PB Minutes 11-13-07

Minutes

Meeting of the Planning Board

Regular/Work Session

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Meeting called to order at 7:40 PM, Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Chairman Joseph Cosentino

Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo

Sol Gibbons

Doug Hertz

Ralph Vigliotti

Stanley Bernstein

Members Absent: Joseph Morreale

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Anthony Oliveri

Whitney Singleton

Formal Application:

The Park

333 North Bedford Road

PB2007-14

Present: Michael Gallin, Architect

Jim Diamond, Diamond Properties

Staff Present: Lester Steinman

Michael Landler

Recused: Doug Hertz

Whitney Singleton

Michael Gallin: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to be here at the last meeting, although I heard through the grapevine that Jim Diamond represented the project probably better than I could have. Since we presented last, we have provided supplemental information in this book, the one everyone has, and I have larger scale versions of all the materials submitted. Included in the package was the overall site plan. We provided additional detailing on the site plan via larger scale drawings. We've also submitted detailed information on Mount Kisco Athletic Club, the so named New York Sports Club. There was a package on traffic that was provided, an analysis and letter from John Collins. We submitted a parking analysis with a series of three diagrams that represented the lot at three times that we deem to be the peak parking utilization hours. We received today a letter from F.D. Clark that addresses several issues, probably some of which are worth discussing this evening. We are also in a position to walk you through each of the programmatic functions to the extent that you deem is appropriate to explain the uses, to explain any accessory functions associated with those uses; hours of operation and the like.

Chairman Cosentino: I've got to tell you up front, Jim, I am very disappointed, and let me tell you why. I honestly believed, sitting through this whole program with Grand Prix week after week; I could be wrong, but in my own mind, I don't know about my board members, I was constantly told that this was going to be corporate. Goldman Sachs was mentioned, and there was going to be classroom work. All of a sudden to me it seems like a catering outfit. We were never told that outside was going to come in and it was going to be something like catering. The hospital has a function there. My understanding is, and if I'm wrong correct me; are there large functions coming in there other than members, other than what we thought was going to be there? We thought there was going to be go-karts, yes; we thought corporate was going to be there. Our understanding was that you were going to have classrooms. After the classrooms, they were going to go on the go-karts. Nothing about big functions. There was not one thing in one set of minutes that said there was going to be large functions as this guy is booking. I went through the minutes. Large functions bring many automobiles and many people. What happened? What happened with what we thought was going to happen and what is happening now? Clear my mind.

Jim Diamond: I think Sy's business model from the beginning always had; and we always talked about three drivers of business, no pun intended. There was the corporate event market, they arrive and drive, and then there were individual league-type events. Essentially there is a series of six conference rooms for the corporate events. If you walk in the facility on the right-hand side, which can be joined together to either two larger rooms or six small rooms, flexible configuration. Within those facilities he can have events of various sizes throughout the operating hours. Per his approval resolution, he's prohibited from having events over 120 people without approval of the building inspector and the Chairman of the Planning Board and he's limited to twelve of those events per year.

Chairman Cosentino: One a month.

Jim Diamond: Correct, on average. So those are still the conditions under which he has to operate.

Chairman Cosentino: Understand that nothing was said about these big functions. I took out every set of the minutes. Jim, you're an honorable guy. For three days I did nothing in my office but read minutes. I couldn't find one thing in the minutes that said large functions from the outside. I guess there is going to be a function with the business association or something; it was in the paper, and other functions. We would have taken that into account and say if you're going to have large functions such as that where there is going to be a few hundred people, or maybe two or three hundred people, as a hospital, which is a good cause, maybe five or six or seven hundred people. We have a job to do. This Village has to know that. And we didn't know it, and I'm just finding out now, and I'm very, very upset. It makes me dot my I's and cross my T's with anything else that goes in there.

Jim Diamond: I think that the intent in terms of limiting his functions, any function over 120 to 12 per year; obviously the hospital function counts as one of those.

Chairman Cosentino: I'm not saying that's bad; that's a good cause. But I use the word catering house because it is what it is. You're bringing big, big outfits in there and you're catering parties to them. If it's not so, make me feel good and tell me it's not so. I want to feel good, but right now I don't.

Jim Diamond: There definitely is food service, there definitely is catering; but I think it's all within the parameters.

