1 STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF CORTLANDT PLANNING BOARD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X Minutes of Regular Meeting. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X March 1, 2005 8:00 p.m. Town Hall 1 Heady Street Cortlandt Manor, New York B E F O R E : Steven Kessler, Chairman Loretta Taylor, Vice-Chairperson (Absent) John Bernard, Board Member Thomas A. Bianchi, Board Member Robert Foley, Board Member Ivan Kline, Board Member Susan Todd, Board Member (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Edward Vergano, Department of Technical Services John J. Klarl, Esq., Deputy Town Attorney Kenneth Verschoor, Deputy Director for Planning Chris Kehoe, Planning Division Richard Cohen, Conservation Advisory Council 2 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Roll call, please, 2 Mr. Verschoor. 3 MR. VERSCHOOR: Chairman Kessler. 4 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Here. 5 MR. VERSCHOOR: Mr. Bernard? 6 MR. BERNARD: Here. 7 MR. VERSCHOOR: Mr. Bianchi? 8 MR. BIANCHI: Here. 9 MR. VERSCHOOR: Mr. Foley? 10 MR. FOLEY: Here. 11 MR. VERSCHOOR: Mr. Kline? 12 MR. KLINE: Here. 13 MR. VERSCHOOR: Ms. Taylor, absent. Ms. 14 Todd, absent. Mr. Vergano? 15 MR. VERGANO: Here. 16 MR. VERSCHOOR: Mr. Kehoe? 17 MR. KEHOE: Here. 18 MR. VERSCHOOR: Mr. Cohen? 19 MR. COHEN: Here. 20 MR. VERSCHOOR: Mr. Klarl? 21 MR. KLARL: Here. 22 MR. VERSCHOOR: And myself. 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We have no changes to 24 the agenda this evening. Moving onto the 3 1 agenda. 2 First item is a resolution of the 3 application of Teatown Lake Reservation, 4 Inc., for renewal of a special permit for a 5 private nature preserve open to the public to 6 conduct a summer camp program, school 7 program, weekend public program, weekday 8 public program, and organic farming program 9 at Cliffdale Farm, located on the north side 10 of Teatown Road approximately 3,000 feet east 11 of Quaker Ridge Road as shown on a drawing 12 entitled, "Special Permit Map, Cliffdale Farm 13 North," prepared by Ralph Mastromonaco, dated 14 September 14, 2004. 15 Good evening. Staff has prepared a 16 resolution, approving resolution. We 17 discussed this at the work session and there 18 seems to be one issue, and that is condition 19 No. 5. And condition No. 5 deals with the 20 monitoring of the number of vehicles and 21 participants utilizing the programs at 22 Teatown. And the specific issue is whether 23 those surveys should be conducted by staff of 24 Teatown or an independent monitor to be paid 4 1 for by Teatown. 2 MS. FELCHER: If I may. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Sure. 4 MS. FELCHER: I'm Nancy Felcher, (proper 5 noun subject to correction), I'm chairman of 6 the education committee and on the board of 7 Teatown. And I would like to address this 8 question on monitoring. Do you mind if I 9 take this off? 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: No, not at all. 11 MS. FELCHER: Thank you. This is better 12 if I wear high heels. As you know, we have 13 had negotiations with the Teatown Road 14 Association over a period of time. And 15 several months ago we sent you conditions for 16 this new five-year permit that incorporated 17 an understanding reached between that 18 association and Teatown Lake Reservation. 19 And in that understanding there was a 20 technique that we had agreed to for dealing 21 with the dispute about traffic. 22 Teatown agreed, as I think I said 23 before, to count staff trips up to and back, 24 which we've never done before, to keep logs 5 1 of those staff trips up and down Teatown 2 Road, which, again, we have never done 3 before, and file those logs with the Town of 4 Cortlandt. 5 It was our hope, my hope, and I believe 6 the hope of the Teatown Road Association, 7 that because those logs would be available in 8 the Town of Cortlandt, they would be 9 available for everyone to look at and judge 10 for themselves where we were against the 11 numbers we promised to keep. 12 We don't think that monitoring is 13 appropriate, first, because this new régime 14 of logs for counting the cars is something 15 that has satisfied the Teatown Road 16 Association when we met with them. 17 Second, because there is no showing here 18 of the sort of violation that would lead this 19 board to impose monitors of this kind on us. 20 It may be appropriated at any time, which I 21 sincerely believe will not happen, but if at 22 any time there were a showing of a violation, 23 we would be brought before the board and you 24 could place monitors. 6 1 But at this point it seems to us to be 2 imposing a, quote, punishment on us before 3 there is a crime. And so, it feels 4 inappropriate and it feels to us to convey 5 the wrong message in addition to being 6 inappropriate. So, that's the relief first. 7 Second, the cost of monitoring, and 8 there is no discrepancy in the resolution of 9 the scope of monitoring or when it would be 10 done or how it would be done, who it would be 11 done by. So, the cost of monitoring could 12 vary widely. And we are, as you know, a 13 not-for-profit institution, and we really 14 have no way to pass those costs on, say, to 15 raising them from donors. Again, that's a 16 little bit of hard sell. It's one thing 17 you're asking donors to give you money for a 18 program, it's another thing if you're asking 19 them to pay for a monitoring program that was 20 imposed without any finding of fault. 21 So, that's a little disturbing, both in 22 terms of trying to pass it on and also the 23 story you would tell when you were raising 24 those funds. 7 1 So, those are my comments on the 2 monitoring. And I did have one other comment 3 on the resolution, if you would like me to 4 hold that until after this point is 5 discussed, then I'll do that. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: No, that's okay 7 what's the other point? 8 MS. FELCHER: The other point was that 9 she wanted advanced scheduling for our 10 programs. I think that's condition No. 6. 11 And, so, I gather that's advanced schedule, 12 although it doesn't say advanced, but I 13 expect it is. 14 When we discussed this last I said to you 15 that our program changes often. And perhaps 16 I wasn't clear, they change on a day-to-day 17 basis. One of the activities, for instance, 18 would be in that monthly list of future 19 activities would be when the CSA volunteers 20 going up to weed or to harvest. And while 21 those things might be predictable within a 22 certain period of time, if it rains or if 23 it's cold, or if the thing hasn't grown as 24 quickly as it should, those things would be 8 1 changed. 2 Secondly, schools apparently -- 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Is that part of the 4 program though? 5 MS. FELCHER: Yes, it's all proposed 6 programs, activities, and bus trips. I was 7 assuming that every single thing we do at 8 Cliffdale, we're counting traffic for the 9 CSA. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Attached to this 11 resolution is a list of programs. 12 MS. FELCHER: Not including the CSA. 13 MR. KLINE: It doesn't really make it 14 clear what's covered. 15 MS. FELCHER: No, it doesn't. 16 MR. KLINE: Activity could be anything, 17 I suppose. 18 MS. FELCHER: Correct. We're happy to 19 give you advanced schedule as long as you 20 understand it could change significantly in 21 some ways large, small, and that is an 22 example. But it's also true that some 23 schools, for instance, will cancel their 24 trips on a moment's notice for whatever 9 1 reason and then we'll hustle around to fill 2 in that slot. We might not be able to. 3 So, there are changes, they're 4 significant, some of them are more 5 significant than others. Many of them are 6 last minute things. Let's say we scheduled a 7 weekend program for something, and one or two 8 people sign up. We might choose to cancel 9 that program. 10 And, so I think that the monthly program 11 that you get may be more misleading and cause 12 more trouble because people are running 13 around trying to figure out if our traffic is 14 in relation to this or that or the other 15 thing. And, so, without -- I don't know, 16 without more clarity, it somewhat just gives 17 me pause. 18 MR. FOLEY: What would be the high end 19 of change or lesser change? If you made a 20 change to the program, what would be the 21 volume or the scope of that change, if it was 22 changed? 23 MS. FELCHER: We might have a school 24 cancel, you might have a weekend program for 10 1 a significant number of people. 2 MR. FOLEY: Canceled? 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Would it increase the 4 intensity? 5 MS. FELCHER: It would increase. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: The intensity of the 7 program. I don't think anyone has an issue 8 with you if you cancel. But the question is, 9 if you have a program, would there be an 10 increased intensity that could occur? 11 MS. FELCHER: It would not violate the 12 permit in any event. I mean, that we would 13 not schedule a program that would violate the 14 permit. 15 So, then if we had a slot, let's say for 16 a school program but we had not scheduled 17 one, and somebody called on a Friday and 18 wanted something to be scheduled, and we 19 would do that if we had room in the permit 20 for it. 21 So, it seems to us that the limit on our 22 right to schedule things is not time driven 23 but rather number driven. We have a certain 24 number of schools, we have a certain number 11 1 of staff and so forth. 2 And, so, if there's an implication given 3 by this forward looking monthly program 4 that's set in stone, that's not an 5 implication we want to rest unaddressed, 6 because there will be changes and they may be 7 significant. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: It sounds like the 9 list of programs that you were asked to 10 furnish is the worst possible case. In terms 11 of intensity, if anything else, the intensity 12 may be reduced because the event may be 13 canceled. 14 MS. FELCHER: The intensity may be 15 reduced. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I think the issue was 17 just so that there is a public record of the 18 program so that the neighbors have some sense 19 of what may or may not occur on any given day 20 in the area. I think that's all. 21 MS. FELCHER: That's each of you, as 22 long as I said, it's understood the program 23 could change for any reason. As long as it's 24 not viewed as something we have asked, we 12 1 have no objection to filing that. 2 MR. KLINE: Do you maintain a website? 3 MS. FELCHER: We do have a website. 4 MR. KLINE: Can you post on a website on 5 a weekly basis or something what you 6 anticipate will be the activities coming up? 7 MS. FELCHER: We post quarterly, 8 apparently. And, honestly, I think that this 9 monthly subscription to you probably would be 10 more current and accurate. 11 But, again, the use is, just to give the 12 neighbors some idea of what's going on. We 13 also have a quarterly publication we send out 14 called Trails that has our programs of the 15 upcoming listed. And that's something that 16 everybody has and it's publicly available. 17 We also send an Internet notice to our 18 members about programs that we want them to 19 pay attention to that are coming up. So, 20 those are my comments on the school program. 21 Is there anything else that you -- any 22 questions? 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: My only question is 24 simple, with this monitoring agreement, staff 13 1 indicated at the work session that the cost 2 may be something on the order of, at most, 3 $1,500 a year for monitoring. Does that 4 change your view of what you're telling us in 5 terms of? 6 MS. FELCHER: I don't know what kind of 7 monitoring that would pay for. And I checked 8 today to see what it would cost to have 9 somebody standing there counting cars. And 10 those guys offered, you know, by a private 11 company, $35 an hour. So, $1,500 gets spent 12 very quickly, if that's what you're thinking 13 of. I just don't know what kind of 14 monitoring -- 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Well, we have 16 Mr. Vergano who is more familiar with this 17 than I am. 18 MR. VERGANO: If the board chooses to 19 require monitoring, again, it would be paid 20 for by the applicant, would be subject to an 21 agreement with spelled out conditions and 22 costs. At the -- you said at the -- as the 23 Chairman mentioned at the work session we 24 talked about $1,500. Again, this is not -- 14 1 this was done for another facility in town 2 and it wasn't difficult to keep it around 3 that rate. $35 sounds a little bit high. We 4 were able to get someone a little bit cheaper 5 than that. If we have a cap, we'll cap it, 6 if that gives you any level of comfort. 7 But one thing I want to comment on, the 8 reason for monitoring is not a punishment, 9 that's not true, it's just a better guarantee 10 of accurate counting of vehicles traveling to 11 and from the site. 12 MR. KLINE: Ed, one of the things we're 13 thinking about since our work session, with 14 the camp, you had a finite number of days and 15 you had certain specific times with campers 16 coming and going from camp. I mean, just 17 reading a description of sort of the programs 18 and activities, I don't see how you would 19 actually determine compliance or 20 non-compliance through use of a monitor other 21 than on a rather extensive time period, which 22 would, I mean, common sense tells you, it 23 would cost more than, a lot more than $1,500. 24 MR. VERGANO: I don't see a monitor 15 1 sitting there eight hours a day. 2 MR. KLINE: Is it more a test or do you 3 need to know are they exceeding some monthly 4 or annual limitation? You just can't -- 5 MR. VERGANO: It's the board's call. Try 6 it for a couple months, maybe first month if 7 it works out, then so be it. Again, it's 8 really the board's decision. 