PB Minutes 7-11-06

Minutes

Regular/Work Session of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday July 11, 2006

Meeting called to order at 7:50 pm Tuesday July 11, 2006 at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Joseph Cosentino

Anthony Sturniolo

Doug Hertz

Stanley Bernstein

Ralph Vigliotti

Sol Gibbons

Joseph Morreale

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Whitney Singleton

Staff Absent: Michael Stein

Joseph Cosentino: This is Tuesday, July 11, this is the Planning Board, this is a Regular/Work Session, and we're going to skip one item first and go directly to Nanette.

Nanette Bourne: As you all know, the entire Village is within the New York City Department of Protection Watershed which means that applicants that appear before you are required to get a permit from DEP. They are required to prepare and submit a storm water pollution prevention plan. Over the last many years, we have had a very good working relationship with Janine McCulgan who is the Engineer who was assigned by DEP to cover the Village of Mount Kisco. She was familiar with our projects; there was very free and productive interaction between Village Staff and Janine and projects that she was concerned with, projects that the Village was concerned with. Janine McCulgan left the DEP a week or so ago, and they have assigned a Staff Member who is here, Penny Kelly. I don't know a lot about her background except she has been with DEP for long time because I met with her probably about ten years ago.

Penny Kelly: I've been with the Department for twelve years.

Nanette Bourne: So I knew you when you were with the department for two years? Penny and I had a conversation about applications that were before you. I know over the last couple of meetings you've been encouraged by applicants to complete the SEQRA work as a means for applicants to be able to take their NegDec and go to DEP and start the DEP process, which is not the way we've done it. We had a much more flexible relationship with Janine. In talking with Penny there is no reason why it can't continue exactly the way that it is.

Penny Kelly: We encourage applicants to come and talk to us as they are talking to you so that if we have any concerns through our permit process, we can make the Board aware of those concerns. We think it's more productive to have that discussion between us. Sometimes we get copies of correspondence to you, and we will copy you on correspondence that we send to the applicant so that you know where we are, and it in no means inhibits the process. The only thing that's different for us is that SEQRA must be complete before an application is deemed complete. However, that doesn't mean that we're not going to review it until that time and give you some comments.

Joseph Cosentino: I understand.

Nanette Bourne: It's going to continue the way it's been, and I think the Board's concern is they have been in a position in the past where they have granted an approval subject to a DEP permit, and that DEP permit has required site plan changes which created an ongoing problem for several years. They are trying to avoid that.

Penny Kelly: Hopefully the applicants will appreciate that they are not going to go back and have to do things over regarding which one they are going to do first.

Tony Sturniolo: So Penny that will eliminate the term we use - the Catch 22 - between DEP and the NegDec.

Penny Kelly: We're hoping to minimize that kind of thing.

Joseph Cosentino: Thank you very much and thank you for coming.

Penny Kelly: Thank you for having me.

Conceptual Application:

1. New Zion Realty

96 Lexington Avenue

Application #PB2006-19

Brad Schwartz, attorney for the applicant, Dan Koppleman, engineer, Scott Davidson, applicant

Joseph Cosentino: The next thing on our agenda is New Zion Realty, 96 Lexington Avenue. We have a letter from Brad Schwartz to me. This is a conceptual application. We have a copy of the survey here, site board plan. Good evening.

Brad Schwartz: Brad Schwartz from on behalf of Zarin and Steinmetz on behalf of the applicant.

Joseph Cosentino: Just let me let my board know this is the property we were talking about. It is now rented by Datahar. It's a very difficult piece of property for parking. We have Scott here who came in a few years back and wanted to go up the other end of town but chose not to. He has an upholstery shop. He goes to his client's house mainly, and parking is very, very low for this site. From there I'll let you continue.

Brad Schwartz: I'll bring you to all my planning board meetings.

Dan Koppelman: Dan Koppelman from Dan Koppelman engineers.

