Planning Board Minutes - June 28, 2005

Minutes

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Work Session of the Planning Board

Tuesday, June 28 2005

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

Members Present: Joseph Cosentino, Chairman

Stanley Bernstein

Sol Gibbons

Doug Hertz

Joseph Morreale

Anthony Sturniolo

Ralph Vigliotti

Staff Present: Michelle Robbins, AKRF

Michael Stein, Engineer

Whitney Singleton, Board Attorney

Chairman Cosentino began the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. The Chairman announced that some items would be taken out of order.

5. Continuing Review:

b. Sleepy's - Modification to Approved Site Plan

Anthony Chiappinelli for J-ETC Corp. appeared before the Board.

Chairman Cosentino said he received a letter, dated June 22, 2005. He asked if any Planning Board members had any comments.

Mr. Sturniolo said the Gencon Management letter dated June 22^nd for continuing review should have been received and stamped 15 days, which would have been June 13^th, prior to tonight's meeting under the 15-day requirement rule. He suggested that the Board acknowledge receipt of the letter and continue on with the agenda.

Chairman Cosentino said the item would be put on the next agenda.

3. Conceptual Applications:

Mr. P. Daniel Hollis, attorney for the applicant appeared before the Board. He said they have submitted and application and map for conceptual review. He said he would like to indicate for the record that they are amending their conceptual application. It originally included 5345 square feet for medical use and considering that a lease with one of the tenants fell through and recognizing the potential shortfall that could accrue as a result of the use of the entire building for medical use at one parking space per 150 square feet, his client is only going to have 3500 square feet for medical use for Dr. Greco, an OB/GYN practitioner and the other 1845 square feet will remain as general office space at 1 parking space per 250 square feet. He said if you did the computation of 3500 square feet at 150 square feet per parking spot it comes to 23.3 spaces. The 1845 square feet at one per 250 square feet comes to 7.4 spaces for a total of 30.7 spaces in contrast to the 34 spaces that are shown.

Chairman Cosentino asked if the applicant wanted mixed use. Mr. Hollis said they would like two different types of offices - medical and general office. Mr. Sturniolo said this now becomes a new application. Mr. Hollis said they are amending their application. Mr. Sturniolo said then the Board would have to wait until they received the formal amendment to the application. Mr. Hollis said the amendment may take the application out of the context of Change of Use because it may be sufficiently straight forward that the Building Inspector can deal with it on his own. He said they would make that application to the Building Inspector and he would make that determination. He asked if the Board had any additional questions while he was here.

The Building Inspector, Austin Cassidy, was in the audience. He said he wasn't planning to comment on this application but to the benefit of the Board and the applicant, it may not be a Change of Use permit but the last site plan of record had 34 parking spaces based on 9-foot stalls. The medical use is going to require 9 � foot stalls, so graphically speaking the site plan itself has to be amended to have different dimension stalls. He said the last pattern also had a drop off and pick up area for buses. Mr. Hollis said this amendment deletes that. Mr. Cassidy said the remaining issue is the parking spots. Mr. Hollis said the site plan would be reconfigured and submit it to the Building Inspector. Mr. Cassidy asked the Chairman if the Board was comfortable with him approving the parking plan. Chairman Cosentino said he would like to have the application come back to the Board.

2. Special Discussion:

Building Inspector, Austin Cassidy, appeared before the Board. He said approximately 1 � years ago the Board had several properties called before it, i.e. Staples, CVS, relative to the metallic overseas-type containers being frequently used now for outdoor storage. He said the Board had orally discussed the issue and said it was of the opinion that they should be eliminated and no further units should be approved and the exiting ones should be eliminated. He said it was a consensus rather than a formal vote. Mr. Cassidy said Code Enforcement has been pursuing this, however, as he indicated in his memo to the Board, after he sent out notices to all of these properties, there has been a flurry of phone calls and letters from various businesses that have had them for a long period of time - 18-20 years in some cases. He said many of the businesses wanted the opportunity to come forward and discuss this issue with the Board. He wanted to know if the Board wanted them to come for a single discussion with all of the business owners rather than individually, or did the Board want to set a policy. Mr. Cassidy asked the Board how they wanted him to handle this issue.

Mr. Sturniolo said he spoke to Mr. Cassidy about this issue and he felt that it was best for the Board to have this dialogue with the Building Inspector, where Mr. Cassidy could go through a very constructive idea to address this issue as opposed to having everybody here en masse to have a dialogue.

Mr. Cassidy said the very first thing in going through this is to identify the goals of the Board. Chairman Cosentino said his thoughts on this issue is, like the sign ordinance years ago there were many signs in the Village that had to be removed and they were given an amount of time to remove them. He said if the boxes have been there for years and now there is code that says they can't be there. Mr. Cassidy said there is an oral opinion of the Board that the Board does not want these containers. He said if you had to write a ticket on this it would probably be a lack of site plan approval for the containers. He said however, years ago there was not likely a need for site plan approval.

Chairman Cosentino said if the Board does not want them there, they should be given a certain amount of time to remove them - maybe six months or a year to find other space for storage. Mr. Cassidy said if the Board agrees, the next logical step is a sunset clause should be applied where over time people have the opportunity to comply. Chairman Cosentino said one of the letters indicates that the business owner not only uses a container but he leases part of it out. Mr. Gibbons said that sounds like a logical approach. Mr. Hertz said over the last couple of years a number of storage places have opened up locally. They are inexpensive. Many of the businesses are using the containers for storage so he thinks they are a viable alternative. He said it is reasonable to set a timetable.

