amount of the curbing.

Chairman Cosentino: So you are going to get more water.

Michael Gallin: You won't get more water going down Ice House Road. If anything we are reducing the amount of impervious surface because we are building all those landscape beds along the edges where they currently park cars.

Chairman Cosentino: You are talking about the road itself?

Michael Gallin: The road itself is paved now and it won't be paved when it is done.

Peter Catizone: Right now it is paved to just about the limit of 30-50 feet. Most of that is paved so the additional landscape will actually slightly reduce the amount of pavement on that road.

Michael Gallin: It will slightly reduce by reducing the amount of impervious surface. The drainage completion along that road has historically not been problematic as far as we understand. The system on the site other than the fact the outlet point is clogged is capable of handling that drainage.

Austin Cassidy: Is this going back to whether or not a interceptor of between Ice House and North Bedford Road reduce the amount of water finding its way to this site or channeled down stream to the village?

Michael Gallin: Intercepting it and diverting to where?

Austin Cassidy: Putting it into the system.

Michael Gallin: So you are proposing putting it into the municipal system on North Bedford Road as opposed to bringing it to the property? I think we would only be able to do that at the very top.

Austin Cassidy: You have quite a funnel there from N. Bedford Road. It is only an observation I have. I have no idea how much of your water is coming down from N. Bedford Road.

Peter Catizone: There are a series of inlets along this curb line. Unfortunately they are not all shown on the plan.

Michael Gallin: This is a photograph looking north at the intersection of Ice House Road and N. Bedford Road. We are already picking up the water here in this area.

Joseph Morreale: Does anybody know if the ball field floods?

Michael Gallin: The elevation of the actual field is higher than the flooding point. The lower point of the property is in this area. It is significant enough that we never have gotten any flooding along there.

Anthony Sturniolo: Approximately how many gallons are flooding in the parking lot?

Peter Catizone: I am not sure. I could get you that number. I would have to figure where the area is and how deep it is.

Michael Gallin: It would depend on the event.

Anthony Sturniolo: Is there a way to devise a detention system, detention basins, and underground galleys?

Peter Catizone: The issue with that is unfortunately our client is at the bottom of the water shed. Those of us that live on top of the hill are a little bit more fortunate. The problem with underground storage is that the ground water elevation is relatively high. By the time you put in a series of 60 inch diameter pipes with 2 feet of cover on them. Those pipes essentially filled with water at all times. You are really not getting the impact that you would expect from under ground detention.

Anthony Sturniolo: What about the impact that you would hope to get that was conveyed to a portion of the building at the southern corner of the property. Say a piece of the building was chopped off and that is at the higher elevation and that is where the water storage area would be.

Peter Catizone: We would have to look at that.

Michael Gallin: This would be the lowest point of the property. We have to dig down to get this lower than this. If you went seven or 8 feet down you would hit the water table. There would be a 5 foot pipe plus 2 feet of covering and then year at the water table.

Peter Catizone: We spoke about the water quality in Mount Kisco.

Peter Gallin: One of the things that we provided in terms of water quality is basically a plunge pool. This is a slight depression. We're trying to slow down reduce the velocity of this discharge as much as we can and filter it off some kind of water quality measure. So what we have done is provided a plunge pool. Which is basically a small depression and the discharge from the pipe would fill that depression and overflow and eventually and find its way out. I think that holds our proximately 1000 gallons of water.

Michael Gallin: We and have revised this a few times in response to the requests.

Anthony Sturniolo: This is the first time we are seeing this and hearing and have a concerned about water and the flooding. It makes the question to me that you knew the situation when you bought the property and now all here it is August 9 that we are discussing for the first time in a serious conversation the flooding issue. When prior to tonight there wasn't any discussion on your side of the table in addressing the water concerns in the technical matter that we are having this free-for-all conversation.

Neil Alexander: We did write you a letter talking about the emergency problems we have with the storms.

Chairman Cosentino: It wasn't addressed here in this room.

Neil Alexander: I pretty sure you were CC on it.

Chairman Cosentino: I worry about what is addressed here in. That was not addressed here. Let's drop that it was not addressed here.

Michael Gallin: I am not saying you do not have the right to ask this question. Of course you do. What I was trying to say in the fact that we've done a fair amount of work between what we last spoke and now. We have been thinking about the storm valve and what you're asking. That was what resulted in a reduction of the size of the pipe. The two-year storm level and accepting the consequences that we were going to end out with some flooding pooling on the property. In addition we have gone and done what we think to be appropriate in our litigation. We have been working on this and communication with a variety of members of the village for some time. I understand this has been our first opportunity for a variety of reasons. This has been our first opportunity to be in front of you. I think we did mention in the conceptual.

