PB Minutes 5-23-06

Minutes

Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Meeting called to order at 8:10 p.m., Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at the Municipal Building, Mount Kisco, New York

Members Present: Joseph Cosentino

Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Joseph Morreale

Ralph Vigliotti

Sol Gibbons

Members Absent: Doug Hertz

Staff Present: Michael Stein

Whitney Singleton

Nanette Bourne

Staff Absent: None

Stanley Bernstein: I move that we accept the minutes of Saturday, March 25, 2006.

Chairman Cosentino: Do I have a second? Okay, we don't have a quorum right here for the minutes, so we'll have to wait.

Anthony Sturniolo: Okay, tabled.

Chairman Cosentino: The next thing on our agenda is a public hearing on John DeCola, 77 Brook Street. This is a public hearing on a lot line change; actually three lot line changes, right? Three lot line changes. Is there anybody from the public that are here to talk for or against? None.

Nancy Placona: Nobody signed in.

Anthony Sturniolo: Gail, are you here against it?

Gail Panetta: No. I'm for it. I'll sign in.

a. John DeCola - 77 Brook Street - Application #PB2006-07

Public Hearing/Sub Division Application

Chairman Cosentino: Okay. Any of my fellow board members have anything to say on this? No response from Board. We also have a draft resolution here. We talked about this and we asked for a draft resolution, thank you Nanette. Staff, anything on this? No response from Staff. Do we want to keep this open for ten days? We have a draft resolution now, so we should vote on it. Alright, do we have a motion to close the public hearing?

Ralph Vigliotti: So moved.

Chairman Cosentino: We have a motion by Mr. Vigliotti; we have a second by Mr. Bernstein. On the question?

Chairman Cosentino: Will the secretary poll the board, please?

Ralph Vigliotti: Aye.

Stanley Bernstein: Aye.

Anthony Sturniolo: Aye.

Sol Gibbons: Aye.

Joseph Morreale: Aye

Chairman Cosentino: Aye. Okay the public hearing has been closed.

Chairman Cosentino: Okay, we have a draft resolution before us. Nanette, do you have anything you want to go over? Do my fellow board members want to make comment?

Anthony Sturniolo: I have two questions, Mr. Chairman, one, Nancy, the fees have been paid?

Nancy Placona: Yes.

Anthony Sturniolo: Should we be looking at the subdivision application tonight as well?

Mr. DeCola: Perhaps I can explain. The lot line change is technically a subdivision application. We are modifying the lots that are shown on the subdivision plaques before you. Under state law, that is in fact a subdivision, and so when we receive the terminology, Tony, per lot line change, that is specifically for the subdivision, so you held the public hearing as required by code and state law regarding the subdivision, you now need to schedule this for approval for the final subdivision plan.

Chairman Cosentino: We can vote on this tonight.

Mr. DeCola: If that's the prerogative of your board.

Chairman Cosentino: Is the board willing to vote on this tonight? There's a resolution here. I have no problems with it.

Ralph Vigliotti: I'm prepared to vote.

Stanley Bernstein: So am I.

Chairman Cosentino: Okay, the chair is asking for a motion. Yes, a motion on a resolution.

Ralph Vigliotti: I'll move on a resolution for subdivision approval, 77 Brook Street, John DeCola, it's a lot line change application number PB2006-07. The date of this action is May 23, 2006. Tax map identification 80.34-1-4.

Chairman Cosentino: We have a motion by Mr. Vigliotti. Do I have a second?

Stanley Bernstein: I'll second.

Chairman Cosentino: Second by Mr. Bernstein, will the secretary poll the board please?

Ralph Vigliotti: Motion - Aye.

Stanley Bernstein: Aye.

Sol Gibbons: Aye.

Joseph Morreale: Aye

Anthony Sturniolo: Aye.

Chairman Cosentino: Aye. You're all set. Congratulations.