9 MS. FELCHER: Our program, as you guys 10 are not aware of, runs from April through the 11 end of November, and that includes a vast 12 variety of programs, including things that 13 are not counted like people who come to do 14 hiking and, you know, at our premises and 15 will actually pull onto the premises. And it 16 requires -- if you're actually on site, to 17 figure out if we're complying with what we've 18 agreed to, you not only have to count cars, 19 you have to figure out why cars are there and 20 what reason. And, so, you really have to 21 intercept the cars and say are you here to 22 hike or are you here to do something else. 23 It seems to me that it would be more 24 extensive than that if you were to do 16 1 anything in a serious way and then burdensome 2 and intrusive. 3 MR. VERGANO: Again, in all due respect, 4 I think you can cap the cost, all right, 5 after that, that should alleviate some of 6 your concerns. And then spell out the 7 specific events, summer camp for example, 8 maybe someone's there in the morning and then 9 somebody's there in the evening, that's it. 10 You're not sitting there eight hours a day. 11 And see how it compares to the projected 12 numbers, if it's close, then you know after a 13 couple months, then we abandon it. 14 MS. FELCHER: Summer camp, those guys 15 are actually coming by buses, so they are 16 staff people, but the staff people -- 17 MR. VERGANO: That's just an example. 18 It could be done a different way also. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On your proposal, 20 somebody, a staff member, would be doing the 21 monitoring? 22 MS. FELCHER: Under our proposal every 23 staff person that drives up to Teatown Road 24 would keep a log and would indicate the day 17 1 and the purpose of the trip, and then that 2 would be filed with the board. And on the 3 matrix, that would be on the left, it would 4 stay staff member A, such and such a day, 5 trip such and such a time for such and such a 6 purpose. And then along the top it would 7 show how many trips are permitted in the 8 month for that particular type of activity. 9 And, so, we would be able to add them up and 10 see if we had exceeded our number of 11 permissible trips to the site for, let's say, 12 accompanying school buses or -- the 13 arrangement that we negotiated with the 14 Teatown Association is very particular. It 15 specifies how many buses per program, how 16 many accompanying staff per school program, 17 let's say, a chaperone per program. 18 So, it's extremely specific and, so, we 19 thought, and they thought at the time, that 20 it was appropriate to just simply keep a list 21 of these uses, have every staff person keep a 22 log, and then send those to the Town of 23 Cortlandt where everybody could look at them, 24 our neighbors, anybody could look at them. 18 1 They would be available for public 2 inspection. 3 MR. BIANCHI: If I could, I really just 4 want to leave the monitoring. I think that's 5 the only way we can address some of these, 6 not some, but all issues brought up by the 7 public on this case. And not to say that 8 your records would not be accurate, but I 9 think an independent monitor, so to speak, 10 even though you would be paying for it, would 11 be more credible, okay. 12 I think the answer to how it should be 13 done, lodged somewhere around for the 14 specification for monitoring, how often do 15 you do it? And I think monitoring has to be 16 tied into your, at least proposed schedule of 17 activities. And maybe taking the right times 18 and doing an independent count at the right 19 times would be more useful than providing the 20 information that you're providing, that you 21 would provide. 22 MR. KLINE: And if I could just, my 23 concern is just, you know, I'm looking now at 24 -- if we're going to follow the summary 19 1 that's been agreed to between, as attached to 2 this resolution, I don't see how a monitor, 3 other than by sitting there virtually every 4 day of the time they're open is going to 5 monitor for this. Because if you have a 6 maximum of 80 school buses will be used per 7 year, how are you going to monitor that by 8 standing out there ever for a month? You may 9 find there were eight that month. What does 10 that prove how many there were? There's no 11 number set for the month. There's no -- or 12 the weekend public programming, it says 13 there, you know, maximum number of programs 14 will be 16 per year, 11 events will be 15 committed with one to 20 attendees and so 16 forth. I don't see how you will monitor 17 that, other than by knowing all of -- all the 18 numbers for all of the year. The weekday 19 public programming is similar. I, you know, 20 the public may not like it, but I think 21 self-reporting is, as a practical matter, is 22 the only way this can be done absent a 23 tremendous expense. 24 MR. BIANCHI: That's a lot of days. 20 1 Somebody has to do something with that data 2 and analyze it and then compare it and then 3 take action. And I think that the fact that 4 it's too much data to impose on staff that 5 would probably have to do that. 6 MS. FELCHER: Well perhaps, perhaps, 7 just a suggestion, that someone take the data 8 that is supplied and then compare it against 9 the agreed upon caps and just look at the 10 data supplied against what we've agreed to to 11 make sure that these are a match there. I 12 mean, if staff uses that information, it may 13 well be than having an independent person do 14 that up to a cap of something, that seems to 15 me to be sensible. It's the on-site 16 visitations that I think you're hoping will 17 give you more information than you will 18 actually get, given the nature of the 19 agreement that we have, which is very 20 specific about the types of uses and the 21 number of cars per use and per day and per 22 program. 23 So, if what you want is sort of an 24 analysis of material submitted, I think that 21 1 that's appropriate, assuming that there is a 2 cap on that. 3 MR. BIANCHI: I saw a sample of your 4 spreadsheet, but I wasn't sure how that was, 5 I guess too fragmented. I didn't see how it 6 was going to work. Everybody that drives to 7 and from will enter information somehow in a 8 log which will get combined in that 9 spreadsheet, is that what you're saying? 10 MS. FELCHER: Yes, there's certain 11 expected categories, expected out of those 12 categories such as hikers, for instance, who 13 don't have to, you know, go drive to the 14 site, they're not subject to the reporting 15 requirement. 16 MR. BIANCHI: How do you check 17 compliance with that? 18 MS. FELCHER: With the hikers? 19 MR. BIANCHI: With the staff? 20 MS. FELCHER: With the staff, it's 21 primarily staff reporting function. We 22 should be able to have our staff do that. 23 It's not -- we're not asking the public to 24 fill those logs out. These are staff 22 1 members. 2 The basic discussion and dispute with the 3 folks on Teatown Road was really not the 4 program traffic, we addressed that, but 5 rather that the staff people that come along 6 with the programs was more than they 7 anticipated it. And, so, to deal with that 8 -- and we never counted staff before. And, 9 so, to deal with that, we said, we'll have 10 the staff limited and we'll have the staff 11 folks fill in logs and count their trips. 12 And, so, there would be permit violation if 13 more staff people accompanied the school 14 buses than we had agreed to. And, so, that 15 spreadsheet is really just to accommodate 16 staff log and, so, the way we could enforce 17 that is, the way you would enforce any 18 obligation you would impose on staff in our 19 organization -- 20 MR. BIANCHI: What about visitors, people 21 using the facility, et cetera, what about 22 that traffic? 23 MS. FELCHER: They come by bus or 24 they're accompanied by staff in which case 23 1 the staff will log them. 2 MR. BIANCHI: A staff member drives a 3 bus, you consider that person a staff member, 4 for instance? 5 MS. FELCHER: Or there would be a bus 6 driver but the staff would log that trip. 7 MR. BIANCHI: Log it in? 8 MS. FELCHER: Not technically a staff 9 person, but responsible to -- a chaperone 10 that goes with them, and so the chaperone is 11 staff person and would log that. 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So, the only vehicle 13 count would be staff's own vehicle which may 14 or may not include other people in it as well 15 as a bus? 16 MS. FELCHER: We're assuming that the 17 staff carpools, that's part of -- right, the 18 bus, the CSA volunteers will be obligated to 19 fill out a log. 20 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: They come in their 21 own cars? 22 MS. FELCHER: We carpool them so as to 23 reduce -- and this is generally carpool at 24 the farmer's direction. And, so, the farmer 24 1 would be the staff person responsible for 2 that logging. We log at Teatown of the 3 volunteer hours, for instance, so every 4 volunteer that goes there to work must log 5 because we file that with all the other 6 paperwork. You know, our volunteer hours are 7 very important to us. So, we're used to 8 keeping records like this. It's just the 9 staff hasn't kept it for the trips they take 10 up and down Teatown Road. 11 MR. BIANCHI: We have set limits on as 12 to what traffic we count, we need these, what 13 the different categories are. 14 MR. VERGANO: Right. 15 MR. BIANCHI: And put that on one sheet 16 and report that periodically, whatever that 17 is. 18 MS. FELCHER: Monthly. 19 MR. BIANCHI: That's what you propose? 20 MS. FELCHER: That's right. So, on the 21 sheet would be principal limits and the 22 actual staff trips that month. And then you 23 would get it -- get that at the end of the 24 month for the preceding month. And it would 25 1 be available to the neighbors to check for 2 compliance as well as staff or whatever you 3 felt was appropriate. 4 MR. FOLEY: On a monthly basis you're 5 saying? 6 MS. FELCHER: Yes. 7 MR. FOLEY: What happens if there's a 8 crisis situation in the middle of the month, 9 is there anything that the town can do, you 10 know, for the neighbors' sake, something the 11 town can do as volunteer the heavier volume 12 of activities? 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Why don't we add a 14 condition then that, you know, assuming this 15 thing gets submitted for monthly -- I don't 16 know, what are you talking about, starting in 17 April? 18 MS. FELCHER: April 1st. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: April 1st. Maybe at 20 the end of three months we review the logs 21 and bring it back. You know, with some 22 understanding that those -- there is a 23 condition here if we approve this with 24 self-reporting, that the condition also 26 1 reflect that, that based on this board's 2 prerogative, that we can change that to 3 professional monitoring; okay? 4 MS. FELCHER: And with all of this, with 5 a cap if we come back, because I'm mindful of 6 our financial limitation. The thought is 7 three months, so it would be April, May, 8 June. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: April, May, June. 10 Yeah, assuming, that we'll get those reports 11 sometime early July and staff will analyze it 12 and may come back to our August, early August 13 meeting, on August, you know, 1st or 14 whatever, first week in August. 15 MS. FELCHER: Okay. 16 MR. FOLEY: And staff would have someone 17 acting on it quickly and be able to review it 18 right away. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We'll give it to Ken. 20 MS. FELCHER: And if the particular form 21 that we sent you doesn't work for some reason 22 or another, talk to us, because this is not 23 meant to be difficult. It's really meant to 24 be as easy to read as humanly possible. 27 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Well, why don't we 2 just have the main work on the form so we're 3 all clear going into this thing, you know, so 4 he gets something that he feels he can 5 analyze as they come rolling in. 6 MR. BIANCHI: Speaking for myself, could 7 that be circulated to us during this period 8 of time so we can get copies of it also? 9 MR. VERSCHOOR: Absolutely, absolutely. 10 MR. BIANCHI: That's more eyes, maybe. 11 MR. VERSCHOOR: We want to reword 12 condition No. 5 in the resolution? 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yup. 14 MR. KLINE: I think it's going to work 15 better if you just take out 5 and put this in 16 8, because self-reporting is in 8. 17 MR. VERSCHOOR: That's already in there, 18 self-reporting. 19 MR. KLINE: Right, it's probably going 20 to read better to cross out 5 and renumber 21 and put the extra language in number, what is 22 now No. 8. 23 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 24 MS. FELCHER: In 8, then I think all you 28 1 need to do is add a condition we'll come back 2 August 1st for review by the planning board. 3 MR. FOLEY: Will we receive monthly 4 reports so if staff doesn't see a red flag 5 and one of us does? 6 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes. 7 MR. SLOAN: I would like to make a point 8 of order. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: You have to identify 10 yourself and speak into the microphone, 11 please. 12 MR. SLOAN: Thank you. I would like to 13 make a point of order on the closing public 14 hearing on the 25th of January. My name is 15 Peter Sloan, 163 Teatown Road. 16 The Teatown Road Voluntary Association 17 came to the agreement with Teatown 18 Preservation. At the time we were not aware 19 of Nancy Felcher's January 25th letter to the 20 planning board. It wasn't available for the 21 public record at the time of the meeting, we 22 didn't have copies of it, we didn't have 23 access to it prior to the meeting. 24 The problem is that this letter is a 29 1 poster child letter for independent 2 monitoring. We cannot spend another five 3 years going back and forth in a 4 he-said-she-said-you-said-I-said situation 5 where we don't have verifiable, accurate 6 information about who is doing what when. 7 This is going on for five years now. We 8 had Gail Abrams operating the CSA program in 9 2002 without a special permit. Gail Abrams 10 came back, made a special permit application, 11 promised everybody that there would be X 12 number of carpool car trips for that CSA 13 program for the year 2003. And we ended up 14 with hundreds of staff trips in and out of 15 Cliffdale Farm that were not what we were 16 promised to cover the CSA program. 17 So, essentially, whether or not we're 18 dealing with a monitor that comes in on a 19 spot basis and does spot checks or a 20 full-time monitor, we need monitoring because 21 Teatown Lake Reservation has proven over the 22 last five years they cannot monitor 23 themselves, and that is the essence of the 24 problem. 