Chairman Cosentino asked the Board what they felt was a good timetable - 6 months or 12 months? Mr. Sturniolo said regarding Mr. Hertz's comment about the ability to rent a storage space, he himself called the closest one and asked about availability of storage and they were wide open. He said he doesn't think the Board has to go overboard in coming up with something in excess of 6 or 9 months because there is the ability out there to accomplish this. Mr. Cassidy suggested January 1^st. Mr. Sturniolo asked if there was any legal mechanism the Board would have to generate to support this January 1^st date. Mr. Cassidy suggested a resolution. Mr. Singleton said technically the containers are not allowed now. It is irrelevant how long the containers have been on a property. If the container is not on the site plan, it is not approved. Mr. Cassidy asked if everyone agrees that January 1, 2006 is the sunset date. Mr. Sturniolo said he is looking for the teeth for Mr. Cassidy. Mr. Singleton suggested that like the phasing out of tents it doesn't make sense to remove them in the middle of winter. He doesn't know if that same aspect holds true. Mr. Cassidy said the bottom line is January 1^st they have to be gone.

Mr. Sturniolo made a motion to establish January 1, 2006 as the cutoff date for all illegal outdoor storage containers to be removed. Chairman Cosentino asked on the question if this includes refrigeration at the rear of a building. Mr. Cassidy said the Board would want to define the independent portable containers that are brought on the site. Mr. Sturniolo said versus storage of fish parts that are refrigerated. Mr. Cassidy said if a restaurant close by has a refrigeration unit it has interior access. Mr. Hertz seconded the motion. Dr. Morreale asked if the container were moved closer to the home would it eliminate the issue. Mr. Cassidy said this is for elimination from the property. The Board voted all ayes.

Memorandum from William F. Williams, dated 6/21/05

Chairman Cosentino said the second discussion is regarding Local Law 110-28 (H) and Section 101-3. He said the Board received a memo from William F. Williams, Village Manager, dated June 21, 2005. He asked Mr. Singleton to discuss this issue with the Board.

Mr. Singleton said there are several proposed amendments to the Village Code. Two of the changes fall under the zoning code thereby triggering a mandatory referral to the Planning Board. He said one of the issues is the definition of commercial vehicles as it relates to vehicles that can be parked in residential areas, where they can be located and how many can be located. He said the Village Board has proposed to modify the definition of commercial vehicle to include a vehicle that bears license plates issued for commercial or combination vehicles.

Mr. Singleton said there is a limitation as to where commercial vehicles can park under Village Law and how many can be parked in areas. Commercial vehicles can park on the street but not overnight. Commercial vehicles can park on residential lots in the Village but there cannot be more than two commercial vehicles on a lot and one of those has to be fully enclosed within a garage. Chairman Cosentino asked Mr. Singleton to give him a definition of a commercial vehicle. Mr. Singleton read the definition of commercial vehicle from the proposed law and said a commercial vehicle is defined as a truck, tractor trailer, bus, school bus, omnibus, taxicab, livery car or any other vehicle used for commercial purposes. A vehicle shall be deemed to be used for commercial purposes if it meets A, B, C, and D in the list. Chairman Cosentino asked if you could have a vehicle with more than an 8-foot or 10-foot body on a site. Mr. Singleton said you could. Chairman Cosentino pointed out on the next page that the “vehicle parked outdoors does not have more than 6 wheels and two axles, a box body, a flatbed or utility body exceeding 10 feet in length or five feet in height, or a rack body exceeding three feet in height. Mr. Singleton said that vehicle is absolutely prohibited.

Mr. Singleton said the only proposed amendment here is to capture those vehicles that have commercial license plates and combination plates. Chairman Cosentino questioned 110-28 (H) 3 a “both vehicles are owned or operated by a person residing on the same lot. He said if there is a two family house and a landscaper rents the upstairs apartment, only two vehicles are allowed so he is allowed to have one and the downstairs tenant is allowed to have one. They don't have to be the deeded right of the homeowner. Mr. Singleton said no, that's why it says owned or operated by. Mr. Hertz said one has to be parked out of sight. Mr. Singleton pointed out that there is already a case before the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking a variance on this law for a bus.

Mr. Hertz asked Mr. Singleton to explain 110-28 H (4). Mr. Singleton read “No parking of any vehicle shall be permitted in the area (a) in the front of side yard distance setbacks required for the zone in which such building is located or (b) between the street line and front wall of the principal structure on the lot, except in any driveway. Mr. Hertz asked if the “except in any driveway” was the exception to a and b. Mr. Singleton said that was correct. He said you cannot pave your entire yard. Mr. Hertz said he has seen that plenty of times in the Village. Chairman Cosentino said there are houses within the village. He said a driveway to him is either 10 or 12 feet coming off the road and going to the rear of the house. Mr. Singleton added or a parking area. Chairman Cosentino said there are houses with front yard parking, there is no driveway, and there is a parking area. He asked if this code says driveway, are we protecting a parking area. Mr. Singleton said by Code there is no parking allowed in between the front of the house and the street line except in a driveway.

Chairman Cosentino asked when this Code goes into effect would those parked incorrectly receive a letter that they would have to remove vehicles not in a driveway and if not, please explain why. Mr. Singleton said if someone has a pre-existing non-conforming condition they would be allowed to continue so long as they do not increase the degree of non-conformance. Mr. Singleton said if the Chairman is talking about someone who is in violation, they would be subject to enforcement. Chairman Cosentino said his problem is that about 50 to 60% of the houses in the Village of Mount Kisco have parking areas in front of their houses. He asked what is being achieved here. Mr. Singleton asked if the Chairman was referring to areas beyond driveways. Chairman Cosentino said they have parking areas between the street and the front corners of the house. Mr. Singleton said if they were legally approved prior to the adoption of this section they would be allowed to continue but they would not permitted otherwise. Chairman Cosentino said then we are punishing the people who have a legal driveway and leaving alone the people who have a parking area. Mr. Singleton said we are not punishing anyone with a legal driveway. You will always be able to park in your driveway. Chairman Cosentino asked if that meant in front of your house. Mr. Singleton said that was correct. Chairman Cosentino said that is not what this amendment says. Mr. Singleton said it says you cannot park between the street line and the front wall of the principal structure except for in a driveway.

Chairman Cosentino asked for a definition of a driveway. Mr. Singleton said 15 feet wide that goes from the street line to a garage or parking area either in the side yard or the front of the house. Chairman Cosentino asked if he put a $900,000 house in the Chase and wanted to park one of his landscaping trucks there, I would have a problem. Mr. Singleton said he might have a problem with the homeowner's association but he wouldn't have a problem under the Village Code. He said the whole genesis for allowing some degree of commercial vehicles in residential areas is a recognition that there are hard working people in this community that have work vehicles and they are allowed to utilize them from home.