Mr. DeCola: Thank you very much, and I guess - what's the next thing I have to do, anything from the town now, or just go to the county.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you for coming. Thank you for coming. Gail.

Mr. DeCola: Thank you very much.

Continuing Review:

a. Lexus - 275 Kisco Avenue - Application #PB2005-15

Roland Baroni, attorney, Gary Gianfranseco architect, Diego Villareale engineer, Sam Scatterday representing Lexus

Chairman Cosentino: Okay, on continuing review, we have Lexus, 275 Kisco Avenue. Come up; identify yourself for the record please.

Roland Baroni: We have revised plans to show the board from your last meeting they were able to further reduce the impervious coverage somewhat significantly. We'd like to show you those plans and answer any further questions that you might have about drainage and hopefully you will be satisfied to the point where you will be able to consider for us a Neg Dec so we can pursue our approvals with New York City DEP and with the zoning board of appeals.

Chairman Cosentino: Why don't you come up here and identify yourself for the record?

Gary Gianfranseco: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Gary Gianfranseco from Arconics Architecture, PC. On behalf of the applicants who propose to construct this state of the art Lexus free standing facility of 48,000 square feet with approximately 276 cars both on-site and within the building. The most significant issue; this submission reflects staff comments - the comments from the board and a general tightening up of the basic plan. The reduction in pervious surface over our original application, originally we had approximately reduced the impervious surface from what currently exists on that site by approximately 8,600 square feet. We have now further reduced that impervious surface to over 12, 500 square feet, primarily due to the narrowing of the drive; which was a suggestion of this board, and the reconfiguration of the parking display areas to make them a bit more geomorphic, if you will, and to create some larger areas which would provide plantings for the front display area. In addition to that - and I'll just go through the points by one at a time - the issue of the handicapped spaces. There are seven spaces in response to Michael's comment with regard to handicapped - we have seven spaces now dispersed throughout the site, a loading zone has been indicated against the building down at the far northern part of our site. We have indicated snow staging areas; the location of a dumpster has now been indicated, and it is screened right at the service entrance into the service bays. We have indicated as requested sidewalks along Kisco Avenue, with regard to some of the detailed questions, we have increased the width of the handicapped stalls to 9 ½ feet as suggested. We have indicated areas of heavy site pavement. We have also indicated drop curbs, stabilized construction entrance and a small guard rail. In addition to that on this drawing I give you the signage, the pylon signage has now been reduced to be totally code conforming. It has been reduced by square footage as well as height. Our original application would have required a variance; we can avoid that now with the proposal which is before you this evening. With regard to the landscape plan, as you will recall John Slacker had presented the new landscaping concept for the display areas - all of that has been incorporated into the submission as well as continuing around the remainder of the site. John is unable to be with us tonight; he has another meeting, but primarily this plan, which has been submitted to you, is consistent with what John has represented right along with regard to our plantings. We have taken into a fact in response to the comment we have taken into effect with our lighting plan the actual planting plan, and depending on any subsequent tweaks or adjustment, we'll have to go back to the lighting plan at the end for one last go round as far as engineering out our photo metrics.

Chairman Cosentino: How many cars are going to be displayed in the showroom?

Gary Gianfranseco: Do you have the floor plan?

Chairman Cosentino: Alright we'll get to that then I guess.

Gary Gianfranseco: Okay. With regard to the lighting, we have also revised our lighting plan we have in response to some of the comments. There were some dark spots; we have now addressed them by adding some additional fixtures by lowering some of the fixtures closer to the grade, and by adding some additional wall mounted fixtures on the building. We have addressed those comments with regard to the demolition plan.

Anthony Sturniolo: Gary, excuse me. What's the maximum foot candles lighting that you have?

Gary Gianfranseco: I believe it's five.

Anthony Sturniolo: Okay. Thank you.