30 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Do the neighbors want 2 to help pay for the cost of the monitoring? 3 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I can speak to 4 that. 5 MR. BERNARD: You've got money? 6 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I was waiting 7 until you asked the question that brought me 8 up here. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: It wasn't directed to 10 you, Bill. 11 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: No, I know, but I 12 mean, you referred to the neighbors. The 13 gentleman who I'm taking my instructions from 14 is Mr. Secunda (proper noun subject to 15 correction). He was the person who was the 16 spokesperson for the Teatown Road Voluntary 17 Association. And, anticipating this issue 18 might come up tonight, he said to me that I 19 was authorized to commit him to reimburse up 20 to one-half the cost of any monitoring that 21 the board might require, but at the same 22 time, not to state that his organization is 23 necessarily supporting the inclusion of that 24 requirement. 31 1 I want to be clear on that. They made a 2 deal, it was set forth in the agreement 3 attached to the resolution, they intend to 4 abide by it. The introduction of the concept 5 of monitoring came from a source other than 6 that. 7 To the extent the board chooses to impose 8 it as a requirement, Mr. Secunda has agreed 9 to defray one-half that cost, I think, on an 10 annual basis up to $2,500; is that right, 11 Tom, for the life of the special permit? 12 MR. SECUNDA: Half of the $2,500. 13 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Half of the $2,500 14 for the life of the special permit. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So, $1,250. 16 MR. KLARL: $1,250. 17 MR. SLOAN: I would just like to add the 18 faxes and letters that you received over the 19 last couple days came because of the 20 discovery of this letter. The problems that 21 we, the TVRA members, were not aware of this 22 letter prior to making the deal. 23 So, the majority of the letters in the 24 form of faxes or e-mails that you received 32 1 over the last two days came from TVRA members 2 after the fact who were not aware of this 3 letter. And the fact that we can't be 4 expected on Teatown Road to monitor the 5 situation and then have Teatown Lake 6 Reservation dispute the monitoring that we 7 are doing; I don't have another five years to 8 spend doing this and no one else on Teatown 9 Road has five years to spend doing this. 10 MR. KLINE: I'm kind of confused. I 11 don't see what in this letter you're 12 referring to in any way affects what the 13 agreement was. 14 MR. SLOAN: Well, if you go back to my 15 letter of -- 16 MR. KLINE: Nor were the letters that 17 have come in since responsive, in any way 18 responsive to this letter. 19 MR. SLOAN: The problem is, we agreed to 20 let monitoring slide at that time because we 21 believed that there would be good faith, but 22 there hasn't been good faith. 23 When you look at my letter of the 12th 24 and the response here on the 25th, we can't 33 1 sit around and argue between ourselves who is 2 doing the monitoring and come before the 3 board. You want us to come before the board 4 and have an argument about who is monitoring 5 is accurate? 6 MR. KLINE: No, you started off this 7 whole process with an obvious disagreement 8 with some of the things that occurred in the 9 past and about whether all conditions had or 10 had not been complied with. An agreement was 11 reached. 12 MR. SLOAN: An agreement was -- 13 MR. KLINE: No, no, let me address this 14 one point you raised in the letter. And you 15 may have a continuing disagreement about a 16 specific event with these Hopeway Youth, 17 about what they were doing. 18 MR. SLOAN: What they are doing with the 19 monitoring. 20 MR. KLINE: I don't see how that in any 21 way affects the agreement that was reached. 22 MR. SLOAN: We're asking for monitoring. 23 We're offering to pay 50 percent of it. I'm 24 not sure why, if anyone has nothing to hide 34 1 here, what's the problem with monitoring? 2 MR. BERNARD: Who is the we that is 3 offering to pay half? 4 MR. SLOAN: The TVRA. 5 MR. BERNARD: That's not my 6 understanding from Mr. Secunda. 7 MR. SLOAN: The TVRA. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: It's not you 9 personally? Why don't you come up to the 10 microphone, please. It's not you personally, 11 I guess, is the point. 12 MR. SECUNDA: Again, I didn't expect -- 13 Tom Secunda, 62 Teatown Road. I didn't 14 expect to have to speak tonight and not talk 15 to my neighbors about this. But if this 16 becomes an issue I'm sure my neighbors will 17 come up with the money to do the monitoring. 18 If they don't, I will. So, we can commit as 19 neighbors, and I expect it to be a 20 neighborhood initiative to do that, but I 21 think Bill's comments also have to stand. 22 MR. KLINE: Are you in any way 23 withdrawing from the agreement that was 24 entered into? 35 1 MR. SECUNDA: I have no way of 2 withdrawing from the agreement. I can -- I 3 think Bill said it. Well, I'll try and 4 rephrase it again. But if the board decides 5 to do that, we would help. If it decides 6 against doing that, that's consistent with 7 our previous agreement. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you, Bob. 9 MR. SLOAN: And, again, I have no 10 interest in withdrawing from the agreement. 11 We're just looking for a solution of an 12 ongoing problem. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Ms. Felcher. 14 MS. FELCHER: I appreciate their offer 15 for half of the $2,500. Perhaps the $2,500 16 leaves us with $4,250, which we do have 17 raise from our donors, the same point as 18 before. 19 I know that there is at least one 20 resident of Teatown Road who is extremely 21 distrustful of us. And I'm sorry that he 22 feels that way, and I sincerely hope that the 23 way we operate in the next five years will 24 erase those bad memories. It would, I think, 36 1 be embarrassing for us to go to our donors to 2 raise money for the monitoring system when, 3 in fact, prior to that request we've not been 4 in violation. There has been no demonstrated 5 need for a monitoring system. 6 We have, of our own initiative, offered 7 to do things we've never done before, which 8 is to count staff, cap the staff trips, and 9 file logs, which is transferred and available 10 to everybody. 11 I have a special request that you include 12 the Teatown monitoring matters in the 13 resolution. And as to the second point just, 14 please, let's not lose track of the fact that 15 if we follow the monthly report as you've 16 requested, that it be clear in the resolution 17 that it's understood that the activities 18 listed in that report may change in large or 19 small ways. But in no event, to your point, 20 Mr. Foley, in no event will those changes 21 cause any violations of the permit. That I 22 think is what you're concerned about. Thank 23 you. 24 MR. BERNARD: You know, two years ago 37 1 when this special permit was first requested 2 and approved, there were some problems after 3 that. And I think everybody would agree with 4 that. And one of the -- one of the biggest 5 contentions from the opposing groups in the 6 neighborhood was that Teatown didn't reach 7 out for the neighbors to reach some consensus 8 on just how these programs are to be run, the 9 issues of traffic, and the list -- you know, 10 the list. 11 But in this current application Teatown 12 has shown a great effort, it seems like, to 13 reach out for the neighborhood group, that it 14 speaks to the neighbors and has achieved an 15 agreement that was at the time of the 16 agreement evidently acceptable to both sides. 17 And I would say that we should really, well, 18 I personally would go along with that. That 19 maybe move the review by the planning board 20 up to June instead of August. If there are 21 any problems, I would anticipate that we 22 would have phone calls or visits or e-mails 23 from neighbors who are saying that something 24 is wrong and we would review it even sooner 38 1 than June. 2 But right now, based on the achievements 3 and the efforts that you have all put forth 4 to try and resolve the issues in the past, I 5 don't see a problem with going forward with 6 that. 7 MR. BIANCHI: Could we ask for a 8 resolution that the town reserves the right 9 at some future point to implement or impose 10 an independent monitor if we should see fit 11 as a result of the data that is submitted to 12 us? Just so it's very clear that we can do 13 that if we need to. 14 MR. KLARL: That was the language we 15 were considering adding to 8. 16 MR. FOLEY: If we do a review in June 17 perhaps of the self-reporting, and if things 18 aren't as satisfying, satisfaction to the 19 neighborhood, and there is violations, then 20 the town could impose independent monitoring 21 for by Teatown and/or whatever Mr. Secunda 22 said. I know the past history, I know it 23 wasn't you, and I think if the neighbor 24 called me, I would be willing to go and talk 39 1 to staff about the violations. 2 MS. FELCHER: And the future reviews, 3 public hearing as well, in other words, when 4 we come back to the planning board in June or 5 July for you to monitor the decision, that's 6 here in this room in the public hearing, is 7 it not? 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Come back on old 9 business. It may not be a public hearing. 10 It depends on the scope of the issues that 11 are raised. 12 MS. FELCHER: But it will be before this 13 board in this forum? 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yes. 15 MS. FELCHER: Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Only thing I 17 point out as we go forward how important it 18 is that there be some rigor in what is being 19 monitored here on the part of the staff. And 20 I hope that's imparted to the staff because, 21 really, there will be people counting on your 22 behalf as well. 23 MS. FELCHER: I know that. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So, we have -- yes, 40 1 sir. 2 MR. SECUNDA: Just one thing. You said 3 June making that review better. But the camp 4 and staff don't start until later. So, I 5 think August was a better date than June. I 6 understand your desire to make this as 7 painless as possible, but I don't think that 8 would be. So, the August date is a better 9 date. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Fine with me. 11 MR. VERSCHOOR: Do we have some language 12 for the resolution? 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Counsel. 14 MR. KLARL: What's now 8 is going to be 15 extended because we're going to get rid of 5. 16 Maybe we'll add to the balance of 8: The 17 planning board reserves the right to require 18 the hiring of a monitor of the number of 19 vehicles and participants for the proposed 20 programs and activities at Cliffdale Farm. 21 Said monitor shall be reviewed by the 22 planning board at the August meeting. 23 MR. KLINE: The need for monitoring. 24 MS. FELCHER: And I think we talked 41 1 about a cap on the cost. I mean, I don't 2 know if you want to put that in. 3 MR. KLARL: I assume, Mr. Secunda, for 4 the record, you still, in August if it's 5 deemed necessary, you will put up your $1,250 6 maximum? 7 MR. SECUNDA: Yes. 8 MS. FELCHER: And the applicant would be 9 only now liable for $1,250. 10 MR. KLARL: He said half, with his 11 contribution, up to $1,250. So half of 12 $1,500 -- 13 MS. FELCHER: I just want a maximum on 14 the amount that Teatown has to raise from its 15 contributors. 16 MR. KLARL: That's fine. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I imagine that will 18 come up in the August meeting when we talk 19 about it. So, we'll have to seek out an 20 adjustment. I'm not so clear that we need to 21 take out No. 5. I'm thinking that 5 should 22 just say, shall be initially conducted for 23 the first three month period, shall be 24 conducted by staff at Teatown. And then -- 42 1 and then subsequent condition, you know, 2 we'll further refine that when we review 3 this. 4 MS. FELCHER: Is that by staff at 5 Teatown pursuant to this resolution, because 6 there is a provision in here how that will be 7 done. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yes. 9 MS. FELCHER: Okay. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And what did you say, 11 first three months, I guess it's really more 12 than three months. We'll continue to do that 13 as we deliberate based upon the data that we 14 see in August. So, I imagine you will be 15 conducting those reviews for April, May, 16 June, July, and probably August as well, 17 because we'll be meeting in August to make 18 some determination if that's necessary. 19 MS. FELCHER: Okay. But you're 20 expecting there is nothing more than what 21 we're doing, than that which we have agreed 22 to do? 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yes. 24 MS. FELCHER: In the pre-agreement. 43 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: As I said before, 2 there is some conversation probably between 3 staff of planning and Teatown in terms of 4 what the exact form of that monitoring report 5 should look like. 6 MS. FELCHER: That's fine, but so long 7 as we're basically understood that the 8 monitoring, the logging, and the capping, and 9 the counting of the staff that is proposed in 10 this agreement is what we're doing. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: That's what you're 12 doing. 13 MR. FOLEY: As I said earlier, April to 14 August is basically two-thirds of your 15 program here. If something very severe is 16 occurring in the area that you have to have a 17 volume of people, that we would address that. 18 MR. VERSCHOOR: Of course. 19 MS. FELCHER: I believe you can call us 20 back at any time if you feel there is a 21 problem. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All right. Mr. 23 Foley. 24 MR. FOLEY: Yes, I make a motion that we 44 1 adopt resolution 8-05 with changes to 2 condition No. 5 on page 6, adding, conducted 3 by staff at Teatown for approximately five 4 months, April to August, unless, whatever I 5 just said, an action pending earlier. 