PB Minutes 5-8-07

Minutes

Meeting of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Meeting called to order at 7:50, Tuesday, May 8, 2007, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Chairman Joseph Cosentino

Stanley Bernstein

Sol Gibbons

Doug Hertz

Joseph Morreale

Ralph Vigliotti

Members Absent: Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Anthony Oliveri

Whitney Singleton

Minutes: None

SEQRA Review:

Northern Westchester Hospital Center

Application No: PB2003-02A

400 Main Street

Chairman Cosentino: This is a regular session. Since we have no minutes, the first thing on our agenda is a SEQRA review. Nannette, will you take this please?

Nanette Bourne: Sure. This is a completeness review. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement on re-zoning the site plan for the hospital, and you have included in your packet preliminary completeness comments from the Village engineer as well as from our office. We are still in the process of reviewing the document. The Village attorney and I met today and went over some of our comments, and this will probably take a couple of meetings to get all of the staff comments on the table, as well as incorporating comments that you as Lead Agency have with this. I think there are a number of ways we can go about this in terms of this review, and what I would recommend tonight is that we separate out into two different types of discussions. One has to do with the completeness of this document in terms of what is called for with the scope. You as the Lead Agency adopted the scope awhile ago, and the applicant has gone and developed this EIS according to the scope. The formatting of the document isn't exactly as the scope reads, but it's not necessary that it does; as long as it generally follows the scope. Within that, there are a number of details which need to be corrected, and I think we could spend a lot of time tonight talking about the parking figures are two spaces short and that's not really a good use of our time. I would recommend that you consider having staff sit with their planners and go over some of those items. If there are items that can easily be corrected and not waste each others time, other items could probably be better understood if the applicant clarified or for those who are fairly new to this process, how they got to where they were. As you know, this project has been going on for several years, and not everybody was involved at the very beginning. So things that make sense to me, because I was there from the very beginning and know how it evolved don't necessarily make sense to the people who are reading this for the first time. So I would recommend that you suggest that staff sit down with the applicant. Tonight, I would recommend that there be a discussion as to both the structure of the EIS and how you as the reader felt. Was it clearly communicating the project that is being proposed? Because not only do you have to understand it, but its going to be going out to the public and to interested and involved agencies for them to understand the project and comment back. There has been a lot of work that has gone on, and I put back on you; does it really reflect to you as a reader, do you really understand all the work that has gone on for this project to be where it is today? I think that it is certainly appropriate and an important part of the SEQRA process that as the applicant is preparing an EIS that the project evolve and change slightly to minimize or mitigate impact. So the project that you see tonight doesn't necessarily have to be the exact project that you saw a couple of years ago. But that process should be, and that evolution should be, clear in the document that you read. So that's one area, and it's more of a global discussion that I think should be had with the board and perhaps with the applicant. The second is that, as part of the history of this project, I think that as the applicant has considered comments and constraints that there phasing has evolved and is in fact different than what we had thought. If you notice in the EIS they speak of two phases, which is exactly what we had told them and it was appropriate, and the impact analysis is done correctly at the end of each phase. At Phase I there is an impact analysis, and in Phase II there is the cumulative impact analysis. Within those two phases are various stages, and as you can see, there is a pre-stage of the Cancer Care Unit, which we all know, we all have history of that Cancer Care Center, and I think that's fairly clear. Stage I involves the construction of the north parking structure. Stage II has three or four items, and Stage III has three or four components. Included in that is the Emergency Department, which the applicant has very effectively come to you and said we would like to advance this Emergency Department as one of the earlier site plan considerations, but in the EIS it is included here as Stage III. As a reader, you might wonder what it is that they are proposing. Not how they are analyzing it in the EIS, but what is it they are proposing in terms of phasing? So, I would suggest that tonight there is a discussion on these global issues, and communicate back to the applicant how you feel about the structure of the EIS and then allow staff to deal with some of the smaller issues. Then we can come back with a more comprehensive item of specific details that need to be corrected.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you, Nannette. So I guess the first thing we want to do is set something up.

Nanette Bourne: Yes, if you're comfortable with that.

Chairman Cosentino: Yes, we need to set something up; I'd like to get it done as soon as possible, though. I don't know what your calendar is like.

Nanette Bourne: We can work with the applicant and come up with some time.