Gary Gianfranseco: With regard to some of the general engineering comments, we have revised the grading plan, the utility plan, sediment and erosion control plans, and if you'd like I'll go into that, but that tends to be a little bit more nitty gritty detail, although we're happy to speak to that. The floor plan has not really changed from the original submission. The display vehicles; two, four six and this portion of showroom and three; this would be the pre-owned, and this would be the new vehicle showroom. We have three vehicles on display outside under the overhang which have always been indicated. The elevations have been revised as well, in response to some of the comments. We have been in front of the Architectural Review Board for an initial meeting, and we are addressing some of those issues as well. Primarily, though, the facades which are before you this evening, in concept have been accepted by the ARB, we're tweaking some things as well as the signage. We have also given an indication of screening of the rooftop equipment here and basically at a point some - almost two hundred feet away from the overhang and the parapet, the mechanical equipment is still not visible. The rear elevations of the building, which have essentially been unchanged and then the revised rendering, which takes into the fact the narrowing of the entrance road and the additional plantings which have now been incorporated. This rendering reflects the planting plan, which John Slaker has included in our submission. These are the actual light fixtures which would be on the site. This signage is a bit larger than that which is part of the existing proposal before you. That in the nutshell is the changes of the submission.

Chairman Cosentino: Any questions?

Anthony Sturniolo: The DEP letter dated May 2; does what you just told us reflect the concerns of this letter?

Gary Gianfranseco: The additional concerns of that letter will revolve around the sizes of the detention basins. The concept - the idea of the three detention basins is an acceptable concept. We are understand that our design requirements for capacity is going to increase the size of these basins somewhat - we haven't done the calculations yet, but they will need to be increased somewhat. They are asking us to address some issues such as the run-off from the Toyota property comes right on our property. They are asking us to capture that water on our property, and then pipe it to the catch basin. We are addressing some of those issues as well. But we do have a feeling, we know for certain that these basins will increase in size somewhat. That's more of a reflection - I'm sorry, more of a reflection of the fact that we have high ground water.

Anthony Sturniolo: One of the other points they made note of was the recycling of car wash water.

Gary Gianfranseco: Correct. Our original DAF indicated that we were going to use a closed loop recyclable system, and we will continue to do so.

Anthony Sturniolo: And there was another comment that they may- that the DEP was suggesting using a multi-level parking garage in an effort to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces. Are you going to do that?

Gary Gianfranseco: That comment was in response to - at that point, when we met with DEP last week -

Anthony Sturniolo: I'm not saying it's a good idea or a bad idea, I'm just asking your thoughts on that statement.

Gary Gianfranseco: There is - there was some consideration to it, but quite frankly the irregular shaped parcel really doesn't lend itself to it, and quite frankly, some of the other issues that we're dealing with on the site - it will in fact have a severe economic impact on the project.

Anthony Sturniolo: What would have a severe economic impact?

Gary Gianfranseco: The cost of -

Anthony Sturniolo: A multi-level garage?

Gary Gianfranseco: A multi level garage. And in how you get up to it. A significant amount of space is allocated to the circulation of getting up and getting down to those things, and that's a luxury that this site is not able to support. Between its area and its configuration.

Ralph Vigliotti: In dovetailing on that, how are you addressing DEP's concern, you know, DEP urges the applicant to consider alternatives to reducing the amount of proposed impervious surfaces. Now they make suggestions such as a multi level parking garage which you have just indicated is an issue, but how are you going to address their concern?

Gary Gianfranseco: In our conversations with DEP, subsequent to that letter, we did give an indication that there will be some reduction in impervious surface down in this area as well. The fact that we went from the 8,600 square feet in reduction to the 12,500 was very well received by the DEC and the fact that the, DEP rather, the fact that we are going to be cutting this back as well as handling the run off -

Ralph Vigliotti: How much, how many, so you're taking some parking spaces away to do that, so just, how many parking spaces will we lose in order to cut back on the impervious surface?

