PB Minutes - 1/9/07

Minutes

Meeting of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

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

Members Present: Chairman Joseph Cosentino

Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Doug Hertz

Joseph Morreale

Ralph Vigliotti

Members Absent: Sol Gibbons

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Janine McCulgan

Whitney Singleton

Chairman Cosentino: This is a meeting of the Mount Kisco Planning Board; it's a Regular Session for January 9, 2007. The first thing on our agenda is minutes of October 24, 2006. Mr. Bernstein?

Stanley Bernstein: Motion to accept the minutes of October 24, 2006

Doug Hertz: Second.

Minutes, October 24, 2006 Motion: Stanley Bernstein

Second: Doug Hertz

Aye; Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Doug Hertz

Aye: Ralph Vigliotti

Aye: Joseph Morreale

Aye: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Aye: Chairman Cosentino

Final Action: Crème de la Crème

Lot 2 Morgan Drive

Application No: PB2004-08

Present: David Steinmetz, Zarin & Steinmetz

Steven S. Korwan, Oswell & Nitishin

Chairman Cosentino: We have a draft resolution here; why don't you start this Nanette?

Nanette Bourne: You asked the applicant to come back with a rendering that was representative of their site plan. The last one was not. We looked at this in relation to the landscape plan; it reflects not only the site plan as was originally approved, but it reflects the landscape plan not as it would look when it's originally planted, but I think it was three years out. So, like it or not like it, it's an accurate portrayal of what it's going to look like.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Do you have a copy of the old one?

David Steinmetz: The previous submission?

Doug Hertz: Thank you for bringing it down to eye-level.

David Steinmetz: That we tried to adjust. I don't believe I have a copy with me.

Chairman Cosentino: The landscaping doesn't look bad; but I'm not crazy about the building itself. But that's another story. It is what it is.

Nanette Bourne: This does reflect the additional landscaping that you asked them to put in.

David Steinmetz: All that you have before you tonight is the landscaping. As Mr. Hertz indicated, we did try to adjust the perspective for the viewpoint of the portrayal. As you can well imagine we would very much like, on behalf of our client, to bring the process to closure and secure an adoption of the resolution and move forward.

Chairman Cosentino: Well we do have a resolution before us; if there are any questions here on this.

Ralph Vigliotti: One question. The trees that are being represented in the prospectus. Will they go in that size?

Steven Korwan: This is between two and three years down the road.

David Steinmetz: We were asked to illustrate it and render it this way so that you'd get a sense of what it's really going to look like.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So the 2010 model car is better. This is what the new BMW looks like.

Chairman Cosentino: Are there any other questions before we move to the resolution?

Stanley Bernstein: I have a comment for the record. Very nice trees, but they certainly can't replace what's there now; natural forest, and as a matter of fact, Ralph even mentioned it on one of our site visits, the urban forest and how it looks and how it should be preserved. I'm also not happy about bulldozers, cranes, concrete mixers and things like that in the wetland buffer. I'm not very happy about that at all. I think it's very destructive. Those are my comments.

Chairman Cosentino: Anybody else?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Mr. Chairman, I just have three short comments on the resolution itself. On Page 1 on the draft, we need to insert the tax map identification number, and also Nancy Placona has told me that the parking fees where it is short $1,025 have been paid on December 6.

Nanette Bourne: So its $3,550 plus the $1,025?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Yes. And that missing $1025 was that December 6 date.

David Steinmetz: Nanette, I'm not sure if it's short or if the $3,550 has now been paid in full. You can confirm that.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And my other thing is and it's a comment not directed to you Dave, but the December 26 letter is late in arrival because the submission cut-off date is December 20 for this packet; and I just say this in general to everybody in the room that the timing is off. And that's my only comments, Mr. Chairman.

David Steinmetz: If somebody has a calculator it's 75 times 65. So Nanette was right, the $1,025 needs to be added on to the $3,550.

Chairman Cosentino: It doesn't make a difference; you wouldn't get the building permit until it's paid.

