PB Minutes 7-8-08

Minutes

Meeting of the Planning Board

Regular Work Session

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Meeting called to order at 7:45 P.M. at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Chairman Joseph Cosentino

Vice Chairman Anthony Sturniolo

Doug Hertz

Stanley Bernstein

Sol Gibbons

Members Absent: Ralph Vigliotti

Joseph Morreale

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Anthony Oliveri

Whitney Singleton

Public Hearing:

919 Mountain Avenue Associates

133 West Main Street

PB2008-11

Present: Ross Eatman

45 Hillside Avenue

Chairman Cosentino: If there is anyone from the public who would like to speak, please do so now.

Ross Eatman: As a resident and neighbor, I feel very fortunate that Bill Balter and Doug Hertz have developed the properties. From a neighbors perspective, we now have beautifully lovingly, restored houses. They have generated taxes to the town and add to the integrity of the neighborhood and improving the neighborhood. The property at 133 hasn't looked that good since I'm sure the day it was built. It's a great addition to the town. From my understanding the people developing the property have requested a variance so that they can subdivide the property and made the representation that the subdivision would entail requiring the subsequent development keep the new houses to be built at least 50 feet from the property boundaries and they would also put a limited condition requesting that the property be developed consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Frankly I think without the resources and talents of these two people and their supporting cast, this would never be happening. This has added to the neighborhood aesthetically as well as property values presumably will also be healthily

maintained as a result. I think those properties and the one which the variance is requested will be ensured of maintaining a high quality for years to come. I think the developers in this case deserve real credit for taking the initiative and doing things at a level that is almost unprecedented, certainly as neighbors themselves, you can see the efforts and thought that went into it are those of people who want to improve the neighborhood and maintain the quality of it from here. I personally applaud them for their effort and hope they are rewarded with the requested variance. I'd also say that from my understanding, they would have the right to develop the property and subdivide in a different way without the provision or a request for a variance from the Zoning Board. I don't know the rules, but just having taken the initiative to try to keep the character of the neighborhood and the interest of the neighborhood, is in my view a sign of the good will and integrity of the people who created it. I would support it wholeheartedly.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you very much. We can now close the public hearing.

Scott Blakely: I just want to clarify a couple of things. The variances were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their July 1st Meeting. That was for the lot width and for the site yard setback for the use of the garage. Also, we have been discussing some of the issues regarding the storm water and Anthony and I had a discussion the other day.

Chairman Cosentino: This is public hearing. I will hear you this time, but don't do it again.

Neil Alexander: I wanted to ask when we could come back to the Board again.

Chairman Cosentino: Your client knows. Your client was well informed.

Neil Alexander: Alright, we'll move on that then.

Motion to Close Public Hearing on 919 Mountain Avenue Associates, 133 West Main Street.

Motion: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Second: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Sol Gibbons

Aye: Stanley Bernstein

Aye: Vice Chairman Sturniolo

Aye: Chairman Cosentino

Conceptual Application:

Atlantic Appliance of Mount Kisco

255 North Bedford Road

PB2008-19

Present:

Richard S. Zamborski, Owner Atlantic Appliance

Rich Zamborski: My name is Rich Zamborski. I am the owner of Atlantic Appliance. I am here to ask permission for a little display on the street.

Chairman Cosentino: You are asking to put barbeque grills in the front of the store. I must say if I were you, I would not have sent a picture in like this. This looks like it came from the 1950's. Even with a dead plant, no less. I don't think there is a problem of grills in the front to help your business, but you're going to have to dress it up a little bit.

Rich Zamborski: In my own defense, I wasn't around. I was away. My secretary took those in traffic.

Chairman Cosentino: I accept that. But when I saw the picture and they even left the dead plant in front of it, I lived in Mount Kisco all my life, and it doesn't look like anything changed. You are going to have to bring something in with some plantings to dress up the front of it to make it look nice. I think it will help your business, because the grills are nice but you need something to dress it up. Maybe box plantings. Just show us something different than this picture shows. Have you read the building inspectors memo? Here is an extra copy. Read the bottom paragraph. Do my fellow Planning Board members have something to add to that? You need to come back with some pictures to show how you are going to beautify the front with a landscape plan.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: At times there are cars parked in the front and there are blacktopped wheel stops that are there. I don't understand you're going to have a parking space and at times an outdoor display area at the same time. To me, I wouldn't want to be looking inside the third burner in a Weber grill, and a truck or car coming into park. It seems one or the other.