6 That on condition No. 6, the applicant 7 made recommendation about whether the words 8 proposed work or advanced work, that it 9 schedule -- submit monthly schedules of all 10 proposed programs. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: You were telling us 12 that those programs may change. Perhaps it 13 should be scheduled programs, is that a 14 better word for you? 15 MS. FELCHER: That would be fine. I 16 think at the end of the sentence it should 17 say, it be understood that these programs may 18 change for any reason or no reason during the 19 month, if that's acceptable to you. 20 MR. VERSCHOOR: But in all cases it 21 wouldn't be more than what is already agreed 22 upon. 23 MS. FELCHER: That would be scheduled, 24 it's per the activity, of course. 45 1 MR. FOLEY: 6, as counsel said, 2 condition 8, we would add the words our 3 counsel said earlier. 4 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Can I have a second, 5 please? 6 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All in favor? 8 (Board in favor) 9 MS. FELCHER: Thank you, gentlemen. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: See you in August. 11 Next item is the application of Frank 12 Malandruccolo, for the property of Delbert 13 Tompkins, Jr., for approval of a site 14 development plan for a 2,975 square foot car 15 wash building on 21,640 square foot lot 16 located at the southwest corner of Route 202 17 and Croton Avenue as shown in a two-page set 18 of drawings entitled, "New car wash for Frank 19 Malandruccolo," prepared by Joel Greenberg. 20 Latest revision date, December 27th, 2004. 21 Good evening. We have a resolution based 22 upon that we asked their -- at our last 23 meeting -- we did close this public hearing 24 on the 25th of January. We did receive a 46 1 letter from the firm of Mr. Marwell of 2 Shamberg, Marwell, Hocherman, Davis and 3 Hollis asking to address this board this 4 evening. And I presume that's why you're 5 standing there. 6 So, with that understanding, we are 7 prepared to move forward with the resolution, 8 but we will, I presume you're going to 9 attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of 10 defeat here, is that the intent? 11 MR. MARWELL: Indeed, I am, 12 Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity 13 to address the board. I'm John Marwell from 14 the firm of Shamberg, Marwell, Davis and 15 Hollis, in Mt. Kisco. And Mr. Malandruccolo 16 engaged our firm a week and a half ago after 17 your last meeting. 18 And I have come to this with a fairly 19 unique perspective in that I haven't lived 20 through all of these monthly itineraries to 21 that, although I've had the opportunity to 22 review the entire record here, including a 23 videotape of your last meeting. So, I'm 24 aware of this board's feelings about this 47 1 application. 2 Having the perspective of looking back on 3 the entire record, I would like to share with 4 you my legal observation on this, with the 5 hope that you might consider asking your 6 staff to prepare an alternate resolution 7 approving the application with conditions so 8 that an accomodation could be reached here, 9 hopefully, that will satisfy everyone rather 10 than having a denial and whatever you seek 11 for that denial. 12 My first observation in looking at this 13 case is that the property, of course, is 14 zoned for this use. That's a legislative 15 determination, of course, made by the Town 16 Board of Cortlandt. And that's really not a 17 quarrel, and I say this with respect, the 18 arguments are all done with respect, it's not 19 a quarrel that this board can pick with the 20 applicant. The fact that a car wash is a 21 permitted use in this zone and for this site, 22 that's a legislative judgment made by the 23 town board. And there are plenty of court 24 decisions out there in the Second Department 48 1 which controls our geographic area, the 2 appellate courts. They say a planning board 3 cannot deny a site plan approval under the 4 guise of not liking the use. In other words, 5 you don't have any control over the use of 6 the property and you can't deny a site plan 7 because you don't like the use, okay. 8 The site -- the authority given to 9 planning board is to review site plans. You 10 can consider all kinds of elements that you 11 have considered thoughtfully, traffic, 12 environmental concerns, and so on. But 13 you're confronted, I think, with the rare 14 anomalous situation where there is only one 15 expert opinion in the record, and that's your 16 expert, paid for by our applicant, twice. 17 And your expert has said, not only is this a 18 permitted use, but, you know, given the range 19 of permitted uses in this zone for this site, 20 this isn't a bad use. He goes even further 21 to say mitigation measures of this applicant 22 has proposed to you, he's going to improve a 23 bad situation that you have. 24 Now, there are plenty of court decisions 49 1 out there that say that planning boards 2 cannot deny an application simply based on 3 speculative and generalized opposition and 4 generalist anecdotal information. It has to 5 be hard evidence in the file to justify 6 denial of a site plan application. 7 And I say with respect, the only hard 8 evidence in this record that I saw, having 9 looked at the minutes of the meetings, read 10 the correspondence, the petitions for and 11 against this application, says that this is 12 an application that should be approved. 13 I also would like to point out that one 14 of the board members at the last meeting was 15 concerned that there's a master plan 16 consideration that this use might be 17 inconsistent with the master plan. Now, 18 there is case law specifically on point that 19 says a site plan cannot be rejected because 20 it may be contrary to, quote, "soon to be 21 complete master plan," unquote. 22 Finally, to the extent you've got an 23 extensive traffic problem, which seems to be 24 the consensus that that is a problem. That's 50 1 a common problem throughout this area. And 2 you can't deny this particular application 3 based upon the facts which are common 4 throughout the entire zoned district. 5 So, from my perspective, I wanted to 6 share this with you, I would hope that you 7 might consider this, I know that 8 Mr. Greenberg has submitted a traffic 9 management plan that your staff had asked for 10 previously. We would hope you consider 11 adopting a resolution of approval with 12 conditions that, again, could ameliorate some 13 of the concerns and make this a more 14 palatable application, rather than, which you 15 have said, you know, if this goes to the next 16 step, I'm not saying if it will or it won't, 17 it's possible that there could be a court 18 determination that would be approved without 19 conditions, which I don't think in the long 20 run is going to be what your board would 21 want. 22 So, again, I appreciate the opportunity 23 to be heard. I'll tell you, the last time I 24 was in front of your board I was chairman of 51 1 the Teatown Lake Reservation. I was going 2 through the same process five or six years 3 that you folks have been going through 4 tonight. And I appreciate that. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Just a couple 6 comments. You mentioned that this 7 application, you're going to improve an 8 existing bad condition. Exactly, what were 9 you referring to? 10 MR. MARWELL: Well, Mr. Adler's report 11 pointed out that the mitigation measure 12 proposed by the applicant that is expanding a 13 12-foot property -- the 12-foot of property, 14 giving it to the town, dedicating it to the 15 town for free without compensation award, 16 would improve existing traffic conditions. 17 And raises, I read this report, it raises the 18 level of service that exists right now. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: But as you just said, 20 that also could occur by other means beyond. 21 MR. MARWELL: It could, it could, you 22 know, if the town decides it needs to condemn 23 the property, it will pay for it. But, you 24 may wind up, who knows what -- what the 52 1 ultimate result would be. It's been my 2 experience, that to the extent accommodations 3 here will be readdressed, everybody walks 4 away a little bit unhappy, but accommodation 5 is reached rather than a decision being made 6 by someone else that's not palatable to one 7 or both parts. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: One other question 9 for you, sir, perhaps philosophical, perhaps 10 something in the case law, as you review the 11 tapes and you saw the public commenting in 12 the public hearing over many, many months on 13 this application, and I dare say that the 14 probably wasn't anybody that was in favor of 15 the application, perhaps exceed for the 16 applicant and perhaps the owner of the 17 property. 18 MR. MARWELL: There was one board 19 member's comment at the first meeting that 20 thought there might be economic benefit to 21 the town, but that was a long time ago. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: What role does the 23 public play in this process? Are you asking, 24 to -- it's zoned for use, that in and of 53 1 itself doesn't necessarily argue for 2 approval. What then is the whole purpose of 3 a public hearing, admittedly they're not 4 experts, and you mentioned there is only one 5 expert, so, if I don't rely on experts, why 6 would I bother having a public hearing? 7 MR. MARWELL: I think it's very 8 important, I think it plays a very big role 9 in the process, everybody has the opportunity 10 to be heard. And in many cases, I'm sure 11 it's in the case of your report, members of 12 the public have pointed out concerns that the 13 board may not have been aware of. But I 14 think that it's helpful to hear concerns 15 because it allows the board to address the 16 proper mitigation measures. And I think in 17 this case you've had the original site plan 18 which the applicant had proposed some time 19 ago, and then after comments from the public 20 and after Mr. Adler's initial report, the 21 site plan was considerably revised and, 22 basically, a substantially revised site plan 23 was submitted that had seemed to address all 24 concerns raised at the time. 54 1 Now, we all know as the planning board 2 there's not a darn good thing said about 3 traffic. There just isn't. It's just a fact 4 of life. But the mitigation measures we've 5 proposed here are both redesign of the 6 interior flow of the cars parking on the 7 site, the 12-foot right-of-way, I would call 8 it a right-of-way, 12-feet of property that 9 would be conveyed to the town, all seem to 10 address the concerns that were raised. 11 Now, and I don't need to belittle it, 12 traffic is a concern throughout Westchester 13 County. And I think you've got the 14 opportunity here to implement a very real 15 mitigation plan that will improve an existing 16 condition that exists and that is not good. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I don't quite know if 18 you're all comfortable with that interior, 19 you know, the circulation plan as it was 20 presented to us. 21 MR. MARWELL: We're perfectly happy to 22 continue working with you on that. If 23 there's something -- if there is way we can 24 reach an accommodation on that. We've tried 55 1 to do that. I think Mr. Malandruccolo will, 2 at least based on my reading of the record, 3 has made every effort to accommodate the 4 specific concerns raised by staff, by the 5 consultant, by members of this board. And, 6 unless you tell me I'm wrong, to the extent 7 there are other specific issues the board may 8 have, we'll certainly consider them and try 9 to reach an accommodation on them. 10 MR. FOLEY: With all due respect, 11 Mr. Marwell, you cited the expert as a 12 consultant. You said you saw tapes of at 13 least one past meeting where there was one 14 meeting I was not at, there was a tape, I 15 didn't read the minutes. If that was when 16 Adler was here, and from what I understand 17 and what I have seen in one of the initial 18 reports, and it's still in the second report, 19 both of which came in in those meetings, I 20 believe December 1 and perhaps July 1, I 21 don't recall the exact dates. His -- there 22 was questions in the report of when the dates 23 were and when the traffic counts were made. 24 He said that, and I didn't see it corrected 56 1 on the second report. 2 You also said that one member of the 3 board, that was me, mentioned master plan and 4 soon to be completed. And I mentioned that 5 at three different meetings. I also said 6 that, if I'm not mistaken, that the mention 7 of that corridor, not just that corridor, two 8 others in the town, recommendation under the 9 new master plan, that perhaps it was in the 10 existing master plan, and probably I can pull 11 it out of there, but I believe it was from 12 the master plan from ten years before. So, 13 you're saying about soon to be completed 14 master plan may not be exactly applicable or 15 accurate. 16 Also the improvement of the LOS, level of 17 service. The way I read it, the report, I 18 don't believe it does improve the level of 19 service at the intersection. It keeps it 20 probably at an F, I would believe, the lane 21 that they're recommending to use. As I've 22 said all along, I just think that some of the 23 things said by the applicant and you are not 24 accurate. 57 1 MR. MARWELL: Well, we can perhaps agree 2 that we disagree, Mr. Foley. I think the 3 documents are there. They speak for 4 themselves. Obviously, I'm not going to 5 convince you. 6 MR. FOLEY: There is a lot of this in 7 Mr. Adler's report. 8 MR. MARWELL: Well, it's your report, 9 with all due respect. It's a well qualified 10 expert and he does say, if I recall 11 correctly, that it will improve the existing 12 situation. And if I read his report 13 correctly, he recommended approval. The 14 report is there for all to see. It says what 15 it says. We're all free to interpret it. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Mr. Bernard. 17 MR. BERNARD: I don't think there's 18 really a lot of disagreement that in the 19 traffic report that, with the addition of 20 that turn lane, that the condition is 21 improved. That's the way I read it. 22 But, as is the case with our traffic 23 reports and our experts, we turn them loose 24 to study traffic issues, they don't study 58 1 anything we don't ask them to, such as we've 2 had it come up before, pedestrians, bicycles, 3 horses, they only consider cars and trucks 4 and traffic rolling through the light. 