Brad Schwartz: Scott is the Managing Member of New Zion Realty just for formality purposes. New Zion is the contract who purchased the property at 96 Lexington. Scott is proposing to re-locate SH Davidson Interiors, which is an upholstery business which is currently located at 350 Lexington, and he seeks to move into 96 Lexington under this application. This will require a Change of Use Permit from Datahar's current educational facility at 96 Lexington to what's called a service establishment, which is an expressly permitted use of New York Code. As Mr. Cosentino mentioned, the issue here is going to boil down to parking. The site is constrained physically. There are six parking spaces that currently exist that are all substandard. Part of this application proposes to do some minor site work and re-striping of the spaces to make all six spaces compliant; one of which would be an employee space. However, even though those six spaces are admittedly substantially short of the code required nineteen, based upon the requirements of the building. However, based upon Scott's operations, as Mr. Chairman pointed out, the actual business operations, our parking demand is only for five spaces, two employees that drive to work, Scott who uses his van to drive to work, and he picks up furniture from his customers, and the last two spaces would be allotted to his customers who come to pick out fabric to be used on the furniture. So we believe that the onsite parking spaces which would be code compliant are sufficient to support the use, however, we would need, if your board would provide conceptual sign off with positive feed back tonight, this application would require a variance from the Zoning Board to account for the short fall of parking spaces that we are pretty much stuck with here.

Joseph Cosentino: Well, let's face it. If we were to say you need twenty parking spaces or fifteen parking spaces, the building would stay vacant forever.

Brad Schwartz: Absolutely.

Joseph Cosentino: The reason for the six spaces, and I was on the Board then, was because that was all we were able to fit after the fact. And I think there was a variance for that, if I'm not mistaken.

Brad Schwartz: There was Datahar did receive a variance.

Joseph Cosentino: There was a variance given for the six parking spaces. The main concerns for the residents on the street that constantly complain rightfully about parking; I don't see this happening with this particular application here, only because of the amount of people that work here.

Brad Schwartz: And the difference in the nature of the business. You are not going to have the oversize vehicles transporting handicapped, etc.

Joseph Cosentino: I think it's a use that probably would be about the best use for that particular building.

Brad Schwartz: We certainly concur.

Doug Hertz: You currently have the business in town?

Scott Davidson: Yes.

Doug Hertz: And the way it's set up currently, how many clients are coming in to visit your space?

Scott Davidson: Maybe I get two a day.

Doug Hertz: And this is going to be a larger; how much square footage do you have on the current space?

Scott Davidson: Usable space, it's almost twice what I have now. Most of it is for storage. I have a really heavy room problem that when I pick up people's furniture, I get ladies who say can you pick up my sofa, and I say no I can't because I can't fit it in here. I'm in the Geiner's 1011 building downstairs. I only occupy a quarter of the space down there. It's maybe not quite 3,000 feet, so it's a little small for my needs.

Doug Hertz: But you don't expect that you're going to get more walk-through clients?

Scott Davidson: I never was retail. I do most of my work in the house. It's a referral business; I work with decorators and designers.

Doug Hertz: The increased square footage; are you going to increase the business?

Scott Davidson: That's more for my ability to store people's furniture. Right now it's quite cumbersome in there.

Brad Schwartz: In fact, Mr. Hertz, there is a proposed floor plan that shows the interior uses, and there is nothing allotted to retail.

Doug Hertz: I didn't mean retail. What I was getting at was, if his business were going to be expanding based on the additional ability to handle large volume.

Scott Davidson: It's not for that purpose.

Doug Hertz: So you would expect that two or so customers a day is going stay the same?

Joseph Cosentino: What I gather, and only because I know some people that went there, most of his business is done going to the house; draperies and stuff like that. Very little is done internally.

Tony Sturniolo: If it's only two people a day on an average, you've pretty got much 2,330 square feet of showroom, and the showroom is designed to hold bolts of material.

Scott Davidson: Bolts and some sample books that the companies give me.

Tony Sturniolo: Approximately 2,300 square feet of showroom, you've got two full size bathrooms and a kitchen and five employees.

Joseph Cosentino: It's there already.

Tony Sturniolo: But you're not going to demise the kitchen or the bathroom?

Scott Davidson: No, because the employees have lunch during the day and they can use it. It's not in my way structurally where my work area would be, so I was just going to leave it. It's a great space to have lunch during the day. Right now they kind of eat near the furniture, so it's a great little kitchenette area for the employees and me to use.

Tony Sturniolo: Then on the second floor there is another 680 feet of more storage to store couches or chairs.

Scott Davidson: The board needs to understand that I work with foam and cotton and Dacron. These foam things are huge. They are nine feet long, when we stack them up they could almost go to, well, not this ceiling, but they are huge. The rolls of Dacron are three or four feet around when they come in, and they are 60 inches long. They are huge and they take up a lot of space. Right now I've got them jammed up all over the place. My organization for me is everything; because the more organized I am the more efficient myself and my people are. So, storage is key. I stock a lot of bulk with foam and cotton.