Anthony Sturniolo: When you use the term emergency conditions. Emergency I hear the fire whistles and the bells and the horses galloping and spotted dogs running. Those of us that live in Mount Kisco have known about this for a long long time and obviously you did. When you had seen the property when the property was purchased. Now an emergency is brought into place. When the word emergency was dramatically emphasized as I am sure Mr. Alexander is now going to underscore for us.

Neil Alexander: Obviously this is not an emergency we are not losing sleep at night. Whether or not the parking lot is flooded.

Anthony Sturniolo: when I read a document that talks about drowning skateboards and West Nile disease is somebody paving the way with paperwork in the event this happens the planning board has been reminded of.

Neil Alexander: I think there is another issue that we haven't talked about. I think to us it is an emergency when others think it is not. Other people are going to raise the building we want to reuse the building. Right now we are flooding and it is massive flooding. A lot of these issues that you're talking about and in that letter we have structural concerns. We cannot even secure the building. That is where it comes in to us as a huge emergency. That gives you a sense of where we are coming from. If you want Michael to explain the structural he can

Austin Cassidy: I think rather than trying to reinvent the wheel tonight it would be for the board to know any potential downstream impact of getting the drainage system online. Perhaps in a matter that is proposed. Any downstream mitigation might alleviate those impacts to save downtown Mount Kisco. So that the board can properly make conscious decisions going into the emergency that they would like to address.

Neil Alexander: Maybe if you could ask Michael Stein to comment that might help.

Michael Stein: As far as the drainage. One of the main things that we had asked for is at least some water quality is put in. As far as the grade of the discharge from that point it was at least keeping the same as the other pipe was. The existing pipe prior to any work that may have been done downstream or any other sediment built up. As far as the wetlands disturbance they have been minimized as much as possible and I think that is what we're looking at especially in the wetlands area. To make sure that there is as little disturbance as possible. As far as the existing piping that was definitely another concern. Austin had brought up such a shallow pipe slope that we are going to have sediment built on in there. At least we'll get an idea of the rest of the piping on the project and what it looks like and completely unclogged as Austin pointed out before that could unleash a full flow into the system. It could be opening up more than what was expected.

Anthony Sturniolo: And that is also a concern with DEP would have as far as filtration downstream.

Peter Catizone: If this were a redevelopment site and we were stripping everything off of here and bringing in fill and building a new building. A new development we would be obligated under DEC guidelines to evaluate the storm water exiting on the site. We would be required to have resulting the flow which is less than or equal to the predevelopment flow. The unobstructed flow, pre-and developing of this site. Essentially that is what we are giving you. So as far as analyzing other potential impacts we are meeting the guidelines of not exceeding the flows that have already been established for the site over the years. We are already meeting that and I just am not clear on why we are being asked to evaluate an off-site area when we are not increasing the flow.

Michael Gallin: We are actually proposing a significant olive removal of impervious surface with significant landscape which will have a real impact on this flow.

Austin Cassidy: Not too far away from the site there was a retail center that generated X amount of traffic. That retail center for all intents purposes was torn down to bring back retail to the site they still had to reanalyze traffic impact. Even though we are putting back the same traffic. There is a presumption putting back what it was is okay. The fact is it is not OK. So if you're putting back what was it may continue to flood and we need to know that.

Peter Catizone: Unfortunately we are at the bottom of the watershed. But right now as far as the southern portion of the site goes we have zero discharge. Our client or the applicant has the right to drain this storm water somewhere. We are meeting the state accepted guidelines or the state accepted standards of reducing the storm water to below the existing conditions. We are meeting the guidelines and I don't understand why we are being asked to provide more.

Lester Steinman: Because everyone on both sides of the table has agreed that there will be a solution to the property to the impact downstream. Or well went within their purview of the SEQR and the wetlands and analyze the impact of downstream.

Neil Alexander: I think there are two separate issues. We have two issues which is the building and are being completely undermined. As far as the overall project and analyzing the overall project could have a downstream impact. I think we are willing to understand and study that as the project unfolds. We are begging you for your help which is an emergency to on the site right now. As far as the flooding we cannot even secure our building. We have high standing water and we are pumping for days on end after any kind decent storm event. We have a pumping system in there. You saw in the letters. It is a three inch pumping system and we are talking about a 30 inch outlet. Eventually we are pumping for days. If it is a two day event it becomes nonstop pumping issue. We cannot even secure the buildings, on the front and we need some help. Basically we are desperate. The big issue is understanding how with the ball field in operation and landscaping that we are proposing in the overall project coming back online and whether that will have any impact downstream. I think to a certain extent downstream but we will take a look at that.