Gary Gianfranseco: We're not positive at this point in time. We have to go back now and do the calculations.

Ralph Vigliotti: Are they satisfied with the 12,500 or are they asking for more?

Gary Gianfranseco: They're pushing us a little bit more, but -

Ralph Vigliotti: How much is a little bit?

Gary Gianfranseco: I can't tell you.

Ralph Vigliotti: I think you're going to have to. I think we need to know that.

Gary Gianfranseco: I did not get the - I got the impression that going from 86 to 12/5 was very impressive from their point of view and that they were pushing us to do a bit more.

Ralph Vigliotti: Okay.

Gary Gianfranseco: It's probably going to be more a function of what we're required for that basin in area as opposed to eliminate.

Ralph Vigliotti: That was a 50% gain.

Gary Gianfranseco: Yes.

Ralph Vigliotti: But that still may not have been enough. So, what appears to be a fifty percent gain on your part - and you're really excited about that, that gain is not enough. So, although it's fifty they may want a gain of 20 more percent. This agenda, and I was remiss in not digging deeper into the application, I didn't realize was a car wash. So, can you just share with us where that is going to be located and how that's going to work?

Gary Gianfranseco: The car wash is located on the far end of the building. The car wash is located at the end of the service bays. It will be effectively a drive-thru car wash. There will be grates and containment of all of the liquid within that confined space. There is a tank which gets -

Chairman Cosentino: Just for customer vehicles

Ralph Vigliotti: Good, I'm glad that's under reconciliation - just for customer, meaning -Lexus customer? Obviously, if somebody comes in a pays for a car to be washed, you're a customer.

Roland Baroni: No, no. These are Lexus service customers that when the cars come in for service,

Multiple people talking

Ralph Vigliotti: Okay. It's good that that be cleared.

Roland Baroni: It would be our inventory or serviced cars.

Ralph Vigliotti: Or loaner cars.

Ralph Vigliotti: I'm sorry, Tony, thank you for letting me jump in on that.

Anthony Sturniolo: No, no.

Stanley Bernstein: Mr. Chairman, are you finished, Tony?

Anthony Sturniolo: Oh, yes, sure.

Chairman Cosentino: I just have one question. Is there a - say you bring the car in and get it serviced. You come with your child, and the mother waits for an oil change or something like that. Is there a sitting room for a child, is there a -

Gary Gianfranseco: Yes. There is a quiet area, a confined space for someone who may have a laptop, and then there is a more general open area which would accommodate children.

Chairman Cosentino: Or you go to saw mill, they have a daycare center.

Gary Gianfranseco: Hopefully, our customers aren't there that long.

Chairman Cosentino: Okay.

Anthony Sturniolo: Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Cosentino: Yes.

Stanley Bernstein: Is that carwash going to use town water, village water?

Gary Gianfranseco: Ultimately, any replenishment of that system will.

Stanley Bernstein: When you say replenishment, you intend to recycle the majority -

Gary Gianfranseco: Correct - but there is a certain amount of evaporation and loss.

Stanley Bernstein: Have you calculated the amount of water that the village might have to supply?

Gary Gianfranseco: We have not -

Stanley Bernstein: I mean, total, for the building.

Gary Gianfranseco: No, we have not.

Stanley Bernstein: Um hmm. I'd like those figures.

Gary Gianfranseco: In the long EAF we gave you figures relative to all of the bathroom facilities, so we would just need to give you -

Stanley Bernstein: Just add that to it. Have you addressed the phosphorous loading in the Croton Watershed, which the DEP very concerned with?

Gary Gianfranseco: I would ask Diego to that question.

Roland Baroni: That's actually going to be part of the subject of our application to them, which we're hold on until we finish the environmental review process with you because they need to determine a complete application, which they won't do until there is a determination.

