PB Minutes - 12/12/06

Minutes

Regular/Work Session of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday December 12, 2006

Meeting called to order at 8:05 pm, Tuesday December 12, 2006, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Chairman Joseph Cosentino

Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Sol Gibbons

Doug Hertz

Ralph Vigliotti

Members Absent: Joseph Morreale

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Jannine McColgan

Whitney Singleton

Chairman Cosentino: This is a regular meeting and work session of the Planning Board. Of course, it starts our new year also, and at this time of year, as chairman I would like to thank our staff for taking their time in participating and getting things done when we need them. They've been here for us. Nannette and your staff, and besides the Building Department, the backbone behind the Planning Board is our Village Counsel, Whitney Singleton, who has been very articulate in what he does. I've been on the board over twenty years, and I've got to say he's the greatest. So, Whitney, we appreciate everything that you've done for us, getting it done, even though you were wrong, but, we'll accept that. I also at this time would like to thank Stan for checking the minutes as our secretary to the board, and of course, Tony Sturniolo, who is our second in command here, our Vice Chairman, who has been really a great help to me. Tony has worn out my e-mail machine; I've been getting so many I ran out of paper twice. But he's on top of things; he's taken care of a big project at 333 North Bedford Road. It's been a wonderful job, we're getting almost to the end of it, and Tony, and I want to thank you for doing a good job.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: My pleasure.

Chairman Cosentino: As far as the rest of my Planning Board members, I know you take a lot of time from home, your wives appreciate it, but for taking the time to come here, I appreciate it. Is there anybody I left out, and of course, our secretary, the recording secretary, Donna and Janine, our new Village Engineer. We welcome you aboard, also. Okay, first thing on our agenda are the minutes.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: A question, Mr. Chairman, on page one there is just a typo and it's under the column called staff present. Jannine McColgan's name is misspelled.

Stanley Bernstein; Motion to accept the minutes of October 10, 2006.

Doug Hertz: Second.

Minutes, October 10, 2006 Motion: Stanley Bernstein

Second: Doug Hertz

Aye: Sol Gibbons

Aye: Ralph Vigliotti

Aye: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Aye: Chairman Cosentino

Aye: Doug Hertz

Aye: Stanley Bernstein

Final Action

Application No: PB2004-08

Crème de la Crème

Lot 2 Morgan Drive

Members Present: Brad Schwartz, Attorney

Steve Korwan, Oswell & Nitishin

Brad Schwartz: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. We were here last month, and a request was made of your board to go back and ask CASCO, Crème's architect, to prepare another colored rendering, which had been previously submitted to your board to incorporate, and to show the additional landscaping.

Chairman Cosentino: Excuse me, Brad, before you start. Because of health reasons, I have not been here for three meetings. The Vice Chair is really going to be helping you on this because he has all the information on this.

Brad Schwartz: Sure, it's good to see you back, and welcome back.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you.

Brad Schwartz: So at the last meeting, the Vice Chairman, Mr. Sturniolo requested that we go back and show another one of these colored renderings that incorporates the additional landscape that Stearns and Wheler added to its landscaping plan at the request of your board and your board's consultants. The idea was to add additional landscaping to further screen views of the building from people coming down Morgan Drive. So we submitted to your board last week, this revised rendering, which certainly shows additional landscaping compared to the one that had been previously submitted to your board along this side of the building. Now, while this plan again I think shows more landscaping that was previously submitted, I think your board's consultants as well as we probably don't feel that this does the landscaping plan complete justice, so to speak. The plan that has been submitted, the black and white version from Stearns and Wheler shows significant landscaping, and we believe, and our consultants agree that the landscaping will provide adequate screening of the building. So while we have this most recent submittal, that compared strictly against this previous version shows more landscaping, we think that this is even better than this colored rendering. The rendering that CASCO prepared, this was the vantage point that they had over shown in all their plans, even going back to the ARB process. So whatever landscaping was captured through that vantage point made its way onto this rendering, but not every single plant and tree on the left side of the building and the rear made it on to this rendering.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So in essence you somewhat did a disservice to yourself with this, because this doesn't depict the level of detail.

