PB Minutes 5-24-07

Minutes

Work Session of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Meeting called to order at 7:45 pm, Thursday, May 24, 2007, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Sol Gibbons

Doug Hertz

Ralph Vigliotti

Members Absent: Chairman Joseph Cosentino

Joseph Morreale

Staff Present: Ashley Ley

Dan Peluso; Dolph Rotfeld

Whitney Singleton

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Welcome to the Work Session of the Mount Kisco Planning Board for May 24, 2007. The first item on our agenda is the minutes of March 13. We're going to hold those minutes over for quorum purposes until our next meeting. We're going to hold over the minutes of the 27^th as well.

Conceptual Review:

134 Main Street

Mr. Isadore Albanese

PB2007-06

Present: Mr. Isadore Albanese

Mr. Clifford Munz, Munz Associates, Architecture and Landscape Architecture

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Although this is a work session, we are going to listen to a conceptual review for 134 Main Street, Mr. Isadore Albanese. If you would be kind enough to come forward and give us a very brief thumbnail sketch of what you're proposal is.

Isadore Albanese: You guys know the history of this property. Originally I bought it to move my restaurant there, and I guess it was only a dream because you couldn't do it. Then we had a bank; Webster Bank that was going to come in, but according to them the town disapproved their plan. Since then I now hired an architect who drew plans in order to fit with the town, to fit with the parking and to build a really nice building. I do have a couple of tenants who are interested in the property, and time is of the essence for them. Basically I am trying to do everything according to the laws and to the plan. I've met with Whitney; I've met with Mayor Cindrich. I've talked to Austin Cassidy to get their opinions in order for me to try to do this and expedite this as fast as we can in order for us and the town to get rid of an eyesore, and to put up a building that is going to be there for hundreds of years. The plan that you have in front of you was a first sketch, and I had a different architect who drew this, and with this I have 17 parking spaces.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: How many?

Isadore Albanese: 16, I'm sorry. And with that was around 3,515 square feet. We are giving up all the curb cuts in the front. Right now there are three curb cuts and two curb cuts in the back. By doing that the town is going to gain an extra four parking spaces in front and maybe one in the back if you guys are looking to change the back, because the entrance on this side is now open. Since then talking, we've kind of updated our plan. I have a new architect for a couple of months, and we have 19 spaces now, which most of the tenants that are looking at this space are looking anywhere from 3,800 to 4,000 square feet.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So you now have 19 parking spaces, and the square footage of the building is still the same has here?

Isadore Albanese: 3,800 square feet; which works out to 18.99 spaces. So I don't have to ask the town to allow me the extra spaces in order to build the 3,800 square feet.

Ralph Vigliotti: Is this two stories?

Isadore Albanese: No, one story.

Stanley Bernstein: How did you squeeze out the other extra three spaces?

Isadore Albanese: The other architect took the plan, because he originally did the Bellizzi plan, and the Bellizzi plan was a little bit different. So he basically took the bottom sketch and never really worked the numbers. He had 10 foot parking spaces instead of 9 ½ feet.

Doug Hertz: So this sketch that we have in front of us is not the sketch?

Isadore Albanese: It's a little bit outdated.

Doug Hertz: Do you have a sketch?

Isadore Albanese: Yes, we do.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I would suggest one thing. Have Austin Cassidy take a look at your new sketch. Predicated on this, you had a deficiency of two parking spaces. There was also concern on the proper screening of the dumpster; there is also concern on the loading area, and a concern on snow storage where that's all going to go.

Isadore Albanese: We certainly have addressed all of those.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Okay, good.

Isadore Albanese: One thing I'd like for you to look at. Originally he drew the building six feet away from the other building, and the more we looked at it, and also, Austin thought about it, to put the building right up against the other building. This way you don't see the side of the building there, plus it also causes a place for kids to go and hang out at night.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Yes, you eliminate that whole alley.

Isadore Albanese: Yes, we would eliminate that and put the building right against there.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: That's also reflected on your new plan?

Isadore Albanese: Yes.

Christopher Munz: We have a prospectus, too.

Ralph Vigliotti: By moving the walkway between the two buildings, I know Austin talked about perhaps creating a larger walkway next to the movie theatre. Are we going to gain this space on this side?

Isadore Albanese: I think you could probably answer that a little bit better, but on this I think the frontage between the front of the building and the other one is about 30 feet, which is this area here, which opens this whole area up. So basically you have the new building here, already here, so this…

Ralph Vigliotti: I guess my question is I don't know what the scale is; I don't know what the width of this walkway was proposed to be.