Diego Villareale: Diego Villareale, John Meyer Consultants. With regard to the phosphorous restricted basin; it all relates to the practices that are going to be used during - for treatment of storm water. The detention basins which DEP prefers have higher phosphorous removal rates than other types of storm water treatment systems. So, in essence the phosphorous removal is handled through the development of the storm water pollution prevention plan and those basins. Once those calculations are finalized with an accepted practice from DEP, it addresses that phosphorous removal rate.

Stanley Bernstein: Have you thought about landscaping and fertilization and chemicals on the landscaping? Have you thought about that at all?

Diego Villareale: Well, the landscaping will be watered. I'm not 100% sure what DEP permits; whether chemicals and fertilizers and different types of chemicals can even be used within this basin, but that's something that will be addressed throughout the process with DEP as well.

Stanley Bernstein: That's all Mr. Chairman.

Ralph Vigliotti: I have a question going back to the driveway - if you can pull that. Yeah, I guess that's it. Awhile back, I had some reservations about the driveway coming in off of Kisco Avenue, and I, as one member of the board, and I don't know how the board feels at this point, that we were going to look at an alternate ingress/egress off of I guess it's Holiday Drive there? Okay. That was never done so we never had an opportunity to take a look at that. I know you were reluctant because you had felt (some grading?) that's used to take a look at that, but I'm looking at the wholly potential if there is a holding lane to make a right hand turn coming south on Kisco Avenue; any kind of traffic back-up that there may be with the potential light at Holiday Drive. So, I don't think you presented to us all of the

Chairman Cosentino: Options.

Ralph Vigliotti: Options that could be available for that site with regard to traffic concerns that we have with a potential light that may be installed there. I know you've become fixated on this ingress/egress, and I can appreciate why - you want it to be seen, you want people to drive right up the driveway. But I don't think we have addressed the larger issue for that site, and I still believe that needs to be addressed. I don't know how my colleagues on the board feel about that. It was addressed awhile back. You did come back with an alternative, but you came back with shrinking the driveway which was a major change. You changed a number of parking spaces, added more drain space and I think we felt good about that. But we really didn't address the traffic flow in and out, and that traffic flow with that potential.

Roland Baroni: Well, we also came back with a contribution towards the generic improvement; whatever the village determines to do in this nature which we hope would meliorate whatever concern still exists.

Ralph Vigliotti: I may be wrong in saying this, but I believe some of what the contribution - it's there, and thank you, but I think you need to contribute in planning what that may look like with the light, without the light, potential back up at the light - holding lanes; I don't think you've done enough. That's your corner, guys. That corner is going to become your corner. And I don't think you've addressed the issues that that corner is going to pose on your site and the traffic flow through - and I'm going to keep calling it your corner, because it will become your corner. I don't think you've done a very thorough job - you've done a very thorough job inside your boundary lines, but I don't think you have addressed the issues beyond your boundary lines with enough detail for me. So, I just leave that, and gentlemen if there is anything you want to add or not add to it, we can just go from that point.

Gary Gianfranseco: I think we can come back with a - I don't - I don't believe between Roland and myself we have that answer. I thought that the issue of accessing off of Holiday Drive between Bob Roth's comments about the grading and John Collins' comments about vehicle movements out onto Holiday, I thought that kind of laid that issue to rest, but I can't say for certain.

Ralph Vigliotti: I had said to John that night, and we had a little fun with it. I said, John, if the village hired you might have found a reason why we needed that driveway. Gentlemen, I want the site to work, and I want it to work for the village in your corner to work. I don't - I really don't think we've addressed the issues in - thoroughly enough for me. And you just said yourself that you need to look at that a little closer, so it kind of places us in an off balancing situation planning wise.

Stanley Bernstein: Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Cosentino: Yes.