Steven Korwan: Unfortunately, that's correct. The landscaping that's depicted on the revised landscaping plan is far more coverage than this.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Going back to two weeks ago, when we were talking about that document, and we said what we'd like to do was see the large color blow up to put it in a clearer perspective of what that represents. So if I follow your logic properly, we're now at the point that that clearer perspective of representation of that document is not here tonight.

Brad Schwartz: That's correct. It's certainly built upon this. These are identical in terms of the vantage point, and so the view is the same. But what CASCO didn't do… it doesn't have everything.

Steven Korwan: Right. They've placed the vegetation and trees in most of the right areas, however, because of what I understand, their software limitations to actually place the exact tree, size, height, how green, how full it is, isn't exactly on there, unfortunately.

Doug Hertz: Nannette, is it your view that the trees that are on there are accurate?

Nanette Bourne: No. I think they've been very straight. The landscaping that is represented on the rendering does not match the landscaping plan.

Doug Hertz: Oh, it does not match the landscaping plan. What we're hearing is it doesn't do justice to the landscaping plan. What you're saying is it doesn't even match the landscaping plan.

Nanette Bourne: It doesn't do justice, and it doesn't match it. The only missing piece of information that needs to be considered is that this started out because there was a miscommunication regarding the size of the building. They needed an extension on their approval, and there was a miscommunication, which they ended up going back to the size of the building that was originally approved. As part of that consideration, when you saw the rendering, you had asked them to consider some enhancements to the landscaping plan, which is what they did. They weren't requesting a revised modification to their approval. You had requested the additional landscape. Unfortunately, the architect and the landscape architect didn't depict the same thing. What is depicted on the landscaping plan is substantially improved from the landscaping plan that was originally approved.

Chairman Cosentino: I think what you wanted to see was the completed color version, which is not here.

Doug Hertz: From a perspective that would be useful.

Brad Schwartz: CASCO took the same perspective view that it had previously submitted to your board didn't change the vantage point, didn't step back, didn't sort of expand the camera, and we just caught this same shot, but there is additional landscaping on this.

Ralph Vigliotti: So when will we see that?

Brad Schwartz: We will have to go back and provide a complete view of the entire site in color of all the landscaping. What we would request is that, from what my understanding is, and Steve can explain this, the application process with the Building Department is sort of in two phases; land development and then building.

Steven Korwan: What we'd like to do, and what Crème would like to do, of course, is move on. They'd like to open this facility this summer, by the end of the summer. We would like, if at all possible, since the landscaping is obviously towards the end of the construction process, is request if some, whatever the right term is, conditional approval of the civil drawings to go ahead and begin the review process for the land disturbance permit as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, I believe the package and we've selected a contractor, the package, I believe has been submitted or is on it's way into Austin's office for review. What I was told was that he couldn't start his review until; obviously the site plan was approved. What we'd like to request is that - if this is still an issue and is to have some sort of approval that will allow the review process to begin so we can take care of the comments and perhaps get the land disturbance permit to begin to at least turn dirt in January. We have to work through the winter anyway, and come back and tie this to the building permit which will probably not be applied for until sometime in January.

Brad Schwartz: And we would consent that we would not pull the building permit; even apply for one, until we come back before your board in January that shows the full landscape and photo rendering.

Chairman Cosentino: Would this be setting a precedent, though? Have you done this in the past? Is this normally done? I have never seen it done, but can we do it?

Nanette Bourne: I'll defer to counsel on that.

Chairman Cosentino: I wouldn't want to get caught later on.

Whitney Singleton: I'll just read the relevant section 110-45 D of the code. No building permit shall be issued until you have approved the site plan.

Chairman Cosentino: So this wouldn't be approving in the site plan?

Whitney Singleton: They're asking you to approve it.

Chairman Cosentino: Right there, we can't.

Doug Hertz: Didn't we discuss this last week; that we can't approve, subject to further approval?

Whitney Singleton: Right.

Brad Schwartz: What I understand is the process; we're not going to be asking for a building permit, it would be a land disturbance permit just to start the site work, but we would not start the building at all. Not even apply for the building permit.

