| Welcome, Guest | Login |
 |
 |
| home | departments | local info | news | calendar | contact us |
PB Minutes - 11/28/06
Minutes
Work Session of the Planning Board
Village/Town of Mount Kisco
Tuesday November 28, 2006
Meeting called to order at 7:55, Tuesday November 28, 2006, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.
Members Present: Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo
Stanley Bernstein
Sol Gibbons
Doug Hertz
Joseph Morreale
Members Absent: Chairman Joseph Cosentino
Ralph Vigliotti
Staff Present: Nanette Bourne
Jannine McColgan
Whitney Singleton
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Mount Kisco Planning Board meeting. This is our work session of November 28. The first item on our agenda is to accept the minutes of October 10, 2006.
Stanley Bernstein: Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the minutes of October 10, 2006.
Doug Hertz: I'll second that.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: On the question, anyone? There's a motion by Mr. Bernstein, second by Mr. Hertz.
Mr. Gibbons was not here, Dr. Morreale was not here.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Okay, we have a problem. Let's hold this over for our December 6 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Application No: PB2006-21A
Grand Prix New York
333 N. Bedford Road
Members Present: Neil Alexander
Sy Aryeh
Michael Gallin
Jim Diamond
Lester Steinman
David Stollman
Recused: Doug Hertz
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What we have in front of us is a letter from the Mount Kisco Planning Board regarding the Declaration of Lead Agency. We have the full EAF, we have the Public Notice, and we have the Affidavit of Publication and the applicant will go through that in a moment, and at this point, Grand Prix, when you're ready, come forward, identify yourselves for the record.
Michael Gallin: My name is Michael Gallin. I am the architect working on the application. I am also submitting the receipts and the Affidavit of Publication.
Jim Diamond: Jim Diamond with Diamond Properties.
Sy Aryeh: Sy Aryeh, Grand Prix, New York.
Neil Alexander: Neil Alexander.
Michael Gallin: With the permission of the board, we'd like to make a presentation as part of the public hearing to any interested parties. We'll give a brief overview of the application, and then if there is specific parts of the application that you feel needs some further explanation, if you could just enumerate them to us and then we will provide clarification on the specific areas.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: If anyone feels warm throughout the course of the meeting, please feel free to open the door and prop it open with something. Please continue.
Michael Gallin: Grand Prix New York application is to put an indoor go-kart facility with accessory usage into the warehouse building at 333 North Bedford Road. The site is a 30 acre site, we received approval to utilize the site for multi-tenant use, and this specific application is for a special permit for this particular use, which is different from the original use that was approved. The original use of the warehouse is obviously different from that, and within the zoning code falls into what's called a membership club. So you need to become a member to race the cars at the facility, and there is a membership fee, and an ID badge and other protocols that are involved in that process. This color rendering shows the overall site. You can see parking lot, most of the parking is on the east face of the site, North Bedford Road here, Icehouse Road is becoming the main primary entry for the site, and it's a right turn in and full movement of the traffic light then left turn in. The northern entry was to have been the storage entry of the site; it's becoming a limited access entry with right turn in, right turn out only. A new traffic light is being implemented at this location as part of the multi tenant in the building. The Grand Prix New York facility will be in the center of the building, at this location as shown on this plan. This is the same plan in black and white. This focuses on the site; this is focusing on the facility itself, so this yellow area on the site represents the area of the facility. You can see the serpentine tracks that are laid out. The facility will consist of two tracks. The two tracks will be able to operate simultaneously, each track can have up to a dozen karts on it at a time, and races are approximately ten minutes in length. The remaining space is accessory space. In addition to the tracks, the facility will support the racers by serving food. There will be a series of conference rooms, because the market for the facility is really two-fold. One, the primary market is the corporate market. The corporate market is basically large corporations sending a group of 24-30 people to the site. They rent the entire facility for a period of time; two-three hours during the middle of the day and will utilize the tracks as part of team building exercises. The conference facilities are there to support that function so that they can have meetings and discuss business at the same time as the recreational activity. It's comparable to corporate golf outings and corporate team building. There will also be some simulators in the facility. There will be a reception desk where you'll do your checking in, your log-in, a small office component to handle the administration of the facility, and a small store that sells memorabilia only to members. They sell racing memorabilia and accessory products. There will be a small locker room for members to utilize. The other component of the business is the recreational racer. That typically happens not during standard business hours, it would happen in the evening and on the weekends. There are teams and leagues that are set up, as far as the facility goes, it operates…
Sy Aryeh: Monday through Thursdays, 7 AM to 9 PM.