Isadore Albanese: Only six feet.

Ralph Vigliotti: So, by moving the building against the existing building, will these six feet be captured and then replaced to the opposite side to create a larger walkway to get back to the parking lot?

Clifford Munz: I maintained a larger walkway, but it will also get a few more square feet, and that's why I'm working to get a few more square feet and a few more parking spaces to comply with the 30 square feet, yet maintain the walkway down the side of the theatre.

Doug Hertz: I'm just confused here. Basically all the information we have in front of us is irrelevant. The square footage is wrong, the plan is wrong, the number of parking spaces is wrong.

Clifford Munz: I think what he's done is, he presented to you the information he had at the moment with Lothrop Associates who worked with him. What they did was they took it to a point. They did a proper zoning analysis. As far as the basic criteria goes, the number of square feet on the property, 8,000 square feet or less, that basic work is correct. But, as anytime you take a look at something a little more closely, there was another opportunity to take another little closer look. We've actually got the opportunity to not only get more parking spaces out of it; I can also get a few more square feet out of the building itself, because you take the time to take a look at it.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: To support?

Clifford Munz: To support a 3800 square foot building.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So we should really at this point ignore this.

Ralph Vigliotti: So then what are we looking at?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Tonight, we are not looking at anything. I think what we need to do is take a half a step backward, come up with a new plan; I will authorize you to be on…do you have everything ready to go if you were on the next agenda?

Clifford Munz: I can have whatever you need ready by the 12^th of June, for sure.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And we'll go through this conceptual thing one more time but we will also at the same time be working off new plans and do the submission to Austin Cassidy, because Austin wrote us a memo detailing certain things that he's highlighted predicated on this plan. So let's just repeat this scenario with your new plan and we'll move forward from that point.

Doug Hertz: Maybe to even speed that up do you have a copy of Austin's memo; his concerns about your other plan?

Isadore Albanese: I talked to him about it but he didn't give me a copy of it.

Doug Hertz: Just in case there were questions.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: That is predicated upon his review of that.

Doug Hertz: You may have addressed that but just in case you didn't.

Isadore Albanese: One of the things when I talked to him about this, I addressed it in most of this. One was the parking analysis, because I originally had talked to Whitney, and if you have a stock room, that's in a different parking ratio. So, the plan that you have… we had a 300 square foot stockroom, which is one parking space per thousand square feet. When you have that then you're able to…

Doug Hertz: Right, but again, the plan has changed.

Clifford Munz: Let's say this. What I did was I took advantage of opportunity that the former plan; the one you have in possession began to address. I took it one step further. So the shape of the building is the same; it sits in the same place. But going next to this building instead of the six foot away; I've addressed the snow, I've opened up in here this Avenue going down by the theatre. So, we didn't change the footprint or the concept. We just took it a step further and made it a little tighter.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Then in that case let's pick up this conversation at the next Planning Board meeting and go through it from there, because we really having nothing in front of us, nor do we have any zoning compliance correspondence from the building inspector.

Isadore Albanese: If we discuss this instead of discussing this tonight; and basically we're asking you in your opinion, because it is a conceptual review, is it better that we move the building against this, or do you guys like it better if the building is separate? As far as the parking…

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Mr. Albanese, it's not so much the Planning Board, what we like, it's what you present to us. If this is going to be the new plan, let's look at it collectively with a fresh eye, and ignore the old plan. Then I think we can move forward much more efficiently this way.

Isadore Albanese: The only thing is my timing. I have a lease, that the people are waiting for tomorrow to find out if I can build…

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And I say this in all candor. I'm not being sarcastic: every applicant has a problem. I've got tenants coming in they are ready to sign a least tomorrow morning; I need an okay and all that. I totally understand it, and it's common. You've been in front of many Planning Board meetings. It's a common problem that every applicant has to share. We're not here to bless anything tonight. Please let's just reconvene again when you have everything presented on a new plan.

Ralph Vigliotti: I just want to add one piece. Just to save you some time, next time, I think the Planning Board will be asking you to set this back a distance from where you have it now on the curb.

Isadore Albanese: From the front curb?