Rich Zamborski: The grills are under a recess under the awning. It has nothing to do with the parking area. That is considered a driveway. I believe those are not set parking spots. Parking is in the back of the building and along the sides. People park there all the time, but the display is not where they are parking. It's probably an eight foot recess back into the building where cars cannot even get to. The awning stops four feet away from the building. Besides half of the awning there is another six or eight feet which is right alongside the building, and we put them right alongside the building.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What is going to be out there when the barbeque seasons ends?

Rich Zamborski: Nothing. That's all we ever do. We've done that for umpteen years and depending on the weather, May, June through September first and that's it.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: So am I correct that prior to coming here tonight with this conceptual idea of looking at barbeque grills in the front, you've already been displaying them?

Rich Zamborski: Yes, but once somebody from the Town came we stopped.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: You received a violation notice?

Rich Zamborski: Yes.

Chairman Cosentino: How many grills are you going to have out there?

Rich Zamborski: Normally we have one or two and on Saturday maybe three. That would be the most.

Chairman Cosentino: I guess that car stop should be taken away then.

Rich Zamborski: Car stops?

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The blacktop wheel stops.

Rich Zamborski: Those are speed bumps because people use that building as a turn around and there should be a no U-turn sign there. Everybody pulling out of Burger King turns around in our parking lot. 99% of the cars you see going through there are people just turning around and going back the other way.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: But out of Burger King you can either make a left or a right.

Rich Zamborski: Believe me, I know that. The landlord put speed bumps in there because people were flying through there and turning around constantly.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: But it makes more sense to be so concerned about it because you have people looking at a grill and you're going to have cars flying in front of you.

Rich Zamborski: But there is more than space between me and you between those areas.

Chairman Cosentino: We'll take a look at it. We will put you back on another agenda then.

Rich Zamborski: Thank you very much.

Conceptual Application:

Crossroads Plaza, Inc.

639-657 East Main Street

PB2008-15

Present:

David Cooper, Esq., Zarin & Steinmetz, Attorneys at Law

Representing Crossroads Plaza, Inc.

Richard Cohen, Owner

------------------

Jon Dahlgren, Tim Miller Associates

James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates

David Cooper: We're here tonight for a conceptual review for a Change of Use permit for the application relating to the property on East Main Street. If the Board will permit me, I want to give you a brief history of the property. There was an application for Site Plan Review submitted to your board back in the mid '90's, to use this property for a retail use. There is a 23,000 square foot building on the site. The application went through a vigorous review, about a five year review, where your board looked into many issues; traffic, parking, of course the primary of them. During that five year review, many issues were studied and consultants talked to you about parking. The site was studied to manage retail traffic. In June of 1998 a resolution was passed by the Board approving the site plan with the condition that 119 parking spaces are provided for retail use.

Chairman Cosentino: Yes, you have retail and medical.

David Cooper: The 1998 approval was for retail.

Chairman Cosentino: Right, but now you happen to have a medical unit in there too, which brings the count up.

David Cooper: We can get into the terms of the specific uses, but various tenants have been leasing space. UBS Bank was leasing a certain portion of this building. The UBS Bank lease has terminated and they have vacated the premises to bring you up to date, along with Cozy Corner which is another retail store.

Chairman Cosentino: UBS was office use determined by the Building Inspector.