Chairman Cosentino said the only thing that will somewhat protect this code is that the vehicle has to be registered to the homeowner. The homeowner has to live there. He said what is happening is that the guy that lives in Bedford or Pound Ridge tells his worker to bring the truck back to Mount Kisco where he lives and park it. Mr. Singleton asked if the Chairman wanted to limit, in Section 110-28 H 3 (a), the existence of commercial vehicles only to resident owners. Chairman Cosentino asked why should a person work for someone and take the vehicle home? Why doesn't the owner take care of his own vehicle and have a yard somewhere? He asked why should the Village supply a parking spot for an employer who is in business. He said he could understand a service truck where an employee has to go out during the night but he asked why Mount Kisco should be the melting pot for all landscaping trucks of non-owners. Mr. Hertz said you could rent an apartment and still own a business. Chairman Cosentino said he is trying to eliminate that.

Mr. Singleton asked if Chairman Cosentino wanted to say that no commercial vehicles should be allowed on residential parcels. Chairman Cosentino said he is saying that the truck should be owned by the homeowner. Mr. Singleton said the Code says that the vehicle must be owned or operated by person residing on the lot. He said he thinks the Chairman is saying that if I'm ABC Electrical Contracting Business and I own the business and I bring home a vehicle that's one thing. However, if I'm trying to avoid parking or storing my fleet of vehicles overnight, and each one of my employees takes one home, why are we allowing the employees to bring the trucks back to Mount Kisco? Chairman Cosentino said exactly. Mr. Singleton said if they are the operator of the vehicle, they are allowed to bring them home. Chairman Cosentino again asked why we should be the melting pot for all businesses having their trucks brought back to Mount Kisco. They should rent a yard like everyone else. Mr. Singleton said because there is a recognition that there are hard working, blue-collar workers in this town. Chairman Cosentino said he doesn't have trouble with the hard working; it is with his truck. Mr. Singleton said he is aware that in Pound Ridge you can park commercial vehicles overnight, which is why Marshall Oil sends a truck home with their employees. Chairman Cosentino said service trucks are emergency trucks that go out during the night. He doesn't have a problem with that. His problem is with John Smith who has a fleet of 5 landscaping trucks. He tells his employees to take them home. He asked why should we allow a landscaper to take his truck home because his employer doesn't want to pay for a place to have them parked.

Mr. Sturniolo said the Planning Board is being asked by the Village Manager to offer comment on what is in the packet tonight. He said he personally agrees with the Chairman 100% and he thinks the direction that should be taken is to ask Mr. Singleton to generate a comment memo from the Planning Board to the Village Manager as requested outlining the Board's concerns.

Chairman Cosentino said if you are a taxpayer within the Village, they shouldn't be penalized. However, if you don't pay Village taxes and that truck belongs out of the Village, it should be kept out of the Village. Mr. Hertz said maybe the way around this is to recognize what Mr. Singleton was saying about the small owner/operator - whether or not they own their home or whether they rent the home, that maybe the Board's recommendation might be is that you own the vehicle or whoever resides there must own the vehicle. Mr. Gibbons said the vehicles change all the time. Mr. Singleton said then no leased vehicles are allowed. He added that 80% of all vehicles on the road today are leased. Mr. Hertz said either leased to the resident or owned by the resident.

Mr. Singleton said what the Board is telling him is that they don't want this to be a mechanism for employer to avoid having to park fleets of commercial vehicles. Mr. Hertz added and to require their employees to take them home because it's legal. Mr. Sturniolo added and to circumvent the costs associated with providing adequate parking for the trucks. Mr. Hertz said recognizing that an owner/operator should have the right to (inaudible) these limitations. Dr. Morreale suggested substituting the word operator with the word leased it would say that both vehicles are owned or leased by a person residing on the same lot.

Chairman Cosentino said he is not interested in leased because if it's leased the person that owns the landscaping business owns it for 3 or 4 years. Mr. Sturniolo said there has to be a way to differentiate between someone who signs for a leased vehicle and at the end of the lease it goes back to Ford Motor Company. Chairman Cosentino said if you are going to do something, do it where the Village benefits from it. Mr. Singleton asked how do you define how the Village benefits from it. Mr. Sturniolo said the benefit is let the person who owns the trucks go out and spend the money and find a place to house these trucks.

Mr. Singleton offered an opposing view - he said his wife and he work 50 hours a week, they are not white-collar workers but they work very hard in their jobs. They don't make a lot of money but one of the perks that we get is that my husband or my wife gets to take home a vehicle and can get personal use out of that vehicle so I don't have to have another car payment, another car insurance, etc. Chairman Cosentino said the Board is talking about commercial vehicles. Mr. Singleton said he's talking about the guy that works for DEP. Chairman Cosentino said if it's a commercial vehicle, it's a commercial vehicle - you lose it. If the Village is going to make a code eliminating certain commercial vehicles or saying that you can have one or two - do it. Mr. Singleton said the code is saying that they can only have one outdoor commercial vehicle. He said the Chairman is saying that he does not even want that commercial vehicle unless it is owned by the person living there. Chairman Cosentino said that was correct. Why should the Village be the melting pot for any other landscaper that is out of Village who wants his

employee to take the truck back to the Village of Mount Kisco?

Mr. Singleton said then the argument could be made that you're not concerned with the vehicle itself, you're concerned about the ownership. Chairman Cosentino said he is not concerned about the vehicle itself because what is going to happen is that we'll get rid of 25, 30 or 40 vehicles in the Village of Mount Kisco. He said he is not concerned about the property owner having a vehicle there or two vehicles if one is stored in the garage. He said he is concerned that the property owner must own the vehicle. He said he wouldn't want the property owner to rent the upstairs apartment out and allow the tenant to bring his vehicle home. Chairman Cosentino said if you are paying taxes to the Village of Mount Kisco, you have the choice to park your vehicle. Mr. Singleton said if he were a taxpayer in the Village of Mount Kisco and I owned my house and pay taxes, if I add a vehicle, which my employer lets me use but I don't own it, I can't bring it home. Chairman Cosentino said no. The employer should find a place to find to park the vehicles.