Ralph Vigliotti: Yes. This Planning Board has with any properties on Main Street, as we did with Commerce Bank, is to ask them to set the property back to create a larger sidewalk, to create a little bit of green space; so it's something that, if you want to move a little quicker, rather than wait till the next time you hear that. I just kind of gave you a little bit of advice.

Isadore Albanese: As far as the property, if we move that back, and I know what you mean; we would not be able to get in on a whole row of parking.

Ralph Vigliotti: Whether it is two feet or three feet or 18 inches, it's a gain for the Village, a little bit of green space, and that sidewalk in front of this proposed piece is not that wide.

Clifford Munz: Let me just mention… and I'm respecting and responding. The property line is here, exactly, right now. The sidewalk stops here, and then there is a line of macadam, which is all shown as a widening of the sidewalk, which averages between six feet and goes down to three feet. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying consider even coming back another couple of feet.

Ralph Vigliotti: I think the Planning Board is looking to see some green, some plantings in front.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Take a look at Commerce Bank and that green buffer between the sidewalk edge and the building.

Isadore Albanese: Even though it doesn't match with the other building? Because if you start with one corner, and now you're going to be set back.

Ralph Vigliotti: We're setting the tone for many, many decades to come.

Isadore Albanese: So we should look back and see if we can go back as much as we can and still get the amount of parking spaces.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Doug, Stan, anything to add; Sol, staff, anybody? Okay. You will be on the agenda.

Clifford Munz: When would you like the information in?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: If you're ready, as soon as you have it, get it, submit it to Nancy Placona, and I will tell her to expect it tomorrow morning. You've got the drawings there, and submit it to Nancy and make sure Austin Cassidy takes a look at it.

Isadore Albanese: Thank you.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Thank you for coming tonight gentlemen. The next item on the agenda under SEQRA review is Westchester Residence and Club.

SEQR REVIEW:

Westchester Residence and Club

Kisco Avenue

PB2006-19

Present: John Zaccardi, Zaccardi & Schiff

Chuck Utschig, Schoor DePalma

Richard Rosen, Perkins Eastman

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Basically we're just acknowledging the receipt of the preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Am I correct, Ashley?

Ashley Ley: And they have a model that they would like to present.

John Zaccardi: Good evening. We would like to show you the model we have here tonight, and our Civil Engineer, Chuck Utschig is here as well. We know that you just received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and you have to start your review. If you have any questions, we'll answer them, but I'll suspect you have a lot of work to do on that and send it to your consultants as well. But we do want to show you the model.

Doug Hertz: By the way, I was very impressed with the early advertising. I think two years out for sales offices is quite something, and I was just curious, where exactly does the tennis court go?

Chuck Utschig: We have a tennis court?

Stanley Bernstein: It's on the other side.

Doug Hertz: And the pool?

John Zaccardi: The pool is inside.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: If you just kind of orientate us as to where we're looking and what's where.

Richard Rosen: While you're turning that, I'll start. This is Kisco Avenue here in the lower elevation coming this way, so the Saw Mill River Parkway is here, closest to you, Mr. Chairman. Across the hill, and here is our landmark, of course that's the water tank, near the very top of the hill.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And the driveway entrance is?

Richard Rosen: Right down where the sign is that says Kisco Avenue.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And it just wanders around those detention ponds there?

John Zaccardi: While he's doing that, if you look closely you can see the 18-acre line that separates the subject site from the balance of the 50-acre parcel delivered. It's a little bit hard to see, it's pretty clear in the Impact Statement.

Doug Hertz: Is this the same model that's been proposed from the beginning, or has this changed at all?

Richard Rosen: This is the same model that we've talked about, and its laser cut from original topography from the actual drawings that were submitted.

Ralph Vigliotti: How many acres of land are you going to be clearing to prepare for the actual buildings?

John Zaccardi: There is a disturbance area of about 10 acres which includes all of that.

Stanley Bernstein: Eleven acres.

John Zaccardi: Yes, eleven acres. Some of it won't be touched, but we calculated that, and the balance on the top would not be disturbed in any way at all. The total disturbed area I think is about four acres of actual building foot print, but the lower part of the site will be disturbed, pretty much as you see; the loop road, the detention areas, of course, and the staking the roadway.

Doug Hertz: The large change in topography that is near the back edge of the loop road, is that naturally occurring at this point, or how much of that will be created?

Richard Rosen: I think it has to be held back with a little bit of retaining wall.

Doug Hertz: So up at that upper elevation at that plateau; that would be excavation and retaining wall work?