5 The other thing that is not in that 6 report is a study of the cueing lane. The 7 standing, the parking or the cueing of 8 overflow cars trying to get into this 9 facility and the direction that they have to 10 travel. 11 I think the biggest problem with this 12 design is that there may just not be enough 13 room for this permitted use of a car wash. I 14 didn't get a sense of the board that anyone 15 was against a car wash. In fact, I think we 16 were encouraging the applicant to see if he 17 could not find a larger piece of property to 18 put it on, maybe not in such an intersection 19 that is very close to the Bear Mountain 20 Parkway. It's just a very tough place to 21 then have a cueing line extend out into the 22 major traffic flow. 23 I know that was my problem, as I could 24 not figure out where all those cars were 59 1 going to be. And I never saw a successful 2 plan for what to do with those excess cueing 3 cars. Even though the applicant said you put 4 up cones and hire people to stand out there 5 and send people away. And then if you do 6 send them away, where do they go? That came 7 up in one of the public hearings. 8 So, I think when you were reviewing the 9 tapes, you missed some of the comments where 10 members of this board don't have a 11 disagreement with a permitted use of a car 12 wash. That's not what we're saying. That 13 certainly is not what I was saying. It just 14 may not -- it seems to not fit at that 15 particular intersection on that limited 16 amount of space. 17 The other issue with that amount of space 18 is that there is a limited amount of staff 19 parking. And, yet, this plan to take care of 20 the cueing line, would create a condition for 21 additional staff, and I don't know where 22 they're going to park. There's very limited 23 parking. It's now the plan, the current 24 plan, is now down to one vacuuming parking 60 1 station. And even that person is going to 2 have to pull in, head into that parking lot, 3 parking space, vacuum their car and back out 4 into the exiting traffic lane for the car 5 wash itself. 6 It's just, there's some problems with the 7 plan which were pointed out during the 8 hearings. If there's a better way to do it, 9 if you want to build a two-story car wash, 10 then that probably would be enough room to 11 fit on the site, but right now what's there 12 doesn't fit. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Any other comments? 14 MR. KLINE: I would just echo what John 15 said. I don't think it's an objection to the 16 use. I think it's an objection to the impact 17 that this use has at this particular 18 location. And as you're aware, in every site 19 development review you're starting off with 20 the basis that the use is permitted by zoning 21 but, yet, in some cases it's proper for the 22 board to reject because of the impacts that 23 that use will have at that location. And I 24 think that's what has been established on the 61 1 record here. And I think the particular 2 use -- the particular impacts we're concerned 3 about stem from what John is referring to 4 with the, really, the small size of the site 5 relative to what you're trying to do there 6 and how it will or will not function when it 7 is busy. And I think those are the, you 8 know, ironically successful as you would hope 9 it were opening up a new business, it will 10 have the adverse impacts we are concerned 11 about which will, in turn, cause, you know, I 12 think both backup and safety issues at that 13 intersection. 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I would just also 15 point out since you're talking about the 16 report, I think they said there is other 17 potential uses that would generate less 18 traffic. 19 MR. BERNARD: Right, I think this was 20 right in the middle range, yeah. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Any final comments? 22 If not, I appreciate your coming. I do. 23 MR. BERNARD: I appreciate the 24 opportunity. 62 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And for the reason -- 2 I don't think there's anything that I've 3 heard that would make me change my mind based 4 upon this past year that we've discussed this 5 application. 6 We'll close the revision. So, if there 7 is no other further comment on this, 8 Mr. Verschoor, do you have anything? 9 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, just during the 10 work session there was some changes that the 11 board wanted to add to the resolution. And 12 it was just mentioned some additional points 13 that maybe should be made to the resolution 14 that's been revised, or would you like to add 15 that language tonight? 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: What's our time 17 schedule on this? I guess we could do it at 18 the 23rd. 19 MR. KLARL: I think we closed the public 20 hearing at the January meeting, according to 21 -- the January 5th meeting. I think that's 22 why Mr. Marwell wrote a letter that says to 23 extend the board's time to vote on this up 24 until the April 2005 meeting. So, we have an 63 1 extension in writing by the applicant to 2 April 5th, 2005, meeting. 3 MR. VERSCHOOR: So, it's the board's 4 choice. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Or we could do it at 6 the 23rd meeting, which we're going to 7 schedule later on. 8 MR. KLARL: March 23rd. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Either way. 10 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Is that your 12 preference to spend more time on this? 13 MR. VERSCHOOR: I would like to work on 14 language. You gave us more changes that you 15 would like to see at the work session. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yes, we do. 17 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. We'll prepare 18 that for you. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We'll just refer this 20 back. 21 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move we 22 refer resolution number 9-05 back to staff 23 for rewording and bring it back in on March 24 23rd special meeting. 64 1 MR. KLINE: If otherwise, March 23rd is 2 Furnace Dock, I'm recused on that matter. I 3 would not attend the meeting. If we have 4 time, they could bring it back in April. I 5 would prefer it be that. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: April 5th then. 7 MR. KLINE: Is it still for April 5th? 8 MR. KLARL: Yes. The applicant extended 9 the time for the board; right, Mr. Marwell? 10 MR. MARWELL: Yes, we did. 11 MR. KLARL: To adopt a resolution at the 12 April meeting. 13 MR. MARWELL: I would appreciate it if 14 the offer we made, if there are any specific 15 concerns about the interior design of this, 16 that might address some of the concerns of -- 17 that the board had, we would be happy to 18 continue those discussions and try to work 19 out something. 20 MR. FOLEY: One of the problems on the 21 site line changes that I noticed, I'm always 22 amazed that these resolutions, that every 23 time the site plan was changed or redacted 24 and supposedly made better, took away an off 65 1 area. One sample, I think one of the points 2 I mentioned at the last meeting was 3 incomplete distances, sight distance was 4 incomplete. We didn't get into details at 5 the last meeting. I'm sure you know what I'm 6 talking about. And there were issues of 7 water usage too. I mean, there are other 8 issues than watching one tape or reading the 9 minutes. 10 MR. BERNARD: I don't know, Bob. When 11 they had their car wash designer here and he 12 went through the gallonage and filtration. I 13 don't really think there's an environmental 14 issue here, I don't think there's a water 15 usage issue. I think those have been dealt 16 with. It's a really nice car wash. It's 17 just figure out a way to get the cars in 18 there. I don't know how you can reconfigure 19 it, but that's what -- that's what's going to 20 have to happen. 21 MR. MARWELL: Is your concern the 22 interior traffic flow on the site? 23 MR. BERNARD: Staff for me, staff 24 parking and the cue line. After you get your 66 1 22 cars, 23 cars on site, either in the car 2 wash or on site, it's the -- it's the cars 3 that are waiting to get in. And you have a 4 very limited amount of room. You have a 5 seven-foot wide shoulder and then they back 6 up, they're going to be out into 202. 7 I don't see any other way around it. 8 I've never seen any car wash that I go to, 9 and I use car washes all the time, I've never 10 seen one that doesn't have a cue line on even 11 an averagely busy day. It's not like once a 12 year it happens. It's like every blessed 13 time the sun comes out, you've got a cue line 14 at the car wash, whatever one I've gone to, 15 and they spill out into the street. Some of 16 the ones spill out into side streets where 17 it's not really an effect. But the way this 18 traffic pattern is, you're going to cue up 19 out into 202. I don't see -- if that's not 20 the case, show me that. I haven't seen it. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I think also the 22 issue is you have everybody going in and 23 coming out at the same spot, which is kind of 24 usual. 67 1 MR. MALANDRUCCOLO: Not to be 2 repetitive, but you recall the Adler report 3 recommended that. Initially, we had an 4 entrance off 202 exiting onto Croton Avenue. 5 And the Adler report, specifically, first 6 group of sketches they made, specifically 7 said close off entrance on 202. So, 8 basically, we revised the plan based on the 9 report from your consultant. 10 As far as the interior is concerned, yes, 11 it can get more tweaked. We can get more 12 parking in there. 13 As far as the comment with regard to the 14 landscaping and buffer zones, we exceed 25 15 percent. We're not under it, so we don't 16 need any variance there. I don't think 17 that's a problem either. 18 With regard to some of the other 19 comments, I believe that the report 20 specifically said, I don't want to waste time 21 reading it, specifically said that the 22 improvement will be anywhere from a third to 23 a half of what it was before. Peak hour 24 delays were reduced between one-third to 68 1 one-half and compared to notable condition, 2 or peak hour cues reduced between one-quarter 3 and one-third. So, it's not getting worse, 4 it's getting better with the car wash. 5 MR. BERNARD: Moving traffic is getting 6 better. 7 MR. MALANDRUCCOLO: And as far as cueing 8 back to 202, that just can't happen because 9 based on the master plan that we produced and 10 I sent to you the other day, it specifically 11 said that there will be no cueing out on town 12 or county or state road. 13 MR. BERNARD: The letter I just saw in 14 the packet tonight that you sent the other 15 day speaks to hiring, I don't know how, what 16 the word was, but hiring personnel to go out 17 and set cones and set signage to prevent 18 people from cueing up out into that 19 intersection. And then as three or four or 20 five spaces opened up, to take the cones down 21 and let people cue up. And then it went onto 22 say that that would occur probably three to 23 five times a year. 24 MR. MALANDRUCCOLO: Two to three times a 69 1 year, that's correct, that's absolutely 2 correct. And the reason it was three to five 3 times a year is the point that we were trying 4 to make is, that point where you, again, you 5 said we have approximately 21 to 22 cars that 6 will cue up within the property. We're 7 talking about a situation like after a 8 snowstorm or something like that when 9 everybody wants to get their car washed. 10 Yes, those particular times you will have 11 more than perhaps 22 or 23 cars, but we'll 12 not allow them to cue on Croton Avenue. And 13 certainly, if they can't cue on Croton 14 Avenue, they can't cue on 202. 15 MR. FOLEY: What authority would that 16 employee have to stand on the road or even 17 side of the road to direct people not to? 18 MR. MALANDRUCCOLO: I don't think 19 that's -- you know, there are situations in 20 commercial establishments where, whether it's 21 an off-duty policeman, somebody there, to 22 direct the traffic and people will follow the 23 direction. There's no reason to just sit and 24 put their motor off and say I'm waiting. 70 1 MR. MARWELL: We'll pay for our own 2 monitoring. 3 MR. MALANDRUCCOLO: A hundred percent. 4 MR. BERNARD: For three times a year? 5 MR. MALANDRUCCOLO: No, no. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I think I need a 7 second on a motion. 8 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All in favor? 10 (BOARD IN FAVOR) 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? All right. 12 So, we'll bring this back in April. Okay. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. MARWELL: Thank you. 15 MR. TURNER: Point of information, point 16 of information, Mr. Kessler. Bob Turner. 17 Are there changes going to be made now 18 that have been considered? And if so, will 19 the public have a chance for another hearing 20 on the changes? 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I'm not aware of any 22 changes that are going to be made. 23 MR. TURNER: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. 71 1 Next item is the application of Patricia 2 Hunt-Slamow for Preliminary Plot approval for 3 a two lot major subdivision on 7.1 acres for 4 property located on the east side of 5 Lafayette Avenue, approximately 800 feet 6 north of Maple Avenue, as shown on a drawing 7 entitled, "Preliminary Plat Prepared for 8 Patricia Hunt-Slamow," prepared by Ralph G. 9 Mastromonaco, PE. Latest revision date, May 10 20, 2004. Mr. Kline. 11 MR. KLINE: Mr. Chairman, I move for 12 adoption of a resolution -- 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: You have to renumber 14 it, 9. 15 MR. KLINE: It's no longer 10.05. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: It's No. 9. 17 MR. KLINE: -- adoption of 9-05, which 18 grants this application, although I have the 19 same reservations I've expressed at the last 20 meeting, for reasons I stated there. And I 21 will, you know, I'm prepared to vote in favor 22 of this. 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 24 MR. BERNARD: Second. 72 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? 