Chairman Cosentino: Why don't we set something up and go over this so we keep this going, possibly next week?

Nanette Bourne: That would be fine.

Chairman Cosentino: How about you, Whitney? Is that okay with you?

Whitney Singleton: Next week I can certainly try. It's a little ambitious. I'm finding a lot of erroneous information in the EIS, and I want to make sure it's productive.

Chairman Cosentino: Okay, the week after? Why don't we do it this way? Find out the information that you're going to need…

Whitney Singleton: The end of next week should not be a problem then.

Chairman Cosentino: The end of next week then, we'll get together and try to hash this out.

Nanette Bourne: Those are my opinions, and you may agree or disagree.

Chairman Cosentino: Is there any comments or do you want to get the report back from them, or do you want to go over anything?

Doug Hertz: I think there are comments that certainly we can make.

Chairman Cosentino: Why don't we make some comments now, because they may be useful.

Doug Hertz: The things top of mind, I think in terms of structure of the EIS; it needs to be made clear of how we got from the main proposal to Alternative One, and I'd like to see in the narrative the applicant to lay out the logic or the reasons governing that shift, so that we can understand it and analyze it. Additionally, there was a lot of discussion about a year ago…I may have my timeframe wrong, about the ownership structure of the office building. It should be an independent structure so it could be taxed separately, on and on and on. I don't see much of a discussion of that in the EIS. I'd like to get, really, the economics of the office building, some justification, some reasoning behind the numbers for the specific square footage of that building; how that was arrived at, what the break even or the break points are on the size of that building, because the size of that building drives a lot of parking and a lot of other things related to this. So I want to make sure that there is a long and clear understanding of that. And, if that building got sized down, where the hospital would benefit or be in trouble. What is too large? What is too small? What works and why? Specifically why the size that was chosen is the size that they feel they need and given the time that has gone buy and we've shifted from the main proposal to Alternative A, even though some of that information has been provided during the process, I think that needs to be clarified and laid out in this document.

Sol Gibbons: Checking on the Alternates… On Alternate 3 there is just a short paragraph telling us that they are going to do Alternate 3 first, which is the Emergency Room in the south parking lot. If that's the case, I think it should be in Phase I - 3 that gives the different stages. I think it should be spelled out in there, rather than an alternate; like on Page I-9. I think it should be spelled out properly and stipulated exactly how they are going to do this phasing and the sequences.