David Cooper: That's correct, and that's really what brings us here today. What our clients are seeking to do is to be able to market the space to retail users and say we have all of our approvals in place. We spoke to the Building Inspector who indicated that the switch from the UBS to the retail space would be from office to retail, and so the parking requirements would be moved up, that triggers a statute, that's why we are here tonight with our Conceptual Application for a Change of Use Permit. Right now the portion that we're looking at will be leased to a general retail tenant. There are still 119 spaces at the location. That is not going to change. The general type of use is not going to change. The retail tenant, of course will be using the space. No lease is imminent at this point. We want to preserve our options in terms of what type of retail will go in. Walgreen's is certainly one option. They've expressed some interest, but no lease has been signed. We want to make clear to the Board that what we are looking for is general retail to use in that space. Clearly we see that one of the largest issues of course is going to be parking. It was back during the five year review process and we know it will be. My clients have hired Tim Miller & Associates to do a parking analysis, to look at the site with the actual use as well as the approved demand to see if retail would be an appropriate use. I want to highlight the findings for the Board. First this lot for the 119 space requirement in the code is calibrated for the highest demand. Back when the review went through it was determined that that was more than sufficient for this area. That is not going to change with general retail tenant that is going to come in.

Chairman Cosentino: Except for the medical. Medical has a larger count, am I right Nanette?

Nanette Bourne: Yes.

David Cooper: Also, we have done an actual demand study which includes the medical at this point. That demand shows that there are ample spaces for any retail use.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: It shows that there are ample parking any retail use, be it a Walgreen's or something else?

David Cooper: That's correct. Remember the 119 spaces, as I said is a threshold issue. That was calibrated for the highest demand.

Chairman Cosentino: You're at one space at 150 square feet. Medical is more.

David Cooper: Well, there is one space for 150 square feet for the first 10,000 square feet.

Nanette Bourne: It's one space for 150 for the first 10,000 and then one space for 200 square feet over 10,000, and that's strictly for retail. For medical it's one to 150, so it's a slightly greater parking.

David Cooper: Even so, what we're saying is the studies that we've done which includes the medical use right now are showing that there is ample space for both. At this point, what we'd like to do is turn it over to the Board to see what issues you'd like to discuss.

Chairman Cosentino: You made a statement which I like, by the way, to the effect that Walgreen's is not signed up, there is no lease, you just want to get retail in there, and I guess if any retail store came, you would consider it. Have you considered some kind of grocery chain store, something like that, that would be good for the Village? I think maybe something like that could be good for the area and for the Village.

David Cooper: Definitely there have been grocery stores approached for the location. That was something that occurred to us when we realized we were going to have a vacant space, because we wanted to minimize the amount of down time for that space. They were approached and there have been some discussions. As far as anything beyond discussions, it never really got anywhere. I think the reaction that we got from a lot of the grocery stores was that the space was too small for their purposes. From a business perspective, grocery stores like a little larger spaces because their margins are lower than let's say like a drugstore. They can handle a smaller space with fewer products on the shelves and still be profitable. If you look today, for example, what used to be supermarkets are now drug stores, and supermarkets have grown in size. If you look at an A & P, that's an example of a modern grocery store, compared to where the Grand Union used to be, which is a CVS now. That is how the market is changed.

Chairman Cosentino: So anyone that either approached you or you approached them, the space was too small to accommodate any kind of a grocery store?

David Cooper: Unfortunately, yes. That was the case.

Chairman Cosentino: Too bad, because it would have fit right in there. There are some problems in that area. It's a growing area, as you know. If you look across the street, unfortunately, if you go there 12:00 noon on, it's very difficult to find a parking space and I don't have to tell you what's happening. They're coming across the street and using your parking facility. That's not a good thing, but that's what they do. The second thing, there are some serious issues brought up in Austin's memo that we're going to have to address because of that growing area. Also, is Walgreen's going to be the same as the other Walgreen stores? Are they going to be selling the same things they sell in the other Walgreen stores? Are they going to sell beer there?

David Cooper: Again, there is no agreement set in place for Walgreen's.

Chairman Cosentino: You are addressing it here and that's what we need to address. We are going to be concentrating on a Walgreen's because that's what's in your application. Your application states a Change of Use Permit to Allow Walgreen's or Another Retail. Retail somewhat like Walgreen's but it's large because you're taking the two stores. You're showing the footage in here. We have to consider both stores that have moved out, UBS and Cozy Corner as one unit, large enough to accommodate a Walgreen's, or something to that effect. Walgreen's is heavy traffic. They don't only sell drugs. It's like CVS. You can see the parking that CVS has compared to what you have here, and both of them have to be considered heavy traffic businesses.