Mr. Sturniolo said the spirit of this law is directed to the trucks with 17 rakes, 4 lawnmowers and everything else on it. We're not talking about corporate vehicles. Mr. Singleton said what he is saying is that the law has to comply equally. He said he doesn't want to get into a discriminatory act and target a particular group of people. He said that is not what this is about. Chairman Cosentino said he is talking about taxis and everything else. He is not targeting landscapers. He said he used landscapers because of the trucks with rakes and stuff. Mr. Singleton said if he had a Mercedes Benz sedan, brand new, $80,000 car and it says on the license plate combination vehicle because I happen to use it for work and it allows me to drive on parkways in Connecticut - that can't be parked outside my house.

Chairman Cosentino asked if that could be construed as an emergency vehicle because you pick them up at 2:00 a.m. and take them to the airport? Mr. Singleton said he is not talking about limos, he is talking about commercial vehicles. Dr. Morreale asked if he were to come home with a PACE University vehicle, with this rule he would not be able to park in his driveway. Chairman Cosentino said he is talking about trucks. He is not talking about passenger cars. He told Mr. Singleton to reword the code. He is talking about commercial trucks.

Mr. Singleton asked if the Board wished to have someone put in the form of a motion what kind of recommendation you would like to have made. Chairman Cosentino said his opinion is that he doesn't have a problem with the owner parking two of his landscaping trucks- one in the garage and one outside if he owns the vehicles. Mr. Singleton said then you must own the vehicle and you must be the property owner. Chairman Cosentino said that was correct.

Mr. Bernstein said he doesn't know if there's a consensus but those who are voicing their opinion want to eliminate landscaping trucks. He said it would probably not apply to limo drivers coming home with their limo and parking in the driveway. He said the blight on this Village is the landscaping trucks and if the Village Board can come up, or Mr. Singleton as Attorney, with some language that will eliminate the number of landscaping trucks in this Village. Mr. Singleton said then the Boards basic concern is with the truck itself. Mr. Bernstein said yes, the truck itself - it is a blight on this Village. He said he would also like to include taxis - they are also a blight in this Village, on West Street especially. Mr. Singleton said they are defined as a commercial vehicle. Mr. Gibbons asked if that would apply to plumbers and electricians. Mr. Singleton said yes it would.

Chairman Cosentino said he doesn't know how it could be put in to the Code but there are certain emergency vehicles, a heating truck, etc., where the guy has to get up at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. to go to a call. That's an emergency vehicle. He said he could see that as one of the trucks where the person lives there but is not the owner. Mr. Sturniolo said HVAC, plumbing, etc. Chairman Cosentino said any emergency vehicle. You are not going to cut lawns at 3:00 in the morning. Mr. Singleton said this applies to each and every person - an oil truck, oil van, HVAC, plumbing - they are all going to be emergency. Mr. Bernstein said an oil delivery truck does not fall under the category of emergency. He said he is talking about a small truck or van that will service. Mr. Singleton said there is not going to be one emergency repair van in Mount Kisco for ABC Oil Company. Every single one will be in Mount Kisco. Mr. Bernstein said drive up and down the Village, how many of them do you see. He said he hasn't seen one in a driveway but he has seen hundreds of landscaping trucks - that's the difference. Mr. Vigliotti suggested going one step further and having the vehicles registered with a sticker. Mr. Singleton said he is acting as a prosecutor - you don't want landscaping vehicles in Mount Kisco. Mr. Vigliotti said of course we do. Mr. Singleton added unless they are owner occupied. Chairman Cosentino said that was correct. Mr. Vigliotti if we're going to do this, we need to regulate it. It's something to look into.

Dr. Morreale said there are two kinds of vehicles that he can think of - one is a windowless van and two is SUV's that could be used for commercial purposes but not have a commercial license plate. Mr. Hertz asked why would we be concerned with a vehicle that looks like a car and acts like a car, with no markings or anything else, no commercial plates. He said you could use any car for commercial purposes. Why has the purpose become problematic? Chairman Cosentino said it is a quality of life issue. Mr. Singleton read the definition of commercial vehicle as “any truck, tractor trailer, bus, school bus, omnibus, taxi cab, livery or any other vehicle used for commercial purposes. If it used for commercial purposes, it is a commercial vehicle. He said the question is how can the Village determine whether or not it is being used as a commercial vehicle. Chairman Cosentino said there is nothing wrong with the definition. He would only add that the vehicle has to be owned by the homeowner. He said how Mr. Singleton words that is up to him. Mr. Singleton said the commercial vehicle is going to be defined by use not by ownership. Mr. Sturniolo asked where would be the appropriate spot to add the language that the Chairman would like added. Mr. Singleton said it should be Section 110-28 H (3). Chairman Cosentino asked if that was the consensus of the Board.

Mr. Hertz said he understands what the Chairman is going for but he feels that the Board is going to create an unintended hardship. He said let's say my next-door neighbor is renting a house, he owns a business. He's a small guy, he starts a business and he has a delivery truck or he's an electrician and he has his truck in his driveway - you wouldn't allow him to have it. Mr. Sturniolo said he owns the truck. Mr. Bernstein said a renter could do this but he must own the truck. He said the idea is that his employees don't take home a vehicle and park in the driveway - rented or owned. Mr. Hertz said that is not Dr. Morreale's example where he is given a perk. He said let's take the other instance. He said my employer is an electrician and he allows me to take a van home. I don't need to buy another vehicle to drive to and from work. He said he is living in the house but he doesn't own the vehicle and he rents. He said under the Chairman's definition, he wouldn't be able to take the van home. Chairman Cosentino said he wouldn't be able to take the vehicle home unless he can prove it's an emergency vehicle where he is called out in the middle of the night. Mr. Singleton said if I'm a limo driver, I couldn't bring the limo home. Chairman Cosentino said he thinks things are being put into this that he didn't want to include. He said the only thing he wants is trucks, open trucks with lawnmower, rakes, etc. He said he doesn't care about a van or a taxicab.