David Steinmetz: One little technical comment on Paragraph 10. I think that day may need to be revised on the last revised date of the landscape plan. Your landscape plan is now last revised 12/22/06. I think that's it for the only things that we wanted to correct.

Chairman Cosentino: Is there anything else?

Ralph Vigliotti: Yes. Stan, I believe when we were talking about trying to preserve what was an urban forest: I think it's the property next door.

Chairman Cosentino: You're talking about Buckingham.

Ralph Vigliotti: I think the comments that we were sharing was on the Buckingham property.

Stanley Bernstein: Oh, you're right. Oh, Dave I apologize. I really do.

David Steinmetz: You get to make that comment when I appear for Buckingham. So just file that. I'll be back in two weeks.

Stanley Bernstein: Wait a minute; I'm all mixed up; because they are the ones who are going to bring in the concrete trucks and everything else on the wetlands. Not you. You're good guys. Sorry.

Chairman Cosentino: Now you know how to vote.

David Steinmetz: Did you just make the motion, Stan?

Stanley Bernstein: I just came in to Westchester County airport at 6:30, and I popped over here, so I'm confused.

David Steinmetz: Welcome back.

Chairman Cosentino: Since there is nothing else, do we have a motion?

Motion: Stanley Bernstein

Second: Joseph Morreale

Aye: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Joseph Morreale

Aye: Ralph Vigliotti

Aye: Doug Hertz

Aye: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Aye: Chairman Cosentino

David Steinmetz: Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure.

Stanley Bernstein: You're problem is your representing both.

David Steinmetz: That's it. But this is done. I'll come back and we'll talk about urban forest next time. Brad was here last time, and we in fact are in the process of making a submission on that environmental issue to give you.

Chairman Cosentino: I hope you're next stop is as friendly as we are.

David Steinmetz: I appreciate you putting me first, because I have to go to the Town of Cortlandt to their Planning Board. They will never be as fun as this. I can assure you.

Chairman Cosentino: Let them know it.

SEQR: Westchester Residence & Club

Kisco Avenue

Application No: PB2006-19

Present: Richard Rosen, Perkins Eastman

Patrick Hewes, Saccardi & Schiff, Inc.

Chuck Utschig, Schoor DePalma

Nanette Bourne: This item is on in the next phase of the SEQRA process for you to adopt the scope that allows the applicant to begin the preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. This scope has been revised based on comments that were received by the public and by members of the Planning Board. The changes that were made have been underlined, and if all that needs to be done tonight is to adopt it, the applicant may have some comments to make on the scope.

Patrick Hewes: Yes indeed. The first thing I'd like to say is that as requested, we have for your distribution an explanation of what the leadership and efficiency in environmental design is all about. We can certainly make more of these available, but we have certainly these for you tonight. Rich Rosen can speak to any of the questions that might be raised by leafing through that document to give you a sense of a single place where we do have a comment that I have shared and discussed with Nannette prior.

Nanette Bourne: Just cutting to the chase. At the last meeting, there was some discussion concerning green building technology. The Planning Board was asking the applicant what they were intending. The applicant stated that they intended to do a LEED Certified building. If you recall, I questioned whether or not that was really what they intended to do, and they told the board that they did, and they were doing a Silver Certified building. In previous conversations with the applicant's architect, they had expressed the difficulties of doing a Silver LEED Certified building. Nevertheless, it was represented. It's in here subsequent to that meeting. The architect called to get some background, and I briefed him that since he wasn't in attendance, it would be worth his while to come and explain what can be done, what is proposed, and what is anticipated. I think what they are requesting is a modification of what is currently in here and what they committed to, and explain what and why.

Patrick Hewes: Turning to the third to last sheet.

Richard Rosen: In here it explains the LEED ratings. I don't know if it was the last time or several meetings ago, when we first started discussing LEED Certification, we said that based on our experience that it is very difficult for a residential building to get as high a certification as say a commercial office building. And we said that we would try to meet the minimum standards for certification and that, if you look on this chart here, that would be in the range of between 26 and 32 points, which we thought was very do-able for this project. So I think really that's what our intent would be. We would meet those requirements for a certification in this residential building based on the new construction and code. A LEED standard, version two; we felt that's what we could do.