Chairman Cosentino: I think from what I understand you saying you have a 3 inch pipe pumping out water.

Neil Alexander: This has been a standing condition ever since the work was done as a result of the storm water system not working.

Peter Catizone: I know the previous owners they had the same system in place.

Chairman Cosentino: I'm going way back and they did not have a pumping system.

Neil Alexander: They had a discharge point at the time.

Chairman Cosentino: You're telling me now a tremendous amount of water. You're telling me that a 30 inch pipe is going to be handling a lot of water. You have a 3 inch pipe now pumping steady that is a lot of water.

Neil Alexander: I think also the other point is what I am understanding in the system if you have a two-year storm event the amount of water that comes and the system is what we are proposing our system to handle, to feed it out at a reasonable rate that the consultants have confidence it would work. If you have a five-year 10-year or 20 year no more water is coming out at a faster rate. We are going to get a little bit of ponding or a little bit more ponding depending upon the size of the storm on our property. It will slowly as the waters abate around us. So what is happening from a time sequence sure you get a flood rise down here and it rises all the way through. We are going to be sending the same water out during that time line from our property whether it's a hundred years storm or a two-year storm event through our pipe. The rest of it is going to be sitting on our property even under the proposed solution and will slowly at that point dissipate out of the site particularly as the floodwaters down here abate.

Doug Hertz: I think the board understands the information. Your issue of raising the building you don't want it to further deteriorate. On the other hand the building inspector I think makes a very important point which is you currently have a flooding issue downstream. What you are proposing would be almost identical amount of water prior might impact downstream. The question for me is because this is relatively no and I know there's been discussion with Mr. Stein. Is there mitigation on site and too reduced to some extent. Are there ways to look at this in an intelligent way?

Neil Alexander: Right now there is nothing we can do on site other than what we are doing.

Peter Catizone: The mitigation measures are they plunge pool like control to very stop the sentiment and reduce the velocity. The decrease of impervious area which has probably one of the biggest impacts on the on-site whether we want it or not and on-site detention in our parking lot.

Doug Hertz: Perhaps there is an alternative directly in the parking lot of on-site detention. There is this area here. I am just wondering if there are some alternatives that can be explored to split the flow in some way to slow it down.

Stanley Bernstein: If you could answer both of these comments. Let's cut to the chase. There was always a flooding problem in Mount Kisco. We all know why: destruction of wetlands. It has just built up and built up over the years. All of a sudden something happen in Mount Kisco. Somebody is taking the water away from downtown Mount Kisco. It is staying on somebody else's property. It is tough for the property owners but it is tough for Mount Kisco. Rather than trying to separate having two screens of approval or emergency or what ever. I propose giving up the ball field and making it a created wetland. You have a six-foot water table and that can easily be turned into a created wetland. Not easily but it can be done. I would not give any approval to a wetland permit unless I had that investigated by you as to whether that could be done and should it be done. Keep the water where it is. It's unfortunate and it's a break for us. Good things happen to some people and bad things to others. Let's keep the water there. How do we keep it there? You find out. I'm giving you a suggestion I think it can be done. A created wetland.

Michael Gallin: I think that is something that we can discuss. I think there are a lot of people in the town that one away the value of a ball field versus a wetland and so on. I am sure there will be many hours of discussion on that. As part of the review of the ball field in the overall application there is probably an appropriate topic to entertain. If there are members of the board that feel strongly that it is worth entertaining.

Lester Steinman: I think it might be headed in the wrong direction here. I think that the board is going to consider looking at the wetlands permit first. They need to look at all the issues before them rather than referring to the downstream impact. I think this will come before it rather than after.

Neil Alexander: Is there a consensus within the board to preferring a wetland over a ball field?

Lester Steinman: The suggestion that was made was to hold water. They are not a position to make that decision without the necessary studies. That is what they are asking.

Neil Alexander: What I am getting at and the reason I'm asking that question and I'm not trying to box anybody in. If there is a strong desire to see that wetlands and that's really preferable than a ball field from your board. In part of what you are driving at with the course is different from the two give us a little bit of a directive. More than just study this and study that. It will help us when we come back to focus our energy and we are willing to consider everything but by the same token then that means all we do is study and we never get any traction which reach probably shed on the wetlands.