Tony Sturniolo: Brad, when is Ability moving to 120 Kisco?

Brad Schwartz: Mr. Cassidy just signed the plans that we submitted following your board's approval. So now Ability and Mr. Greenburgh are bidding out the job to contractors. The short answer is going to be sometime in the fall.

Tony Sturniolo: In the cover letter on Page 2, the 4^th paragraph, without getting into a full discussion at this time, there is a line further down that says also the proposed use would insure no further parking problems at the subject property so long as S.H. Davidson Interiors is operating there, then there is a footnote below that that talks about there are also metered parking spaces in front of the subject property along Gatto Drive that could be used for short term parking if in the event that additional parking spaces are ever needed on a particular day, but you say the max you would have is two people at any given time, and only three throughout the day. But you kind of cover yourself by bringing up the fact -

Scott Davidson: I can't guarantee that I won't get three at one time.

Tony Sturniolo: You know what would be a simple way to address the parking issue that you have for your deficiency, would be if you made the building smaller and have more parking.

Brad Schwartz: Even that, the code compliant number would be 19. If we reduced it, obviously the 19 would drop.

Tony Sturniolo: Say you knocked off a couple of thousand square feet of building and created parking spaces? One of the concerns as one member of this board has is that residents in that immediate vicinity - they've gone through hell over the years - and I have a very serious concern about it. Whitney what's the name of that parking permit issue that New York State was able to grant, where the residents of Gatto drive have a sticker or a tag?

Whitney Singleton: Legislation for New York State Assembly for residential parking permits system.

Tony Sturniolo: And that's designed specifically to address their unique situation.

Whitney Singleton: Due to the parking demands in the downtown area, we specifically reserve certain residential streets solely for permit parking, Gatto Drive being one of them. So there is basically a problem, not per say by Datahar but just businesses in general, commuters in general on the streets. Parking is now relegated solely to residents.

Tony Sturniolo: To protect their residential needs.

Joseph Cosentino: I think that protects the residents there.

Tony Sturniolo: The other question I have is, Brad, do you believe there is a four-space variance that presently runs with this land?

Brad Schwartz: If I recall correctly, the variance that was granted to Datahar was for ten spaces and it was tied specifically to Datahar's use. There is no variance that was granted to Datahar that would be applicable to Mr. Davidson's business. We would need to go in and get our own individual variance that would probably similarly be tied to Mr. Davidson's operation and occupancy of the building.

Tony Sturniolo: One of the notes that the building inspector highlighted is a bullet point called the plan offers a proposal for an additional two staff parking spaces in the building as the ready accessibility of these spaces is compromised by existing exterior spaces.

Brad Schwartz: One item that we showed on the site plan, which we didn't include as part of our parking count, but we showed it just in the event that your Board would feel acceptable with it, is there is currently a garage on the property that is sealed off by a wall. We could remove that wall and provide two additional spaces, interior, that Scott could use for his vehicle, customers or it could be employee spaces as well.

Tony Sturniolo: How would you get into that? Would you have to drive over existing parking spaces?

Brad Schwartz: Yes. It would have to be the employee coming first thing in the morning and last to leave. It would only be for an employee in that circumstance, it couldn't be for customer parking.

Tony Sturniolo: So the exterior spaces would have to be left vacant so you could drive in, open the garage door, bring the vehicle in, close the door and then those spaces would become available.

Joseph Cosentino: That wouldn't be compliant to our parking standards, our code for a parking space.

Brad Schwartz: This is why we didn't include it.

Dan Koppelman: But for his operation, if this board agreed, he would like to do it. It was a garage in the past, it's blocked off now, and he'd like to do it.

Joseph Cosentino: That's another issue right now, but you can't count it as a parking space, and it's not complaint.

Doug Hertz: On that same point, is there any way to think about configuring the striping on the spaces so you can access that garage?

Dan Koppelman: Quite honestly, we would lose these two in order to access these two. So it wouldn't gain us anything in terms of parking.

Ralph Vigliotti: Is that because of the opening of the garage door?