Doug Hertz: Part of the discussion, when we were discussing scope at the last meeting, was not just a discussion of what would be required to get to LEED silver, which is I think was represented to us, but what those steps would be and what additional steps would be required and could be accomplished to go to additional levels. Whatever we all come to, whether it's just certified level or whether you are at any of the higher levels, I think it behooves the board to understand what additional steps would be required, so we understand what would be reasonable for us to request or not to get to those additional certification levels. I'd still like to see that explored in the scope.

Nanette Bourne: What you may want to consider; instead of having this discussion right now as to what they can or cannot commit to, do exactly what you said and have them describe in the DEIS what they're committed to do, what it would take to go to the silver certification or any subsequent certifications. In essence I think you want to know what you're going to be missing out on.

Doug Hertz: Or what we could, in the horse trading that is this discussion, what we could request or not request.

Richard Rosen: I think if you look in these books and we could take the time afterwards and go through it. There is a very long check list which we used to start your analysis. I think part of what we have to do as a team and part of the DEIS is to go through every category. There are certain categories that you have to do right away. You can't sort of cherry pick only the ones that are convenient. You have to do certain things in terms of the site, water and energy conservation, air quality; things like that, and then I think what you'll find is that for different types of buildings; for bigger office buildings where you have different kinds of air changing systems that are sort of centrally located, it's a lot easier to them to work on that system than it is for individual apartment units for example. So I think in an office building you'd have a better chance of having more range in system selection than you do in residential, for example. I think what we could do is come back and say, based on all these categories, this is how we feel that we can achieve certification. We'll tell you why, what the trade offs were, what the difficulties might be; or maybe there won't be difficulties in certain categories. But I think we could actually include that checklist. And part of our analysis in the DEIS which we would have to do anyway to go for certification because it's all documentation that we have to furnish to obtain certification.

Chairman Cosentino: I wish we would have gotten these a little sooner.

Patrick Hewes: The third to last sheet has that checklist marked up as if it was submitted.

Ralph Vigliotti: In all fairness, was this prepared in 2005? Is this a boiler plate that you use?

Patrick Hewes: Yes. That is from counsel, and I simply bound it for you.

Nanette Bourne: It's on the website. What we're talking about, if you turn to Page 6 of the Scope and look at Item 8 close to the top, you're really looking at how you want to revise this in the Scope.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Patrick, when we were talking on the phone the other day you said you were going to present the letter of commitment for LEED Certification. Do you have that letter tonight?

Patrick Hewes: No. I think that's partially related to legal counsel for this project not being present, possibly, here tonight. I think it also relates to the fact that I think we talked about how that commitment with the DEIS is an exploration and a description of impacts. It's also a pledge to investigate, and the result of that investigation is in some ways this DEIS exercise. So to make a commitment before investigating and understanding what can and can't be done from the design standpoint based on this checklist it's the cart before the horse. Now, what we want to do is to definitely respond to your request that the LEEDS question is integrated into the DEIS, but I believe that the language that we have in the DEIS gets us towards the issue which you have, which is to lay out and analyze and investigate what can and what…

Chairman Cosentino: A lot of investigations here.

Patrick Hewes: But I'm not sure that at this moment making a commitment we don't know what's going to happen when we investigate the design.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: It's a shame you didn't tell me that on the phone last week when you committed to bringing the letter from your client, who stood before us, and said we are committed to a LEED Certification building. This Planning Board was counting on receiving that letter tonight, as you promised that it would be here. So, that letter is missing, and we are now being pointed toward a Certified Level, but without a color associated with it. And I think we haven't accomplished, in my opinion as one member of the Planning Board, in the various meetings that we've had since we first discussed LEED Certification, I don't think we've moved the ball as my colleague, Doug, had said, I don't think we've moved it further along in this certification process. One, the missing letter from a week ago, and two; now we're looking at 28, 32 points, and as Doug said, we're looking to move this thing up so we can get a color associated with it. And I think that's an important thing to accomplish, and by the same token I think it's a let down that we don't have that letter tonight that was committed to us.