Edward Cohen: It's interesting that you bring that up; because I subscribe to a retail newsletter regarding chain stores that people in the industry look to for new information. Just in the last week or so, it's come out that Walgreen's is looking to open up smaller stores as their new growth in the United States. I am imagining that this would be one of those types of stores. Historically speaking, Walgreen's takes up around 15,000 square foot footprints. This store is significantly less than that. It's about 8,500 square feet give or take. I haven't heard this directly but it's my conjecture that Walgreen's is looking for it's new concept in this location where it would have a smaller store with less products on the shelves and more geared towards an offering that they believe is acceptable for this neighborhood rather than just having a huge smattering of products.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What is an offering acceptable to this neighborhood mean?

Edward Cohen: I think the point of the article was they felt they had too many product choices in their other stores and they were confusing their customers with them, and they want to limit their product counts. They feel this will help them improve their sales.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: How does that tie in to the statement you just made about the neighborhood? Limiting in product, I can see if you have a variety of toothpaste, but how does that address the word neighborhood?

Edward Cohen: Maybe I misspoke. I think the point was that if they are a retailer, the logical thing to do would be to look at an area and try to put products on the shelves that they felt would appeal to the customers in those areas. Whatever that may be. For example, if they know the demographics in one neighborhood would like a certain shampoo, they'll put that shampoo on the shelf. They won't have the shampoo here that would appeal to somewhere in a more urban location let's say. I think that is their logic. They were wasting shelf space by having things that wouldn't appeal to the particular customers in the area because they had a generic store footprint.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Without putting words in your mouth, are you saying that the product on the shelves at Walgreen's will be geared toward the neighborhood and the anticipated customers that they think would be coming in to that store?

Edward Cohen: I think if you were opening a store that would be your intention as well. Anyone opening a store would want to try to appeal to the people they think they are going to be selling to. If I may just also say, I think the intention is that we be considered by the Board on a stand alone basis. I know that you brought up the idea of the surrounding properties, but the way we look at it, we are a property that is really locked on all sides by roads. We don't have any neighbors other than a roadway.

Chairman Cosentino: Yes, but our job is to consider the area as a whole. What traffic you are going to bring in to complicate matters on our main roads. The mitigation is very important to us in the surrounding area. So just because you have something there with a low car count, now you're bringing in something with a large car count, we have to consider other areas. That's a must.

David Cooper: If I can bring it back so we can understand what you would want for the formal application.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What is the name of the newsletter you subscribe to?

Edward Cohen: It slipped my mind. Can I give you the copy of the letter? It's an internet publication.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Sure.

David Cooper: I think what we're hearing from the Board what you're looking for is an analysis of the parking demand and the ability of this site to handle a Walgreen's type and style store in this area, and the traffic that would be generated from that type of store, and whether the spaces that are on the site right now, 119 spaces, would be able to handle that.

Chairman Cosentino: We'll decide that. We'll have some answers for you when you come back, but right now we don't have any answers. This is all new. But keep in mind that we are going to consider the area and what mitigation it's going to have on it.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: To pick up on your theme about the area and traffic patterns, maybe my fellow Board members should talk to the Village Board about getting an area site plan developed that includes not only this application but the unknown question mark across the street at the former Head Connection, and some of the other vacant stores in and around Armonk Road and look at this from a global point of view and addressing the points you raised about the traffic and impacts. I think an aerial site plan may be very, very useful for the Village as we look at the big picture.

Nanette Bourne: I have two comments. One is I think Mr. Cooper is right about the parking study, but I think it's a little more complicated than what he's describing because I think it needs to take into account the 23,000 square feet that is on site and do a parking accumulation study for them. What you are going to have to do is find a comparable Walgreen's, because you are not going to be able to collect real time data from the site because it doesn't exist. Also the Ben & Jerry's that's on the site that shares parking with you, and you have an agreement with an adjacent property owner, so you need to include in your parking study all of those factors that will be utilizing your parking lot. The second point is the aerial site plan that sits in a part of the Village that has a high degree of uncertainty right now. Not only 8,000 square feet vacant on this site, but there is a lot of other vacancies. Just how that traffic is is going to circulate, where it's going to park, how it's going to accumulate? This Board has spent a lot of time looking at Armonk Road trying to figure out how to make improvements to what you all consider a potentially hazardous intersection. It's not necessarily your fault, you happen to be in the middle of it.