Mr. Bernstein said the Village Board is the legislation, and Mr. Singleton is the Attorney, the Planning Board is not. The Board is giving the sense of the Planning Board, we are planners. We don't make the laws. He said it is up to Mr. Singleton and the Village Board to follow the sense of the Planning Board if they want to, they can reject it, and write the law the way it should be written. Mr. Singleton said he thinks the Village Board has tried to embody that in Section 3 (e), specifically stating that “a vehicle parked outdoors does not have more than six wheels, and two axles, a box body, a flatbed or utility exceeding 10 feet in length or five feet in height, or a rack body exceeding three feet in height.” He said that is what they're trying to get at with landscaping vehicles. Mr. Sturniolo said it is not enough. It is far too generalized. There are too many examples. Mr. Singleton said it needs to be so the law can be enforced uniformly. He said what the Board is looking for might cause problems.

Mr. Hertz asked if Section H (3) (e) is new. Mr. Singleton said it is relatively new, within the past year. Mr. Hertz asked if that has specifically been used as an enforcement issue. Mr. Singleton said it has. He said by virtue of the enforcement of 3 (e), you have seen the vehicles go out of residential neighborhoods and they are dropping on Martabano's parcel at 293 Lexington. They are getting squeezed out of neighborhoods and they are trying to find other places.

Chairman Cosentino said, “...does not have more than 6 wheels”. He added that rack body trucks have 6 wheels. Mr. Singleton suggested that the Board then make a recommendation that it should not more than 4 wheels. He asked if it was sufficed to say that the Board does not want open vehicles.

Mr. Singleton said with regard to the actual referral, Paragraph 4, does the Board have any issues with that. Mr. Vigliotti asked if this was mirrored after any other town ordinance. Mr. Singleton said yes, but what towns he does not know.

Chairman Cosentino said to change the wheel limits from 6 to 4. He said this will have done a lot. Mr. Sturniolo asked if the Board wants to include the subject of trailers. If a vehicle has 4 wheels, it doesn't address the trailer. Mr. Singleton suggested why not simply state that you had expressed some concern about the possibility of this being bastardized by virtue of pulling trailers. Mr. Sturniolo asked if it could be presented in a more declaratory manner. Chairman Cosentino said he wants them eliminated. Mr. Singleton said there may be other provisions that address that. He said he would look into that with Mr. Palmer.

Mr. Sturniolo asked Mr. Singleton what is the language to be used regarding the Chairman's point of owner/operator. Mr. Hertz asked if the Board's intention is to try to limit these large, open, unsightly vehicles, we could do that by trying to getting rid of the vehicle. He asked if the Board wanted to make exceptions for the owner/operator. Chairman Cosentino said you have to change the code a little bit - if you have two commercial vehicles, the vehicle that is open must be garaged and the vehicle that is closed can be in the driveway. That will solve the whole problem. Mr. Singleton pointed out that pickup trucks are open vehicles.

Mr. Singleton asked if the Chairman wants 3 (a) to read, “owned and operated”. Chairman Cosentino said yes. Mr. Singleton asked if the Board is ok with (b), “only one vehicle is parked outdoors and (c), the vehicle parked outdoors does not exceed one ton in capacity” Chairman Cosentino said he is ok with one vehicle outdoors but he would prefer it to be � ton. He said his pickup truck is � ton. A one-ton truck is a big truck. Mr. Singleton asked about (d), “the vehicle parked outdoors is not a jitney bus, school bus, school van, trailer, semi trailer, tractor or excavation equipment. He asked if the Board wanted to incorporate open vehicle with access to tools. Mr. Singleton read (e), “The vehicle parked outdoors does not have more than 4 wheels, 2 axles, a box body, a flat bed, or utility body exceeding 10 feet in length.” He said this is where you really how you regulate this. Chairman Cosentino said he thinks the body should not be more than 8 feet. Mr. Singleton said he would make sense of this. The Village Board is meeting on July 18^th. He said there is another Planning Board meeting prior to that date. He asked if the Board wanted to see a draft of the recommendation. Chairman Cosentino said yes.

Dr. Morreale has one more question about Section 4 that goes to driveway. He asked how does that apply to a circular driveway. Mr. Singleton said the definition of a driveway states from the street. Chairman Cosentino said 4(b) says between the street line and front wall of the principal structure on the lot except in any driveway. Dr. Morreale said if the driveway is in the front of the house. He said what he is worried about is if this is strictly enforced will this create more circular driveways. Chairman Cosentino said most lots couldn't accommodate circular driveways.

Mr. Sturniolo asked if Mr. Singleton captured everything that the Chairman wanted. Mr. Singleton reiterated what information was to be included. Cosentino said the draft would be looked at at the July 12^th meeting.

3. Conceptual Applications:

b. 50 Main Street - proposed new one store building

Mr. Frank McCullough, attorney for the applicant and Mr. Bruce Helmes, architect appeared before the Board.

Mr. Sturniolo said he wanted to state that Mr. McCullough's letter is dated June 13^th and it is on for conceptual review. He said the Board should have received the letter and have it stamped 21 days, June 7^th, prior to tonight's meeting under the Board's 21-day conceptual rule. He said this is the second time tonight that there is something that should not be before the Board. Chairman Cosentino asked if the Board had any issues with hearing this application. Mr. Hertz said he didn't have any problems with this but going forward there needs to be a mechanism in place to make sure these dates are enforced. Mr. Sturniolo suggested maybe one way to address that would be to have a reminder memo to all staff of the submission dates. Mr. Hertz said he understands the past week has been irregular. Mr. Sturniolo said that is correct but this is not the first time. Mr. McCullough said he was told that the 13^th was the correct date and if it wasn't he apologizes to the Board. Chairman Cosentino agreed to continue.