Chairman Cosentino: You use the word catering, I used the word catering. In every set of minutes I read, there wasn't one set of minutes that said a catering function. It did say a tournament, functions of corporate coming in; that's all it said and that's what this board believed was going to be there. Being a business man, right from the get-go I said a part of this puzzle is missing, and I didn't know what it was. I finally found out what part was missing, and that's what it is.

Jim Diamond: I don't think anything has changed, I think it was represented. The kitchen was always shown, the café.

Chairman Cosentino: That was always shown. We reduced the size. It was originally 5,000 square feet. We reduced it, I think to 3,100 square feet, and I think we even went down less than that; I'm not sure. But still, in our minds it was a function for corporate, and he mentioned Goldman Sachs; I wrote notes on that. They were coming in and the questions were asked; what does he get a day, how many people were going to be in there? Nothing ever about large functions; we have to address that. I like what you're doing for the Village of Mount Kisco and I have to emphasize that. But this really, really upset me as the Chairman of this Board. When I heard these things were happening, I had to go back on the minutes to get my facts straight. My facts are straight and this has to be addressed.

Jim Diamond: I think that the protection that Mount Kisco has always had with this property and with the Grand Prix use, or the trip generation limits that were put in place. So, Grand Prix has parking limits and trip generation limits and the property as a whole has trip generation limits.

Chairman Cosentino: We are going to talk about the parking. You may have a deficit there also. But I said what I had to say. We're going to address this again and I'm glad Vice Chairman Sturniolo had the sense of putting in the resolution that these catering outfits were by permission of the Chairman of the Board and by the Building Inspector. That curtails a lot of it that may answer a lot of the questions. You may have an outfit down there that's going to come in and we're going to see six or seven hundred people that we've given you permission to do, and when he comes in for another, he may not get the permission to do it. We're not going to bottle up the Village or that area because we're going to have eight or nine hundred cars. And I'm going to address Saw Mill when I get there too for these functions. He should be able to have them; there is no doubt about it. We need to know what's going on. You're doing a wonderful job down there, and we want to keep it that way. I needed to tell you that. Let's go on.

Michael Gallin: I think it may be prudent at this point, unless you were to suggest otherwise walking through the issues addressed in F.D. Clark's memo? I think in discussing each of these issues it will bring up other things and feedback from the board that will allow us to provide you the information that you need to get a better understanding and build that comfort level to cross those T's and dot those I's. F.D. Clark's memo breaks down the analysis into the Mount Kisco Athletic Club, which is the special permit, the traffic study and the parking analysis as the main function. The first item on the memo is a bit of an administrative issue. There was some discussion between my office and Nancy about the type of application. If there is any error on that we will obviously modify that and make that correction.

Michael Landler: I will continue on to the next point. The applicant is going to need to submit a detailed description of the hours of operation that also includes scheduled activities and other operation characteristics of the athletic club.

Michael Gallin: It may be that this was not reviewed as part of this letter; what we were trying to distill was whether or not there was additional information requested or whether or not it just wasn't carried over into the current application. There was this lower chart here in yellow with green and red, which listed every tenant on a week basis-calendar and showed the hours of operation for each individual tenant, which I believe is exactly what you're asking for in 1B, and I suspect that it may not have been carried forward in terms of the review.

Michael Landler: I think it's also focusing more on the characteristics; beyond the hours and what the activities are.

Lester Steinman: I think with connection to these comments, both of these submission were reviewed, and this will be one of probably a number of instances where after we get finished tonight it will probably be worthwhile for the applicant to sit down with the consultants and work through any questions they may have so by the time the next submission comes around, everybody's comments, including the Planning Boards will be addressed.

Michael Landler: Moving on to three, the usage numbers of the athletic club for the weekend afternoon in the Tenant Parking Study and the Appendix. There is some conflict for those numbers that needs to be revised and straightened out.

Michael Gallin: We took a worse projection scenario under the parking, and the Mount Kisco Athletic Club was a projection about their actual usage on the weekends, so that is the discrepancy so we'll clarify.

Michael Landler: Also we requested that the Building Inspector is going to have to make a determination about the accessory uses that are associated with Mount Kisco Athletic Club. The maximum of three uses has to be clarified as to what those accessory uses are and how the Building Inspector will interpret those.

Lester Steinman: And if there are more than three, that necessitates an application to the Zoning Board.