Stanley Bernstein: What does that mean? That's ridiculous. You're not going to build a building, but you're going to chop up the land. Ridiculous.

Chairman Cosentino: I'd like to help you out, but our code says we can't.

Steve Korwan: I understand.

Ralph Vigliotti: You have a three week delay, that's what it sounds like. Next meeting you'll have everything in place and we can do all the right things that we have to do.

Steven Korwan: It is approved by code that the Building Department begins its review of the documents they have and provide comments?

Chairman Cosentino: That's entirely up to the Building Department.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And he can't until the approval process is completed with the Planning Board, as Austin said to you, I believe.

Steven Korwan: Right and I just asked that question that perhaps you can look at the documents and say, okay, these comments I have and we can be fixing those comments while this is in process.

Chairman Cosentino: I learned something a long time ago. You do for one you've got to do for all.

Steven Korwan: I understand.

Chairman Cosentino: And I really don't want to be put in that situation where if I do for you, the next person that comes in I might have to do for him, and it's a gray area, and it's in the code.

Ralph Vigliotti: We're caught between a rock and a hard spot. Residents may come in and say I heard about this Crème de la Crème; I'd like to see the rendering on it, they see it's really not the same thing as far as landscaping, they have questions about it, we say, well, we really have something else which is from landscape but it's really not yet on the rendering, and it really throws things off.

Brad Schwartz: To justify that, we do have…

Ralph Vigliotti: That doesn't count. If I go into the Building Department and I say I'd like to see the building with landscaping that's been proposed off Radio Circle Drive, that's what they're going to see, and that's not the real thing.

Doug Hertz: The problem that we're having,Brad, is that it's a complicated enough landscaping plan, and it's elaborate enough that the idea of the rendering was a visual aid to help us really understand it and to make sure that it was doing what we wanted it to do. We don't have that tool.

Ralph Vigliotti: You have a three week delay.

Chairman Cosentino: Okay, so let's get the rendering done.

Brad Schwartz: Can we come back for the January 9^th meeting?

Nanette Bourne: It's a formal, regular meeting.

Doug Hertz: Can we clarify for them what we want to see so there's absolutely no question about what we want to see on this rendering?

Chairman Cosentino: We'll clarify it again.

Doug Hertz: Re-clarify.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: This meeting was scheduled to be a regular meeting, so the January meeting is going to be a work session. This is a combined, but schedule-wise it was always pegged as a regular meeting. Then we decided to combine it, because we are going to have one meeting in December, therefore, if we didn't combine it, this would be a regular meeting, and the first meeting in January would be the work session.

Doug Hertz: No, we combined it with the meeting at the end of December which is an existing, which would have been the work session.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The end of December there was no meeting scheduled at all. And this is a regular.

Ralph Vigliotti: But at some point we have to go back to our regular schedule.

Whitney Singleton: Perhaps I can summarize where we're at. The applicant is going to provide your board with a rendering, which is reflective of the landscaping plan that is before you tonight, and it's going to be submitted for inclusion to the existing site plan resolution and will be on for approval on January 9 provided they submit the rendering by a particular date?

Doug Hertz: And I think the rendering should be from a perspectives rendering, or renderings, plural, from a perspective that will allow it to show, at least from the front, all of the landscaping. Personally, this aerial view is nice, but no one is hovering 25 feet above the air.

Steven Korwan: You want the direct straight on.

Doug Hertz: Obviously straight on is going to be difficult because we have layers, but I don't know what's involved in creating these renderings. Once you place the plants, is it simply a question of taking the software and plotting a new spot for it to plot out from? In all the previous stuff I've worked on, that's the case.

Steven Korwan: CASCO uses a program called Revid, it's not quite as simple as that, but that's neither here nor there. It is intense. We're talking about, if you can show them that black and white real quick, the landscape architect actually prepared something in black and white, this is more accurate, and by the way this kind of view, that's a straight on-type situation. Of course, in color.

Nanette Bourne: What's going to be important is from the street, as you're looking in, to be able to see what the front landscape buffer is going to look like. It's going to be shielding the cars from the road, crossing over the driveway, looking at the portico that is landscaped with the building in the background, which is part of what you have on your black and white.