Chuck Utschig: Yes, behind the parking lot; building parking lot, retaining wall, some additional grading to match into existing grade.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: How high is that back retaining wall?

Chuck Utschig: I'm going to say it's around six feet, I believe on average. You've got a transition from one side to the other.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Yes and the middle is the highest.

Chuck Utschig: The middle is at its highest point. It may be as high as 10 feet in that middle point.

Doug Hertz: On this model, each laser cut slice represents how many feet of grade?

Chuck Utschig: Two foot of contours. It is the same as the plan.

Doug Hertz: So you're going up about 10 -11 slices; or 10-11 feet.

Chuck Utschig: I think there is actually an existing, on the site now, right about at the edge of the building; there is an existing stone wall that is there now.

Ralph Vigliotti: This is Premier right in here?

Chuck Utschig: Yes.

Ralph Vigliotti: Which visually has quite a negative impact on the Village. To be quite honest with you, I'm not very pleased with the color scheme that Premier came up with and the visual impact.

Stanley Bernstein: That's not the final.

Ralph Vigliotti: I didn't know, whether that's the primer or the real thing.

Stanley Bernstein: That's the insulation. They don't have the skin on yet.

Ralph Vigliotti: But visually, and that's at a much, much lower contour level, it's quite a visual impact.

Doug Hertz: It's much more prominent than I had expected it to be.

Ralph Vigliotti: Yes. I've said since day one that the project is too big, and I'll continue to say that until the cows come home. The project is way too big for that mountain, and it will have a visual impact that this Village will have to live with forever that is just…I don't know how you can change that impact, but if Premier tells us in any shape or form what the visual impact will be, and it's at a much lower, lower level than this, be prepared for a nice slice…a gigantic slice out of that mountain.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: On a slightly different subject, and forgive me, you may have answered this question over the past months, but I've been away from the Planning Board for awhile. The green building concept…what is the definite status of that today?

Richard Rosen: I think we've committed to meeting that in terms of Leed Certification, and I think as we develop the details of the building, there are different ways that you could get points for that, depending on the water collections systems, materials used, how you move materials on and off the site; there's 63 different points that you can get in this Leed rating category. We've looked at the checklist, and we have an idea of where we would like to do it, but as the details are developed, we may have to trade off one for the other depending on how the systems work out.

John Zaccardi: That checklist is in the Environmental Impact Statement. So, as you're reviewing it, we could keep talking about that. Because I know that was an important issue for the Village. We put the checklist in right in there and what our take is on the points that we think we have right out there.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And does that also reflect the color status of the Leed rating; blue pink silver gold?

John Zaccardi: Yes.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Thank you. You were saying…

Richard Rosen: I was saying that when we start to develop the actual, physical guts of the building, and the skin of the building and all the materials and all the site work, I think we'll be able to fill out that table more definitively to make sure that we've reached that rating. I think there are different categories, and depending on which ones we chose to do or can do or physically can do.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: But is it a fair statement for me to say into the record that you are committed to making this a Lead Certified Building?

Richard Rosen: Yes.

John Zaccardi: Yes.

Richard Rosen: And that's why we included it in the DEIS in a fair amount of detail rather than just saying that.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Of course, naturally.

Richard Rosen: So that it would continue to be on the table.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Understood. Is there anyone else?

Stanley Bernstein: We're going to have to review for completeness over the next 45 days, so I might as well give you a jump start on the elevations. I don't see the elevation of the roof. It looks like a four-story building; it winds up being a five-story building when you consider the elevation of the roof, and I want to see that on the elevations. I want to see the height of the roof from datum. You're using the plateau as datum. Those numbers should reflect datum anyway, so we get a good concept of where we are in relationship to the entire Village. But in any rate, I want to see the height of that building. It's a five-story building, not a four-story building. I want to see the numbers on it. Also, the conceptual, which are in the renditions, which shows in the scoping document that you, have to show renditions. Now you show pictures from various sites in leaf, not in leaf, and existing conditions, and then built conditions, and you can't even see what's there. It's a mockery. There is no one, with or without any kind of building experience who can tell what's going to be there. If you look through what's existing, and you look through what's built, it looks almost the same. So you're going to have to do something a little bit better on the computer renderings of what it will look like from the various locations in town. There's a lot more but those are the two I figured I'd give you a jumpstart on.

Richard Rosen: Okay, fair enough.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Doug, do you want to add anything?