Michael Landler: Also the applicant should be submitting detailed information relative to the proposed maximum membership to the athletic club. If it's a larger facility than the existing one, obviously there will be additional members.

Jim Diamond: This is a point we've addressed before. I think that the perspective of Mount Kisco Athletic; and we tend to agree with their perspective, is that if the trip count and the parking is restricted, that is a more appropriate reflection of usage of their facility and of the site because there's a lot of members who may be members of the club but not actually use it on a regular basis. Restricting membership doesn't seem to tie directly into the objective of controlling trip generation from the site.

Chairman Cosentino: There was a 1,100 member cap on it. Not once did we ever check it. There is really no way to check it.

Lester Steinman: I've asked Nancy to provide me with copies of the prior resolutions on Mount Kisco Athletic Club. To date, I haven't found any membership cap. I believe there may be a membership cap on the Saw Mill facility, and I've asked for those resolutions as well.

Chairman Cosentino: I thought it was the opposite; but it could be.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: But that wouldn't be to say that we couldn't ask for a membership cap.

Chairman Cosentino: Yes, you can ask for it but keep in mind that they are moving out of 13,861 and moving into 34, 550. I'm sure whatever cap he had on the old place is not going to be… he's in this business to make money and he's going to have a lot more people there.

Jim Diamond: My understanding is that it is Saw Mill that has the membership cap, not Mount Kisco Athletic. Beside the point I do agree obviously the intent is for the business to be able to accommodate a greater number of members in the new proposed enlarged facility.

Michael Landler: Moving onto the traffic study; the traffic analysis that was submitted as part of the application uses product generated traffic volumes, which were used in the prior approved use of the site, as opposed to traffic volumes based upon currently proposed use of the site. That should be revised.

Michael Gallin: We have the honor of our traffic engineer here to help explain the methodology and the rationality behind the memorandum that he submitted and the analysis that was performed.

John Collins: The analysis that I did was not based upon current operation because the facility is not fully occupied yet. So what I wanted to do is to give the board an idea as to what the impact would be if we looked at potential raising the cap from the 300 trips per hour that was previously established, I think its part of the resolution, to some other number to accommodate the athletic club.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What are the rationale and the justification and the technical explanation for the 50 additional trips? What's the four page history behind that number?

John Collins: The history is the fact that because of the type of use that we're going to have in that 35,000 square foot area. That's a greater intensity than we anticipated when we first did the study for the 300. My recommendation is that if there was no increase in the cap, there is the potential that with an athletic club there you may exceed the 300 trips in any particular hour because of the intensity of use. It was felt that a 10 or 15 percent increase in the 300 level would somewhat offset the potential increase in potential traffic by increasing that one peak hour. That was the rationale. I would prefer to see a higher number but I felt the 10 or 15 percent would be reasonable to accommodate the athletic club. If we go back in time the original study was based upon a warehouse type use on the site, and the peak number of trips that would be generated was based upon that use. So if I get something that could be a heavy intensive use and it coincides with something else, I may have exceeded over 300. That's the rationale. That's what I'm afraid of. I would rather inform the board to say that because of this particular use there may be a need of 10 or 15 percent which brings it up to let's say 350 increase in the cap to accommodate this use. If we are going to entertain this use, we should look at some increase in the cap because there is the potential that the 300 could be exceeded. Now, if that is the case, what would be the relative impact of that increase of 50 vehicles? We looked at the driveway which is the most heavily impacted and said it would still operate under the existing signal control. That's why we used the old numbers, because it was the same thing we've used before. It was a comparison of what would happen under what was approved and what will be approved, and it would give the board a better level of comfort as to what's happening. It was basically because of the intensity of use.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So, the intensity of use; the number 50 was chosen. How does that impact all the other traffic intersections that were initially studied by you for this initial application?

John Collins: It shouldn't make a significant difference because some of the traffic is already on the roadway because of the athletic club being on Kisco Avenue. And even when it wasn't on the roadway, if I split it north and south on 117, I'm going to get 25 vehicles up at the north end, I'm going to get 25 vehicles up at Preston Way, so I don't think it's going to make a significant difference given the fact that at the driveway it will still work at an adequate level.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: But then again at some point, if the Mount Kisco Athletic Club were to move into 333, it's vacant space is going to have traffic of a different genre, maybe, so that would then impact the 25 north and 25 south.

