PB Minutes 6-24-08

Minutes

Work Session of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Meeting called to order at 8:05 P.M. Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York by Vice Chairman Sturniolo.

The items on the agenda for the June 10 meeting are also included in this meeting.

Members Present: Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Sol Gibbons

Doug Hertz

Ralph Vigliotti

Members Absent: Chairman Joseph Cosentino

Joseph Morreale

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Dolph Rotfeld

Whitney Singleton

Approved Minutes: March 11, 2008:

Motion: Stanley Bernstein

Second: Ralph Vigliotti

Aye: Sol Gibbons

Aye: Doug Hertz

Aye: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Ralph Vigliotti

Aye: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Public Hearing:

Buckingham Properties (Morgan Enterprises)

Morgan Drive, Lot 3

PB2005-19

Present:

Brad Schwartz, Zarin & Steinmetz, on behalf of the applicant

Ronnie Ross, representing Edward Cohen, property owner

Erik A. Kaeyer, AIA, Vice President, Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson, Architects

Jon P. Dahlgren, Senior Environmental Geologist, Tim Miller Associates

Brad Schwartz: As Nannette stated we are here tonight for a draft scope on this project. I provided to your board secretary the cards from the mailing for the hearing notice as well as the Affidavit from the newspaper. We are here tonight again to receive comments from the public as well as any additional comments from your board or your staff. In fact, there was one comment that was raised at the last meeting, and I would like Eric to address very briefly.

Erik Kaeyer: We are planning to register this project and go through the process with the U.S. Green Building Council as a LEED project.

Brad Schwartz: That was one of the comments that came up from the last meeting. We went back and talked to the Cohen's about that and have committed to undergoing that process. We will discuss that in the EIS, and that will be added as a scoping item as Nannette requested.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: In looking at our June 10 agenda, there is the draft of the scoping outline. Have you responded to DEP's letter and the Westchester County Planning Board's letter, where they requested copies of a full set of plans?

Brad Schwartz: Yes, and I believe a second letter followed that, which did not object to your board acting as Lead Agency for the project, and they will get a full set of plans in the draft DEIS.

Nanette Bourne: If you need additional comments you can ask for them. I have one recommendation to make regarding an alternative that I think should be added, and that alternative is for the applicant to supply an illustration and an environmental analysis of what the site would look like if it were developed with the property that it has with that regard to the subdivision. I've asked the applicant to bring a copy of the land that they have and show what we're talking about. As you know, property was originally combined with the Crème property. There was a lot line adjustment of the proposed plus the sharing of the storm water facilities. Crème has withdrawn their application, and so it changes the baseline conditions for this. Looking at this site fully developed with the property, there has got to be an appropriate alternative.

Brad Schwartz: The issue is that this is the original subdivision line. Sanctuary Ventures sold an additional acre to Crème in 2004. This is shown on this line here. This would be the new subdivision line. This is the plot that went through your board, and we did receive approval in January 2007. This has not been compiled with yet. A conveyance occurred, so it's this additional acre on the location of the property line. That's the issue. There are legal issues that are presented by this. Our firm and Whitney are going to want to sit down and talk about it over the summer during the EIS process. We've already discussed with Whitney some preliminaries, and we need to nail that down and explain it during the EIS process and look at that as an alternative. The issue is the plat never gets filed, and how does that effect the four corners of each respective property, and in turn, how does that effect the project?

Nanette Bourne: And, so, if the plat doesn't get filed, your property begins and ends where?

Brad Schwartz: That's the issue. Because the conveyance occurred, then it would be out to here.

Nanette Bourne: So then you would have more property?

Brad Schwartz: That's one argument. It's a legal issue that is going to have to be discussed. Another position could be that the property is still in these four corners, and Crème still owns this, it's just not reflected in the subdivision.

Nanette Bourne: An easement would involve the storm water?

Brad Schwartz: That was for an area up in here.

Nanette Bourne: Okay, so that land also includes an easement for shared storm water facilities?

Brad Schwartz: Correct. That is something that we've asked our project engineer to look at; keeping the storm water and managing it on site within our four corners to mitigate that storm water easement. We are going to try to simplify the issues as best we can.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: But addressing it on your property only?