Michael Gallin: That pretty much covers the function of the site and the facility. One thing I think is important to note the market of the clientele is relatively high end, it's an expensive facility to utilize, and because there's a membership fee, we are definitely looking for repeat business, and within the space, especially within the accessory area would be very high end. It is not a recreational facility for children. It is not an amusement park by any means we're racing aficionados in the corporate market.
Sy Aryeh: It's a high end sort of a racing experience. It's a very high end sort of entertainment and recreational experience that is basically a corporate environment. Corporate events, event marketing type efforts that companies do; it's a part of their marketing mix. That's the corporate side, and it's something that is very effective. It's a very effective tool that they use. It's a good business in that it brings very good sort of clientele to the facility: small groups with small traffic, and again it's a very good sort of alternative to corporate outings like golf and things like that. They also use it for educational programs and for sales efforts to bring their favorite clients; spend a few hours there and give them a very good time. That's the corporate side, and again, like Michael said, the recreational side really goes towards the high-end sort of affluent racer in New York that wants to go and to have these leagues and competitive events. The karts are very high-tech, safe karts that are made specifically to run indoors. We expect people who come here to spend on average two to three hours, and they spend quite a bit. Races are very short. They're quite expensive: each about $25. They spend over $100 per visit in about a two to three hour time. So one of the things that I think is very good about Grand Prix New York in Mount Kisco is it brings a very good type of clientele to the town, and I think that it's complimentary in both ways. It's a beautiful town and I think that it introduces people from very good areas that would be able to come here. And I think another good thing about it is inherently the use is very low traffic and very low impact in terms of the kinds of numbers and people that come. There is no truck traffic, which is a very good thing for the town of Mount Kisco. It's generally upscale vehicles, just cars that come; again, no traffic numbers that are evenly spaced throughout the day. I think that's also very complimentary.
Michael Gallin: I think we've touched that it's a local operation of a business. I just want to also clarify for the members of the public. This is a pubic hearing. We've actually been in front of the board now for several months, and they have asked us to study a variety of things. Traffic is one of the elements that they've asked us to study; noise is another element. We have provided extensive material to attempt to convince the board that the environmental impacts will not be significant from this site. We've demonstrated (we believe) that the noise levels will not be perceptible from the actual operations of the facility from the go-karts to the exterior environment. We've also put in a series of…to assure that the traffic levels from this facility will not be any greater than would be generated by a warehouse facility during extended business hours. We've also demonstrated that when this facility operates off hours that the traffic levels for the entire site will be well within the acceptable levels for this site.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Thank you. Last time, is there anybody in the public who would like to comment on this application, whether you've signed the sheet or not? Okay. There will be no further comment, we have a few housekeeping chores that we need to discuss, but at this point I look toward my fellow Planning Board members; we could now close the public hearing and keep it open for a ten-day written comment period, which is our traditional manner. If somebody would like to make that motion and second it, we can move forward with the second part of Grand Prix tonight.
Stanley Bernstein: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Is there a second? If there is no second, then the chair will second the motion to close the public hearing tonight, and keep it open for a ten-day written comment period.
Motion: Stanley Bernstein
Second: Vice Chairman Sturniolo
Aye: Joseph Morreale
Aye: Sol Gibbons
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The public hearing is closed, and again as I said, we'll keep it open for a ten-day written comment period. The next thing is, Les and David, we have a letter from DEP. Could you kind of walk us through as to what the applicant needs to do?
Lester Steinman: On October 31 the Planning Board secretary circulated a copy of a Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency letter. It was sent to agencies which would be identified as involved agencies, and would have perpetrated authority with this application. The 30-day period has not yet expired. To date, we have had one response that came from New York City DEP. It came to our attention this afternoon. In that response, the city was not identified as an involved agency. The city, in this letter, said that they don't have any objection at this point to Mt Kisco still being the lead agency; however, they did not receive the Part 1 of EAF and the application materials, because those were only sent to agencies that we identified as potentially involved. They would like to have those materials so they could determine whether they do have any jurisdiction in this matter. It would be my suggestion at this point that the applicant who has that material contact DEP directly, arrange to deliver those materials, and it may be possible by virtue of e-mail to send them down in that fashion and hopefully get a response in a short period of time from the city as to whether they have a further interest and comments on this application.