Joseph Morreale: I took a lot of time to read all three volumes, and I guess I was also the one who asked you about the original strategic plan that is behind this. I would like to make a number of comments, because I think there is confusion about what we were given. It's not just data, but there is a whole inconsistency at times of flow of argument in this to the point where I'm not sure you've advocated Alternative 3 or not. And what is Alternative 3 anyway? Because by the time you're done reading the first volume, it's not clear. You kind of reject a lot of things that were in Alternative 3, and I'm not sure if the Emergency Room is being done first, or the north parking garage. So I think there are some real questions but I'm confused. I'd like to think I'm semi-bright. I think when this goes to the public it will really confuse them as to what is happening. So I think the scope of this and the analysis really needs to be tightened up, and you have to come up front and state real clearly where you are, so we can be clear about where you are going. I'd like to point out a number of things about what I think we'd be gaining, but then talk to you about what I think needs to be addressed. Clearly you talk about a modern twenty first century hospital. Clearly you talk about expanded facilities, 24-hour medical emergency care, better personnel right here in Mount Kisco, a regional medical center, economic impacts, which are very positive, and a better appearance in terms of landscaping and design than we have now, because there is nothing wonderful about seeing massive parking lots when you pull up to the traffic light, granted. What I didn't see a lot of was in one of the points you make about your goals is, you talk about health care and education, and I didn't see a lot on education, and I wondered about how you are going to do an educational program for the community that would be maybe impacting on promoting health, not just treating illness. So there is an issue for me in that, maybe because I'm an educator. Let me just run through maybe ten quick points. I was struck in the traffic impact that you did not talk at all about how significant Moore Avenue is going to be affected. You kind of talk about a number of other points, but not Moore Avenue, which is mind-boggling to me given that that's where you want to put a major parking garage. So I think that has to be worked out. I also was surprised that there is no real air pollution impact by a parking garage with gasoline fired cars going on multiple levels and also coming out onto the streets. And, you talk about the ring road and never really get to any impact on air pollution, which I just find surprising. If you're right, fine, but I guess I'm not convinced. The visual impact you say is really positive. I think we've all had the issue of the canyon sense with the parking garage on Moore Avenue, so I don't think we're convinced of that. At least I'm not. The size of the project is tremendous. You're talking about seven years of construction… to 2013, which is a massive project. Not to say that massive isn't a good thing, but it does mean it has to be phased very carefully and it does mean, where do you put all of these construction vehicles and keep running the medical facility, and keep the traffic flowing? There are a lot of issues there which I again don't feel were dealt with sufficiently. One of the questions I raised last time when we were talking about this, is instead of a parking garage, what about the new Stop & Shop parking area that is now vacant? Is there anyway that can be linked to the hospital? Now, obviously when you wrote this that wasn't available, but it's now worth thinking about. We can save a parking garage and maybe connect that lot to the hospital's facility. It's a thought. The zoning change, I guess is up to the board of the community; the board of trustees. I think you need a better rationale, though. I don't see it clearly stated why the zoning would change. I was concerned about the significant impact with the 30% of square footage, the maximum you can have, because you're very close to that. You talk about 29.8 or something, and I wondered if you might go over it. The other thing I never saw, which I was very interested about is how many people will be flowing through that area as patients, as staff and everybody that's at that hospital? In other words, it would be nice to know what the flow is now, and when you're all done, what the total flow will be. Because that would give us an idea then how densely populated that whole area is going to become. There is a whole thing in our packet about the water supply and issues around if there is enough water. I don't know enough about engineering, but it's interesting; a lot of points were raised about that. I think there is not a lot of discussion about noise, and I think there is going to be a lot of noise with the construction phase and the traffic phase, and I think you at least ought to address it more clearly. And then, finally, Alternative 3. The reason why I wanted to spell all that out, and it's only my opinion, and I'm only one member of the board. But I took the time to read the whole thing from soup to nuts, and I feel you're going to have to work on this and make it a lot clearer. I felt it would be better to tell you a lot of the things that I seemed to pull out of it that I was concerned about. And at the same time, sow all the benefits of what you're trying to do.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you, doctor. Stan?

Stanley Bernstein: Yes. Both Dr. Morreale and Mr. Gibbons brought up very good points. I have a list of points myself, but I'm not going to repeat what they said. It's mostly the same issue, but my major issue was the way the DEIS was written. I don't think I'm a stupid person, maybe I am but I don't think so, and I tried to get through that thing and I just go so bollixed up. One section follows another section illogically, and it was very, very hard to follow. I can't understand why there was a Phase 3, and a Phase I A, and B and what are you going to do first, and what you are going to do after. Now, just to give you a little bit of where I come from, my background, I've been in building construction for 47 years. I helped design three major hospitals. Mount Sinai, Bethesda Naval Hospital, and a good part of Columbia Presbyterian. I know about hospitals. I know about designs of hospitals. And I have never seen anything this shoddy or amateurish. That's what I call it, amateurish. I think, and I'd like to see this happen. I'd like to see you go back to the drawing board and start from the first page and completely re-write it. It's just an impossible situation for all of us. None of us are dopes. And to try to reconcile the scoping document with this is nearly impossible. I gave up. I just didn't have the time or the inclination to continue. Let me say something about the hospital. The hospital is part and parcel of Mount Kisco. We all need it. Not only want it, but need it. It provides quite a bit of income to the businesses in Mount Kisco, brings an awful lot of money into restaurants and stores. Not only that, the health aspect of it is tremendous. It's a regional hospital. It was at one time just a little community hospital, when my wife was there for a major operation in a little community hospital, and it was a very good hospital at that time. And now, it's an enormous thing, and I think that it should be presented in a little better fashion than you have presented it. As I said, the hospital is needed, it's important, we all want it, the Emergency Room must be put in the way you want it put in. From that aspect, it looks like an important item, but to understand it, and the global look of the entire project is just beyond me. The internal road system is very hard to understand. I don't know what you're going to be doing with Boltis Street. I tried my damnedest to find out what is going to happen to Boltis Street; I can't, I don't know. Not only to mention the elevation change, it's a very large elevation change. We want the hospital, we need it, I for one, will give you everything. I would overlook things that I would not overlook on a normal project because I want to see that hospital go. But, the other side of the coin…twenty years from now, if my name is on that approval, and twenty years from now, I don't want it be said Bernstein allowed this piece of garbage. I don't want that. I think it's important to all of us. Our names are going to be on this document, and I don't think we want something that's detrimental to Mount Kisco. We want something that we can be proud of. I hope I made myself clear.