Brad Schwartz: Exactly.

Nanette Bourne: So the worst case scenario is that the subdivision doesn't get worked out. They're property goes back to the way it was.

Brad Schwartz: Yes, and if that's the way it unfolds, then Sanctuary Ventures/Buckingham would pick up the additional land. So we're really not going to lose any property, if anything we'd only gain the acre back. But that, again, remains to be seen.

Nanette Bourne: I would recommend that an alternative be added to the scoping outline.

Doug Hertz: There is no real discussion about energy usage in here and provision to keep that at a minimum. Basically energy conservations measures, building, things like that. So, if as a part of the LEED discussion, which is a natural tie-in to that, if that could be tied in; basically a section on the energy usage.

Erik Kaeyer: That is one of the five sections in the LEED description, and it automatically goes through. There is a baseline depending on how far beyond that baseline is how many points you actually get towards the certification.

Doug Hertz: So what would you get on the section on LEED status? What are you going to be discussing within this document, would you image? What level you're going to try to accomplish?

Erik Kaeyer: You're designing a system and there is a State minimum requirement. It's not just the mechanical units, it's the entire building enclosure, so it's the additional installation you're using, the types of windows that you're using, the roof; the entire enclosure you create. Then you're designing mechanical systems that tend to be smaller size because of a better envelope that you're creating. You can't just pin it down to the actual mechanical unit. It's an entire systems approach. Obviously that will all be part of the building design.

Doug Hertz: What other green building technologies are we going to be seeing? A green roof, gray water; will that be discussed within the LEED section of the scope?

Erik Kaeyer: Yes. Whatever is on the checklist. We can't commit to anything today.

Doug Hertz: I understand. Do you at this point have an expectation of what LEED Certification level you're trying to obtain?

Erik Kaeyer: To be certified. There is an outside chance it could be silver, but we wouldn't want to have to necessarily meet that criteria.

Doug Hertz: I commend you for going for that certification. It's a positive for your project and for the Town.

Nanette Bourne: Since there hasn't been anybody to speak on the public hearing, you might want to consider closing the public hearing, and I can incorporate your changes to be on the agenda for the next meeting for you to adopt.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: If there is anyone who wants to comment from the public, if not, I entertain a motion.

Motion to Close the Public Hearing on the Scoping Outline:

Buckingham Properties (Morgan Enterprises)

Morgan Drive, Lot 3

PB2005-19

Motion: Ralph Vigliotti

Second: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Sol Gibbons

Aye: Doug Hertz

Aye: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Continuing Review:

Westchester Residence and Club

Kisco Avenue

PB2006-19

Present:

Kory Salomone, Attorney-at-Law, Veneziano & Associates

Patrick Hewes, Saccardi & Schiff

Richard S. Rosen, AIA, Perkins Eastman

Kory Salomone: We are here tonight to continue the discussions with you regarding the comments in the DEIS that you may have.

Nanette Bourne: All of the comments have been received from all involved agencies, and you have a revised substantive comment memo that reflects comments that the board has made in previous meetings, so the applicant has the information that they need to go ahead and start the FEIS. The applicant then meets with us to make sure that the approach is consistent with what the board wants, so if you're open to that, the applicant can arrange a meeting with us to discuss comments from my office, the Planning Board and Anthony as well as the fairly substantive comments from the DEP and the county.

Doug Hertz: There is one comment that was brought up that I don't see incorporated into the notes. We had asked for a discussion of essentially the economics of how the 129 unit requirement was arrived at, so we understand your breaking points in terms of the scale, the number of units, what the issue would be if the project were scaled down, so that we could understand the logic behind arriving at that number, and therefore the size of the project.

Ralph Vigliotti: Initially there was discussion with regards to the height, square footage and the length of the building. I would like you to be prepared to discuss those conversations with us.

Stanley Bernstein: Every time we come here we get the same answers. As of now you have not moved in any direction. You are sitting on top of this thing as if we're supposed to swallow it whole. It's a long time you've been here before us; but nothing happens, and you want an approval.