Patrick Hewes: I apologize for that, and I think that the level question, I think was unfortunately a matter of language. At discussion time all of us had a recollection that the silver level was the base level for LEED, and factually we were in there saying this is a level called certifiable.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I'm not picking on the fact that there is an error, but everybody on your team made the same error that nobody realized that the silver level was not the bottom level?

Patrick Hewes: Yes.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Do you folks do a lot of business in LEED Certification buildings?

Patrick Hewes: As a planner, this is my first LEED project.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Well, okay; the attorneys, the architect, I mean, how could we collectively in this room have missed that point?

Patrick Hewes: I'd have to say that I'm deferring on the details of how LEED operates very much to the design team which is experienced in this matter. Rich can speak; I'm sure to many things that relate to what it is to build a LEED building.

Richard Rosen: There was my insert.

Chairman Cosentino: I think if you weren't sure you could have called Nannette.

Richard Rosen: My assumption, based on years of reading this stuff, was that it was silver, gold and platinum, and in going back and looking at this to see what the points implied, there was a certified level. Because I think when I was here three meetings ago or two meetings ago, I said we would make at least the 26 points that would get us silver. That was my recollection of my statement, so I misspoke, but we said we would get past the threshold if we could get beyond that. It's like diagnosing a patient, we have not sat down; because we have been involved in this process, we have not sat down and gone through every system and every material on the building. For instance, we've been interviewing contractors to help us monitor the types of systems and the types of materials, and part of our question to them was, have you done a LEED Certified building, and will you commit to being part of the documentation process? A big chunk of this not only occurs in the design, but it's also in the site management during the construction, waste management, where do you get your materials from, how far they are shipped, all that kind of stuff. And so, I'm saying we have the intent. Our process has been guided by doing what we said we would do several weeks ago. The contractor selection is almost as important, if not more important, because they have to actually finish the documentation and that enables us to file with the USGBC to be certified. It's a very big. It's almost like another EIS if you will, with the USGBC. It's a big book and they have to verify this and check all the sources and documentation and certifications. We've been working on that process. So, the intent was to always be certified to reach the minimum level, and if we could, do whatever we can beyond that.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: That's the point that Mr. Hertz brought up; let's not look at that minimum level as the benchmark. Let's look skyward.

Chuck Utschig: In order for us to understand where we can get some of the points in the checklist; it literally is kind of a checklist; these are the place where you get certain points on. We've got to get further into the design. So maybe the way the language could read in the Scoping Outline, and then be expanded with DEIS is that we talk about a LEED Certification, exploring the areas where we know we can get points, and kind of identifying where the different bars are. So in order for us to accomplish the next level, we have to get these many points, and here is potentially how we could do it. I think what we want is the opportunity to get through that process for you, and then we can say to you, we're short by four points because this, this and this. So it kind of answers the question of what is it going to take to get to the next level? We don't want to commit to it because we really don't know what those points are. But we'd be glad to go through the analysis, explain them to you, identify them, and then this board can decide if the bar is too high, those are the things we should be going after. But the DEIS gives us an opportunity to explain that to everybody.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: But the DEIS gives you the opportunity to explain LEED Certification, but not to the inth degree that you are now trying to achieve with your various vendors, sub-contractors and suppliers to be able to commit to LEED Certification. As you said, that's a big volume of work, separate and apart from the DEIS, which is going to refer to LEED Certification. But the nuts are bolts are going to be in your big volume.

Richard Rosen: And I think that by agreeing to obtain certification we've already committed to a process and how far we can push it will only happen as we go through. For example, a LEED point can be obtained for having a bicycle rack for employees and a shower near the bicycle rack to encourage people to drive to work. On our site, I sort of defy anyone. I mean we could put a bicycle rack in there; does that make sense for our staff or anybody coming in going to ride up there on a bicycle every day? Those are things that an urban building would do.