2 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Mr. Chairman, just 3 one comment, if I might. One of the 4 conditions in there, maybe just a little bit 5 of pause, I don't object to it, but the last 6 one reads, "Show on final plat conservation 7 easement and satisfaction of director of 8 technical services. And add the attached 9 language for schedule next to final plat." 10 We don't know where it is and we don't 11 know what it says. So, it's little bit hard 12 to -- 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: "It" being what? 14 MR. MASTROMONACO: The conservation 15 easement referred to. I spoke to Mr. Vergano 16 prior to the meeting and he promised he would 17 not beat us up too bad. 18 MR. VERGANO: Just to clarify. 19 Historically, what we've done is set 20 conservation easement lines with wetland 21 buffer lines. If, in fact, that clarifies it 22 a little better for you. 23 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Little bit, 24 little bit. I still don't know what it says. 73 1 But anyway, I may come back and ask you for 2 relief, but I sure hope not. 3 MR. VERSCHOOR: With regard to schedule 4 A, that's our standard conservation easement 5 language. 6 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Hope it's not 7 something I wrote. 8 MR. VERSCHOOR: Pardon? 9 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I hope it's not 10 something I wrote. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We're on the 12 question. All in favor? 13 (Board in favor) 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 15 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Thank you very 16 much. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. 18 Our final resolution is the application 19 of Shawn O'Mara for property of Forget About 20 It, for Amended Site Plan Development 21 approval for a proposed funeral home on the 22 east side of Broadway, between Fourth and 23 Fifth Streets, formerly Mark's on Broadway, 24 as shown on a three-page set of drawings 74 1 entitled, "Proposed Site Plan," prepared by 2 Gregory McWilliams, dated August 26, 2004. 3 We have a resolution this evening. Just 4 one point of information, I believe we have 5 discussed on the site plan, that you are 6 required to have 57 spaces. 7 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I believe that's 8 right. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: 34 of which will be 10 paved? 11 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Correct. 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And site plan will 13 indicate the other 23 spaces, which I believe 14 will be some combination of grass. 15 MR. VERGANO: Pavers or grass or lawn 16 area. 17 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I wasn't clear on 18 that. That was going to be my only question. 19 I know there are 34 spaces shown with hard 20 surfaces on the site plan, and there is an 21 existing asphalt paved area to be added to 22 that, I think an additional nine, 23 approximately, nine additional spaces, which 24 would, likewise, be asphalt paved. The 75 1 remaining areas which are in the future are 2 parking. 3 My understanding, I may be wrong, is that 4 the zoning board of appeals just wanted to 5 show future parking. They didn't care 6 whether it was surface or remain as grass; is 7 that the condition? 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Correct, yes. 9 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Thank you. 10 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, also, there is 11 provision on the site plan for grass pavers, 12 grass pavers to allow stormwater to percolate 13 into the soil and allow grass to grow, but 14 provide surfaces for cars to park. 15 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I don't know that 16 there's a preference one way or the other, in 17 terms, if it's all the same to the board, we 18 would just assume, I think, leave it the way 19 that's shown as future parking area as grass 20 area as opposed to installing pavers there 21 and have 35 spaces of hard surface. 22 MR. VERSCHOOR: But the site plan shows 23 some parking spaces proposed, currently as 24 grass pavers. 76 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Right. 2 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Well, there may be 3 nine additional in the back along the rear 4 property line. If that's okay, we'll use 5 grass pavers. 6 MR. VERSCHOOR: That's fine. 7 MR. BERNARD: And they still have the 8 driveway on the right-hand side. 9 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Yes, we have 10 circular access to the side. 11 MR. BERNARD: That's all grass pavers. 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Mr. Foley. 13 MR. FOLEY: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make 14 a motion to -- we adopt resolution 10-05, 15 with the conditions and belief this is 16 subject to the ZBA approval. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: A change of use 18 approval. 19 MR. FOLEY: Change of use approval. 20 MR. KLARL: ZBA order, yes. 21 MR. VERSCHOOR: You know, along those 22 lines, again, on the question, I would like 23 to address -- 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Second, 77 1 please? 2 MR. KLINE: Second. 3 MR. VERSCHOOR: On the question, just to 4 make it clear as to condition No. 4, that 5 should be, obtained a decision from the 6 zoning board of appeals, and indicate on the 7 subject drawing required parking spaces, 8 including the decision and order, case 9 number, and the adoption. 10 MR. KLARL: The zoning board closed its 11 application, closed the public hearing at its 12 meeting on February 16. So, the zoning board 13 intends on adopting the decision order at the 14 March meeting. 15 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 16 MR. VERGANO: Again, just to emphasis 17 condition No. 7 on the resolution. We are 18 still waiting for our landscape plan; 19 location of sewer disposal location; water 20 main; pipes; hydrants; proposed soil drainage 21 system, that's an issue; location; the 22 timing; proposed lighting. They're very 23 important issues, at least to be addressed, I 24 believe it's of some interest. 78 1 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I believe 2 Mr. McWilliams hears you very loud and clear. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All in favor? 4 (Board in favor) 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 6 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you 7 very much. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Our next item is an 9 adjourned public hearing. It's the 10 application of Sarah Gillen and Robert Jersey 11 for Preliminary Plat approval and Steep Slope 12 Permit for a two lot minor subdivision on 3.9 13 acres, located on the west side of Furnace 14 Woods Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of 15 Maple Avenue as shown on a two-page set of 16 drawings entitled, "Subdivision Plan Prepared 17 for Robert Jersey," prepared by Ralph 18 Mastromonaco, revision date, November 17th, 19 2004. Mr. Mastromonaco, good evening. 20 MR. MASTROMONACO: Good evening. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Do you have any 22 comments? If not, is there anybody in the 23 audience that wishes to comment on this 24 application? Any comments from the board or 79 1 staff? If not -- Mr. Bernard. 2 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move we 3 adjourn this application to our April 5th 4 meeting, pending site inspection to be 5 scheduled for April 3rd. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Second, 7 please? 8 MR. FOLEY: Second. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And that's, of 10 course, because we got snowed out for our 11 last site inspection. So, hopefully, we'll 12 dispose of this at the next meeting. 13 All in favor? 14 (Board in favor) 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? Okay. 16 Thank you. Next item is a new public 17 hearing. It's the -- scope for a Draft 18 Environmental Impact Statement for Hudson 19 Valley Hospital Center for Amended Site 20 Development Plan approval and Special Permit 21 and Wetland and Steep Slope for proposed 22 building additions of 133,200 square feet, 23 and a 377 car parking garage located at 1980 24 Crompond Road as shown on a drawing entitled, 80 1 "Sketch Plan," prepared by Ralph 2 Mastromonaco, dated October 21, 2004. 3 Good evening. 4 MR. STEINMETZ: Good evening, 5 Mr. Chairman, members of the board. David 6 Steinmetz, law firm of Zarin and Steinmetz, 7 representing the hospital. I apologize, I'm 8 losing my voice this evening. I'll try to be 9 brief. 10 Mr. Chairman, as you know, we're on for 11 two different public hearings. I didn't know 12 if you wanted to do -- take them together. 13 Our comments are going to be brief and they 14 pretty much relate to both matters. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We were planning 16 doing them separately. 17 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 18 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Because they may go 19 into two opposite directions. 20 MR. STEINMETZ: You do have before you 21 tonight two different public hearings. The 22 first, as you indicated, is in connection 23 with the proposed outline in connection with 24 the New York State Environmental Quality 81 1 Review Act, or SEQR review process, 2 identifying all of the relevant environmental 3 issues. 4 The second, which we'll get to after 5 this, relates to a proposed zoning text 6 amendment, which is the product of some 7 discussions that we have had with your 8 counsel and your professional staff. 9 I'll be brief in terms of the background 10 of the application because this has been 11 before your board. This is a proposal 12 essentially to update, modernize and expand 13 the existing hospital facility. 14 The hospital is located on 21 and a half 15 acres in the R-20 zone. We're in the early 16 stages of this application. There are no new 17 proposed hospital beds. There are 120 beds 18 in the facility, there would be 120 beds in 19 the facility. 20 As you indicated from the public notice 21 essentially we're talking about 133,000 22 square foot expansion, which includes a 23 70,800 square foot, four-story south wing; a 24 45,000 square foot, three-story west wing; a 82 1 16,000 square foot, two-story north wing; and 2 a 1,400 square foot ICU addition. 3 The purpose of all these new spaces is 4 essentially to increase the size and function 5 of the emergency room, to increase some of 6 the surgical space, eliminate some very late 7 night surgeries, which are presently being 8 scheduled to deal with the fact there are not 9 as many operating rooms as this hospital 10 presently needs to serve our community. 11 There would be additional ambulatory care 12 space as well as offices. 13 All of the double rooms in the hospital 14 would become single rooms. We do have 15 hospital representatives here this evening to 16 answer any questions in connection with that. 17 We have briefly discussed that with your 18 board and we did discuss that at some length 19 with the town board at a work session that we 20 had with the town board last month in 21 connection with the text amendment. 22 We are proposing a new parking structure 23 on west side, which would result in 377 24 additional parking spaces. Anyone that's 83 1 visited the hospital knows that parking is an 2 issue of concern. And we think this facility 3 or this proposed accessory structure could 4 address a major concern together with some 5 improvement that would be made to the 6 circulation internal to the site. 7 There is also proposed realignment of the 8 access points along 202. This is being done 9 in conjunction with other modifications that 10 the town and state DOT are involved with, 11 with some additional signals that are being 12 brought to this particular portion of the 13 town. 14 In sum, our application is for site 15 development plan approval, amended -- special 16 permit amendment, wetland and steep slopes 17 permit. 18 In terms of the scope, we've reviewed the 19 proposed scoping outline that we received 20 from the town. We have no objection to the 21 scoping outline and we are prepared to move 22 forward expeditiously with the preparation of 23 the DEIS. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Anybody in the 84 1 audience that wishes to comment on the 2 scoping document? That, of course, is the 3 document that the applicant will now go back 4 and prepare the Draft Environmental Impact 5 Statement, based upon that document, 6 addressing all the issues that we think are 7 appropriate to address and, again, that are 8 outlined in the scoping document. Is there 9 anyone in the audience that wishes to 10 comment? Yes, ma'am. 11 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: My name is Patty 12 Rutimari (proper noun subject to correction), 13 I live on Cardinal Road in Cortlandt Manor. 14 I have lived there 25 years. I'm also a 15 volunteer at the hospital, I have been there 16 for seven years, in the emergency room two 17 days a week. And I have seen a really big 18 increase in the amount of patients that have 19 come in. And the time they have to wait, the 20 problems they have parking, problems I have 21 parking. You know, I talk to all the 22 patients, they're very frustrated with how 23 long they have to wait, how long it takes to 24 be seen, to have tests, to get results. If 85 1 they have to stay overnight, often they sleep 2 in the emergency room because there's not 3 enough beds. They sleep in the halls. 4 Nobody likes sleeping in the hall with a gown 5 opening in the back. Their visitors can't 6 sit in the hall because they're in the way of 7 our equipment, the other beds. And there is, 8 you know, there's building all over and all 9 those people come to Hudson Valley Hospital. 10 The staff is incredibly kind at Hudson 11 Valley. They're very nice to the patients. 12 But some people, I talk to everybody that 13 comes in, and some people hesitate to seek 14 medical attention because they don't want to 15 spend a day in the emergency room. And, you 16 know that's not a good thing. 17 So, I just think that they do have to 18 think about providing the services for our 19 town that's really growing. And it's really 20 a noticeable difference in the seven years 21 that I have lived here. Thanks. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Anybody else in the 23 audience which to comment on the scoping 24 documents? Any comment from the board? 86 1 MR. FOLEY: I just found my documents, 2 excuse me. This is a major project. On your 3 first draft application, I want to make sure 4 of something I brought up to Mr. Steinmetz 5 several meetings ago. When we did -- when we 6 were talking about considering for reviewing 7 on the, maybe they fall under E, 8 transportation/traffic. With the parking 9 garage that's proposed, if there could be 10 access to it from, I know it's the City of 11 Peekskill side, from Dayton Lane and/or from 12 Beach Shopping Center. I'm not sure if it's 13 called Dayton Lane, there's another back 14 access road there. I'm not sure where it 15 winds up with your parking garage. I would 16 like that to be considered, or at least in 17 the document there. 18 It's not sure feeling with two -- 19 actually, two purposes, it would diffuse 20 traffic. All traffic coming out onto 202 21 from the front of the hospital, which I know 22 would be at Lafayette with a turn traffic 23 signal, but if there's access to the garage 24 from the shopping center or Dayton Lane, it 87 1 could help this traffic situation because 2 people would be visiting the hospital with 3 access from there. And they also may benefit 4 the shopping center, people would already be 5 within proximity to it, if they wanted to 6 shop there. 7 MR. STEINMETZ: Mr. Foley, we have heard 8 that comment from you and that question from 9 others. We do expect that as a result of 10 this review process, we will address it. And 11 I know our technical consultants have raised 12 some serious concern about grade and 13 topographic issues that would have to be 14 addressed. 15 I also do note that on the site plan, 16 although it appears that we are quite close 17 to Dayton Lane, that portion of Dayton Lane 18 that shows in the site plan, there is a paper 19 road, it's not the open portion. The actual 20 Dayton Lane that you and I know and drive to 21 get to the Beach Shopping Center is still 22 further away. 23 But, having said that, Mr. Foley, it is 24 an issue that we will address in the EIS. 88 1 MR. FOLEY: That's something that could 2 be worked out with the City of Peekskill and 3 the owners of Beach Shopping Center. Dayton 4 Lane goes from 202 to 6, that isn't a paper 5 road. 6 MR. STEINMETZ: No, but on the site 7 plan -- 8 MR. KLARL: The paved portion is gray? 9 MR. STEINMETZ: Yes, John this is the 10 paved portion, which makes it look like our 11 property fronts on it. We do not front on 12 Dayton Lane. As I understand it, we front on 13 the paper road, and then there is privately 14 owned property in between the paper road and 15 the actual paved Dayton Lane. 16 MR. FOLEY: Is that owned by the 17 shopping center? 18 MR. STEINMETZ: I believe so, that's 19 what I think is indicated on our survey. 20 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Any other comments? 21 MR. KLINE: I have a couple comments. 22 First, I don't know that this scoping 23 document we have here calls for, unless I'm 24 missing it really, an analysis of the, I 89 1 guess, of the, what you want to call it, 2 aesthetic or view impact that this additional 3 -- additional structures will have on the 4 surrounding areas. I think the only way to 5 assess it here would be through various 6 simulated depictions, you know, elevation 7 models or whatever they are called. I'm 8 trying to use the right terminology. But 9 it's hard to tell just from, you know, 10 looking at this, what this would look like to 11 people who are, you know, in the area or so 12 forth. And I think this, with this large a 13 project, structures of this size, it should 14 be something that is specifically focused on. 15 MR. VERSCHOOR: It's on page 13, 16 cultural resources. 17 MR. KLINE: It's under cultural 18 resources, okay. 19 MR. VERSCHOOR: The visual resource 20 section. And on the following page it says 21 potential significant adverse impacts, visual 22 impact by on-site lighting emitting potential 23 additional impacts of proposed relationship 24 with this and nearby properties. 90 1 Neighborhood character and other things. 2 MR. STEINMETZ: It's there. 3 MR. KLINE: Okay. 4 MR. VERSCHOOR: Unless you want 5 something else. 6 MR. KLINE: Quite honestly, I saw 7 cultural resources, I wouldn't have really 8 thought of this as cultural resources. But 9 whatever, as long as the substance is in 10 there. 11 MR. STEINMETZ: Mr. Klein, it will be 12 addressed. The hospital has retained one of 13 the more highly regarded architectural firms 14 that specializes in hospital redesign and 15 construction. Jim Schneider from that firm 16 is here this evening. We'll be dealing with 17 that. You will see elevations once we get to 18 that part of our design phase. 19 MR. KLINE: And the only other comment I 20 have, which was sort of one of what's 21 normally almost like a boilerplate of these 22 things is a, you know, within the community 23 services where it talks about, you know, 24 levels of usage and objective of future needs 91 1 to the following, and it lists a whole bunch 2 of things, one of which is hospitals, 3 healthcare, and ambulance services, which, 4 you know, in a typical subdivision 5 application you could just have a little pro 6 forma statement as to that. 7 I would be interested in seeing, and 8 maybe this is something you've already 9 discussed with the town board, why with all 10 this additional structures, the focus is on 11 changing from double rooms to single rooms 12 rather than adding on additional hospital 13 beds. If, in fact, there is such a pressing 14 need for additional hospitals, hospital 15 services due to the new construction or new 16 housing in this town. It's just something I 17 would be interested in whether, you know, 18 whether there really is more of a need to add 19 beds and what impacts that would have. 20 And maybe that goes beyond what would 21 normally be within the purview of this board. 22 But it just strikes me a little unusual, 23 given what you're citing to us, the demand 24 for services, that the decision was only made 92 1 to switch to, you know, single bedrooms 2 rather than adding any beds at all. 3 MR. STEINMETZ: We did address that 4 briefly with the town board. We'll cover it 5 briefly in the EIS and certainly in front of 6 the further public hearings. 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. I've got a 8 couple questions. My first question is, is 9 the department of health involved in this at 10 all, any kind of approval process? 11 MR. VERSCHOOR: They're involved. 12 MR. STEINMETZ: Yes, yes, it would be in 13 terms of our licensing, certification, all of 14 our expansions are viewed by the department 15 of health. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I guess in the 17 scoping document, all I'm saying is, in the 18 scoping document I would like to understand 19 the scope of their approvals that are 20 required as part of this application. 21 Secondly, and similar to Mr. Kline's 22 comments, there isn't a -- it talks about the 23 benefits of the proposed action. And being 24 in the line of business, healthcare, I am 93 1 interested in some discussion in the scoping 2 about how this proposal will affect the 3 quality and cost and access to healthcare. 4 And, specifically, as it relates to 5 cost, I'm curious about some assessment about 6 the movement from semi-private to private, 7 how you see the impact, what the impact would 8 be in terms of the cost of healthcare. You 9 know, presumably there is some presumed 10 change in reimbursement that is going to be 11 occurring. I don't know. 12 MR. STEINMETZ: I'll give you my 13 reaction to your question. It's a 14 fascinating question, and we can try to 15 answer some of your concerns. I question, 16 again, I apologize, I question whether that 17 is an issue that is properly dealt with in 18 the SEQR process or even jurisdictionally 19 within your control. Unless, just being 20 philosophical, but, Steve as we know one 21 another, and I know this board, unless you're 22 going to ask Home Depot whether they're going 23 to charge more for bark chips if they have to 24 go through a longer approval process, unless 94 1 you're going to ask the movie theater if 2 they're going to be charging more for 3 popcorn, I don't know whether you really have 4 the right to turn to my client and ask -- 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Presumably, you're 6 proposing to go from semi-private rooms to 7 private rooms, presumably there is some -- 8 MR. STEINMETZ: That's an issue, that's 9 a legitimate inquiry for the community, in 10 general, and we got that from the town board. 11 And Susanne is here and we can address that 12 tonight and talk about it briefly if you 13 would like. The hospital explained to your 14 town board which was very concerned about 15 that for the community, that the hospital 16 expanding and upgrading to deal with changes 17 in the medical community, changes in the way 18 care is provided and the fact that people are 19 not spending as much time in hospital beds, 20 let alone in double rooms because of medical 21 care and concerns about issues of 22 communicable diseases and -- that one can 23 acquire from somebody in the next bed. And 24 then the progression is, try to get people 95 1 into a single room. And the progression is 2 really to provide as much ambulatory care 3 today as possible. I'm sure we've all 4 experienced that ourselves at our physicians 5 and at the hospital. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: The DOH is involved, 7 they're presumably going to be addressing 8 quality, cost, and access. 9 MR. STEINMETZ: Clearly. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I would expect that 11 whatever comment they have on that would be 12 part of the record that we'll also review. 13 MR. STEINMETZ: Certainly, if they 14 provide them to the board or share them 15 publicly, yes. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: If they're involved, 17 that's -- 18 MR. VERSCHOOR: What's that? 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: The department of 20 health. 21 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: If they're an 23 involved agency. So, I imagine they'll 24 review this and they'll have some comment on 96 1 your application, as they do in terms of any 2 hospital looking to change, add uses or 3 change their structure. 4 MR. STEINMETZ: Correct. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: There has to be, I 6 guess, a certificate of need or something -- 7 MR. STEINMETZ: Exactly. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: -- that it 9 demonstrated. So, I would imagine as you 10 proceed with those changes with the 11 department of health, those pieces of 12 information would be available to us as well. 13 Now, my final comment, and we always 14 struggle with this, and I guess -- and that's 15 in terms of the alternatives. And I also 16 find that we find ourselves hemmed in in 17 terms of the alternatives because it's not 18 until we get into discussing the application 19 do we really have a clearer picture of what 20 potential alternatives are and the applicant 21 always comes back and says, well, it wasn't 22 in the scoping document, so why are you 23 bringing it up now. 24 MR. STEINMETZ: I've never said that, 97 1 Mr. Chairman. 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Sorry? 3 MR. STEINMETZ: I can't imagine I've 4 ever said that. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I didn't say it was 6 you, Dave. So, I'm looking at the 7 alternatives and I just think we need to be a 8 little bit more thoughtful in terms of the 9 alternatives. We just respond to you and say 10 no action. Well, that's pretty clear. We 11 saw alternative site plan, which I'm not 12 quite sure what that means. And that is sort 13 of a little sort of a, very much a clean 14 slate for you guys to come in and say, you 15 know, here's an alternative. I think we have 16 a need to think about something more. Now, 17 for example, you come in asking for a 377-car 18 garage. 19 MR. STEINMETZ: Correct. 20 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I'm not exactly sure, 21 is that because that is what you need or is 22 that based on something or is that just, you 23 know, I don't know the foundation for the 24 377-car garage or something else. 98 1 MR. STEINMETZ: The number was based 2 upon calculations and determination of the 3 space related to the additional area. It was 4 not simply picked out of thin air. We can 5 explain that tonight or in the document as to 6 why we formulated the proposal with this 7 number of spaces and this layout for our 8 garage. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. I'm struggling 10 with your alternatives. And at this point I 11 don't want to look at this scope and say this 12 is exactly how we want to see it in terms of 13 an alternative when I'm not really sure in my 14 mind, you know, what the alternatives are for 15 the alternative. 16 MR. STEINMETZ: I've read the scope and 17 had a similar reaction. The scope came from 18 the town. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I understand. 20 MR. STEINMETZ: And, so, you did leave 21 it in that fashion. Certainly, when 22 Mr. Foley asked a question about access from 23 Dayton Lane to me, although that might not be 24 complete, a complete alternative site plan, 99 1 and it's an issue that's in the realm or 2 nature of an alternative, I believe we have 3 to look at that. 4 MR. VERSCHOOR: That would be one 5 segment of what Bob Foley mentioned. Also, 6 another segment could be an alternative which 7 doesn't require any variances in the zoning 8 code. That would be something else you could 9 look at. And if there are any other 10 suggestions, we can certainly add those. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: That's what I'm 12 looking for. I'm looking for something a 13 little more structured in terms of 14 alternative. Sometimes I feel that we have a 15 better sense about the alternatives as we get 16 into the public hearings, as we start 17 reviewing it in a little more detail than we 18 just do with your preliminary presentations. 