Chairman Cosentino: Mr. Vigliotti.

Ralph Vigliotti: I think each of us has shared some personal thoughts and some planning ideas with regard to the hospital, but I think the biggest piece each of us has shared is the phasing in. It's quite confusing. You know that, and we know that. In one hand you want to move from Phase 3 the Emergency Center, which I happen to agree. It should be one of the first priorities of the hospital, but you're not willing to move the parking garage for the south lot into the phase. I find that quite awkward. What I find even more awkward and you know that, I'm just repeating myself, is you haven't done enough homework on that parking garage with regard to traffic on Moore Avenue and the neighborhood three years later from your original proposal. I'd like to see some alternatives in Phase 1 with the proposed north parking lot on Moore Avenue. I think there are other sites which can handle a parking garage and accommodate your parking needs, such as the south lot. Possibly the acreage that's on Boltis Street, which we're not even sure at this point what you envision for that acreage that you own on Boltis, and I understand that you own all of the acreage on the east side of Boltis Street. I honestly believe that some of that could be used for parking to service the apartment building on Moore, which in turn that parking space can be used to serve The Cancer Center, and you might be able to net out without a parking structure; and the cost of a parking structure on the north lot, and the traffic pattern that you will create on the north lot going out onto Moore. I think we've all envisioned over the years that Northern Westchester Hospital Center would be a campus, and that there would be a main entrance, and that all of the traffic would come off of 172 via 117. It's a good entrance. It certainly needs to be modified, but I think with the north parking lot you're creating a secondary entrance ingress/egress that is going to be very, very difficult for traffic, and I think it's going to cause major, major congestion in this village; major congestion. So there are lots of pieces. Everyone has talked about different pieces of the application, but I'd like to see; now that you've fine-tuned your ideas after three years, to look at the phases and be forthright, and let us know what you're putting in Phase 1, 2 and 3; and discuss it with our planners. I'd like to know, and I may be here long enough to be sitting on this board when you decide to what you're going to do with the property on Boltis. I think in all fairness to this board we should have an idea of what kind of greater impact that may bring to that neighborhood and to the campus in itself and to Moore Avenue. But I just leave you with the thought; I understand calculations are on one acre of land. You could put approximately 220 cars on approximately one acre of land, and I know you have more than two or three acres there. I honestly believe that with a berm and the right kind of landscaping, Boltis Street would service the hospital very well for parking, for the apartment building, for the cancer center, and for any of the doctors and patients that may use the north section of the hospital. I think you could save yourself millions of dollars in the parking garage and all of that you're trying to do on that north lot, including that office building. So I just kind of leave you with that. I do want to say I would love to move forward as quickly as we can on the Emergency Room. I know it's a priority and I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly, and I support that. I want to help you move with that quickly. Thank you.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you. I think everything was said. Right from the beginning I was interested in getting the Emergency Room completed; I know the troubles that are there firsthand. But I think everything was said. I think you do have a lot of homework to do. I think we need to meet the end of next week to accomplish some of these, so I leave it up to staff and their staff to make an appointment so we can sit down. I'd like to attend that, and maybe one other board member; whoever wants to attend it, and do that. Thank you.

Mr. Parker, I'm sorry I didn't see your hand there. Come right up.

Mr. Bryan Parker: I came to address these global issues that I'm very impressed with what I just heard; but its one of procedure. Normally, I suppose as a member of the public I should wait until you have a public hearing later in the process. However, I had some counseling with the utility section and the water supply section. I would like to introduce the documents; I don't want to go through it at this time. Should I therefore, give them to the secretary to bring them at the next meeting?

Chairman Cosentino: Mr. Parker, we will put you on an agenda so you can go over this with us. I know you have a great knowledge with our water, and I really want to put you on the agenda and have you talk about it. You could give that information to the secretary, and I want Mr. Parker to get on the agenda probably for our own use; not as a public hearing, for our own use, probably the first or second meeting in June. Is that alright with you; the first or second meeting in June? I don't know where you'll be. You might be fishing or something.