Doug Hertz: Westchester County train on Kisco Mountain, train their bike guys, and every year there is a ride up the mountain for the trainees and it's pretty comical. So they could go off road and continue through the property.

Richard Rosen: It's those kinds of things that we would get more specific on as the building develops further; because we haven't looked at every system and every material yet.

Doug Hertz: I'd like to see a commitment to LEED Certification generically at this point. We do have approval power. We could decide after looking at the information that LEED Silver is the minimum that we would accept for this sensitive of a site.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Absolutely. It's only a draft.

Chairman Cosentino: Any ideas on that Nanette?

Nanette Bourne: Again, I go back to what is written on page six, and whether or not you want to modify that to say “use of green building technologies including commitment to being the points for LEED Silver, or how would you like to qualify that? Or you could just leave it the way it is.

Doug Hertz: At this point it's a discussion.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I would like to leave it.

Doug Hertz: If they're not writing a commitment letter, it's a discussion point anyway.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I'd like to leave it stronger.

Chairman Cosentino: If you just leave it the way it is. Tony's right, it is stronger.

Doug Hertz: It's certainly in the record multiple times that the applicant has misspoken or not, as committed to getting LEED Silver. So it's something we can either hold them to our let them off the hook on if we find the bar is too high.

Chuck Utschig: Basically it commits us to discuss the LEED Certification to that level, and if we find ourselves getting to a point where we have difficulty in accomplishing that, we'll be forced into DEIS and describe those difficulties and explain to you why we can't get there. That's what happens. It may go the other way.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: It may be the other way and you want to go for enriched platinum level or dialithium crystals from Star Trek.

Joseph Cosentino: Let's just leave it then, is there anything else?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The other point I was going to bring up is Page 17, Chapter 18, and Letter B. Do we need to bolster that sentence; paragraph?

Nanette Bourne: About the alternatives?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Minimize the potential impacts on the environment during construction and operation.

Nanette Bourne: I would rather the full discussion of LEED's be where we can discuss it on Page 7, so that it's up front. This is fine; this chapter is typically not a weighty chapter. I would actually like this to be left in here, but the meatier discussion to be up front.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Okay, fine.

Nanette Bourne: A question the project description discusses your request to increase the maximum length of building, and it's in here as increasing beyond 150 feet. I was asked earlier what your current proposed building length is, and didn't recall.

Patrick Hewes: It's not a straight line. Its two wings.

Nanette Bourne: What is your request for the zone change? The text amendment is to what length?

Patrick Hewes: The words are in excess of 150 feet.

Nanette Bourne: I realize that, but in excess to what?

Patrick Hewes: We actually don't describe that. We don't say up to. .

Nanette Bourne: Your text change has to ask for a maximum building length.

Whitney Singleton: Or alternatively, if you're going for a variance you're going to have to describe a degree of the variance for which you're seeking.

Nanette Bourne: Your text change has to have criteria.

Chuck Utschig: I don't know. If we have a building length, could we give you that number? I think there is a little bit of a question as to exactly how we would measure it. We want to make sure we do it to according to how the code says, and because we have this shape building, we want to make sure we get it measured right. So could we add that piece of information and let us come back to you with it?

Nanette Bourne: Yes, because that has to be part of the project description.

Chairman Cosentino: Nannette, are you on the bottom of page one where it says 150 feet?

Patrick Hewes: You're really saying rather than having language which says anybody in the future that would read this code; they would have a building that would be in excess of 150 feet that would, therefore, need to do the thing that is spoken here. You would really prefer that it says in the code for any future project of 150 feet or more, that that length be specified.

Nanette Bourne: That's typical in zoning law.

Ralph Vigliotti: What is the length you're proposing?

Richard Rosen: It's not just a straight line, but as the crow flies it is about 580 feet from there to there. These are about 240 feet, and then the center section.

Nanette Bourne: Are they connected?

Richard Rosen: They are connected in a one-story structure.

Doug Hertz: It's one building.

Richard Rosen: This is 240, that's 240.