Kory Salomone: We are waiting for all the final comment on the DEIS. The way the process is to work is that we will address them in our FEIS. That is why we have a stenographer here, to make sure it will be accurate.

Stanley Bernstein: I hope so.

Kory Salomone: It certainly will be, sir.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So those four or five documents need to be addressed.

Nanette Bourne: I will make the final revisions and the economic justification and the issue of the length and the height.

Stanley Bernstein: What about the entrance which we discussed? The access, the different entrance? We can address that when we get before the FEIS.

Ralph Vigliotti: The proposed project is next to a TD District, which is owned by, I think, the New York State Parkway Authority Association, which I honestly believe, that with permission, that might pose to be a better entrance onto your property. I'd like you to take a closer look at that. I don't know if the Parkway Authority would even allow anything like that to occur with any kind of negotiations, but that is certainly a better access point than one you're proposing.

Patrick Hewes: May I just ask for clarification; we're speaking adjacent to the west?

Ralph Vigliotti: Kisco Avenue north to the Saw Mill.

Doug Hertz: It's this. Here's the Saw Mill, here's the edge of your property and right now you're proposing this serpentine here. The question becomes if there is access to here, is there a better way to get out that will maybe eliminate this incredible engineering.

Patrick Hewes: We will look into that.

Ralph Vigliotti: Also, there is a piece of property south of your proposed development, which is the BMW property, which has a service road going up to its property.

Kory Salomone: They said no.

Ralph Vigliotti: How far back were those conversations?

Kory Salomone: I believe they were awhile back. I was not privy to those conversations, but they were discussed with someone in my office. They turned us down.

Stanley Bernstein: And if they said no, and a possibility of roads, how would you feel about it?

Kory Salomone: We'd look at any possibility.

Patrick Hewes: I think topography and site shape drives a lot of that.

Stanley Bernstein: That accent road is an abomination, besides costing five million dollars.

Doug Hertz: We are looking to see if we could provide any better or less substantial engineering to get you onto that site. There are only two other ways that we see and they're on the two sides.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Nannette will make the revisions and then when it's an appropriate time to go over it, we will.

Patrick Hewes: Thank you very much for accommodating us. I very much appreciate it.

Conceptual Application:

The Park at Mount Kisco

(Mount Kisco Sports Arena)

333 North Bedford Road

PB2008-16

Present:

Michael Gallin, AIA, Principal, Gallin Design Studios

Ken Rudolph

Jim Diamond, Diamond Properties

Lester Steinman

Michael Landler

Recused: Doug Hertz

Michael Gallin: If I could just walk you briefly through the essence of the application, then we can start our discussion. Obviously you are familiar with the property. As a reminder, the facility consists of, at this point, 610,000 square feet of space, a majority of which continues to be warehouse and ancillary office space associated with the warehouse use. When we first presented this application, there was raw space that was completely vacant. We are now getting to the point where we are pretty close to having a good snapshot of what the finish line is going to look like. We are excited to be here with that premise, because we think that the Mount Kisco Sports Facility will be the icing on the cake as we move this facility to a softer use, a less industrial use, and a use that is an asset to the community. Most recently we have been in discussion with you about The Wine Enthusiast at the north end of the building, Air Mac, RDI Warehouse, and a proposed space for Ideal Electric, a Photo File, a self storage, and some other warehouse space. The balance of what we're showing on the property at this point is about 70% of the facility being occupied by warehouse use, and the accessory office use to it including the self storage use in that mix. Currently in the knuckle of the building is the Grand Prix New York facility, which is a private membership club with an entertainment and sports related use of 117,000 feet. Most immediately, we're here to discuss the Mount Kisco Sports Arena which is an indoor sports training facility earmarked towards the training of the sports industry as opposed to the more recreational. It's proposed to occupy a 71,600 square foot block on the south end of the building. At that point, the only two remaining spaces open for discussion for leasing would be the warehouse based on the southern most ends of the building, and the free standing building, which had historically been the truck maintenance also on the south end of the building. Included as part of this application is a new parking analysis which shows a square footage breakdown for each of the uses of the building, and how those uses impact the total parking proposed on this site. The parking spaces proposed on the site are currently 794 spaces under this application, and the parking spaces required by code as outlined by these uses are 689 spaces. It is our belief that the sports training facility fits perfectly within the physical training studios use that is defined with the zoning code. I have not read Mr. Cassidy's memo yet, but I believe when Kevin walks you through their operations you will see that that is consistent. The parking requirements, within physical training studios as dictated by code, is one space for every two participants plus one space for staff members which result in 49 required spaces, which is consistent with the projections for the use of the facility. It is also below the requirements if it were straight warehouse based with an accessory office space. Also included as part of the conceptual package, of the 72,000 feet showing the majority of the space is 124 feet wide by 250 feet long would be utilized for flexible training fields that could be laid out as three infields, on which they could train small groups of students; or they could be oriented where they could have a series of soccer fields, again oriented for training going the other way. In the front of the space there are two basketball courts. There are some training tunnels where they would do pitching and batting training, and in the back there is an indoor golf training facility as well. The purple spaces represent the support spaces including locker rooms, some small office areas, some coaching rooms, storage, mechanical and a small pro shop at the front selling baseball gloves and minor accessories.