Doug Hertz: So we're at five feet above street level, from the street? Is that what we're asking for?

Nanette Bourne: Yes. I'm sure the architects have a number of tools that they use.

Steven Korwan: Well, they have some, and Revid has part of it, AutoCAD, of course. We'll make sure they have it.

Nanette Bourne: And this should be in fifteen days in advance of the 9^th.

Brad Schwartz: December 20^th is the submission date. We'll meet that.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: You're saying the 20^th of December; the submission?

Nanette Bourne: 15 days from January 9^th.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Right.

Final Action

Application: #PB2006-06

91 High Street

Peter and Denise Stonsby

Present: Peter Stonsby

Denise Stonsby

Daniel A. Ciarcia

Chairman Cosentino: By the way, we switched the schedule a little bit. Grand Prix was first, but it's going to be towards the end now because of a conflict with one of the attorneys. They'll be here later. Grand Prix Nannette and, I guess, Tony and Jannine, I'm going to need your help on this too. We have a resolution here, and that's all. I want to get this off the table.

Nanette Bourne: This was a resolution that reflects the information that was requested of the applicant at the last Planning Board meeting, and includes the input from Whitney and Jannine McColgan.

Chairman Cosentino: Have you seen it?

Peter Stonsby: No.

Chairman Cosentino: Why don't you identify yourself for the record?

Peter Stonsby: I'm Peter Stonsby.

Denise Stonsby: Denise Stonsby.

Daniel Ciarcia: I'm Daniel Ciarcia from Ralph George Mastromonaco's office.

Nanette Bourne: The reason why this resolution was delivered tonight is that Jannine had been working with the engineers at the request of the Planning Board to finalize some of the storm water grading. So this reflects the most recent and latest grading plans.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And Mr. Chairman at the last Planning Board meeting we had asked the applicant by Friday, after the last Planning Board meeting to get all this squared away and it never happened, and we're looking at this now for the first time tonight.

Peter Stonsby: I got it squared away by last Friday, and then we came up with a new set of rules or demands.

Denise Stonsby: Subsequent revisions.

Daniel Ciarcia: Most of what the engineer brought out we tried to address immediately. There were further comments, which we got right back to him on. The major issue that we were going back and forth on was really our interpretation of what the code required in terms of the number of trees. The plan that we prepared originally; the genesis of this thing was that all the activity was taking place in the backyard. So when we went out there to do an “as built” of the rear yard and the grading that had taken place, as well as an inventory of the trees and the effected area, that's what we showed here. As this thing evolved; we initially never did a full tree survey because we weren't looking to do anything in the front of the house. There are quite a few other trees on the property that aren't showing on here, simply because we weren't looking at it in terms of mitigating the whole site. With this lot being approximately ½ acre in size, using the 2 times the inch caliber of the trees, we end up with 37 trees which we felt was excessive for a property of this size. However, at this point, we just felt we were not going to prevail on this issue and we're showing 37 trees.

Nanette Bourne: 37 trees?

Daniel Ciarcia: The latest plan has 37 trees on it.

Chairman Cosentino: Do you want time to sit down and read that, and we'll take another applicant before you?

Daniel Ciarcia: I guess that probably wouldn't be a bad idea to just study it.

Chairman Cosentino: I just want you to know what's in there. Why don't you do that and I'll call you back after you go over it?

Public Hearing

Application No: PB2006-19

Westchester Residence & Club

Kisco Avenue

Present: Rosellen Gonzales, Caro & Associates

Patrick Hewes, Saccardi & Schiff

Chase Caro, Caro & Associates

Chuck Utschig, Schoor DePalma

Chairman Cosentino: Next is a public hearing for Westchester Residence and Club. Please come up and identify yourselves for the record.

Chase Caro: Chase Caro.

Chairman Cosentino: You're good on television, by the way.

Chase Caro: Oh, you saw that.

Chuck Utschig: Chuck Utschig, Schoor DePalma

Chase Caro: Chase Caro, Caro & Associates, Attorneys for Westchester Residence.

Chairman Cosentino: This is a public hearing. We had a sign-up sheet, and I'm going to let Bryan Parker go first.