Dan Koppelman: Both. The opening is here, this is the side of the building here that's there now, and this is blocked off. As you can see, this is the site, this is the building, and this is the only place for pavement parking. We have access to the street here, access to the street here, and there is no other way of configuring this thing. We are really to the max, that's the problem.

Brad Schwartz: Again, we are bringing these six spaces into compliance. We are maximizing the amount of code compliant spaces on the site.

Dan Koppelman: There is a potential to put another space, one more space here, but it ruins the corner, in my opinion.

Joseph Cosentino: You wouldn't want to put a space there. It takes away from greenery.

Dan Koppelman: It takes away from greenery; it puts a vehicle obstructing site lines at the corner of an intersection; so from an engineering standpoint I didn't want to do it.

Ralph Vigliotti: When Mr. Sturniolo mentioned taking down a section of the building, I kind of chuckled to myself for a second. Here we are ten minutes after that comment, and my chuckle has gone away. I almost feel that how it was represented by Mr. Sturniolo has some merit. We are at a crossroads with this building. You can't continue to have one building that has a variance for six spaces and now it's being purchased and/or leased and now we're going for another variance for the six spaces. Where do we kind of get a gain on parking? It's all about, not the building itself, it's about the neighborhood. I honestly believe, and I wish you all the luck in the world that your business will thrive and do very, very well, that potential showroom will become a showroom and more of your clients will take advantage of coming to the showroom rather than not. We are at a crossroads, and I hate to be a second on locking a section of the building down, but this garage has some interest. And if it's a little bit more of the garage literally coming down - that's why I was asking, how big is the garage door versus the garage itself?

Dan Coppelman: It's shown here. This pod was the old garage currently used for storage. The double doors were taken out, two individual doors were taken out, and a single door exists there now. So the proposal would be to reestablish that. There is a structural element here, so you would have two single doors. But even if you tore down the garage, you still can't use it for parking because I still have the conflict of spaces 4, 5 and 6 where I couldn't get to those spaces even if the garage wasn't there and even if the building wasn't there. I still couldn't get into those two spaces.

Tony Sturniolo: The code says 19. You're claiming because of the uniqueness of your business you only need five, and you're asking, and this is obviously only a conceptual, and you're basically saying to us, let's collectively figure out a way to massage around 14 more parking spaces in an area that everybody - that most people in this room, everybody on this planning board - knows is a serious concern with the residents and their ability to access parking and traffic on Gatto Drive. I don't mean to sound like Ralph and I are bouncing back and forth with one another on this, but there is just a gut feeling that either the building is too big for what you're doing, or you don't have enough parking spaces. That's why I go back to the idea; why not make the building smaller so you don't need any parking space variances.

Joseph Cosentino: Well, if I could just answer that question. And I'm not here trying to say he should have this. I'm going to repeat what I said before. If you leave it the way it is now, nothing will really fit into this. Economically, if the person is going to spend a million or more to purchase a building to get the square footage what it is, he's going to have to go back to the landlord and say they want me knock down part of the building, and we're going to have to re-negotiate and do something. What puzzles me is that the ZBA gave 10 spaces for a much larger use, which really didn't work out. I was here on the board, and they said they wouldn't impact the area, which they did.

Whitney Singleton: In 1995 they granted a variance for four spaces.

Joseph Cosentino: I don't know what the ZBA would really do. There is only one way to find out, go before the ZBA regardless what this board says.

Brad Schwartz: From your board we need a Change of Use Permit to go from educational facility to a service establishment. The Zoning Board would be the body to grant the variance for the parking space requirement. Our argument would be, and it is, that we understand what happened with Datahar and the oversized vehicles and parking problems and traffic issues over at Gatto Drive -

Joseph Cosentino: The main thing that I have to get off my mind. Does this protect the residents from what happened before? What are the pluses and the minuses? I wouldn't want them to go through what they went through before. I hate to repeat myself, but it doesn't seem like they would with something like this there. I don't know. I don't think so.

Tony Sturniolo: One of the ways to address your question, Mr. Chairman, is this last bullet point in the building inspector's memo. I think he's kind of answering.

Joseph Cosentino: Okay, but have we corrected that problem? That's the point. Have we corrected the problem that existed? I don't know the answer to that, and that's the issue.

Brad Schwartz: I guess some of the questions I would ask Scott to answer as far as truck deliveries, a fleet vehicle for pick up and drop offs, if you could describe that, about the usurer van to go out and pick up.