Ken Rudolph: What we're really trying to accomplish is sports training that hasn't been done before for the young athlete all the way up through the college level and the adult trying to have some fun. We will employ all former professional athletes to do a real serious job of training. Not just coming in to throw the ball around, but more of a specific method of teaching. How to pitch, hit and field for baseball, for soccer how to actually play the game, the rules of the game. The golf area will have a hitting base, where somebody can actually come in and hit a shot into a net about 90 feet long. You'll be able to do computer generated swing analysis, ball flight analysis, spin, and we're also going to have a big green inside the area where you can putt and chip, hit some sand shots, so you'll get some instruction from professional golfers. We will also have some training "tunnels," a cage type of thing where you're going to go in and do pitching instruction, batting instruction and fielding instruction, but it will be geared towards individuals, so you're not going to have a group of 30 people coming in at a time. For each training tunnel, you'll have two to three people max per hour. On the field we have three fields with a maximum capacity of each field accommodating full capacity for baseball, about six people playing on the field with two instructors, for soccer it's a little bit more, probably ten people on the field plus a referee and an instructor, and the same thing for basketball. We'll have two basketball courts with the maximum ten people and coach, and a referee on each court at one time. We are going to set up programs for each specific sport. We are also bringing lacrosse into this, and lacrosse will be similar to the soccer except the max will probably be two fields on the whole field because you need a bigger field for lacrosse.

Michael Gallin: We've included in the section describing the Mount Kisco Sports Arena, a breakdown of the participant count, which is based on the number of people that they can fit on the field in a 100% utilization scenario. For example, on the 124 x 255 multi-purpose fields, we are showing 30 people, which would be three groups of soccer in a maximum utilization; for the basketball courts at 12 people per court and so on, for a total number of participants on site of 78. Again, that 78 people would be comparable to the parking load of this use with, as a warehouse use, with a proportion of that space used as office space equaling the number of cars that that would equal in the parking lot, assuming each person came with a car, so we are in the general consistency.

Jim Diamond: As we've discussed before, the idea was that with the creation of the municipal soccer field on the south end of the property, we wanted to try to come up with a mix of tenants on that side of the property in particular that would work well in conjunction with the field. Minimize truck traffic and keep it as non-industrial as much as we can. Then we're showing on the site plan as well the addition of the green space in front of the building as we discussed several months back as well, expanding the idea of the park to create a green space linking the soccer field and the front of the building together. We see this use fitting in very well with Grand Prix New York, the soccer field, the addition of green space throughout the site, and just creating a strong amenity of Mount Kisco.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Do you have the capability to play any regulation game within the complex?

Ken Rudolph: Yes, basketball. We can't play regulation baseball or soccer. The field is not that big.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So is it safe to assume you wouldn't have any intramural competition between Team A and Team B from a different locale coming in?