Stanley Bernstein: In reference to what Mr. Vigliotti is talking about, I have some thoughts about the entire traffic problem on Kisco Avenue. Your one project, and I - when Dr. John was here for another project, he seems to be the traffic man for everything that's going on in Mount Kisco; he seems to know the village very well, and of course, I believe everything he says implicitly. But I mentioned to him, in reference to another project, and it's germane with this project as well, that you have to picture a large vessel and everybody is pouring a gallon of water into this large vessel, and one day the water gets near the top. Now, you are not the last person on Kisco Avenue that is going to be pouring into that gallon of water. It's going to reach a point where the water in the vessel begins to overflow, and what do we say to the last one on Kisco Avenue? Do we just say to him, well, because of all those project that came before you, you can't build. Do we say that? Do we have to say that? Should we be put in that corner - let's put it that way. You are aware of course that Premier is right across the street; large traffic impact. Ability beyond disability is across the street - large traffic impact. Of course, the mall is - holiday season is an enormous traffic impact. We're going to have something being built on Kisco Mountain which is across the street towards the Saw Mill, something fairly large. Coming out of Kensico Drive, there are two buildings that are unoccupied; they're going to be developed. Saw Mill Club has a tremendous impact. You have to address your little piece of our big problem. And it's a big problem for Mount Kisco. If you've ever driven through Mount Kisco during rush hour, you know what it is. I can't get out of my driveway between the hours of 8:30 and say about 10:30. I can't get out of my driveway. I go south on the Saw Mill to Chappaqua and come back up on 117. There's another issue. Everybody is pushing for a light on the southbound ramp of the Saw Mill River Parkway. Well, we know. Dr. John kept telling us its going to be timed properly, but what happens when holiday time, and we have this awful amount of traffic going southbound to go into Target, and some people coming in for service, or buying Lexus'. Christmas time everybody wants to buy his wife a Lexus to show off all the wonderful things he's done over the year, and what's going to happen when that light is red and it backs up onto the Saw Mill River Parkway? What do we do then? I don't think any traffic studies to date have really helped the situation at this point. I think it has to be thought more thoroughly. It is a tremendous impact to the village, and the residents now, who live here and have to get from one end to the other, so.

Roland Baroni: Hasn't the village done what it needed to do by creating implicitly this traffic impact program?

Stanley Bernstein: They have, but I don't - I'm not going to use the word believe. They have, but I'm not a traffic expert, but the more I read, the more it hurts my stomach. The more my ulcer starts to grow, and I.

Roland Baroni: What more can a village do, though? Except you're planning for the future.

Stanley Bernstein: Well, I don't want to say it because I'll have a - it will be a lawsuit to the village, because what more can the village do - the village could stop all development, and that will help the traffic. I don't want to turn back the clock. I can remember a time when we could drive from the bowling alley to the Indian in about a minute and a half. And of course, now you know it takes about fifteen minutes. And the same thing applies to almost any street. Now, the only street right now is Kisco Avenue, where the traffic is reasonable and people can get from one place to another and go do all the thing they have to do. Your tiny little impact is going to become a large impact when all these other projects get on line. I think we need further study - you say, well, we've studied it to death, well; we really haven't studied it to death. I think we need a further study. We have to have a good look at this. That's it Mr. Chairman.

Ralph Vigliotti: Your plan needs to show - the traffic light needs to show the lanes - holding lanes at the traffic light, holding lanes at Holiday Inn, holding lanes coming into your proposed front entrance, all of those things, and it's not showing any of that. I just want to leave it at that point. Gentlemen, how do we proceed here?

Anthony Sturniolo: Mr. Chairman, I need to echo two points that Mr. Vigliotti raised and Mr. Bernstein as well; that the traffic concerns that we have are very valid and important, and how are we going to deal with it, and I, too am not one hundred percent convinced that all the issues, the alternatives coming out in the back by Holiday Drive have been thoroughly researched by the applicant, and I do feel we need much more traffic circulation information regarding this application.

Ralph Vigliotti: And I believe the applicant just indicated a short while ago that perhaps they need to look a little further.

Anthony Sturniolo: Further, you're right.