Scott Davidson: With all due respect to everyone here, basically this is what it is. My father was in this business for 45 years, and I came from Chappaqua. When I came up to Mount Kisco I already had three thousand customers. The day I moved I sent out a mailer, and I was busier there than I was when I was in Chappaqua. I function off of two parking spaces out on Lexington. In front of Geiners building is Mount Kisco Supply, now Davis and Warsaw, and the deli is across the street on a little bit of a diagonal. I usually park my van out there; you guys have probably seen it. There is maybe two more spots in front of the hardware store. I have existed there for eight years on those two parking spaces. Very few people ever walk around to the back of that parking lot by the garbage. What I do is, I go out and pick up furniture. I get one UPS delivery a day, maybe twice a week a FedEx. I have no carpet rolls delivered. I'm the one picking up all the furniture. So it's just me with my little van that goes in and out. That's it. I'm like a ghost town compared to what's going on down there now.

Tony Sturniolo: One of the concerns that this board would be faced, and we obviously, like any other applicant, wish you well financially in your endeavors, but as things grow, it may not be the one or two vans anymore. We need to be a little bit proactive in our thinking. As you go from 3,500 square feet to this, if you're successful, it's going to be more traffic. And that's what we're dealing with. And this is a conceptual, and I just have one more point to add, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll end it. Brad, the second page in your letter, the third paragraph - if I said to you the phrase divides and conquers, would I be painting your paragraph properly?

Brad Schwartz: Absolutely not.

Tony Sturniolo: Okay. Could you explain to me why?

Brad Schwartz: We're following the process. We're here tonight for conceptual review. We can't even go to the Zoning Board until we come here, make an application, the application has to be reviewed by the building inspector, and the building inspector would then have to issue a Notice of Denial, which then triggers, which is what we formally appeal to the Zoning Board. We are not asking you to send us to the Zoning Board with any positive or a negative recommendation. We are following a process. Once we go to the Zoning Board, and if we get a Zoning Board variance, we would then come back to the Planning Board and continue review here. This site plan application cannot proceed if we don't get a Zoning Board variance.

Tony Sturniolo: So your last line - we would likely refrain from submitting a formal application to your board until such time as we may obtain a variance -

Brad Schwartz: Let's just recognize that we are here tonight for conceptual. Unless Austin or Nanette advises us that we must submit a formal and pay the costs associated with submitting a formal application to your board first before going to the Zoning Board, of course we would do it. But we would prefer to go to the Zoning Board first and then come back so as not to waste anyone's time.

Stanley Bernstein: One small point. You should be aware that this move is going to cause a considerable amount of walk-in traffic. You may not want it, you may not discourage it, but you're in a visible location, and you're right on the corner, and there will be a lot of walk-in traffic. Visualize cars stopping, double-parking just to pop in and see what you're all about. That's another problem that we have to face.

Brad Schwartz: There will be no sign inviting the public into your store.

Scott Davidson: I have one sign that is currently outside. I'm not having any grand opening like McDonalds or something like that.

Stanley Bernstein: We were presented with this problem when it came to the florist in the middle of Lexington Avenue, and they wrote a sign that discouraged walk-ins. I forgot what the sign was; I think Nannette wrote up verbiage on it. It's something to be said, because there will be people stopping, coming in and see what you're all about where they don't now.

Tony Sturniolo: Could we look at another variation if part of the building is demised.

Dan Coppelman: I don't think there is anyway to demise enough of the building so we don't need a variance. It absolutely needs a variance. The question will come up; we might reduce the differential between 19 to 6. You could demise part of the building to maybe 15 to 6. It's still going to be a substantial variance. I guess the only question is, by tearing down part of this building, either anywhere you go; it doesn't give you necessarily more parking. It's just going to be less building that you need. Because we're built right up to the line here and right up to the line here. This already exists. It's physically sitting, stuck into this site. And I do mean shoehorned into the site.

Brad Schwartz: Anyway, it will eliminate some of the storage space that Scott is looking to take advantage of at this location.

Tony Sturniolo: Could the building be wrong for your needs? Could the building be right for Mt. Kisco's needs?

Brad Schwartz: In looking at a scale here, are you suggesting the Village would purchase the building?

Tony Sturniolo: No, not at all - not at all.