Michael Gallin: We'll be happy to do that. We just ask that Les be kind enough to get us a copy of the transmittal from DEP so we have a contact point.
Lester Steinman: We have a copy for the applicant. So that having been said, the board is not in a position tonight to take any action with respect to lead agency; with respect to any determination of environmental non-significance, and with respect to any determination on the application at this point.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Because we're still waiting for that 30-day time period. Having said that, then our next Planning Board meeting would be December 12, and if we could get this resolution prepared so that we could vote on it at that meeting. What we're looking at is two things here. One is a special permit use application; the permit I should say, and the second thing is a modification to an already existing approved site plan for Grand Prix, and those are the two focus issues that we're going to be dealing with on the 12th.
David Stollman: As well as the NegDec.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And the NegDec as well, yes. My fellow Planning Board members; any further comments?
David Stollman: Just a couple of things. We got this Grand Prix New York Operational Restrictions from you. It's not dated. Would you update this with anything that may have changed? I think this is circa September, and update it please and date it and get it out to us as soon as you can.
Michael Gallin: Yes.
Lester Steinman: Could you also give us a further update on the status of this application in Bedford?
Michael Gallin: A further update on the status of this application in Bedford. We forwarded all the material that had been submitted to Mount Kisco to the Bedford planner, and they have given a verbal. We verbally have been told that they have no involvement. Based on that, it has not been submitted to the Board in Bedford.
Lester Steinman: Were you anticipating getting some written confirmation of that?
Michael Gallin: At this point, no.
Lester Steinman: I think you are going to have to, at a minimum, put a letter in the record to our board which memorializes that conversation. I leave it up to you whether you think it's appropriate to memorialize it for Bedford's purposes.
Michael Gallin: In addition we sent a letter to Bedford requesting a determination about whether or not there was interest, whether or not they would like us to submit this to the board. As a follow-up to that letter, there has been verbal confirmation that they would not, and we would be happy to submit the letter that we sent to Bedford as well.
Lester Steinman: Use that as an attachment; just memorialize the discussions with Bedford.
Michael Gallin: We'll do that unless by some chance they are willing to give us a written.
David Stollman: Michael, one of the things that the board seemed to be most interested in at the last Planning Board meeting was the bar/café restaurant; however that is shaping up. Can you update us on that, and I would think that the board would want to be approving some specific floor plan. So, has the floor plan been modified? What's the latest thinking on that?
Michael Gallin: I'll speak on the floor plan and then I'll ask Sy or Jim to answer about the operational issues. The floor plan has not gone to the next level of development in terms of design, as we are pending approval. The conceptual layout will not change other than the fact that described previously: that the bar and the restaurant area will be combined to a single space and smaller. It will be reduced in size.
David Stollman: I would think that the Planning Board is going to want to see that, have that in advance of approving the project as opposed to just leaving it out there as a condition. It's a kind of thing that would normally be discussed, and kind of hashed out, and if you ever wanted to modify it you'd come back and get that modification, but what's being shown right there now is not what you're proposing to do, right?
Michael Gallin: In terms of the bar and the restaurant that is correct. But it will be interesting to hear from the board as well. Obviously there is an effort involved in developing the space and we're trying to get a sense whether or not the conceptual use as outlined is deemed to have no environmental impact and meet the criteria of a special permit.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Obviously we're not voting on anything tonight, nor is it a straw poll or anything; but I think the way you presented this application is something that the board will probably look favorably upon once it sees all the details such as what David just outlined regarding the relationship of the smaller café area. As much work that can be done prior to the 12th is to your benefit.
Michael Gallin: So I hear you requesting that we provide an up-dated plan that shows a revised space.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The revised space.