Ralph Vigliotti: That being said, I'd like them to have an opportunity to look a little further and come back with the traffic piece. What's on - as I said, it's what's on the internal boundary lines - that's working. I think you've got that. Now we're looking at your corner of town and how we can mitigate by good traffic planning any potential problems that that corner is going to bring to that strip, and that's what we're looking at. You indicated that you need to take a look at that. So I think you need a couple of more weeks to do that. We're progressing, the internal piece - I think you're there. But we have that alternate, I think the alternate coming out onto holiday inn, and gentlemen if you feel that what's there is fine, I don't want to have them spend money looking at an alternate, but I believe they should and I think you need to show holding lanes and a potential traffic light, and the distance between the traffic light and the front entrance of the building. Is there a left turn, left turn out, holding lanes, all of that. And I think that's the last piece of the planning process.

Roland Baroni: Is there way in which, and we did discuss this somewhat but inept this morning - where we could proceed down two paths at once? One, come back and give you additional information on traffic, but at the same time at least consider a condition negdec where we might also be able to process our plans before DEP so that we're doing two things at once.

Chairman Cosentino: From what I gather, that's what the board is asking tonight. I think they're asking you to come back with the specifics, and then I think we would make determination.

Anthony Sturniolo: Not to contradict the conversation that you and the chairman just had, but am I hearing you correctly, you are now advocating a condition Neg Dec as opposed to -

Roland Baroni: I would love for you to consider a straight Neg Dec, however, if you still have a concern about mitigation of the traffic, then I would think that - given that we have to come back and satisfy you on that, it would seem that a condition Neg Dec would allow us at the same time as we do that, to pursue our application to DEP which is also of critical time importance to us.

Gary Gianfranseco: One of the issues that we face is that after these basins are designed, certain things may start to evolve within the site.

Anthony Sturniolo: Sure, that needs alteration and have further impacts, absolutely.

Ralph Vigliotti: I hear where you're coming from. I just want to make sure that the alternatives are explored, and that's part of any conditions we put in place. That all of what we've talked about individually with regarding to traffic lights and holding lanes and ingress/egress off of Holiday Drive, vs. no ingress/egress off of Kisco Avenue, all of those alternatives are on the table for us to discuss.

Anthony Sturniolo: And uh, I'm sorry, sorry, sorry.

Ralph Vigliotti: As far as any conditions at all, I understand you need to move forward with DEP, and that's -

Anthony Sturniolo: On that, just for the record, on the condition that. Where is that going to leave us now, for the record?

Nanette Bourne: Well, before I get to that, just to tie up loose ends, Roland was talking about the, these, going on to outlets at the same time. There are site planning issues, and there are site planning issues, site issues that I still have that we haven't discussed determining the basis of the appropriateness of the landscaping I think Mike probably has engineering issues. Those really haven't been aired and really gone through, because we're in this catch 22 with dep.

Chairman Cosentino: So it's really too premature for even that.

Nanette Bourne: Well, no. See the whole idea - and this is where it's really unfair to the planning board to make intelligent decisions, and the applicant to try and figure out how to maneuver, because DEP will not consider their formal application of the storm water push (?) prevention plan, which will address Stan's concerns with the phosphorous issues that you raised. The size and the location of the basins. I personally have an issue with the small detention basin that's in the front of the site because we have a situation with 301 Lexington where they designed the detention basin and landscaping except that you can't have landscaping in a basin that's filled with water. That's something that I'd like to bring your attention to, but it is almost premature and almost a waste of time to go through it, because until they do their calculations they are not going to get feedback from DEP to bring it back to you. And until you do a secret determination, they can't start that process. So it's like everybody's going in circles. With regards to the traffic, which is another issue, they are adding about 100 cars an hour in the peak hour morning, and 125 or something in the pm peak, which represents about ten percent increase in the corridor. They've done a traffic study, they've done a fairly comprehensive traffic study that looks at not only their site but all of the other existing sites and adding Saw Mill and Premier and the potential for the Town and Country and they have come up with some mitigation. The mitigation addresses many but not all has to do with the DOT plan to put in the light which we are talking about at the southbound ramp. You were going to look into whether or not that light is - if there is a PIN which means that it is a certainty, or it's just a plan.