Chairman Cosentino: I just heard this proposal and I cannot digest that in a matter of minutes. I need to speak to our engineers and our staff. It is not something that I can decide tonight. I don't think it is something that the board can decide tonight.

Lester Steinman: I think the board is concerned with the downstream impact. And the downstream impact is a serious note. The solution that has been proposed actually works then they might be in a position to evaluate whether the trade-off is a good one. Until they have that information it is impossible to make that determination.

Austin Cassidy: The other thing I am hearing you are concerned about a lack of scope of looking at downstream at the board's request. To give you some import as do some areas that you may want to take a look at that are problematic and may alleviate your issues and ours.

Michael Gallin: Mr. Steinman that we steer away from trying to come up with at quick solution in relation to investigating all options. There is a real concern at the building for a couple of reasons. One at the ponding the way the structure of this building is there is an exposed structural steel column that goes all the way down to grade. There is no concrete column. Those columns when the water rises are underwater and rusting. And that has a real structural implication. Is it going to fall down tomorrow or the next day? No. Every week that it is out there it has more and more of an impact and so it will become so problematic that the only solution will be is to replace the entire column. In addition that the rollup doors along us out of the building have had so much water damage that they are in operable and we have no longer have the means to close down and secure the building. There is a lot of concern about vandal's teenagers getting in there and creating harm to them or to the building. Potentially creating a hazard because there is not supposed to be any occupancy. We do not have a way of securing it. There are instant issues that we are concerned about. One thought I just had the concern is about the rate of flow. If I use the analogy we have a bathtub with a stopper in the drain. What we really needed this point that stopper opened enough to drain the water out so it doesn't pool there. If it floods every time it rains for six hours at this point I think it would address our emergency concerns. I am wondering if the actual installation of the pipe with some sort of gate valve and I would have to refer to the engineer that could control the actual flow to a level that was appropriate. If we could do that in the short-term at least released the stopper enough and we can get rid of the pooling here. Secure the building illuminate the rusting without causing a slope that would result in the two-year rainstorm. Not saying that we will not evaluate the feasibility of wetlands here and that we want to evaluate the storm water impact downtown.

Doug Hertz: Wouldn't it be on an emergency basis less expensive to increase your pumping?

Michael Gallin: We have not been able to keep up.

Doug Hertz: One three inch pipe, three 3 inch pipes.

Peter Catizone: One of the issues is that you have a groundwater coming in as fast as you are pumping this out.

Doug Hertz: I guess that is our concern as well. If it is coming in as fast it will enter the village.

Peter Catizone: Because it has nowhere to go right now. It is just sitting there. As far as storm water goes and I will refer this question to Mike is not efficient to storm water. If any time you can get storm water flow by gravity that is always a preferable means. You have to be pumping constantly.

Stanley Bernstein: How often does the flooding problem occur?

Austin Cassidy: If you have a couple of storms in a row you can have flooding three to four times in a spring season.

Michael Gallin: The other thing we can propose is we close the valve.

Chairman Cosentino: This board is not engineers.

Lester Steinman: (In audible.) You need to give the board the information to go forward to make a decision.

Neil Alexander: We have to have a public hearing before this could ever possibly get a permit. So I think what may be the next thing we should do is schedule instead of having it for your next meeting schedule it for your second meeting for a public hearing. You are going to get the information. You see our turnaround time has been quite quick.

Chairman Cosentino: We need the information.

Neil Alexander: I am not saying no.

Chairman Cosentino: We would be shirking our responsibility if I did not ask for that. I understand your problem.

Neil Alexander: What I am concerned about and I hear you loud and I'm not brushing you aside. What we are concerned about is winter weather coming and not having had time to the remedy. That is what is what our concerns are. Let's say we do get to the point and get the studies and show up in September for the meeting and everything is copasetic. That's great. Let's schedule you for a public hearing. The second meeting in October and for some reason you thought we needed to be pushed to Thanksgiving for the permit. All of a sudden by Thanksgiving the weather could be that the ponds would be frozen. We cannot do a lot of engineering or construction due to the weather. I hope you understand our concerns.

Chairman Cosentino: I understand your problem, but understand ours.

Anthony Sturniolo: Mr. Chairman you do understand we need to get the information first.

Chairman Cosentino: We owe it to the village.

Anthony Sturniolo: I have two last questions. Mike are we comfortable with this two-year storm versus the five-year?

Michael Stein: As far as the discharge coming out of the pipe?