Sy Aryeh: I think that's fine. We'll be happy to do that. Conceptually speaking, in terms of the general component of what we have here as a space; it's not really changing so much. What's really going to happen is going to be a reduction in proportions. One significant change which you know about is the fact that the bar will be moving into the restaurant. The restaurant will basically maintain the same exact position in terms of the space; the same orientation. We will just reduce it in size a little bit. The general space will shrink a little bit. But again, major components will stay the same. The major concept will stay the same. I'm just concerned that if we do another conceptual drawing or a drawing of what it's going to look like in a short period of time that further revisions of what would generally be the same exact general intent and concept would cause issues. So maybe what I'm asking is: is it possible for us to take a strong intent on concept as something that we can hope to, not an exact floor plan, because that would be kind of difficult to have to do.
Neil Alexander: That's where I was going to jump in. I think, David, what you are trying to sense is a ceiling as to how many users based on how many seats or chairs; not a slate configuration. It would have to get modified if you decided to change the table configuration.
David Stollman: From my point of view a maximum would be fine. The maximum size of the restaurant and bar, whatever it's going to be. In terms of time frame, we'd like to, given the fact that the board has just asked us to prepare these resolutions, we'd like to have them done about a week from now. Say Tuesday of next week. So, if you can update the operational restrictions and do the floor plan for the space, submit them together within a week or by the end of this week if possible.
Michael Gallin: I think that's realistic. And if I understand correctly, you're not asking for a final plan, you just want a plan that reflects conceptually what we've been talking about. Obviously we're not producing construction documents in a week, but we're producing drawings that represent the schematic with the revisions.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What it's going to look like.
David Stollman: The board doesn't normally approve conceptual plans and then get a building permit based on that, so I think a good compromise might be for you to prepare this conceptual plan for the maximum size of the bar/restaurant, and as a condition of the approval, you produce a specific plan that the Planning Board can take a look at, or the building inspector can take a look at. It has to be consistent with this plan before you get your building permit.
Michael Gallin: The building inspector will be looking at the plans, obviously, so we have no problem with that condition that the construction documents need to be consistent with the schematic plan, and if not we'll need to be back in front of the board.
Sy Aryeh: In terms of concept and space.
David Stollman: We just want to make sure that the building permit is based upon something that is very similar to.
Michael Gallin: A combined bar/restaurant, maximum size.
David Stollman: Is that okay?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Absolutely. Do you have anything further?
David Stollman: No, that's it.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: That having been said, you've got some fast homework to do with DEP starting tomorrow morning, and Donna, if you would just put a note that this goes on the agenda for December 12 under Final Action, and it's for the Special Use Permit and for a modification to a previously approved site plan along with the NegDec and the other documents.
Sy Aryeh: Thank you very much.
CONTINUING REVIEW:
Application No: PB2006-06
Peter & Denise Stonsby
91 High Street
Present: Peter and Denise Stonsby
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Our next item under Continuing Review is Peter and Denise Stonsby, 91 High Street. Would you be kind enough to come forward and identify yourselves for the record?
Peter Stonsby: Peter Stonsby
Denise Stonsby: And Denise Stonsby.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What we're looking at is and I'm going to turn most of this over to you, Jannine, is a memo from you to the Planning Board outlining seven or eight concerns with the application, and then a response. Is your engineer here tonight?
Peter Stonsby: No, he's not.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And then a response from the applicant's engineer. Do you have plans with you?
Peter Stonsby: I submitted my copies to you. I submitted 11 copies.
Jannine McColgan: I have extra copies.
Peter Stonsby: As per last month, my first item I would like to say is my engineer put… wrong on our plans, and that is one of our issues with the retaining walls we had started talking about.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Jannine, would you join us. I think it would be easier.
Jannine McColgan: There are a couple of different issues regarding confusion over the location as far as north arrow, which actually is still wrong by the way.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So we need to correct that on this plan tonight?
Jannine McColgan: Yes. There are a couple of different things that have to be revised on this plan. Some new things that were put on here is the driveway profile or change in profile, and also grading on the front lawn, which are not huge issues, but new things that they put on there. Some of the other information is a little confusing as far as when the survey was originally taken, and that needs to be actually spelled out on the plans, because it's not clear whether it was done before or after the fill was put at the site. So, therefore it is unclear whether or not they actually have the six to twelve inches of cover that's required over the material that was placed there. One of the other issues is clarifying the tree removals, the number of trees to be removed. You have it on here, but whether or not that meets the code.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So those basic questions you have…
Jannine McColgan: Still with the engineer, with Dan.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Waiting for his response?