David Cooper: If I can address just one point on the agreement, those agreements were temporary and had expiration dates.

Chairman Cosentino: No they weren't.

Edward Cohen: They had expiration dates. They expired.

Chairman Cosentino: Do you know about that Whitney? I didn't know about a temporary. I was on the Board at the time.

Nanette Bourne: Your letter says you have the resolution attached, but it's not part of here.

David Cooper: I have a copy for you.

Nanette Bourne: Didn't the resolutions address those parking spaces?

David Cooper: I don't want a conjecture on that issue, but in terms of an agreement with the neighborhood use of spaces, those agreements terminated and there is no agreement.

Whitney Singleton: The Deed which was conveyed to Mr. Cohen as part of an acquisition of this property and the development of this property had deed restrictions on it. Parking spaces that fell in this particular area would generally be available to other property owners within the vicinity. They were not dedicated solely to the uses on the site. That was a condition of the conveyance. To my recollection it had no temporal notes to it at all.

Chairman Cosentino: And I don't remember it, and I was on the Board then.

Whitney Singleton: They may be talking about private agreements they had with adjoining property owners.

Edward Cohen: I think that's actually correct. I think the particular spaces in question that were on that strip of property that was acquired were on a first come, first serve basis. The point is also that the resolution was approved for retail use with that in place.

Whitney Singleton: I'm not saying it wasn't.

Chairman Cosentino: Because there was no restriction on Park Avenue.

Whitney Singleton: It's a recorded document and we'll get the recorded document. I have two further comments. If, as Mr. Cohen pointed out, it's going to come back with an 8,500 square foot Walgreen's, that will trigger a Special Use Permit Application for your board and additionally if you can just verify, I'm not saying it hasn't been approved, is the parking inclusive or not inclusive of Ben & Jerry's? When you submit it formally make sure that's included. I also want to confirm that as part of this application there's not going to be a drive thru, correct?

Edward Cohen: No. This application is only to be approved for retail use.

Chairman Cosentino: When we see an application and we see Walgreen's on it, or others, we consider Walgreen's as part of the application. So you're saying leave Walgreen's out of it?

Edward Cohen: Yes, because the idea was that if we want to have a retail use there is not a lease in place. We're not married to them at this point, and we have to keep the options open. We can't attract anyone to the space until we have the retail use in place.

Chairman Cosentino: Nannette, do we need another application leaving Walgreen's out? The application is for Walgreen's or others. It's a cloud. I would rather see it just for the retail and let him come in with something.

Nanette Bourne: You're right. It doesn't make any sense to do a study of Walgreen's traffic if it's not going to be there.

Edward Cohen: The idea was that parking was going to be the issue.

Chairman Cosentino: I'm asking for another application leaving Walgreen's off and just retail. Void this one out. I want to work just with retail, not somebody else that might come in, because during the application I'm going to be considering Walgreen's.

Edward Cohen: In the event that Walgreen's does decide to take the space and it's been approved for retail that would obviously fall within retail.

Chairman Cosentino: We'll work on it, yes. But I'm not going to work on retail not knowing what is going in there.

Whitney Singleton: If they're going to come in with a use that is going to require a special use permit, they have to come back to you anyway. The concept of the Special Use Permit is that it has certain issues attended with a specific focus and attention of your board in accordance with the special permit regulations of the code.

Chairman Cosentino: If we decide to give you retail, whatever you put in here, you're going to have to come back with a special use permit anyway.

Doug Hertz: Why does he need a Special Use Permit?

Whitney Singleton: Because of the size, 8,000 square feet. It depends on the use though. Different uses have different triggers. Any retail use in excess of 8,000 square feet triggers it.

Doug Hertz: So we are suggesting that they come back with a formal application and a Special Use Permit simultaneously?

Chairman Cosentino: They can come back with the same application. They're only going to drop Walgreen's out of it. It's just going to be for retail.