Ken Rudolph: You can do it on a smaller scale. You couldn't do a soccer tournament with ten players on each team. You would have to do it on a smaller sale, where if you have the fields broken down you would have to do like a five versus five; a smaller version. Mostly what we are going to be doing is training, and if you do like an intramural type of game, it is going to be through a club or a league that we'll set up so that the people can have some competition to test out the skills that we're teaching.

Ralph Vigliotti: Jim, you had said this would be great for Mount Kisco. How would this be great for our little league and soccer leagues if not at all? I know we have the exterior piece, which is terrific that that has been put into place for the Village. Off season, what other towns and communities will have the opportunity to come in and take advantage of the facility on an as paid basis? Has there been any thought about making this available to children right here in Mount Kisco off season or on season? You don't have to answer that tonight but it's something I'd like to get an answer to at some point.

Ken Rudolph: We were thinking about giving discounted rates to the local residents. We also wanted to do something for the seniors in the morning, because we are not really going to be at occupancy most of the mornings to use the facility. We really didn't put that in our package, but we can make reference to that in our next submittal.

Ralph Vigliotti: At some point you'll give us an idea of what the cost would be for use?

Michael Gallin: I quickly skimmed through Austin's letter, and he addressed some of those issues that we would certainly follow-up with.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Michael, at this point they will go ahead and submit their formal application, which we will now talk about the traffic study and the impact on that document.

Lester Steinman: That is a separate issue from this. It's good that Michael mentioned Austin's comments because he is focusing on the permissibility of all aspects of the proposed use here. He raises some issues that will have to be resolved and is requesting additional information as to the operation and the extent of what he needs which is required by the board because it is a training facility permitted under the zoning code. Separate and apart from that is the issue of the traffic study that would require at 35% level occupancy. John Collins submitted something that was reviewed by Frederick Clark's office and a memorandum was generated indicating the study that was submitted by John Collins was definitive in a number of areas and did not meet the requirements of what the Planning Board had set forth in the original site plan approval resolution. That needs to be addressed between now and the next time they come in. The resolution that the board just adopted on The Wine Enthusiast required that study to be in within 30 days, so they got the document in, but so far is unsatisfactory in terms of meeting the requirements.

Michael Gallin: We, in no way, intended this document be deficient. Immediately upon receiving the memo from F. P. Clark, which we received late in the day on Friday put a call into John Collins and have not been able to touch base with him about whether or not the actual visual counts were performed. We know the people were out there because we saw them out there, but whether or not they got all of the information that was required, we haven't been able to verify. Clearly it is our complete intention to address all the deficiencies that are outlined in this memo. If the data has already been collected, then it's just a matter of repackaging it and delivering it. If the data has not been collected and in some way there was an oversight on that matter, then we're going to have to figure out how to do that now. F.P. Clark's memo does not address the fact that schools will be out shortly and that has some time impacts.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I remember reminding John, when he was going to do the traffic counts, that there was a spring break, to make sure that was taken into consideration. We talked about the carnival of the Lion's Club, and a lot of that never kind of happened. If you can get with Michael and John and move this along; the Planning Board is only going to have one meeting in July and one in August, and you need to be aware of the time constraints.

Ralph Vigliotti: If the study is going to be thorough it should be done during the season which school is in session. Over the years I don't think we've allowed traffic studies to be done during the summer months when it wouldn't be a true caption of what the traffic could be. It's unfortunate your timing is early rather than later, but I would like to see the traffic when school is in session.

Lester Steinman: That's exactly what David said in his memorandum. If that data had not already been captured, you'd have to wait till September till school is back.

Michael Gallin: As you are aware, the site is coming back to life developing quickly. The occupancy now will be different than it will be in September and October as people continue to move in. One of the things we can entertain off line with F.D. Clark's office and John Collins is we know we are going to hit another threshold soon, it doesn't make sense to do something in the intermediate to keep the process moving or wait until September. We can discuss those options.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Can you at least update us on how you are progressing with these discussions with John and with Michael, just so we know where you are time frame wise?

Michael Gallin: Absolutely. Regardless, we will try to submit something within the next four weeks.