Jannine McColgan: Correct.
Peter Stonsby: Did you contact him?
Jannine McColgan: Yes.
Peter Stonsby: And he did not contact you back?
Jannine McColgan: No.
Denise Stonsby: Since the time when we submitted the plans to you; since the 6th?
Jannine McColgan: No. I didn't receive them on that exact day, but I contacted him earlier; the end of last week or the beginning of this week.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So maybe you can encourage your engineer to help.
Peter Stonsby: I don't understand. You said there were issues with the driveway?
Jannine McColgan: These are new things that are on the plan. Everything was back here in the rear.
Peter Stonsby: Everything was taken afterwards, after the fill was added.
Denise Stonsby: The survey was taken after the fill.
Peter Stonsby: All the survey numbers were taken after.
Jannine McColgan: In certain areas you don't have six to twelve inches of coverage as required in the rear part, and it's just a matter of re-grading.
Peter Stonsby: Re-grading what?
Jannine McColgan: The rear.
Peter Stonsby: A matter of my engineer grading it properly? Giving you the proper numbers?
Jannine McColgan: Giving you the proper amount of cover over.
Peter Stonsby: Okay. And what were the other issues, the tress, which we were planning on removing?
Jannine McColgan: As far as the number of tress and the number that you have to replace, yes. And size. That has to be clarified.
Peter Stonsby: Is there anyway we can get this together and again, and maybe do this before the next meeting.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The simplest way to do it is to get your engineer to return Jannine's phone call and make these modifications on the plan. If he were here tonight, he would have heard it firsthand and could have started working on this project tomorrow morning on your behalf.
Peter Stonsby: I have to pay him every time he shows up.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: It's true you have to pay him, and the reason why you're paying him is from day one, because of the fill that was put in the back of your property; that's what triggered everything.
Peter Stonsby: I'm not a doctor, I'm not a lawyer; I'm a carpenter. My family has owned this property since 1935. We've always paid our taxes. I was hoping that we could just get something moved along here. It seems to be taking so long not that you guys care, but we're paying two mortgages; one of them is on a house that I can't live in.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The sooner you can get the engineer to clarify…
Peter Stonsby: I submitted these plans on October 30.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And Jannine had some comments on them, she reached out to your engineer to discuss her concerns, and that's where we are tonight.
Peter Stonsby: In other words I'm another month now away from anything.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: As soon as you get your engineer to address and make the changes.
Peter Stonsby: When did you contact my engineer?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: In this past couple of weeks. I'm sure he'll tell you exactly when you call him tomorrow morning, when the phone call took place.
Denise Stonsby: Is there a letter that goes with those requests, Jannine, so we're clear with him? I can leave you my business card to just document that to me at work tomorrow morning. So Peter and I will be able to get in touch with him, so it's in writing. Sometimes we find that the dialogue isn't as clear as the letter with our communication with you guys and with Dan.
Peter Stonsby: So, he did not address the issues that you required?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Am I correct, Jannine, he didn't return your phone call, and wasn't …
Jannine McColgan: He didn't address completely.
Denise Stonsby: The October 30th memo that had seven or eight items? So what you're saying is the circling back; these plans don't address those seven items.
Jannine McColgan: It addressed some of them, but there are still more that require additional clarification.
Peter Stonsby: So my question as a carpenter is how do I get it altogether at one time?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: There's two ways, really, to do it. You could, one; have your engineer address these changes tomorrow and I need to stop at this point. Nannette, do you need to add anything to this part of the conversation?
Nanette Bourne: No, this is really an engineering issue between Jannine and your engineer. I think we've provided you with whatever help we can in planning.
Jannine McColgan: So then there would be no issue if they wanted to be on the agenda.
Nanette Bourne: As far as I'm concerned, we're really looking to you to satisfy your concerns with regards to engineering.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So as soon as you get Mr. Mastramonaco.
Peter Stonsby: So is this possible we can get something with intent to get a draft resolution up by next meeting if things are met?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: That can be done once there is a level of satisfaction that this board has when it looks at the revised site plan.