John Collins: We talked about a 50 trip difference of what was approved. So we applied the full 50 at the driveway; Ice House Road. If I went to look at the other adjoining intersections, it would be 25 vehicles at each of those other two locations. That is the sum of both directions, in other words, so it would be 10 or 15 vehicles in and the balance going out; so it would be two-way traffic. I don't think 10 or 15 cars in any one direction on 117 either north or south is going to drastically change the operational characteristics at those intersections. We can check it for the board, but we felt that the critical location was Ice House Road. The comparison was made to the previous because that's what we're looking at.

Michael Landler: Its one thing to re-examine what could happen, but also what was mentioned; you are going to have a new tenant going into the old space that you are going to have to account for, those trips as well.

Lester Steinman: In addition, you're more than doubling the space.

John Collins: I'm looking at the fact that we have a cap on the number of trips that can be generated at any hour and it's limited to 300. It doesn't make a difference whether it's the right half of the building or the left half of the building or the center. The problem with that is that if the health club generated the whole 300, then the other use of the building couldn't exist. So that's what my concern is, to make sure that we have somewhat flexibility but again not killing the entire site. So what we're looking at is not whether the health club comes in. We could say let's put the health club in with the special use permit under the 300 cap. I'm saying to Jim, I'm not comfortable with the 300 cap by putting a health club, which is heavier use.

Stanley Bernstein: Do I understand that you're not even accounting for the old space? It's not going to remain vacant. In this count itself, you're not even accounting for what's there now?

John Collins: Let me explain my rationale. If the health club remained where it is today, there is a capacity on this particular site of 300 peak hour trips. If the health club moves someplace else, something else may occupy the health club, if the health club comes over here, the health club is going to use a portion of the 300 trips that were already approved. I don't want them to use all of it, where I need significantly disproportionate percentage of that total square footage. So I'm suggesting that the trips should be increased by 50 to accommodate that.

Stanley Bernstein: I'll buy that, but how do you account for the existing trips now in the old space, which will probably be duplicated. It doesn't seem to be in the same count.

John Collins: It is because if I don't take any deductions for the removal of that space, whatever trips are going to that space store on the roadway system. What I'm saying is that the athletic club becomes part of my approved 300 trips at the driveway and at the other location.

Stanley Bernstein: In addition to what we had before?

John Collins: In addition to what was already there. The existing count already includes the health club over at the other location. What's happening is the health club is utilizing a portion of the 300 trips, which we already took into account. That's why we don't have to replace it. But I think you understand my concern is the fact that we have 5 percent of the total square footage and I want to make sure that it doesn't significantly alter the spread.

Lester Steinman: John, the 50 you came up with; is that a guess?

John Collins: I would have liked a greater percentage. I think 15% would be the 50 vehicles, and that's what I'm looking at. My recommendation to Jim is that if there is no increase; don't put the health club there.

Lester Steinman: I think these number of traffic issues is the type of issue that the consultants are going to have to talk about outside the meeting; satisfy Clark's office as to the rationale, and if not, get additional studies to satisfy the request. That's another area that's ripe for discussion after the meeting.

John Collins: But I think we understand it will be double counting otherwise, but the health club will be using part of our trips.

Chairman Cosentino: I think the big plus to this whole thing is getting them off Kisco Avenue.

John Collins: Yes, and I don't want to have a plus and getting them off Kisco Avenue and at the same time hang Jim with his particular number.

Chairman Cosentino: But then we need to do the car count.

Jim Diamond: The other thing I want to emphasize again is with John's original study last year with the 300 number; it was assumed that 20% of the trips would be truck trips, so we are assuming that approximately sixty truck trips per peak hour at the site. And now we're projecting a significantly reduced number; I believe the numbers are 13 or 14 for the entire day. So I think there has been a little bit of a trade off in terms of what we've been highly focused on reducing truck traffic that's on the Mount Kisco roadway system, and part of the trade off there is that we think that results in a little bit higher car traffic. We think the net result is favorable, is a positive for Mount Kisco. But that's the trade-off.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So if we're taking the number 50 which translates to a 15% increase, if you look at the 15% increase, and then you look at the 13,861 versus 34,555, it's almost three times the footage. Now I'm thinking on one hand you have three times the square footage and on the other hand you have 15%.

Michael Gallin: it's also 15% of the whole site.