Stanley Bernstein: Don't measure on this. Measure center line from the outside, where it intersects with the center line. Let me show you. Proper measurement of this is, extend this line here, extend this line here, get the center line of the building and measure here and here to where they intersect. That is the accurate measurement of the length of that building. It's as if you took this and opened it up and made a straight line out of it.

Richard Rosen: This is very high tech.

Stanley Bernstein: Yes, it is very high tech. That's the way a draftsman would do it. Eye the center from here to here. What scale is this?

Richard Rosen: 50^th.

Stanley Bernstein: I'll give you a little bit extra here.

Richard Rosen: Thank you. That's 300.

Stanley Bernstein: So you have 600 feet.

Nanette Bourne: I would confirm that with Austin.

Stanley Bernstein: I am aware that Austin would know the proper way to measure a building, to measure anything as a matter of fact.

Nanette Bourne: The footprint of this building is what; the footprint and the square footage?

Richard Rosen: The square footage is approximately 177, whatever the agreement was. The footprint is something like 69,000 square feet.

Nanette Bourne: So the foot print is approximately 69.

Richard Rosen: And the overall square footage is about 177; whatever the limit was in the agreement.

Doug Hertz: But there is both a foot print and the square footage in the agreement, correct?

Nanette Bourne: Yes.

Doug Hertz: It's been awhile since I've seen those numbers.

Chuck Utschig: We're within both those numbers.

Doug Hertz: As part of this, because this brings up the same thing, on Page 17, Chapter 19, the language in there. This chapter is Alternatives to the Proposed Project, and the alternatives are “a” no action, “b” single family, “c” development of the site as non-residential, “d”, alternative building mass that eliminates the need for a tax change for building length includes sketches, photo op. I would like to see, because it's been represented over and over again, and based on the agreement of square footage and that it's probably going to be very difficult without breaking this up into multiple small buildings which the applicant has stated, does not fit their criteria, that we are going to see something along within 150 feet, but we've discussed whether the 600 feet is really necessary. So I'd like to see either another alternative in here. I'd love to see this alternative discussed, but I'd love to see another one that says alternative building mass that reduces. I don't know how to phrase it, but basically that reduces the length of the building.

Chairman Cosentino: From 600 square feet to maybe 400.

Nanette Bourne: I think it has to be very specific so that they know where to go with this. And what you're really talking about is…

Doug Hertz: What I'm talking about is the alternative that I asked about two or three meetings back which is the possibility of not making the building so linear, but to use across the face, which essentially is parallel more or less, with a grade, which is more or less parallel to Kisco Avenue, but something that used the depth of the site and therefore, hid some of the facades or the face of the building from the village; something that would use a smaller distance across the front and greater depth.

Nanette Bourne: You want the depth as opposed to the height?

Doug Hertz: I want the depth as opposed to the height and/or the length. The only thing that could be hidden on the site is the depth, because the building would hide itself.

Nanette Bourne: So an alternative building mass that reduces the need for text change for building length by increasing the depth of the building mass?

Doug Hertz: Yes, if we can agree what depth means on the site.

Richard Rosen: Can I just make a comment from a practical point of view? If the agreement states that there are a limit to the number of units, and to the number of one bedrooms and two bedrooms, and to the total square footage; in order to achieve that so that you meet code requirements for light and air and exposure to the outside, you're going to need a certain linear footage of building per each of those.

Doug Hertz: I completely agree with you, but if you had a building that was shorter across the face than what you have now you would have “I's” that go back. If those “l's” were longer or deeper, and had more units in the depth of the site, it would reduce the need for the width of the building; what we're calling the length of the building.

Chuck Utschig: As long as we can agree on the parameters in which we're trying to frame this alternative; that it's do-able. You'll see in the discussion of the alternatives relative to this site, there are… let's call it a downside to that change because of the... From our perspective, we just want to make sure we know what you want us to study.

Ralph Vigliotti: I want you to study decreasing the number of units so you can decrease the size. Let's get right to the chase here.

Nanette Bourne: That's Item E?