Doug Hertz: Not at this point. We're really accepting this for review. I haven't had a chance to review the document after receiving it today. Anything I'd say would just be a reiteration of earlier comments. And this model is very, very useful and I appreciate that you gentlemen did that. But I think it will help clarify our understanding of how the structure at least is presented will be visible from points of the Village and how possibly it can be tweaked. I know for one, I had asked that we look seriously at tweaking the building so that it has less space visible from essentially across the valley. Seeing it on model, it's turned more than it appeared in plan, so that's a positive. I would still look to find ways to scale it deeper into the hill so that it doesn't present as broad a face. And, I'd be concerned about heights. It seems to me that we can afford lower elevations on the front of the building and possibly to step it up in the back; that you may be able to hide the building somewhat. Right now the highest points are the front of the building, and as you're looking almost the entire Village will be seeing this structure from a lower elevation than the structure itself. So, you'll hit the front elevations first. Those will be the high points naturally. You have the change of possibly, at least to my eye, of losing some height in the front and possibly heading that further deeper into the building. I'm sure we'll explore this. We've asked for a detailed discussion of the alternatives, and I think that will be part of that discussion.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Sol?

Sol Gibbons: I think the concerns have already been stated pretty adequately.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Ralph? Is there anybody on staff?

Doug Hertz: Will this model stay on site, or is this going back to your offices? What usually happens, how available is this model?

Ashley Ley: What we've discussed with Patrick from their office and Nancy is that Nancy will find a place in the Village to store it.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Terrific. And you're comfortable with that? And we won't come up with razor blades at night and shave the roof off, I promise you.

Richard Rosen: That's fine.

Ralph Vigliotti: I wish it was that easy, Mr. Chairman.

Doug Hertz: Are there little LED lights?

John Zaccardi: Thank you very much, and thanks for the heads-up comments, too.

CONTINUING REVIEW

Buckingham Properties

Lot 3 Morgan Drive

PB2005-19

Present: David Steinmetz, Zarin & Steinmetz

Erik A. Kaeyer, VP, K G & D Architects

Richard J. Izzo, CPG; C A Rich, Inc., Environmental Consultants

Maureen Fisher, Tim Miller Associates

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: If everyone would be kind enough to identify yourselves for the record and give Donna a business card, I would appreciate it.

David Steinmetz: David Steinmetz from the law firm of Zarin & Steinmetz, representing the applicant. I believe Donna has several copies of my business card.

Eric Kaeyer: Eric Kaeyer, K G & D Architects. You probably have mine too, but you're welcome to have another copy.

Richard Izzo: I'm Richard Izzo from C A Rich Consultants, and I'm representing the Village.

David Steinmetz: Tony, good to see you.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Good to see you David, thank you very much. To cut to the chase so to speak, we're at the cross roads. On one side of the cross road is my term encapsulation, and the other side of the cross road is removal; if that's a fair, general characteristic. The Village had contracted with your firm to do a review, and you have come up with a very detailed, and I must say personally, impressive nine page document.

Richard Izzo: Thank you.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And we also have some correspondence back and forth between the Village and your firm regarding the retainer agreement and all that, and that's really nothing more than just some boiler plate paperwork. Let me share some personal thoughts.

(Air conditioner went on)

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Mr. Cohen is not going to be here tonight?

David Steinmetz: Mr. Chairman, just so you and all of the board members know, Mr. Cohen may still walk in. He was delayed in the city. We're hoping he is going to make it, but he may well not. More importantly, Rob Wasserman, our environmental consultant from ECC definitely was unable to make it tonight, and Jon Dahlgren from Tim Miller's office was unable to make it tonight. I didn't want to request being pulled off tonight's agenda.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Do you want me to hold this to the very end tonight, and see if Mr. Cohen comes in?

David Steinmetz: No. No need to do so.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Okay.

David Steinmetz: We didn't want to request coming off the agenda because Nannette was good enough to make sure we did get a copy of the report before tonight. We got it yesterday. We reviewed it quickly. I heard that Mr. Izzo was being asked to come up and make a presentation. We weren't going to take it upon ourselves to tell you to not have your own consultant come if he was supposed to come. I thought that would be overly presumptuous, so we're here to more or less listen to what Mr. Izzo has to present, if anything. There are a few modest questions that, again, not being the technical expert on our team, I have a few questions that I would certainly be able to ask, but more than that, Mr. Chairman, we do want a chance to come back at a fairly rapid recall at another meeting and come back with some thoughts and response.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Fair enough. And David, I don't want to make this any type of a confrontational disagreement.