Jim Diamond: The health club is approximately 5% of the overall building.

Lester Steinman: It also helps to get further details on the operations of the health club in terms of assessment.

Michael Landler: Can we also touch upon looking at other intersections?

John Collins: I would go back to the original study and I would increase 15 vehicles on either end and see what the impact is. We're comparing it back to the original study. I can't do it now because the site is in flux. It's not fully occupied yet, so I have to go back to what the original approval was for comparative purposes.

Michael Landler: Moving on to the parking analysis, you failed to include parking figures for the soccer field in your calculations.

Michael Gallin: They were not included in the zoning chart, but they were included in our analysis. We will add them.

Michael Landler: Also again the building inspector had requested detailed description of the hours of operation in the schedule.

Chairman Cosentino: Please explain the second paragraph on that? On the deficit of the 95 spaces.

Michael Landler: It's based on their exhibits showing some conflict.

Lester Steinman: Originally we had 676 required and 695 provided, so that was fine. And then we excluded the soccer field because we thought there would be a trade-off I think on the uses, so they would be compatible in terms of not being peak uses at the same time. Now I think it's working out with the amenity plan that there is greater deficit of space being created.

Michael Gallin: We provided this parking analysis as part of the submission where we broke down each use, and then within each use did accessory. For example, any warehouse space that had an office use, we factored that into the parking analysis. In doing that full calculation, excluding the soccer field, we ended up with a required number of spaces; 870 spaces, and we're providing on the site 775 spaces, so the difference between those two is 95. Per that analysis, if all of these spaces were per code occupied at 100% all at the same time of day, we'd be in deficit of 95 spaces. We then followed that up with a parking analysis of the actual peak usage of this site and three existing times of day. And that's what this analysis is representing and days for the week. So the first diagram here was at 10 A.M. on a weekday when the offices and warehouse functions are occupied. The athletic club is occupied pretty close to its peak utilization. Grand Prix New York is going to be at a relatively low or average utilization. Not at peak, but it would be used, and it's likely that the soccer field on a weekday at 10 in the morning is going to have little to no utilization. What we did was based on those utilizations, placed cars per each color represents a type of use on the parking lot to represent the utilization of the parking spaces on site. What the diagram is representing is that there are excess spaces on the site. We were conservative in terms of our projections, so when we did peak, we assumed that, for example, the highest number that was attached in any of the analyses for the athletic club, we used that as their peak number and the same with the other uses so that they were fully occupied. The second analysis is shown on this diagram was a weekend, 2 P.M., and in this scenario most of the businesses had very low utilization. The south end of the property which there is a Change of Use Proposal for would have a higher utilization, and the soccer field would be at maximum utilization. And with these uses at maximum utilization on the weekend with the soccer field, there still first of all is plenty of access parking at this end, but even on the southern half of the property we still have excess.

Chairman Cosentino: What about the sports center, though?

Michael Gallin: That's included in this use as well. That's all these green cars here.

Lester Steinman: Michael, maybe I missed something. Are you saying that the zoning law compliance will require 870 spots? If we're seeing that, the fact that you're establishing with the actual usage will be less doesn't relieve you from the responsibility of meeting the zoning unless the Planning Board has the authority to waive some of those spots.

Michael Gallin: We're coming back to the non-coincidental usage of the spots. There is a provision, I believe, and that's what we relied on in previous application where we analyzed the ball field; that the ball field's peak hours would be different than the office and warehouse functions peak hours, and therefore that non-coincidental hours of operation peaks was something that the Planning Board could take into consideration when analyzing the number of parking spaces.

Michael Landler: That leads into providing more detailed description again of the activities and the operations and kind of justify the hours of operation and what you provided. Give more detailed background.

Lester Steinman: And there is some inconsistency between the floor diagrams which showed peak P.M. of about 15 cars at the health club on the weekend and the analysis said 129.

Michael Gallin: Honestly that was my error. I assumed the health clubs recreational use would be at 100% utilization on a Saturday, and the reality is, after speaking to the health club owners is that there is actually relatively low utilization on a Saturday afternoon. Most people come weekday mornings and after school. Regardless, the parking you can have peak utilization, but we can address that.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What is the status of a concept of a bubble?

Jim Diamond: I'm not sure, honestly. I know that the principals behind this sports arena are interested in putting a temporary bubble on the soccer field, and I know they've spoken with Mike Cindrich about that. I'm not sure exactly what the current status is. Given the time of year right now, I presume it's unlikely to happen for this winter.