Mr. Parker: I have grandchildren graduating from college in June, but that looks pretty clear.

Chairman Cosentino: Have Nancy call Mr. Parker for the first or second meeting in June, we'll see what the agenda is like so he can come in and give a spiel on the water conditions. He's got a great knowledge on that, and if you can give one to Nannette.

Whitney Singleton: Bryan, are you planning on commenting on water in Mount Kisco or are you planning on commenting on the application?

Mr. Parker: I am commenting on the application now. Later on I want to give a presentation on the water system of Mount Kisco.

Whitney Singleton: Could you just make sure you give a copy of that to the office?

Bryan Parker: Sure.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you, Bryan.

Nanette Bourne: Mr. Chairman, does the applicant have a copy of this?

Bryan Parker: Yes.

Nanette Bourne: And, there was a memo that was written by the Village Engineer and a memo written by my office?

Chairman Cosentino: Here. John, take this one also. Okay, anything else from staff? Thank you again. The next thing is Sprint Spectrum, Formal Application.

Formal Application:

Sprint Spectrum LP

128 Main Street

PB2007-01

Present: Daniel H. Braff, Snyder & Snyder, LLP

Daniel Braff: Good evening, Honorable Chairman, members of the board. Daniel Braff from the law firm of Snyder & Snyder here on behalf of Sprint.

Chairman Cosentino: You realize this is just an application. Staff has not heard or looked into this yet.

Daniel Braff: Okay.

Chairman Cosentino: So, I'm going to recommend that since it's an application that we are not prepared to do much until staff reviews this.

Daniel Braff: Okay, so we're going to be looking for comments from engineers, and some procedural issues. We also need a number of variances in connection with this application; as far as a referral with the Zoning Board, or should we make that application on our own?

Chairman Cosentino: That's not our department. That's yours… you do what you have to do.

Whitney Singleton: That's a direct application.

Daniel Braff: Direct application? And as far as SEQRA, this board will make is going to make its own determination; the Zoning Board will make its own determination.

Nanette Bourne: You should do a coordinated review, and intend to be Lead Agency. You can do that tonight.

Daniel Braff: That may hold up the application, though, in front of the Zoning Board. We would have to wait for…

Chairman Cosentino: Possibly, yes.

Daniel Braff: So that's why we may want to do an uncoordinated review.

Chairman Cosentino: We're not going to rush this. There's a procedure.

Whitney Singleton: He's saying until there are SEQRA findings, the ZBA can't… because it's not a Type II action.

Chairman Cosentino: I don't want to hold you up.

Daniel Braff: I understand it will take some time.

Nanette Bourne: So you want to do the Notice of Intent?

Chairman Cosentino: Yes, we will.

Motion on Notice of Intent to Declare Lead Agency:

Motion: Ralph Vigliotti

Second: Joseph Morreale

Aye: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Sol Gibbons

Aye: Chairman Cosentino

Aye: Ralph Vigliotti

Aye: Joseph Morreale

Daniel Braff: This will be referred over to the board's consultants and they'll take a look at it?

Chairman Cosentino: Yes. You can contact Nannette.

Daniel Braff: And after we review those comments, we'll come back to the board with any responses if necessary.

Chairman Cosentino: Yes, after we get them.

Whitney Singleton: Just be aware that the meetings in July and August are only once a month.

Daniel Braff: When do you expect to receive those comments?

Chairman Cosentino: I don't know. It's up to Nannette.

Whitney Singleton: Well, the next time he would be on would be for a work session.

Nanette Bourne: Yes and staff comments would be made at that time.

Chairman Cosentino: I think the second meeting in June.

Daniel Braff: Any initial questions from the board, or are you going to wait?

Chairman Cosentino: We'll wait for staff. That's our procedure, we'll wait for staff and they'll give us all the goodies and we go through them.

Daniel Braff: the last time I was here it was snowing and cold; a little better this time.

Chairman Cosentino: That's true. Thank you for coming.

Outdoor Café / Dining Area Permit:

Eduardo's

77 South Moger Avenue

PB2007-07

Present: Edward Lubic

Chairman Cosentino: All right gentlemen, we have a plan here before us, and we have a diagram here and we have a survey. What is the board's pleasure here?

Whitney Singleton: I'm sorry, Chairman, do you have a survey?