Nanette Bourne: Mr. Chairman, just to review that this is public hearing to review a draft scoping document. The scoping document reflects the issues that need to be addressed in the draft environmental impact statement. The applicant submitted their preliminary scoping document. It was reviewed by the Planning Board as well as my office. Changes were made to it. We have subsequently revised it, which is what was circulated with the public hearing notice. We have received additional comments from DEP and Westchester County and maybe one or two other interested agencies. Those have not yet been incorporated in here, but some of them bring out some good points that I think certainly warrant inclusion.

Chairman Cosentino: I'm sorry I should have called on you first Nannette.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: If I could make a statement first, for everybody who doesn't know, Byran Parker was a former member of this Planning Board and the secretary of this Planning Board and a person that I personally have a lot of faith in his judgment, taste and style, and most of all, his intuitiveness when it comes to large scale projects like this.

Chairman Cosentino: And very articulate.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Mr. Parker.

Byran Parker: Thank you. I came here mainly to listen and learn since I am not really very familiar with the project or its plans. However, I suppose the draft DEIS will provide that for me. I congratulate you on a very good scope statement from the DEIS, and I have a few comments on it. First of all starting with the title, Westchester Residence and Club; the scope statement doesn't mention club anywhere as far as I can tell, and I would like the scoping statement to explain what this club is. Is it for members only? Are there other people who might come to this project to participate in the club?

Chairman Cosentino: I can answer that Byran. That was one of the questions that was asked, and it's only for the…

Byran Parker: I'm merely asking it for I don't know what it is, and I don't want to know what it is, I recommend it be put in the DEIS. Second also on Page 1 the first line says the town/Village of Mount Kisco Planning Board has received an application for zoning be changed. Zoning change and site plan approval. Since zoning change is not part of what you do, this seems to be likely to raise a chicken and egg situation as to when the Village Board steps in. I think this may be covered on Page 6 in Schedule of Appearances. Discuss the order in Schedule of Appearances. I don't want any change on that. I just want the applicant to understand that I feel that we would like to deal with this early, early so that you could put in a schedule which elects the whole process. Presumably there will be a public hearing for the re-zoning, so there will be opportunity for other input. On Page 2, it states the Town/Village of Mount Kisco has declared itself to be lead agency, etc. The town can't be a lead agency. It has to be an agent with some authority to do this, and I suggest you insert the words Planning Board after the Town/Village of Mount Kisco, since presumably it is you who have declared yourself to be lead agency. On the top of the page, you want to add a new definition to the code for parking spaces per dwelling unit, senior enriched independent living housing. There should also be a definition of senior enriched independent housing, because I don't know what that is. I can guess, but I would like that to be in. Regarding Page 4: you have a listing of permits and approvals required for the proposed project; approval of text and map rezoning by the Village Board. I mention that earlier, if you just want to change to that, but there is another agency that has some discretionary authority and that is the Architectural Review Board. Should that not be in here?

Stanley Bernstein: It's on the next page.

Byran Parker: On Page 7, we now get to some of my major hobby horses. One is describe any proposed signs and site lighting and impacts on near and far view. I trust there will be eventually lighting plans.

Doug Hertz: Bryan, could you just identify a specific chapter?

Byran Parker: Page Seven, C - 1, Second Paragraph, Line 4. I am always concerned with lighting. I want to make sure that this proposed signs and site lighting includes the light from the building itself. That since its presumably going to be lit up not only by street lights and signs. So, I'm looking forward to seeing that dealt with rather thoroughly. The last item was Page 10, Utilities b-1. Identify and describe existing units of a water supply infrastructure serving the project site. As a member of the Byram Lake Committee and also a long term person interested in the safety of our lake and wells, I would like to insure that there is some engineering study or advice or whatever in this scope about the anticipated availability of water from Byram Lake during extended periods of drought. Those are my only comments. By and large it's an excellent scoping statement. Thank you.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you, Bryan.

Whitney Singleton: Chairman, before Bryan leaves, not that I'm looking to him for the answer but to your board, does your board want to see these items in a gross basis or in a net basis? I think really what this project is is the demolition of one building and the erection of another building, so it's not just the gross water consumption, the gross water being pumped through a pump station, its' going to be a net figure, because it is going to be displacing an existing facility. Do you want to look at that on a net net basis, or on a gross basis?