Mr. McCullough explained that his clients own this parcel. They are proposing a one-story building slightly in excess of 3500 square feet, which is divided into 4 spaces ranging in size from 600 square feet to 1100 square feet. He said they are providing 14 parking spaces, a reconfiguration consistent with what's there now. He said they received today a letter from the Building Inspector, which they can address with the Board today.

Mr. Helmes said that Love Realty is the owner of this property. They have made studies of how they could use this property. They made a study for a one-story building with parking underneath. They made a study for a two-story building with an elevator connecting the adjoining building, the bank building, which they also own, to give access to the second floor of that building, also with parking underneath. Mr. Helmes said they finally decided to build a one-story building with small shops. He said they feel it would be advantageous to the community because while doing their studies they found several people looking for small spaces, novelty shops, boutiques, etc. especially when down the block some of the people have moved out. He said one or two of them said they would be interested in the area.

Mr. Helmes said there is a grade difference between Main Street and the back. They have tried to develop it with a pedestrian way and handicapped access coming down the slope and creating a plaza. He said inasmuch as there is an Indian, Christopher Columbus, this would be a natural place for a founders plaza or something along that line. He said there is plenty of landscaping and it is designed for a small building at the lower end. The building would step up and be the same level as the handicapped access. He said the building would be a slab with no basement. It would designed as a one-story building with a bit of European atmosphere in the plaza. He said they have gotten the maximum parking that they could come up with. He said they reviewed the memorandum from Mr. Cassidy and they find nothing in it that they disagreed with. He said they need surveys and topos before they get into more detailed drawings on this.

Mr. Sturniolo said since there is a loss of at least 6 parking spaces and there is a demand for 24 additional spaces that brings the count to 32. He asked the applicants if they planned to address the loss of parking spaces by paying. Mr. Helmes said they are not required to provide any parking spaces. Mr. Sturniolo asked if they are planning to address the loss of parking spaces that they are not required to provide by doing some type of payment in lieu of parking spaces for the 32 spaces. Mr. McCullough said they are talking to the Village about another parcel of land his client owns could be available for parking. He said the Village Engineer was supposed to look at the property and evaluate it and get back to them on it. He said that would be part of their response. Mr. Sturniolo asked if that parcel was contiguous to this. Mr. McCullough said it is not. It is on Main Street next to the firehouse. Mr. Sturniolo asked then someone would park there and that would address the parking needs of this new building. Mr. Helmes said they are not required to provide parking. Mr. Tom Heasley of Love Realty said they are not voluntarily prepared to do that at this time. He said he met with Mr. Stein and Dolph Rothfeld to discuss the possibility of working with the town on developing a potential parking area across the street but it has no connection with this project. We're studying it.

Mr. Sturniolo asked what certain items were that are indicated on the plan. Mr. Helmes said they would be little tables for sitting on the plaza. Mr. Sturniolo told the applicants that he wanted to draw their attention to the concerns that the Board had with Commerce Bank and seating areas and benches and that kind of thing. Mr. Helmes said this is a concept they came up with to give an attractive view of this side of the bank. He said it is such a prominent location coming into the Village they thought of putting something here of interest. Mr. Heasley asked if the Board has a problem with outdoor seating.

Mr. Helmes said Mr. Cassidy's comments regarding parking, they realize they will have to do a traffic study relative to engineering. They will have consultation with the Planning Board. He pointed out an area on the plan for No Left Turn because it could be a dangerous situation. He said Mr. Cassidy had a comment about deliveries and they feel with the size of the stores, there will be short bed trucks making deliveries. Chairman Cosentino asked if this was part of Shopper's Park. Mr. Singleton said that it was. Chairman Cosentino said that they would use the garbage compactors.

Chairman Cosentino asked what type of stores would be here. Mr. Heasley said they do not have any tenants yet. Mr. Helmes said there is a demand for small spaces. He said he understands the point about sitting. Mr. Vigliotti said this building will now become a new keystone building for the Village so the Board would be pretty keen that whatever is being designed sets the tone for the rest of the Village. He said he understands they have a European flavor in mind but that may not be the way to go, maybe something more Town and Country. Mr. Heasley said when they redid the Murphy Brothers building across the street, they contemplated what was going on here. He said Mr. Helmes has designed a lot of buildings for them. Mr. Helmes said they would sit down with the ARB and discuss the character. He said bank has a colonial flavor, the church is stone and the library may be rebuilt. This project will take time.

Mr. Hertz said he's seeing pool, fountain. He asked if they are looking at this point to create an exterior plaza. Mr. Helmes said they want to encourage people to come in here, from Main Street down to the parking area. He said they think it would be interesting. Mr. Sturniolo suggested that the applicants have a conversation with the Village Manager regarding the redesign of the plaza across from the train station. They were a lot of benches and seating areas proposed that did not materialize. Mr. Helmes said Mr. Cassidy's memo also mentioned more plantings in this area. He said this is the beginning and they expect to go through the process.

5. Continuing Review:

Mr. Juan Camacho, property owner and Mr. Elliot Senor, engineer appeared before the Board.

Mr. Senor explained that the plan before the Board is for an amended site plan for a lower level living area and a walkway around the back of the south building. They have submitted a revised site plan, a landscape plan, as well as architectural plans and elevations. He said the Board had asked them to locate some trees that were off site of the property, which they did, in the back on the Town property as well as on both sides. Mr. Senor said any trees that are on site, most of them are below the required size. Ms. Robbins said they are smaller than 8 inches. Mr. Senor said the landscape architect, Mr. Pouder, was not able to be at the meeting this evening.

Mr. Senor handed the Board a letter from Mr. Pouder explaining that as you enter the property there are a bunch of weed maple trees. He said they are replacing all the small maple trees along the front area with a two-foot high stonewall with a two-foot high fence on top. He said there would be some additional plantings in that area to break up the house. Mr. Senor said 6 pin oaks would be replaced in that area. He said plantings on the rear side of the uphill building have been relocated to accommodate the walkway. They are planning a planting strip on both sides of the walkway, which show emerald arborvitaes that are 6 to 8 feet tall. There is a new wall at the rear of the proposed downhill building shifted slightly to accommodate a new walkway. They plan to provide the same or more screening of the site to the adjacent property.