Chairman Cosentino: Yes it came in the packet. Do you want to buy it? What I don't have here is a site plan, though. Does anybody have a site plan that I don't have?

Nanette Bourne: Do you need a site plan?

Anthony Oliveri: There is a survey that was in the file.

Chairman Cosentino: Let me see that one? I think Nancy just put one in mine. What he has here, he updated the place, and he's got tables here in the front.

Doug Hertz: What does the site plan allow for?

Chairman Cosentino: I don't have that… 1/3, he gets 1/3 of what's inside. What is inside?

Edward Lubic: 39 tables. There are 13 tables outside.

Stanley Bernstein: Didn't you always have this? (Pointing)

Edward Lubic: Yes, I didn't have that, but yet again, I didn't have those two stores there.

Ralph Vigliotti: The outdoor dining; is that taking up parking spaces? I would assume it is.

Edward Lubic: Yes and no. No, not really because the parking lot is big. So, if you park close to the building you're parking out further, you still have the whole middle empty.

Ralph Vigliotti: I do recall a bunch of years ago that the Village owned some of the lot?

Edward Lubic: Towards the back. Yes, that cement slab that Corsi Tire put in many years ago.

Ralph Vigliotti: So, that wooden gate railing system…

Edward Lubic: It's still there. I talked to the Village Manager last week, and he says I don't really need that spot, so he says; “Do you want to boot the fence up?” I said you could move the fence up if you want. So that's up to… whatever he wants to do with that spot.

Chairman Cosentino: Your intention is not…

Edward Lubic: Not to… I don't need that spot, not to park there.

Ralph Vigliotti: Okay, so the Village is going to pull their fence up to that spot.

Edward Lubic: Pull that fence up; if that's what they want to do, sure.

Ralph Vigliotti: When we get to this point it's let's resolve any issues out there and move forward, so there is nothing along the railing? There is just that one concrete area?

Edward Lubic: That one concrete area that has to be removed, or whatever they want to do with it… move the fence up. Like I said if I park back…

Ralph Vigliotti: Can you point out where that is located here?

Edward Lubic: Yeah, sure.

Ralph Vigliotti: Here's the railing here (pointing).

Edward Lubic: Yes, okay, so this is it right here. So this is my building… this is it right here, this slab. This is a concrete slab. So if I park here (pointing) or if I park here, it doesn't matter. The same is this way because it's a big parking lot. The whole middle is empty. So I really don't need…

Ralph Vigliotti: That's quite a bit of space there.

Edward Lubic: Yeah. But, I don't know what they can do with it. Plant some trees and flowers.

Doug Hertz: I don't see an improved site plan for this location. I don't see how we can evaluate this without understanding what's allowed, what the allowed number of seats are inside.

Chairman Cosentino: I don't have any of that information.

Edward Lubic: Well the fire guys were there today. Ed Hardy and stuff, and we went over that this afternoon.

Chairman Cosentino: But they didn't give me anything here. This is what they gave me.

Doug Hertz: If there are approvals for this site, and if there is a site plan that includes parking, we should have a document that indicates what is allowed, what is required and what previous conditions we've put on the building so that we could do this with some information.

Chairman Cosentino: Austin is going to have to get it for us then, or do something, or he's got to get it. Nannette, Doug is asking for a site plan.

Nanette Bourne: Is there an approved site plan? Did you come before the Planning Board?

Edward Lubic: No, an approved site plan for the outside tables?

Whitney Singleton: For the site.

Edward Lubic: No, what site?

Nanette Bourne: Did you ever come before the Planning Board for any approvals?

Edward Lubic: No approvals for my parking lot there?

Nanette Bourne: Yes.

Edward Lubic: I wouldn't need any approvals to park.

Whitney Singleton: When it went from a gas station to a restaurant, you needed to have it approved.

Chairman Cosentino: Because of a change of use.

Edward Lubic: I guess Austin was out. I have a CO.

Whitney Singleton: But you don't have your site shown with delineated parking, and where the building's gone?

Edward Lubic: It's the same building. I haven't moved the building or the parking lot. Nothing's been moved. It's just the inside.

Ralph Vigliotti: But in all fairness, the survey really doesn't outline the full parking lot or the curb or the street. I'm really confused here, and I'm usually not. If you could point out, is this part of your parking lot in here?