Brad Schwartz: I mean, as far as the Village's needs for parking issues, again, we believe that the nature of this use would solve parking issues over at Gatto Drive. The Zoning Board would also limit its variance to Mr. Davidson's use and occupancy, so it's not going to open up for another service establishment, which is also going to stress the limited use on the district, so they won't allow another more traffic intense use to come in without appearing back before your board, and if that application were part of the Zoning Board. We are focusing in on the uniqueness of this one business operation and the fact that, in response to Mr. Cassidy's questions, there is not a fleet of vehicles, it does not have truck deliveries coming all day long. He goes out, picks up the customer's furniture and brings it back. He does the upholstery work on site. This use does not generate a lot of traffic. We believe it is the best service establishment of this kind for this site given for the traffic issues at best, or the lack thereof.

Ralph Vigliotti: It's unfortunate. Our experiences tell us the number one issue with any plan that comes before us is parking - number one. And our experiences working with parking consultants and traffic engineers and so on is, although we are not the professional designers of parking lots and traffic engineers, nine times out of ten we are right on the money. I hope you are not discounting what we're saying.

Joseph Cosentino: I think the main issue here that we have to find out in what we already did; well the ZBA is one issue, of what we already did to the area if it helped. If it didn't help, then we may have a problem. But I think we need to go back to the residents there and find out what we did - if it did help.

Brad Schwartz: Again, I want to bring out the contrast in the nature of the vehicles and the traffic that was used for Datahar what we're suggesting is going to be used here, frankly, it's night and day.

Joseph Cosentino: I agree. Its apples and oranges.

Doug Hertz: From my perspective, I think you're right. I think on paper this is a fairly good fit. This may be because you're planning to use most of this as storage and not a lot of employees. The concern that I have, and I think other board members have, is should you succeed beyond your wildest dreams, that the use could become more intense, that the parking requirement could become more intense. There's the potential for that. There may be ways that we can construct - should the board wants to approve - there may be ways to construct something so that we limit certain things, but it gets very, very difficult. Policing is not what we want to be in the business of doing.

Brad Schwartz: Scott is already turning customers away because of storage space.

Scott Davidson: I'm just listening. I'm already kind of maxed now. I'm one guy. I don't have partners, my wife helps me out once in a while, but I'm looking for storage space, not a million new customers. I just want some more storage space. I'm probably not going to do a heck of a lot more. Everybody knows me in the area anyway. They already know where I am, so yes, they'll probably want to maybe stop in and see me, yeah, you're right. They might want to do that, but it's not going to last forever, and certainly if they did, I'm not looking for that much customer expansion; I'm just looking to re-locate down the street for more storage and more efficiency of the building. And that's the honest truth.

Brad Schwartz: And along the line of what Mr. Hertz is saying, again we could again restrict any approval to this used to the interior space plan so that other rooms won't be turned into retail space. I can understand monitoring a certain issue, but I think the most that we can do is put in language that would ensure that there would not be any increase in parking.

Joseph Cosentino: Well, anyway, this is a conceptual. I think you need to come in with a formal application and we'll start working on it.

Brad Schwartz: Nanette that is the procedural question that Mr. Sturniolo put in earlier. Do we go to the Zoning Board before or after formal application?

Nanette Bourne: You have to submit the formal application.

Brad Schwartz: And I will delete the sentence in my letter and we will make a formal application.

Doug Hertz: You can't get a denial letter -

Brad Schwartz: - until a formal. Very good thank you.

Formal Application:

1. John's Best Restaurant

353 North Bedford Road

Application # PB2006-

Ted Strauss, representing the applicant, Mario Sandolo, applicant

Joseph Cosentino: John's Best, 353 North Bedford Road, would you come up and identify yourselves for the record please?

Theodore Strauss: Mr. Chairman, my name is Theodore Strauss; I am the architect working with Mr. Sandolo.

Mario Sandolo: Mario Sandolo.

Theodore Strauss: This application had been previously approved by this board in 1997, and it had lapsed. This is precisely the same as you had previously approved, except for one thing and that is the rear area of the original parking is now proposed as gravel instead of being paved. Otherwise, the applications are identically the same.

Joseph Cosentino: As far as framing, construction is the same, correct?

Theodore Strauss: Correct. One additional item - we had previously had approval on from DEP, the question has arisen as Coppelman engineers have been the site engineers on this project, as to whether or not the DEP approval had to be renewed as well, or up until just this evening, as a matter of fact, the decision was that there was to be a letter issued of no authority on the part of DEP. Ms. Kelly, whom you met earlier, and I spoke to just before the meeting started, researched and found that we in fact do need to renew the permit because of the fact that the addition of the building is an impervious surface. So we will proceed immediately to renew the permit.