Final Action:

Eduardo's

77 South Moger Avenue

PB2008-13

Present: Anthony Monteleone, Attorney for the Applicant

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: We have a resolution of approval for an amended site plan and outdoor dining permit.

Anthony Monteleone: I have a question on Number 7. Is this a standard provision on all resolutions?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: About the maintenance for the life of the plan? Yes. Strictly boiler plate.

Anthony Monteleone: And Number 13? All improvements to site must be performed by duly licensed contractors. Is that standard as well, because that creates a problem with Number 16. It is going to be physically impossible to get licensed contractors on site by July 1. That is also inconsistent with Number 1, which says six months. Also keeping in mind that summer is the busiest time for the applicant especially with the outdoor dining to have construction going on. It will not only interfere with the business but also could be dangerous.

Whitney Singleton: The concept here was that your client wanted to offer the outdoor dining without necessarily having done the improvements. Normally the approval would not be given for this use until now. Unless until the improvements were completed.

Anthony Monteleone: That has not been the understanding as we were proceeding here over all these months.

Whitney Singleton: I appreciate the fact that I don't think when your client left the last meeting he was here thinking he was going to have to do all the improvements before he was allowed to have outdoor dining. Nevertheless, the way it transpired here, this was an effort to make sure that the work proceeded in a prompt and workmanlike fashion while at the same time accommodating your client's desire.

Anthony Monteleone: I hear you but it's just physically impossible to do those things and it could be a dangerous situation. I think if we change that to three months to commence by October 1st and complete. I don't know how long it's going to complete this job, but I doubt it is going to be 30 days, so complete by December 31. I'm just trying to be realistic here especially when we're talking about licensed contractors.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The intent is to get this project not only moving but behind the Village, and I don't think there is anything here, including the dates, that is a surprise of what has to be done, and I have no idea whether the applicant has lined up a contractor or not. I would hope he has put aside a start date, but it really is the removal of the blacktop, installing the protective guard rail in the front, doing the plantings, taking advantage of the weather now before it gets red hot.

Anthony Monteleone: When you say protect the guardrail in the front; it's the flower boxes.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: No, I'm talking about parallel to the street.

Anthony Monteleone: We can start with a couple of those things. I mean, we're not trying to stop.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: I know; I realize that, and you also need to have a pre-construction meeting with the engineer and the building inspector as well before anything starts; so, the quicker you get that meeting going the quicker the applicant lines up a contractor; but it doesn't appear to me to be that massive amount of work if a contractor is hired to do the digging, the re-striping and the planting. The dumpster enclosure is still in the wrong place.

Whitney Singleton: There is a proposed concrete block that needs to be finished.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Some of that can easily be done.

Anthony Monteleone: I agree. I just can't do it from July 1 to July 31. So can we say that instead of construction beginning that meeting with the Village staff will commence by July 1?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: As one member of the Planning Board, I would like to see that date stay in place.

Anthony Monteleone: We are not going to be able to begin construction by July 1. That's the practical problem. It's a week away. I don't want to have a resolution become violated a week from today. That is the only issue I see as a problem.

Ralph Vigliotti: The date of action is showing May 27, which is almost 30 days ago. If the resolution was approved at that point, it might have provided enough time to get this construction project going. If we were to extend this another week or two. I can certainly appreciate that July 1 is not going to work.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The approval was done very differently than most approvals are done. Normally there is an approval given with a resolution and site plan in front of you, and as of today we are still missing a finished, complete site plan and the photometric lighting plan and the cut off sheets for the lighting fixtures. A letter was written to the applicant awhile back. There have been about six or seven e-mails from the Village Manager to the applicant's engineer; it hasn't been provided yet. However, the Planning Board in a good faith effort approved this verbally on the 27th of May, and I also believe that we, both sides here, knew what needed to be done in advance, and a lot of things could have been lined up such as a contractor. I don't want to see that July 1 date change.