Peter Stonsby: Is there anyway you can do that now? In other words, if one of these lines goes from 425 to 424, is that going to be an issue? I'm just trying to move things along here.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I understand. The only way to move it along is to get your engineer to give Jannine a call and completely address the issues in this October 31 memo.
Peter Stonsby: So there is no way by looking at this that you would decide that it would be okay if we went for a draft resolution next month.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Not at all, because nobody knows what issues may arise as the engineer sits down, goes through the memo a second time and addresses Jannine's questions.
Peter Stonsby: Jannine, is it a question of six to twelve inches? And what is he off by?
Jannine McColgan: It varies in areas. It's a matter of him re-grading it and tying it into his retaining wall. It may change the height of the retaining wall, which may change his detail here.
Peter Stonsby: In other words, it's an unfinished thing here.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: This is not finished?
Peter Stonsby: This is not finished. This portion of the yard is not finished.
Denise Stonsby: It never finished. We had to stop in December once the fill was reported.
Peter Stonsby: I remember you and I were there measuring it. At one point right now, the retaining wall measures 4'6”. So we take that rock out, and we put a rock in that's six inches less. See what I mean, we're in a construction phase.
Jannine McColgan: Right, but everything has to be on the plan.
Peter Stonsby: And it is.
Jannine McColgan: It's not, is what we're saying.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: There are things missing.
Jannine McColgan: Dan has to revise it, and then we can go forward.
Peter Stonsby: And then we'll come back next month so you can make a decision.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Correct. Once Jannine is satisfied that her questions are answered, then it could appear on the Planning Board agenda. No sense wasting your time and our time if the issues have not been addressed.
Peter Stonsby: Agreed. Agreed. And this is going to be under the Planning Board next month for a continual review again?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Correct. Once we see these revised plans.
Peter Stonsby: So there are no way that you… in other words, if I have these done, if I can get him on this tomorrow, and he has them done by early next week, I submit them to you, you take a look at them, she's okayed them, can we then proceed?
Denise Stonsby: So the bullet point under December 11 would be both items?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The next Planning Board meeting would be a regular meeting, so if all of this stuff is done on a timely basis, and for lack of a better term is blessed by Jannine, then we can go forward looking toward a resolution of approval. To your benefit, the faster you can get your engineer to dial 1-800-Jannnine tomorrow morning, the better it is.
Nanette Bourne: Just for clarification, to be on the regular meeting for the 11th it requires 15 day submission.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: That's right, 15 days, which would mean…
Peter Stonsby: Are you pushing it back due to the holiday?
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: We've already passed it. It's the 22nd.
Peter Stonsby: Which I was informed that under continuing review we had to go under the 22nd anyway, we weren't conceptual at that time.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So why don't we, if this is acceptable to everybody, in an effort to help you, if you can get all this done by the end of this week.
Denise Stonsby: Which is the first, Friday is the first.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Yes, and then we could look forward to that meeting of the 12th.
Peter Stonsby: Okay, I will be on him tomorrow morning.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Are you comfortable with that Jannine?
Jannine McColgan: Yes.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Thank you. The next item on the agenda under final action tonight is Lexus.
FINAL ACTION:
Application Number: PB2005-15
Lexus
275 Kisco Avenue
Present: Roland Baroni
Sam Scatterday
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: We have a resolution in front of us. Mr. Baroni, if you would please identify yourself for the record.
Roland Baroni: I'm Roland Baroni representing 275 Kisco Avenue, here tonight to have you consider a final resolution.
Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Whitney and Nannette, if you would be kind enough to walk us through the resolution regarding the highlighted changes from the last time you looked at this.
Nanette Bourne: Sure. The resolution is the same resolution that was in your packet a couple of Planning Board meetings ago. It has been modified to incorporate updates in the plan as well as modifications put in by Whitney. Everything has been modified as indicated in with the shading. I have both shaded copies as well as clean copies. I got a call today from Mary Glasso at DEP that recorded that they don't have a DEP permit yet, but that she feels confident that the plans are not likely to change substantially.
Doug Hertz: Nanette, to that point there was a question last time about, I think a note from DEP about the size of the retention basins; that something might have been too low.
Nan