Edward Lubic: Yes. This is the whole parking lot.

Ralph Vigliotti: I think what everyone is asking for is; this really isn't a survey. It doesn't show the actual property as a survey, so it's a little difficult to see. The outdoor dining is going to be in here, (pointing) is that what we're looking at?

Edward Lubic: Well, if this is the building, right here. (pointing) See, this is the building right here? Right out in front. Where, my little diagram, here's the building, and this little piece here; this is right here off of this side. This is the back of the building. This is town property here; the fence is here. So this is my whole parking lot, right out here, which is right out in front.

Ralph Vigliotti: Well, this is absolutely… I'm sorry to say, this doesn't have much of a value to us because it doesn't show the survey of the property.

Edward Lubic: I don't know where that came from. I didn't even submit that.

Ralph Vigliotti: This is actually very confusing. I guess what several of the board members are asking for is to actually see the plan of the site and where the parking is located. I was confused in the orientation. I thought the dining was going to be here, but you're saying it's here, and I guess that's what we really need to see. This doesn't match this, and this doesn't match the site, and this would be the time to really get this down on paper.

Edward Lubic: As far as parking, am I like a local or something, where I don't require parking spots?

Whitney Singleton: No, you're a CD1; the board doesn't require parking spaces. But if you're going to have parking spaces, they have to be shown on a plan.

Edward Lubic: Well, I have them for the parking lot.

Whitney Singleton: As long as they are delineated on the plan, that's all that's needed. There are a host of other requirements for outdoor dining, but I can't ascertain whether they are satisfied or not. There has to be a minimum of six feet of public sidewalk, and I can't tell from that.

Chairman Cosentino: Well, he's six feet from that.

Whitney Singleton: I'm just going based upon your drawing. Certainly your board needs confirmation on the number of proposed seats that exceed one third of what's permitted inside. Based upon my having been to the restaurant on numerous occasions, I have to imagine that it's expanded; there are more than 39 tables.

Joseph Morreale: Just for my own edification, what is the occupancy inside the restaurant?

Chairman Cosentino: 99, 95.

Joseph Morreale: 95 and you're adding 32 on the outside. Not 33, by the way, 32.

Edward Lubic: 32 seats. It doesn't matter how many seats, it goes according to the tables.

Joseph Morreale: Where are we going to see that?

Ralph Vigliotti: Our obligation as a Planning Board is to make sure if the parking lot is being used, which I'm sure it is and I've used that dozens of times, that by seeing it on paper on a site plan we get to see ingress and egress, and how cars may move in the lot and where the actual seating for outdoor dining is not going to interfere with that. Now, I hear what you're saying but we need to see that to make sure that the public safety is secured; that this is not infringing on, not parking, but the ingress/egress of movements. For us, we need to see that in order to do our job. Because this doesn't really match this and this really… we almost shouldn't even put this in the record.

Edward Lubic: But if anything was infringing on the way cars come in and out it would be the front, which I've had approval on year after year. This is way towards the back, not even close to the cars.

Ralph Vigliotti: Unfortunately, we need to… I think, Gentlemen, correct me if I'm wrong, we need to see a site plan to fully appreciate the driveway in and out.

Doug Hertz: Also, we're being asked to take on faith the number of seats that are in the restaurant. It's got to be written down in the Village somewhere.

Chairman Cosentino: I honestly believed there was a site plan, that's why I put it on the agenda.

Doug Hertz: How many tables is he approved for?

Chairman Cosentino: I didn't know there was no site plan.

Edward Lubic: It was approved for twelve tables.

Doug Hertz: Inside?

Edward Lubic: Outside.

Doug Hertz: Inside.

Edward Lubic: Inside?

Doug Hertz: Inside, because we have to know what the approval is, because it's a ratio.

Edward Lubic: Well, it's 79 people for the back. It doesn't matter how many tables. Again, the inside goes according to the people, whom, she's writing up a sign right now; tomorrow, 79 people on the inside.

Chairman Cosentino: What's the front going to be used as?

Edward Lubic: Bar, lounge, waiting area.

Chairman Cosentino: Waiting to go and eat.

Edward Lubic: This is my time of the year. Like now, people want to sit out… Mother's Day. This is the week. It's beautiful, they are just calling everyday, and they want to sit outside.

Chairman Cosenti