Mr. Senor said as far as the site plan, the only real change on the site plan is the addition of that wall and a walkway to provide access to the rear lower level apartment. He said they also provided the Board with all the elevations. The rear one is where the lower level living space is shown. The second doorway is for a utility room for the building, storage of incidental landscaping tools.

Mr. Sturniolo asked if you were standing at the corner of Regent Drive and Route 117 looking up at the property, is that the view you would see depicted on the elevation. Mr. Senor showed another view to the Board. He said you be viewing the building more from a diagonal. Mr. Sturniolo asked if you continued more along Route 117, you would see more of the building. Mr. Senor showed the view that would be seen. Mr. Vigliotti said that you wouldn't see anything because the Board was told by the applicants that you would not see any buildings at all. Mr. Senor said Mr. Pouder has provided significant planting. There are all the existing deciduous trees and then he is planting a large amount of trees and shrubs, some large, to create a buffer. Mr. Vigliotti asked how big are the coniferous trees. Mr. Senor said they are 8 to 10' high or 2” caliper. Mr. Vigliotti said that is not very big. Mr. Senor said the plantings in this area are the same plantings on the original plan. Mr. Vigliotti said the Board will hold them to the statements made that you will not see this from Route 117. Mr. Camacho said it is extremely difficult to see. He said you would have to go and investigate to actually see the building without any planting as it is right now. He said once you have the plantings, it will be almost, you would have to go and stand on the Town property to see really see the buildings. He said he went out there about 3 weeks ago and photographed the property. He said he stood at the Church parking lot and then walked over to the Legion and tried to look up. He said it is very difficult to see the building. He said once the planting is done, he would make sure that the evergreens are of significant height. There will be additional small plantings to fill in underneath. Mr. Camacho said right now it is only possible if you go up and go over the fence. Mr. Vigliotti said the view from Route 117 has always been an urban forest where you couldn't see anything. He said he takes Mr. Camacho's word that you will not see anything. He said anything that has to be done to stay with that agreement. He said the pin oaks will take years.

Mr. Camacho pointed out what would be seen in the winter. Mr. Vigliotti suggested that it be redesigned so it won't be seen. Mr. Camacho said it would be landscaped not to be seen from Route 117. Mr. Senor pointed out on the plan some Norway spruces that are 10 feet tall. Mr. Hertz said the building in that corner is 30 feet. Ms. Robbins said that area is graded down a bit. Mr. Vigliotti said this has been discussed ad nauseum that this urban forest look was going to be achieved, not diminished. Mr. Camacho pointed out on the plan the areas of the urban forest that would not be lost. He said they are going to provide additional screening. Mr. Senor said they agree to work with the Planners to make sure they are satisfied with what the end result is. Mr. Sturniolo said it is far more serious and bigger than we will work with the Planner to make sure. He said every applicant works with the Planner. That is a given. He said what Mr. Vigliotti is talking about is the assurance that the Board has heard from the applicants multiple times in the past that this project would not be seen from Route 117. Mr. Camacho said he would follow the Board's recommendation.

Chairman Cosentino told Ms. Robbins that the Board needs the Planners to be on top of this. Ms. Robbins said that she and Nanette and Michael Stein were at the site about a month ago. She pointed out the part of the site that is well forested. She said there is a little area where there is a bit of opening. She said that is going to be the major problem. She said the issue for the applicants will be to be able to get tall enough trees because it is graded down. They will have to compensate for the grade change. Mr. Stein pointed out that the corner of building from the grade to the peak of the roof is about 50 feet high. Mr. Vigliotti said you are looking up. If you were on grade level it would be one thing. Mr. Camacho said the landscaper would have to plant in front and back, spreading it in a way that it will grow. Mr. Vigliotti said as you drive north, on the right hand side there appears to be an urban forest that gives this Village the character that it has. He said on the left hand side you have this parcel and for 75 years, with the exception of the American Legion being built, that has not changed one iota. Mr. Camacho said the house that was there on the site, about 3 � stories, was more visible because there was nothing protecting that house. You could see more of the house than you will see with the landscaping that is being provided.

Mr. Bernstein said he disagrees with that. He said he was out there in the very beginning and he argued last time about the retaining wall. He said the wall was supposed to be put there to slope this out. Mr. Senor said the wall was put in. Mr. Bernstein said they took one wall out. There was supposed to be a second retaining wall behind this wall. Mr. Bernstein asked Ms. Robbins if any trees have been removed in that area. He said it looks as if there was a swath of trees taken out. Ms. Robbins said she did not see the site before any of the trees were removed but Nanette at the site visit was concerned that there may have been a few trees removed. She said she did not do a tree survey of the site and she doesn't know if there is a tree survey.

Mr. Bernstein asked the applicants to point out again the trees that are coming out. Mr. Senor said along the front and sides are trees that are less than 8 inches in diameter. Most of them are on the site plan before the Board. He said there is a group of 3-4 inch maples along Carpenter Avenue. He said there are some 2-3 inch Sumac trees on the north. Mr. Bernstein asked if they are in the way. Mr. Senor said some of the trees are in the way of grading. Some trees are in the way of the construction of the wall detail and would inhibit the placement of the new shrubbery and new trees going in. He said the trees coming out are designated on Mr. Pouder's planting plan. There are invasive Norway maples on the uphill side of the entry driveway and a single Magnolia on the downhill side of the entry driveway will be removed and replaced with native pin oaks, multiple shrubs and ground cover. All the trees to be removed are smaller than 8” in diameter. While initially there was debate about the removal and preservation of the magnolia, it is Mr. Pouder's opinion that it is neither cost effective nor wise from a botanical standpoint to do so.

Mr. Bernstein asked if the 8” maples are being replaced with the 2” pin oaks. Mr. Senor said no, the maple are all 2”, 3” etc. He continued that the plantings on the rear side of the uphill building have been relocated to accommodate the different walkway location and the change consists of providing a long strip on both sides of the walkway instead of only one side. Four existing trees in the area are to be removed as they are within the area of disturbance. He said as in the previous version of the landscape plan, these will be replaced with 12 emerald green arborvitaes and numerous shrubs.