Ralph Vigliotti: Gentlemen. The building is too big. No matter what you do, the envelope is much too big for the package you're trying to deliver to that site. I know there are steep slopes, you have disturbance of the land and so on and so forth. You have too many units. This building is too big. You can make a profit. Sit down with your accountants. You have too many units. You need to do some homework here. You have too many units to make these 600 feet long. I don't know how many feet Target or A & P is, but I know this is longer than that building on that mountain. You can accomplish your goal, but you may not get the number of units you need or you want. Not what you need to make a profit. And I don't want to be held hostage here. As one Planning Board member and I've always said it the way it needs to be said in this Planning Board. You have too many units. Whatever arrangements were made with the Village Board, when you start to come before this board we have to do the right thing by this village at large. On that property there are steep slopes, driveways going up, traffic; and I think traffic is probably the least of all the issues. What are we discussing here? The impact is what we're discussing. No matter how many ways we shape this shoebox, it has a visual impact, and it's not going to change. It's too big. And I'll just leave you with that.

Chairman Cosentino: Anybody else?

Nanette Bourne: Maybe if you can go back and make one adjustment to Item B; if we talk about an alternative building mass that reduces the length of the building along Kisco Avenue by approximately 50%? I'm just pulling the number out of the hat.

Doug Hertz: I'm not sure.

Ralph Vigliotti: I'm not sure either, but I'd like to see if X number of units is giving you this size, what is X Y number of units going to give you to another size? That's what I'm looking at. I know where Doug is coming from; the building visually, in the length that you have, is much much too big of an impact. And whether you go this way or you kind of go off in eight different directions, you're still going to have the mass. I think you have to take a real close look at it. I've been on this board four years, and every single developer that has come past this board has worked with us to reduce sizes of structures. Everyone comes in with a number, and that number has an impact on the properties that are left in the village and the green space that's left in the village, and I think we might be able to accomplish something by sharpening your pencils a little bit. So, I don't know if it's 50 percent; maybe its 30, maybe it's 25, I honestly don't know. I'm not looking for 50%, I'm just looking to see that building shrink.

Nanette Bourne: Again, just looking at the building mass, reducing it by 50% of which would push it back, and then second would be reduction in the size of the intensity of the use.

Doug Hertz: I suppose an arbitrary number like 50% creates an exercise they have to look at. I'm open here as to what we should do. Because if 50% is too much and it requires a discussion that brings you into a whole different area. If you can well accommodate 25%, 30%, but with a shift of this design, or a tweak of this design, at 50% you would go to a complete redesign throw this out and start over, which may not be feasible. I don't know what the number is that is logical to ask or the language.

Stanley Bernstein: Wouldn't you say 19E covers that fairly well? Doesn't it limit you to a percentage, but it does require a discussion of a scaled down alternative? In order to scale it down the number of units will have to be dropped, and it doesn't limit them to a percentage.

Nanette Bourne: Not necessarily.

Doug Hertz: I'm not even suggesting they drop them. I'd like to look at an alternative that honors the agreement in square footage only because there's an agreement. And I think “E” is the true scale, the version of an entirely smaller thing, and it may be smaller in units, smaller in square footage, smaller in foot print. But I'd like to see a realistic “D 1” that reduces the light. And I agree that I'd like to see what Mr. Vigliotti is asking for to be discussed as well, which I think can be accomplished under “E”, which is a scaled down version, which is exactly what has been requested. I think we need to look at an alternative that reduces this length. That to me is the single biggest hurdle in the visual impacts of this building. I understand the discussion of how this building roof line shifts; of how the building is broken up. But, again, it's broken up primarily by moving it towards the street, making those L's work. If some of those units moved towards the back of the lot, if you could begin to shrink the length of the building overall, and maybe it is feasible. Maybe it needs to be looked at harder. And that's what I'd like to do. So we need to craft some language to make that work. And I'm looking your way.

Nanette Bourne: The language I crafted, I specifically put in approximately 50% because it could be 50 is not feasible, it's 40 or its 30. And it gives them a leeway to come back.