Nanette Bourne: I think the question is should they come back with a formal application that works these things out or come back with a conceptual so they can get your reaction to it?

Chairman Cosentino: For a conceptual I would want to know what is going to go there.

Whitney Singleton: Or theoretically they could say we are going to break up the space for four tenants, general retail, and none of them are going to have 8,000 square feet. I think they need to establish what they want to come forward with. That's the best way to leave it. Have them confer with Nanette before applying formally.

Nanette Bourne: The Board is trying to give you some feedback on a use that is not known. They are struggling to tell you something that forms how you move forward, but you're not giving them anything to hold onto.

David Cooper: Part of the problem is without the ability to say a potential tenant; it's very tough to market this space. So what we are proposing to do and have done with our traffic analysis already is to study for the worst case scenario. The type of retail that would generate the largest use and make sure that the spaces on site at this moment are more than enough to accommodate that use. That I think is a much more reasonable way to go about doing it. Only because you are tying our hands behind our back without saying you have to find a tenant first.

Nanette Bourne: Do you realize that you're tying your own hands behind your back by going over the 8,000 square feet by your special permit, and I don't think that was your intention.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: The chairman will be back in a moment, and we need to wind this conversation down. Mr. Cohen, if you want to add a couple of quick thoughts, please do.

Richard Cohen: The status right now is very, very difficult for us. We are frozen in place wanting to go back to the retail status that was conferred to us by the Planning Board not long ago, and our objective is to get to that as soon as possible. Everyday that is delayed we have tremendous financial loss. We want to avert that. So maybe the best solution is to grant us the opportunity to go back to retail the way it was before, and by the way, we thought that UBS as a bank was considered to be a retail operation. They had a counter; they had people walking in off the street. They weren't selling products, but they were selling securities. What we would like to see here is to help us prevent this major loss that is occurring, loss of rent, allow us to rent it as a retail space the way it is and then if we make progress with Walgreen's we will come in with a special request for a special permit if it's going beyond 8,000 square feet.

Chairman Cosentino: The Building Inspector has already determined that this was office space and not retail, so how could we give you something back which he determined as office?

David Cooper: I think what we're saying is the same thing. If we get an approval for a Change of Use Permit, showing and proving that worst case scenario on this site the parking is going to accommodate the demand, then after that approval….

Chairman Cosentino: The demand to what?

David Cooper: To a general retail.

Nanette Bourne: This should be less than 8,000 square feet.

David Cooper: Yes, then, if and when that occurs; that we find a tenant who wants to use more than 8,000 square feet of course we have to come back and get a special permit. But at this point, you're requiring us to do both things at the same time, it's very difficult.

Nanette Bourne: That's what the Chairman is asking you to do. Withdraw your Walgreen's application.

Richard Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I have a Certificate of Occupancy in hand for the building that describes the entire building for retail use.

Chairman Cosentino: But you didn't use it as that. You used it as office.

Edward Cohen: That's a gray area.

Chairman Cosentino: I have to go by the Building Inspector.

Edward Cohen: But the tenant was paying a retail rent. The tenant is a sophisticated organization and knows what he's doing.

Chairman Cosentino: I'm trying to say this as clearly as possible. The Building Inspector in the Village of Mount Kisco has determined that the space is office space, not retail. Until we change that, which could be done, it's office. Nothing else. His determination is office. This Board has to go by that determination. You should know that.

Whitney Singleton: Yes, you were originally approved with 100 percent retail. I don't know whether there's been a change in the parking requirement or not that would trigger higher parking. That is one of the things you may or may not need to look at. But with regard to a bank, a bank is separate identified use in our code because of parking requirements. Part Two, the amount of rents that UBS was paying or whoever was paying it that is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant here is the use that has been occurring and I would presume that when the space was re-tenant-ed, on other uses and refitted for those uses, than Mr. Cassidy issued Certificate of Occupancy consistent with those uses. That superceded any prior Certificates of Occupancy. I don't think your issues here are as bad or as insurmountable as you think that they may be. If you want to come back with commercial uses you have to be able to demonstrate that you can satisfy the parking requirement for those square footages on the aggregate of the entire site plan. There will be no Special Use Permit triggered for any application unless and until you propose a tenant which has a square footage threshold which exceeds the code.