Anthony Monteleone: This is the first that I am aware that we are going to be required to have licensed contractors, and had we gone ahead and lined up contractors probably half of them would not have been licensed. Not all contractors need to be licensed. I just need some reasonable time so we are not in violation before we begin. In having a meeting with the engineer, I have no problem trying to schedule that. We will try to do that immediately.

Ralph Vigliotti: We can't move until we have an approved site plan. Unfortunately, whatever your client has or has not done, that approved site plan needs to be in place.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And it has to be modified. This was requested. A letter went out recently from the Village's consulting engineer requesting that site plan be modified, and the photometric plan. It is referenced in here, too. We haven't gotten that, and I don't personally see a reason why we need to adjust a date when it doesn't seem to be a two way street.

Anthony Monteleone: Do you want to delay signing off on the resolution until you get that and put it on the next agenda? By then we'll have all of these things in motion. Now I know what the resolution says and we can start intelligently and appropriately.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: If we be-late it, even if they got a contractor tomorrow, you couldn't do anything with the contactor because there is no signed resolution.

Whitney Singleton: You are not authorized to take out a building permit without this resolution in place.

Anthony Monteleone: I think if we can have a little more time.

Stanley Bernstein: Didn't he have enough time? It's gone on for years now.

Anthony Monteleone: I know it's gone on for years, and I know how exasperated your board is.

Stanley Bernstein: Don't say the Planning Board caused that. This guy doesn't want to do anything he's asked to do. He's a very arrogant person.

Anthony Monteleone: I am not making excuses. All I'm trying to do is get a reasonable resolution and start date on it. I'm fully aware of your board working very hard to make this happen and I appreciate that, but I just don't want to be in violation a week from now. We don't need to go through it again.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What if we delayed this by seven days from July 1st and changed it to the 8th?

Whitney Singleton: You can effectively do the same thing by putting the 8th in here. I know that this is a very hotly debated site plan even though there are rather minor modifications to the plan itself, and there has been a lot of time and energy spent on this. If you change it to the 8th, it gives them a reasonable period of time in which you could put licensed contractors in place, and if it's still accomplishing the completion in the given time frame that the board desires, I don't see any problem with that.

Anthony Monteleone: You mean you've got thirty days to finish? I don't know whether that can be done.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What kind of assurances; not that assurances work with this applicant; when do we get this photometric lighting plan and site plan?

Anthony Monteleone: This is the first I am aware of it today. Tomorrow I will make the necessary calls to get them. Had I been aware; had I been copied on the letters, I would have gotten the thing in motion a week ago. We didn't know you didn't have everything you needed, and had our office known…

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And your client never told you that he received the letter.

Anthony Monteleone: No.

Ralph Vigliotti: He certainly has a way of annoying this board.

Anthony Monteleone: Annoying the board and getting it done are two different things.

Ralph Vigliotti: That's annoying enough. He's not getting it done; he's not reacting to time frames. You're here on his behalf. Thank God you're here because he's not responding.

Anthony Monteleone: I'm not making excuses.

Doug Hertz: Mr. Chairman, if I may recommend that we extend the dates on this by seven days to give them time to get this going and no more than that and let's try to dispose of this matter.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And change the first to the eighth.

Anthony Monteleone: And the completion date? You still want to leave 30 days? We are going to have to come in for an extension; I'm almost sure, but if you want to leave it, you leave it.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: We need to get your client motivated.

Doug Hertz: It's just repaving a driveway and putting up a couple of guardrails. A good contractor can do it.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: And getting the plantings done, and getting the photometric light plan.

Ralph Vigliotti: Mr. Albanese put a whole building up in six weeks. I don't understand that you need thirty days to pave a small parking lot.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: We will give you the letter. The letter is nothing more than a follow-up to the six or seven e-mails from the Village Manager to your electrical engineer and we've heard nothing, and nothing and nothing.

Anthony Monteleone: I will get on this tomorrow morning.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Will you update Whitney as far as where you are with that letter, the general contractor and setting up the pre-construction meeting with engineering and building inspector?

Dolph Rotfeld: Anthony will be in Mount Kisco tomorrow. If you want to speed things up you can meet with him. This shouldn't be much of a problem. It looks like a week's work.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: That's what we felt.