Chairman Cosentino: I think Bryan would want a net, wouldn't you Bryan?

Doug Hertz: I would think you would want both.

Bryan Parker: Yes. I haven't really thought about the implications of the demolition of the old building, and I assume that for things like water demand and things like that, you could subtract the existing - but the numbers should appear.

Chairman Cosentino: Bryan, I was going to give you a call. It was suggested, and I'd like you to come down here and go over the complete water system with us. I know there is a difference in the engineering and your consumption; to give us a talk on it so we understand it a lot more. We'd appreciate that. If you could do that we could set up an appointment sometime.

Bryan Parker: I would like to do that. It probably takes thirty minutes.

Chairman Cosentino: Whatever it takes, I would like to put this on. Could you put that on an agenda; when we can have Bryan down here.

Bryan Parker: To some extent I would rather do this after you have the draft DEIS. Then I have some long numbers to compare it with. So, if you could leave it till later, but at some point.

Chairman Cosentino: I would appreciate that.

Nanette Bourne: That would be good as part of completeness for reviewing the documents.

Chairman Cosentino: Is there anybody else out there? We had a signup sheet; Bryan was the only one who signed it. Is there anybody else out there that would like to comment for or against? Gentlemen?

Nannette, anything else?

Stanley Bernstein: There was an interesting proposal from the CAC. It should be included in the scoping. And also, back to the water supply that Bryan mentioned. I read this over and it just passed me by because it said “discussion must include water usage, average, peak identification, etc.” It doesn't actually spell out per person's usage, projected and compared against other projects in the Village, such as The Chase. The Chase made a projection, which of course was woefully undersized, and I think they should discuss this and it be part of the DEIS.

Nanette Bourne: Explain that, please.

Stanley Bernstein: It depends upon how they write this. The discussion must include water usage. Simple enough. How are they going to spell it out? I'd like to see it as a per person usage; how many gallons per person, the way it was done on the Chase. And I'd like them to compare it to other projects within the Village; perhaps it will take them a little bit of leg work to go through the former approved DEIS's of these projects to find out how much they said they would use and in fact how much they are using now. I think it would be a good exercise in finding out how much water they will actually be using, per person. Chase said they were going to use 80 gallons per person. And it would up being 150.

Nanette Bourne: It was a combination of lifestyle issues and landscaping.

Stanley Bernstein: It may very well be, but I would like to know what they project. And also basing it on a review of projects that were approved, and what the initial projection was and what the final analysis was.

Nanette Bourne: They have to isolate that and they have to have some discreet area to compare, and you have Woodcrest, for example.

Stanley Bernstein: Yes, Woodcrest is a good example.

Nanette Bourne: So there may be a couple,Jobco won't be on line. I'm not sure how useful it would be to do The Chase versus this.

Stanley Bernstein: I mentioned The Chase as an example, because it was the first thing that came to mind. Not necessarily using Chase, because it is a different situation. That's single family residences with underground irrigation. And that's key. That's why their usage went so high. I'd like to see what analysis they come up with.

Chuck Utschig: If I may suggest, what we'd like to do to answer that question is make sure that we're comparing similar uses. Woodcrest may be one that's actually in the Village, and we may be able to find other, similar projects not in the Village where we can get some historical data, so we could build somewhat of a database to answer your question. And that's fine, we'd be glad to do that. There are enough of these around just not happen to be in your town or Village. If I can go outside of that, I can find some other sources. And we'll get real water readings from the meters, and we'll relate it to the person occupancy, and we'll represent that as part of our analysis. We'll also rely on the DEC publications and the other publications that were driven, for example, by the Westchester County Health Department who says, here's our criteria, this is what we want you to use. We are going to kind of try and meld that together to give you a picture of what we think a good number is.

Nanette Bourne: Not to be argumentative, but that was the problem with The Chase.

Chuck Utschig: Actually, the problem with The Chase was the irrigation number. I don't want to go back to that, but it's a lesson learned for a lot of communities, where first time projects and a huge amount of irrigation water created substantial problems.