Stanley Bernstein: It seems as if we are bouncing around here. This really begs for an area site plan. It has to be studied in more detail than we're studying. If he's not doing a change of use, there is nothing we can do, but if he wants to maximize his property, I think this absolutely calls for a site plan review to see where we are.

Nanette Bourne: Mr. Chairman Do you want something to go to the Village Board about an aerial site plan?

Chairman Cosentino: Yes. The Vice Chair brought it up and I think it's good. If in fact a change of use is going to be given to them and a large retailer is going to come in.

Richard Cohen: So just to summarize, the process is the first step is to take Walgreen's out and if there is a tenant in excess of 8,000 it will be a different application.

Chairman Cosentino: Right.

Richard Cohen: Thank you.

Conceptual Application:

CVS

Caremark Corporation

421 Main Street

10 South Bedford Road

PB2008-17

Present: Neil Alexander

Shannon Rutherford,

Tim Henry, Larson Design

John Ritacco, Bank President Community Mutual

Doug Murray, Developer of the site for CVS (vendor to CVS)

Neil Alexander: I think Austin did a great job of summarizing a lot of what we are looking to address now that the store is open on the intersection of Route 117 and 172. As you know, it has been bank retail combination for over four decades, CVS has re-tenant-ed the space that was once Grand Union, and then Stop and Shop and CVS is open for business in there currently. They are looking to upgrade the facades, put in rear entrance and also upgrade that and create a façade presence for there. As you know, there is a fair amount of property to the south towards Leonard Park that is under utilized today. The bank is also looking to come in as a tenant. Before they filed for building permits, we wanted to let you know about them and their interest in moving forward with the Building Department as part of the amended site plan approval. Tim will now go over some of the aesthetic improvements from the four different facades and Shannon will go over some of the site changes and improvement, i.e., storm water, vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation and the like.

Tim Henry: The existing building now has a mansard roof that runs from end to end across the entire front and this is enclosed, also from end to end with the doors on either end of the store. We're proposing to remove part of the vestibule on both ends and build a gabled roof over the top of the front entry areas keeping both entrances on the ends, but it would be actually smaller.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: What is the date on that drawing?

Tim Henry: July 7, 2008.

Vice Chairman Sturniolo: Thank you.

Tim Henry: The front glass that is there now is going to remain. We were going to wrap the existing brick pillars in wood pilasters across the front and also have wood framing along the entire top with columns on the ends to blend in with the entire front of the building as some of them are in bad shape. The columns on this end would be re-wrapped to match the other columns across the rest of the existing building. This would be the bank side of the building and we would be removing the existing gables that are above these windows that are in poor shape. Basically on this side of the building we are repairing and painting. There is a band along the bottom that is in poor shape that is going to be removed and replaced and painted to match the existing building. On the rear of the building we are proposing an entrance from the rear of the building into the store due to the amount of parking that is on the rear of the lot. The existing loading dock area would be slightly reconfigured for the truck to come in at an angle rather than the existing truck entrance which is there now which is at a 90 degree angle to the building perpendicular. The compactor area that also is existing there we propose to remove and relocate to another smaller compactor area somewhere else on the site. The other side of the building is being patched and repainted to match the existing material that is there now.

Stanley Bernstein: With all these changes and updates, we're going to leave the west … the way it is? This is the entrance to Mount Kisco. This has to look like something.

Chairman Cosentino: That's up to the ARB. Good question.

Stanley Bernstein: We ought to present something to the ARB on this.

Chairman Cosentino: We intend to. Opening up the back is a plus with lights, etc., because you'll be utilizing more parking in the back than you will in the front. But I think besides what the ARB has to do when you talk to them, I think you have to address the radius on the egress and ingress that the Building Inspector wrote in the memo here. Those are important to us. Are shopping carts going to be allowed to be taken out?

Shannon Rutherford: They are permitted to be removed from the store, but CVS typically does not have cart corrals within their parking area. They are brought back to the front of the store. T