Lester Steinman: That brings up several issues. in addition to run-off, I was thinking of the impact on traffic, the hours of operation and parking because the premise of non-coincidental peaks gets undercut by a facility that's 24/7, twelve months a year with a bubble. That needs to be addressed as we go forward with that.

Chairman Cosentino: I was thinking of run-off.

Anthony Oliveri: If there is a bubble over the soccer field, I understand there is a decrease of impervious areas with the application now. We'd have to look at those increasing impervious areas.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I just brought it up as an idea while everybody's here for discussion if somebody wants to pursue that all the other impacts that that would have in this vein of the conversation.

Michael Gallin: I'm glad you brought it up; I hadn't heard it. Just to continue, there was a third analysis, which was a weekday afternoon.

Michael Landler: Again, going over the parking is something that our office will continue to be in conversation with you and your consultants. To continue on, the building inspector has to make a determination as to whether that proposed business of Dover Saddlery is a permitted use within the ML zoning district.

Chairman Cosentino: You haven't spoken to Austin on that have you?

Lester Steinman: I've tried, but he's in Ireland.

Jim Diamond: And the ball is still in our court as far as that goes. We're supposed to submit something to Austin which we have not done. Austin wanted us to submit in detail all of what they'd be doing.

Chairman Cosentino: So you need to do that to make this part of the puzzle here.

Jim Diamond: Absolutely.

Michael Landler: Going back to Grand Prix, the applicant for the Concept Review that was submitted has hours of operation for Grand Prix New York are different than was approved by the Planning Board for that use.

Lester Steinman: Are you still asking for those changes because you need to amend a special permit application for that as well. There were a few categories that were different.

Michael Gallin: We'll clarify that.

Lester Steinman: If you're going to change them then you're going to have to do another application, if you're going to leave them then you don't have to come back.

Michael Landler: Also, as far as SEQRA is concerned, the EAF said the Mount Kisco Recreation Commission approval is required. Can you explain why that was required?

Michael Gallin: We didn't actually check the approval required box. They have these approval required, yes, no? It's under the no, so we wanted to provide them the opportunity to comment on the field house and the storage facility associated with it, and obviously there is a park being proposed.

Chairman Cosentino: Because they are actually running it.

Michael Landler: So you were looking for just comment right now?

Michael Gallin: Comment for the board.

Lester Steinman: What about DEP? Has there been approval there?

Michael Gallin: Not for Mount Kisco.

Lester Steinman: For Bedford?

Michael Gallin: DEP or DEC is the one acre?

Lester Steinman: DEC on the storm water.

Michael Gallin: We'll have to get clarification for that.

Lester Steinman: You need to get a couple of those items clarified so that we can get the Notice of Intent for the Planning Board to be Lead Agency.

Michael Gallin: We can coordinate that over the next couple of days.

Michael Landler: Also, just as a point of information, the application for an amended site plan approval and special permit approval should be referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning. That is just for your information.

Lester Steinman: Also, notice has to be given to the Town of Bedford of hearings in Mount Kisco on this matter. Where are you on your application to Bedford?

Michael Gallin: We didn't apply to Bedford yet on this application partially because I thought it made sense for you guys to declare Lead Agency first. We would like to, and we know we need wetlands commission review because of the parking area, and we know that we need Planning Board in Bedford.

Lester Steinman: There shouldn't be anything that stops you now. I'm going to suggest at the end of the meeting that the Planning Board consider that and start that process.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: How many spaces are there in the Bedford Corner?

Michael Gallin: Parking spaces? I don't know exactly off the top of my head but I believe this is about 50 spaces and then there are some additional spaces here.

Lester Steinman: I have a couple of comments also on Page 2 of the Application for Site plan Approval. There is a question about whether any easement agreements, property covenants or deed restrictions apply and the answer checked is yes. The form asks to attach copy, and I don't see any documents attached. That would be helpful.

Michael Gallin: Will do.

Lester Steinman: We talked about the events; in addition to the Hospital there is a event for the Westchester Business Bureau, there apparently has been an application for a special event permit for the hospital; I am unaware there has been an application for the Westchester Business Journal for a special event permit.

Michael Gallin: Clearly if it's in excess of 120 people that needs to be resubmitted.