David Steinmetz: Not at all.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I looked through the minutes from previous meetings, and the conversation level was somewhat escalated and that kind of thing, and I don't want to do that tonight. If you have some constructive comments or questions for Mr. Izzo, I will afford you the opportunity.

David Steinmetz: On the issue of being constructive, I hope that you didn't perceive that from either me or Mr. Cohen. I think there was an issue possibly from the property owner, but if I'm incorrect maybe…

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I'm just going by… I wasn't here. But I just reviewed previous minutes. Mr. Izzo, would you like to walk us through your document?

Richard Izzo: Certainly. I was retained by the Village to review the submittals by Tim Miller Associates, the reports and also the feasibility analysis of remedial alternatives. I basically did those things. I had some conference calls with the Village attorney, and I also spoke with Mr. Rom Pergadia of DEC on the phone, and I went and inspected the site as well, kicked the tires if you will, and took a look around. Basically we are called upon to do peer review from time to time. I'm normally on the other side of the table as well; having people taking pop shots at my reports and my work, so I know what it feels like and I'm going to try to keep my comments as much to the point and as technical as possible. In terms of the work that was done, the analysis and the testing that was done on site, we found that the work met industry standards, and it was very professionally put forth in the report. We did have a couple of comments on the work that was done. Obviously you can always do more testing, but we feel that in order to fully characterize whether or not there is a problem as a result of the mercury laden soil inside these contained structures, a good, harder look at ground water is necessary. As far as my review went, I only saw that there was one ground water sample collected, and it was only analyzed for volatile organic constituents, whereas the things that we're finding in the tank are metals; mercury, cadmium, chromium. So we would recommend additional groundwater sampling for those constituents that are of concern on the property.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: In other locations?

Richard Izzo: Sure, in other locations. We would also recommend that this be done using permanent monitoring as opposed to geoprobe as you can get into issues with turbidity and sample volume and that type of thing, and in the event that an engineering control such as what is being proposed is put in place as monitoring will also be necessary pretty much in perpetuity to monitor the effectiveness of this in containing these contaminants. So, we think monitoring wells would be necessary. There were a couple of areas of the property where soil sampling wasn't done. That's sort of a minor issue, but the storage building and some filter beds; there were a couple of areas where there were no samples taken. If there is a historical reason or within the Phase One or why these areas weren't looked at, we'd be glad to hear that, but in lieu of that, they should also be looked at just to make sure that we have a complete picture of the site. And then the final thing is that there was a statement in the submittal that said that there were no hazardous levels of anything found, and I didn't see that backed up by any chemical analysis of the metals that were found in the tanks and in the ponds. Normally to make such a determination you'd have to analyze them for hazardous waste characteristics, and that wasn't done. So we would recommend that be done and that more sampling, additional samples of the sediments within the tanks and the ponds be collected and analyzed for hazardous characteristics, most specifically for toxicity, which is a hazardous characteristic that is most closely associated with these metals that were found. So that's pretty much all of what we have in terms of our review of the reporting. In terms of the remedial approach, the ECC remedial option study was done very professionally as well, very well organized. We all agree based on our review and based on what they report that no action is not a viable scenario at this site; that something has to be done. I've been in this business for 22 years, always excavation is always the first and best option if you can do it. A lot of times if it's not possible to do excavation and removal based upon structures on the property or infrastructure that you want to preserve, then normally is when you go to engineering controls.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Do you see any obstacles on the property that would prevent excavation?

Richard Izzo: No, I don't. There are issues with the tanks and the tanks would have to be demolished at the same time, but now is the time before there is a building over them to do the excavation. Once there is a building in place there, it would be impossible.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Please continue.

Richard Izzo: There were some concerns raised in the analysis about alternatives about cradle to grave liability. I'm not an attorney but it's my understanding that cradle to grave liability applies only to the generator of the waste; the person who is paying for the waste to be removed who get an EPA ID number and they retain that liability forever. The property itself is unencumbered by that liability as far as I know, as are the occupant's future residents, future purchasers and the Village and everybody else. In terms of the other things that was set forth as obstacles to doing removal such as nuisances with trucks driving around and that type of thing, that's normal on any construction site. They are going to be doing construction on the property; you're going to have that anyway.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Part of the cost of doing business to make the site clean.