Roland Baroni: John Collins was doing that but he wasn't able to get today a response from DOT.

Nanette Bourne: Okay. So in fact, if the outcome were to bring before you this plan from dot that there's a light that goes in there, and when that light goes in this traffic is mitigated, that's a perfect opportunity for a condition of Neg Dec because that gives you your certainty that there is an improvement being made to the core which mitigates their impact. I'm concerned that if until they find that out from dot. At the same time it would be nice to get this - some feedback from dot as to how their site plan is going to go. It's really chasing your tail.

Ralph Vigliotti: That's only the light proposed at the southbound exit as opposed to the light that we're looking at Holiday Drive and Kisco Avenue.

Nanette Bourne: Yeah, and the problem with that - with the other lights - there are three locations for lights; southbound ramp, the northbound ramp and holiday. You can't have three lights, and you probably can't have two lights.

Ralph Vigliotti: You can't have south and north, but you can have south and Holiday Drive.

Nanette Bourne: Perhaps.

Ralph Vigliotti: Okay. And that's the light that I have the biggest concern with. On one hand it's going to be helpful, and on the other hand it can cause some real problems on Kisco Avenue and a back up onto that future driveway and so on. That's what we need to explore.

Roland Baroni: And that's what John Collins has indicated. Don't be so quick to put that light in any particular location until you see how the traffic moves, which is why the collection of the -

Ralph Vigliotti: It's a funny question and answer by John. I think we have to assume that that light's going in, and what impact is that light going to have, positive or negative?

Nanette Bourne: I think what's valid about that comment that John made is that the traffic problem can only go so far to guess at how the future is going to look, and what he was suggesting, and I think it has some bearing, is to look at the impact. Once that DOT light goes in, based on what that does to traffic in the corridor, then you make a determination as to the optimal location of the set-up, which puts all of us in a very difficult position. The only thing that could be worse is to put a light in a location that's going to make traffic worse.

Ralph Vigliotti: I'm not a traffic engineer, and I don't - I'm not. But I'm just visualizing making a left-hand turn out of your property on Kisco Avenue; it's not going to happen. If there's a light you have an opportunity for the light to change, and you're going to get out. Getting out of that property - the way it's set now, during any kind of rush hour, you're not getting out, you're not making a left-hand turn.

Roland Baroni: We're not exiting out of that drive.

Ralph Vigliotti: How far off your property do they have to go? They have to go all the way to the back.

Roland Baroni: The vehicles are entering here, they are being serviced, and they are going to exit out at the back.

Ralph Vigliotti: They're coming-out onto Holiday Drive.

Roland Baroni: Yes, they're either doing this -

Ralph Vigliotti: Now to get to Holiday Drive. What do they do when they get to Holiday Drive and Kisco Avenue, how do they make a left-hand turn if there's a lot of traffic there without a light? It's just - it's - Gentlemen.

Roland Baroni: But if you were going to make a left-hand turn why wouldn't you go down Kensico to what is it -

Anthony Sturniolo: That backs up. That's a tough turn at that point.

Chairman Cosentino: Even now you can barely make a left-hand turn if you get down

Ralph Vigliotti: A left-hand turn getting onto Kisco Avenue is becoming horrific. When I come out of Toyota North trying to make a left-hand turn and literally have gone up the Saw Mill in frustration and come out Green Lane to get back into town. It's bad. You don't need to be a traffic engineer to know that. You just have to know the lay of the land and have sat there for eight or nine minutes.

Roland Baroni: So you're advocating that this is going to have to have to have the light.