Lester Steinman: There are a lot of conditions in there that need to be satisfied in terms of; even if there is no special events permit, obviously in terms of occupancy but also the entrance is restricted to members, at a maximum of 25 guests, which is one issue, and also that all corporate events will be required to rent either one or both tracks. I think this is just getting to the point a little bit that the Chair was talking about. There appears to be a big party, which may have no relationship to the track at all other than it's housing it. So we need to look at the propriety of making request for a Special Events Permit thereto and describe what actually is going to take place with the numbers you're talking about. But that's coming up, that's just around the corner, according to the advertisement, its December 13.

Chairman Cosentino: How could they put a date when the Chair hasn't given permission and neither has the building inspector? I take umbrage to that.

Michael Gallin: I can understand that. I wasn't even aware that this was scheduled. I have been overseeing the construction, and I find it difficult to imagine how construction would be completed in a manner to accommodate that date, however, I will certainly refer the concern to Sy.

Chairman Cosentino: I think the track he should have taken was to get permission to do what he wanted to do, and then set the date.

Michael Gallin: Clearly.

Jim Diamond: If it's in excess of 120 people.

Chairman Cosentino: It is in excess of 120 people.

Lester Steinman: And if they don't correspond to all the other conditions in terms of the operation plus the major impediment; if we don't have a CO, we can't do anything.

Chairman Cosentino: Clearly, under the conditions that are there now, he's not getting this okay. He's got to straighten that all out.

Michael Gallin: I'm going to make the phone call as soon as we leave this meeting. On that note and I don't know what the proper form is, obviously Sy and the operators of Grand Prix New York need to address these issues directly, so we need to figure out the form to make that happen.

Lester Steinman: There are other events that have already been given dates also early in December.

Michael Gallin: I'm not aware of it.

Lester Steinman: I am. I've seen it. A group that that I have knowledge of is advertising that they are doing it. I haven't told them they may not make that date, but it's a concern.

Chairman Cosentino: That all has to be addressed. Right now, if the Building Inspector calls me up, I'm not Okaying it.

Michael Gallin: If there is no C.O., it is totally moot. Understood.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: May I make a suggestion? When you have the off-line conversation addressing the memo, could you kind of structure it so it follows the same format so we can see the revisions and the conversations page-by-page?

Michael Gallin: Sure.

Lester Steinman: Before you adjourn I think you may be in position to consider adoption of a resolution circulating a Notice of Intent to declare yourself Lead Agency.

Motion to Intend To Declare Mount Kisco Planning Board Lead Agency for Application to the Amended Site Plan Approval and Special Permit at 333 North Bedford Road, The Park at Mount Kisco

Motion: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Second: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Sol Gibbons

Aye: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Aye: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Chairman Cosentino

Lester Steinman: Between our two offices we will provide Nancy with the necessary documentation to start that process.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you.

CONCEPTUAL APPLICATION

Century 21

291 Main Street

PB2007-15

Present: Peter Gregory, Keane Coppleman Engineers, PC

Susanne Lerch, Century 21 Country Living

Chairman Cosentino: We have an application here for parking in the rear of the building.

Peter Gregory: Yes, there is an existing condition here. Right now we're looking to improve an existing condition here where anybody who visits the site only has the ability to park in a small section of the existing driveway off Main Street. There is a situation here where people that do pull in either the vehicles will stack up, some people have to move cars around for people to leave, and it does sometimes involve people backing up onto Main Street to pull out. We were looking to improve that condition by providing additional parking spaces to the rear of the building and also providing the ability for vehicles to maneuver in this area and to pull head out onto Main Street.

Chairman Cosentino: Do you have a survey?

Peter Gregory: Yes we do. I don't have one with me, but our work is based on this. I can bring a copy of that.

Chairman Cosentino: What is the width of the driveway going all the way up?

Peter Gregory: We're proposing that in certain areas 12 foot, however, we do have an area adjacent to the building where we would be less than the 12 feet, approximately 10 feet in that area.

Chairman Cosentino: What is the code?

Whitney Singleton: Minimum 10, maximum 20.

Chairman Cosentino: So you do have ten then?

Peter Gregory: I believe so. One of the problems we have here is the portion of the existing driveway does go over the property line.

Chairman Cosentino: The ten feet does?

Peter Gregory: Yes it does.