Joseph Cosentino: You've got to back up a little bit. Since then, we have a code in the Village, and Mario is a friend of us all, but our code requires blacktop and curving. If we don't do it for one -

Theodore Strauss: Understood.

Joseph Cosentino: That's a problem, and I understand that, but it's not us it's the code.

Theodore Strauss: Understood. If that is what code is, then we will comply.

Joseph Cosentino: Unfortunately, we don't have a choice. And we'd like to tell Mario you don't have to blacktop or do anything else, unfortunately, this is what it is, and we're governed by it.

Theodore Strauss: Frankly, I was a little surprised that this was even done as gravel, because I fully understand that position. In that case, the submission before you would then be identical to the prior submission that was approved. And that application and that approval - all of this had been blacktop. So this would remain identically the same. Now, if the board is of such mind, we would request, obviously that you grant a renewal subject to the issuance of a new permit from DEP. Again, this would be identically the same.

Joseph Cosentino: The problem is he's going to need an engineering plan now.

Tony Sturniolo: Mr. Chairman, we've done Grass Crete in a number of projects, code notwithstanding, all over the place.

Joseph Cosentino: Have you seen the area?

Stanley Bernstein: Yes, I've been there many times.

Tony Sturniolo: I think Grass Crete because it's a non-impervious surface regarding the issues that DEP would be concerned with.

Joseph Cosentino: Plus economically he's going to go for a lot more money than blacktop. But if we feel it's the best, I don't know I haven't talked to Nannette about it. How does the DEP feel about this?

Penny Kelly: Grass Crete has been approved as a pervious surface.

Ralph Vigliotti: I would think the DEP is telling them they need a pervious surface such as Grass Crete, that's one thing. Otherwise, I'm not a blacktop fan, but we've done blacktop in a lot of places, and I'm not uncomfortable with it.

Joseph Cosentino: I'm not uncomfortable with it, but the cost is a big difference. I think cost here - he doesn't own the property, I think cost is expensive.

Theodore Strauss: You mean the cost of the Grass Crete?

Joseph Cosentino: Yes. It's expensive. I think we need an engineers report on how it's going to be done, the curbing, the drainage, etc., and as far as the building, I don't think it's going to be a problem with the extension, it's been approved once already, but I just think we need to get an engineering report on the parking lot and the drainage.

Doug Hertz: I can't tell by looking at the site plan. I thought maybe theirs was slightly different. Has our parking code changed between the last approval, or are these code compliant spaces?

Nanette Bourne: It's hard to tell.

Joseph Cosentino: By this. That's why I want an engineer's report.

Doug Hertz: I don't see measurements on the spaces.

Joseph Cosentino: I don't either.

Nanette Bourne: And I don't see any handicapped spaces.

Joseph Cosentino: So, what you're going to have to do is to sit down with Nanette's firm and go over the handicapped spaces, the size of the parking spaces, and an engineering drawing of the parking lot and drainage. The last plan I've seen was 1995.

Ralph Vigliotti: I have a question. If the parking is compliant and we're able to add a little bit of green space where there is parking almost up to the curb line in front of the building, on two sides of the building, the parking spaces are almost right on you. I'd like to see a little bit more green space if possible where those first parking spaces on either side are, when you go in.

Theodore Strauss: I think you will recognize that this is very handsomely landscaped now, and in fact, the first parking space is at least ten to fifteen feet beyond the edge of the pavement. The new plan will clarify that.

Joseph Cosentino: It is.

Doug Hertz: I was on the board when we approved this, and John Slaker did quite a lot of work. They installed the landscaping as part of the improvement.

Joseph Cosentino: Also, in your engineer report we want to see a fence, some barrier so a car can't go over the embankment in the rear. Other than that he's all set.

Tony Sturniolo: The existing handicapped spaces are on the southwest corner by the exit, am I correct?

Theodore Strauss: Yes. We will clearly designate those as well.

Joseph Cosentino: Good, you're on your way. Thank you very much.

2. Bank of New York - 55 Main Street

Application # PB2006-14

Peter Carras, Insight Engineering, Frank Picucci, property manager of Bank of New York and applicant