Chairman Cosentino suggested that the Board make a site visit so they can see first hand what is happening there. The Board agreed to Saturday, July 9^th at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Sturniolo asked if Ms. Bourne was up to date on this subject. Ms. Robbins said yes, she has been at the site. She said she would like to draw the Board attention to some very tall trees on the site that are not planned to be removed. Mr. Camacho said the maples in front are growing into the power lines and eventually will create a problem.

Mr. Hertz said there is a fence detail on the front page of the plans. He asked where the fence detail is later in the plans. Mr. Senor said that represents the same fence detail. Chairman Cosentino asked that a memo be sent to the Board about the site visit and call his office so he can bring an updated set of plans. Mr. Hertz asked if the fence detail needed to be changed on the plans. Mr. Senor said he would take the detail off the plans. Ms. Robbins said the plans would need to be updated to reflect any changes.

Mr. Sturniolo said depending on the outcome, the Board may ask the applicant for some computerized drawing of what the site would look like finished, rendering in the proposed plantings, triangulating the view from the top of the trees where they are, how much of the building you are going to see if you were at the base of the trees, how much of the building you're going to see if you are 10 feet away, 20 feet away, 30 feet away, etc. Mr. Senor said he would see if the landscape architect has that capability because he does not. He asked where the Board wants the views from. Mr. Sturniolo said it would be discussed at the site visit but that is going to be extremely helpful in ascertaining from various locations what you're going to see predicated on the plantings. Mr. Senor asked where is the vantage point from Route 117. It's not 10 feet off the building. Route 117 is about 150 feet or so away from the building. Mr. Sturniolo mentioned the corner of Legion Way, in the parking lot of the Church, between Legion Way and the Indian statue on the westerly part of Route 117. He said as the distance increases you are going to see less of the building predicated on the height of the trees. Mr. Senor said at a couple of their applications they have done balloon surveys. Mr. Sturniolo said he is more interested in real computerized renderings of this site, what a Norway spruce looks like, what a pin oak looks like, what's going to happen with those trees that Ms. Robbins pointed out that slopes off, that kind of thing.

Mr. Bernstein said the drawings look like they were drawn by an amateur. He asked why the numbers are upside down. In addition, there is no key to tell what the elevation is. He pointed out the elevation with the stone veneer on a portion. He asked what happens with the rest. Mr. Camacho said he is going to continue the stone veneer. Mr. Bernstein said that needs to be drawn. He asked that the plans be cleaned up a bit.

Chairman Cosentino said the Board would see the applicants at the site visit.

8. Continuing Discussion:

Lighting Guidelines

Ms. Robbins and Mr. Singleton went over changes to the Illumination Guidelines Glossary and the Guidelines themselves. She said the changes were underlined in the documents handed out to the Board.

Mr. Sturniolo questioned number 7 on Page 2. He asked if that was an addition. Mr. Singleton said no, they just changed some of the wording. It said previously that you could have temporary outdoor lighting from December 1 to January 15. Mr. Bernstein asked what would happen if the holiday lighting is very bright and offensive. Mr. Singleton said it would still be subject to light trespass.

Ms. Robbins said on Page 3, [7] [b] was changed to read that whatever is being upward lit should not be seen above that structure. She said additional language was also added on page 4 and 5 regarding permitted luminaries and residential floodlights with operable timers being encouraged. Ms. Robbins said she was trying to avoid an enforcement issue. A discussion ensued as to whether the word encouraged was strong enough and should it be changed to required. Ms. Robbins continued reviewing the additional changes on Page 5 and 6 of the Guidelines. She said the Violations were removed and a referral is being made to Section 110-41 of the Village Code. Mr. Hertz asked what would the penalties be. Mr. Singleton said penalties have already been adopted for violations to the Code. He said for example for a corporate offender, the penalty is for $1000 per day. Mr. Hertz asked about residential. Mr. Singleton said it could be $250 per day.

Chairman Cosentino said you can have all the laws but if they are not enforced, what difference does it mean. Mr. Hertz said he feels that this is a great job defining this issue. Mr. Sturniolo asked where does this effort go from here. Mr. Singleton said there will be a referral to the Village Board for a recommendation to be adopted. Mr. Sturniolo asked if Mr. Singleton would be writing a memo. Mr. Singleton said the Board has a list of things to be proposed for revision to the Village Code. Mr. Hertz said he sees this as going separately to the Village Board because it extends the Village's reach in areas where it did not have the reach prior. Mr. Singleton said the residential element of this is where there may be enforcement issues. Mr. Hertz said more and more things are getting brighter and brighter and the houses are not getting farther apart. Mr. Sturniolo said he would like to see this and the issue of 15/21-day submission time be sent to the Village Board right away. Mr. Singleton said the current code, regarding submission lead-time, is not an as of right for someone to get on an agenda. He said the Chairman has the obligation to set the agenda. Mr. Sturniolo said the lighting guidelines should be sent to the Village Board. Mr. Singleton said he would set the package up and send a copy of the cover letter to the Board regarding submission to the Village Board Agenda for July 18^th.

9. Correspondence:

Chairman Cosentino acknowledged the items listed under correspondence.

Mr. Singleton asked on the Premier Resolution, was it originally listed in conditions that they only have to an 85% survival or success rate for the planting. He said he thought they would be required for 100%. He said it is condition #11. Chairman Cosentino said it should be 100%.

Mr. Sturniolo asked that two letters be generated - one to a Kathy Feeney, thanking her for her input to the Planning Board and another letter to a Mary Smith, also thanking her for her input to the Planning Board. He asked if those letters could be sent out.

Chairman Cosentino asked for a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Sturniolo made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bernstein seconded the motion. The Board voted all ayes. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________

Stanley Bernstein,

Secretary

Mount Kisco Planning Board

1 PB 06/28/05

Created by superuser. Last modified 2005-12-16 11:07:12.