Chairman Cosentino: Anyone else?

Doug Hertz: Yes, I'd like to make a comment. You brought this out in discussions with the architect, but I don't see it spelled out well enough in this scope, which is under Alternatives. The only real place where Alternatives are being discussed is Page 16, Chapter 19, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. What's listed as A, B and C; A being no action, B being single family alternatives and C being development of the site with a non-resident use consistent with commercial. Maybe this is not the section, but I don't see where else it can be discussed. We talked about variance of the building in terms of not decreasing its square footage, but decreasing its length. We discussed wrapping the building around so that there is not as much frontage; one of the issues is you're asking for zoning language changed to allow the length of this building to exist, the architect made a statement before this board that he would endeavor to show us that these alternatives have been looked at, and this is the best possible alternative. I'd like that to be included in the scope and in the DEIS.

Nanette Bourne: If I understand you; and I think it's a really good idea to show what the building would look like compliant with the zoning, which would mean it would likely be higher, it would be more vertical, and it would require the length…

Doug Hertz: Right now it's length; more or less, not quite, because of the site parallel to Kisco Avenue, and there exists the possibility of running a smaller section parallel to Kisco which is what we're going to see, and L's or something like that that would go back up the site, which would be shielded in some way, which is what I asked during the discussion with the architect. At that time the discussion was, “we've looked at this, and we will endeavor to show you that this is the best alternative.” I'd like that to be shown.

Nanette Bourne: So a revised building mass that eliminates the need for a variance and minimizes…

Doug Hertz: Eliminates or lowers. I'm not going to say eliminate, because you're going from… I don't know the numbers off hand, but the current zoning allows 150, and you're asking for 400, or something like that? So I'm not suggesting that the alternative can completely comply with existing zoning.

Patrick Hewes: A different number, if more than 150 treat landscaping. If you look at the language that we proposed…

Ralph Vigliotti: Doug, you're very carefully saying the building is too long, and you'd like to see some alternates.

Doug Hertz: I would certainly like to see a discussion of it, and if you can convince us that this is the best alternative.

Ralph Vigliotti: I don't think they have convinced us of anything yet as far as the length of the building. This is the second conversation we've had about the length in the last two months, so I'm certainly seconding what you're stating, which is the building is a negative impact on the Village at large from wherever you're standing. It's a negative impact along Kisco Avenue. We're looking to see a stouter building, perhaps, which may be deeper so it doesn't appear to be so long. We'd like to see some options. While we're scoping, I had indicated that we would like to see literally weather balloons or whatever we're using so we can see the existing length that you're proposing with the driveway going up so we can get an indication of the impact of trees being lost. Really, 400 feet may not look like that much when we see the balloons, in our mind's eye and on paper.

Chuck Utschig: I think the photo simulations that you've asked us to include as part of our studies hopefully helps give you a perception of the building.

Ralph Vigliotti: We've seen a lot of photo simulations, and I'll be very honest with you, they don't seem to work, and they don't have a lot of merit. We can pull two or three out of a file of photos that we've seen that have been generated by computer, and it's not that the photos are lying. Somebody is, but there is something wrong with them. They just don't show a true, true picture for us.

Patrick Hewes: If I could just make a comment about that. The photo simulation…

Ralph Vigliotti: We'll certainly accept it if you provide it, but we want to see the balloons, we'd like to see this visually with the balloons up with the height of the building. The building is going to be from grade level 38½ feet, we want to see those balloons at 38½ feet, corner to corner to corner to corner coming down, so we could drive to different parts of the Village and see what the impacts are.

Patrick Hewes: One of the advantages of this example of photo simulation is it really is actually in relation to the building to the changing topography around it and the fact that the project is in the shoulder of a mounting topography. So, the advantage here and not being the advantage in other applications is that we can really illustrate how the building in effect, looking at some draft information and working with the architect already, we really see the building lower than the continuing height of Mount Kisco itself. So in this case the photo simulations are going to demonstrate in a lot of angles that we thought we started, it's nestling so to speak. It's fitting well within the profile; with not a ridgeline project.