19 MR. STEINMETZ: Mr. Chairman, if the 20 board's lead agency is turning to the 21 applicant asking for us to present another 22 type of alternative or a specific 23 alternative? 24 MR. MILLER: No, Mr. Kessler. Tim 100 1 Miller. You know, we've been down this road, 2 I think many times, and I don't think, at 3 least as the applicant's representative, we 4 have never not addressed an alternative we 5 were asked to do, whether it was at the 6 beginning, middle or end. We resisted it 7 sometimes because sometimes we just didn't 8 want to do those alternatives, and you know 9 that, and we know that, and that is how it is 10 sometimes. But I would say that during the 11 public hearing, you came up with an 12 alternative that you wanted us to explore, we 13 would be happy to explore it and find a way 14 to give you information on it. 15 This is different than a subdivision 16 project or site plan project that's 17 speculative and so forth. I mean, our 18 options have some limit in this instance. 19 MR. STEINMETZ: It's an existing 20 facility, unlike a clean slate. 21 MR. MILLER: I would say that during this 22 process, if you identify an alternative or 23 some configuration you would like us to look 24 at, we would not have any objection to doing 101 1 so, whether it's in this scope today or 2 whether it comes up during public hearing. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yeah, I don't 4 disagree with that. Even though we have gone 5 through many revisions and plans over the 6 years, there is just a little bit more 7 discussion that takes place when it's part of 8 the DEIS than when it occurs as part of the 9 planning process that we all go through in 10 part of the public hearing process. We 11 start, you know, we look at things and move 12 things around. 13 So, my only concern is just the level of 14 detail, that sometimes we don't have that 15 level of detail in the DEIS because the 16 changes occur subsequent to the production of 17 the DEIS and perhaps acceptance of the DEIS. 18 MR. MILLER: Obviously, we're not there 19 yet. So, you're not there yet, we're not 20 there yet, and that's just what it is. So, I 21 do understand your perspective. If anybody 22 has any ideas in the next ten or fifteen 23 days, certainly, put them in there and we'll 24 be happy to take a look at them. 102 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: How long do you keep 2 the scoping document open for? 3 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, we were going to 4 leave the record open for ten days following 5 the public hearing. I mean, if you would 6 like to, we can do it longer. 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yeah, since there are 8 a couple board members not here, maybe we 9 should do that, and then everybody on the 10 board comes up with something. 11 MR. VERSCHOOR: We'll adjourn it for a 12 week. We can adjourn this also. 13 MR. KLARL: Make it 20 days or adjourn 14 it. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. 20 days. 16 MR. VERSCHOOR: 20 days? 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: That's seems to be 18 the consensus. 19 MR. STEINMETZ: We would appreciate that 20 if the board is in a position at the next 21 meeting to allow us to move forward with the 22 DEIS. 23 MR. FOLEY: I have another question. I 24 agree with what the Chairman said. If I 103 1 could just go back on to the E section, page 2 ten or thereabouts under 3 transportation/traffic. 4 Is it within our purview and scope to 5 include, or maybe it is here, I'm not seeing 6 it, private entrances and exits that are in 7 proximity to the hospital, that are high 8 usage, private accesses, street from medical 9 offices. 10 MR. VERSCHOOR: Such as driveways? 11 MR. FOLEY: Driveways, the church, 12 medical center. 13 Also I wondered if -- I know you 14 mentioned Dayton and the 202 side, should it 15 also be noted Dayton and Conklin, as they 16 touch on Route 6, or is that portion of Route 17 6, that little part of Route 6 corridor 18 included through from Dayton to Conklin, or 19 the Beach Shopping Center, major exit and 20 entrances, if that could be included. 21 And then one other thing, the section 22 about the downstream water, section B, maybe. 23 Yeah, this is page seven, potential 24 downstream flooding, et cetera, initial 104 1 stormwater runoff, that would be included. I 2 don't see any mention specifically, the name 3 of the brook that goes westerly from the 4 hospital grounds. Maybe you do. You have it 5 here, towards Peekskill, between 202 and 6. 6 I believe there is a brook there. I'm not 7 sure what it's called. It goes from the area 8 of the hospital, area of Conklin Park, then 9 down to Stone Gate, Green Acres, that flows 10 downstream, can that be looked at carefully? 11 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. I think it's 13 called McGregor Brook, I have seen the report 14 from last September. 15 MR. MILLER: Ken, did you clarify what 16 traffic intersections are being added? I'm 17 not clear on what's being added here. 18 MR. VERSCHOOR: What point to what 19 point? Was it requested or a decision by the 20 board to add them? 21 MR. KLARL: I think it was just a 22 discussion so far. 23 MR. FOLEY: We say already in the scope 24 Dayton Lane and Conklin. Could it also 105 1 include 6 and Conklin and Dayton Lane and 2 private entrances/exits along the 202 3 corridor that are facing the hospital from 4 Lafayette to the church. 5 MR. KLARL: The other side of Beach 6 Shopping Center, Route 6 from Dayton Lane up 7 to? 8 MR. FOLEY: Yes, also on 202, private 9 entrances and exits, the medical centers. 10 MR. KLARL: They want to know the two 11 points between. 12 MR. FOLEY: Between Dayton Lane and 13 Conklin. Unless you went -- I mean, now, 14 there's another intersection at the parkway 15 and 6. 16 MR. MILLER: Any driveway that is serving 17 more than a single-family home? 18 MR. FOLEY: Yes. 19 MR. MILLER: On the 202 corridor. 20 MR. FOLEY: Yes, on 6, at least between 21 Dayton Lane, the part going easterly, going 22 east toward Conklin. And, maybe perhaps I'm 23 thinking about it now, the parkway drive 24 intersection. 106 1 MR. MILLER: On Route 6? We're not 2 adding much traffic to Route 6. We're not 3 increasing traffic with this project. That's 4 going a little far out, in my mind. 5 MR. FOLEY: No one is going to be on 6 Route 6 going to the hospital? 7 MR. MILLER: In other words, people are 8 on Route 6 now that are going to the 9 hospital, but I don't believe we're adding 10 traffic significantly to the volume on Route 11 6 such that it would warrant studying them 12 for this EIS. This is a minor change. I 13 mean, from one day to the next, variations of 14 traffic on Route 6, you're just -- you're not 15 going to see it. 16 MR. FOLEY: When you're talking about in 17 the scope, when we're talking about Conklin 18 and Dayton, we're talking about all of Dayton 19 Lane and all of Conklin. 20 MR. MILLER: We're talking about the 202 21 intersection, sure. It's all intersections. 22 MR. FOLEY: I don't know how the rest of 23 the board feels. 24 MR. MILLER: Well, I would, you know, 107 1 with all due respect, SEQR says that you 2 should be evaluating impacts based on the 3 likelihood and degree of potential adverse 4 impacts. I think by the time you get out to 5 6 there is enough dispersal of traffic, 6 number one. And, number two, this is not a 7 project that's directed towards, you know, 8 new beds and a lot of growth. There's going 9 to be an increase in traffic, but this is not 10 a peak-hour phenomenon. We have traffic that 11 occurs across the day as appointments are 12 being made and so forth. 13 MR. FOLEY: But you're intending to 14 increase the surgery center, you're 15 increasing the surgery center and also 16 emergency room activity there. I mean, 17 people are not staying overnight, you know, 18 you're saying -- 19 MR. MILLER: There will be an increase in 20 traffic in connection with this project. I 21 think by the time you get out to Route 6 22 you're going to see it as being a relatively 23 minor percentage of increase. 24 MR. STEINMETZ: And that, Mr. Foley, is 108 1 to provide better services to the community, 2 not because there's an anticipated 3 expectation of an increase in emergency room 4 patients, increase in surgery. 5 MR. FOLEY: I understand, of course. 6 MR. STEINMETZ: And that directly ties 7 into, ties mathematically into it, that goes 8 to traffic points that those expansions could 9 not realistically, reasonably be expected to 10 generate additional traffic on Route 6. 11 MR. FOLEY: I just don't understand how 12 you determine that. But how do you know the 13 person going to the surgery center for one 14 day is in the emergency room, where does this 15 dispersal happen, halfway down Conklin, at 16 the intersection of Conklin? I mean, this is 17 what I have -- not just from this project, 18 but with others. 19 MR. VERGANO: I don't think it's an 20 unrealistic request to look at Conklin and 21 Route 6. I don't think you're talking about 22 private driveways on Route 6. 23 MR. FOLEY: No, driveways that face the 24 hospital and 202. 109 1 MR. MILLER: We have agreed to that. And 2 if it's limited to Conklin and Route 6, we 3 would agree to that because that's a point 4 where people are going to be going south or 5 east or west. I don't want to go beyond 6 that. 7 MR. FOLEY: I just thought you mentioned 8 it as an afterthought. 9 MR. KLARL: You want him to study two 10 intersections. Conklin and 6 and Dayton and 11 6? 12 MR. FOLEY: Yes. 13 MR. KLARL: Those two intersections on 14 6. When you go out of 6 on Dayton to go to 15 the hospital. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All right. It 17 occurred to me as we were talking here, 18 should we close it, bring it back to our 19 special meeting to discuss this if there is 20 any other comments or just leave comment 21 period open for the 20 days? 22 MR. FOLEY: Just do the 20 days, with 23 the absent board members alerted to the 24 opportunity to comment. 110 1 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, I mean. 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Or we can make it 25 3 days and then we can make sure it comes up at 4 the next meeting. 5 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, what we could do 6 is amend this pursuant to our discussion 7 tonight and bring it back on April 5th and 8 you can adopt it. We'll get that out to you 9 before the meeting so you can look at it. 10 MR. BERNARD: That would make more 11 sense. 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And you can look at 13 the alternatives. 14 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Mr. Kline. 16 MR. KLINE: If I understand what we're 17 doing, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the 18 public hearing on the scope, that we say a 19 20-day comment period on the scoping 20 document. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We're going to bring 22 it back. 23 MR. KLINE: Right. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We're going to bring 111 1 it back under old business at the next 2 meeting. 3 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes. 4 MR. KLINE: You don't want the comment 5 period to run again? 6 MR. VERSCHOOR: No, we'll start the 7 comment period tonight for the next 20 days 8 and leave the record open for comment. 9 MR. KLINE: Right. As part of -- as 10 part of the scope have the item brought back 11 as old business at the April meeting. 12 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Second? 14 MR. FOLEY: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All in favor? 16 (Board in favor) 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 18 Next item is public hearing: Proposed 19 amendments to Section 307-59B(6), Hospital 20 and Nursing Homes of the Zoning Code to allow 21 the Planning Board, subject to appropriate 22 conditions, to waive the requirements for 23 minimum building setback, minimum height, 24 total floor area, minimum lot frontage, 112 1 maximum building coverage, required parking, 2 and any such other dimensional regulation, 3 standard or condition, including landscaping 4 and buffering requirements for new 5 construction. 6 MR. STEINMETZ: Evening, Mr. Chairman, 7 once again. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: You have made a 9 petition, I guess, to the town board on this 10 issue? 11 MR. STEINMETZ: That's correct. 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Otherwise, your 13 application cannot go forward. 14 MR. STEINMETZ: That's correct. Well, 15 when you say otherwise, the application could 16 not go forward. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: As proposed. 18 MR. STEINMETZ: The application before 19 the town board or this application? 20 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: This application. 21 MR. STEINMETZ: No, this application 22 could go forward. What we're trying -- first 23 of all, take a step back. Your code 24 presently has a provision that gives your 113 1 board latitude and flexibility in connection 2 with hospitals and nursing homes; 3 specifically, Section 307-59. 4 We, in reviewing this application with 5 your counsel and with your professional 6 staff, we realized there are certain issues, 7 some of which have not been finalized, 8 because the application is not finalized, in 9 terms of evolution of certain components. We 10 could either potentially go to the zoning 11 board of appeals and apply for and secure 12 certain variances, or, we could return to the 13 town and seek relief in connection with this 14 particular section. 15 There is a sentence in Section 307-59, 16 which I know you discussed at your work 17 session, which said expressly that the 18 planning board may not vary any of the 19 standards. It's our opinion that that does 20 not necessarily preclude the zoning board 21 from using its jurisdiction in variances in 22 certain standards. 23 MR. KLARL: It says planning board here. 24 MR. STEINMETZ: Having said that, when 114 1 we looked at what you got in your code, it 2 is, I think to some extent, antiquated in 3 that it's limited simply to give your board 4 flexibility with regard to existing accessory 5 structures. You're allowed to grant waivers 6 with regard to modification of existing 7 accessory structures. 8 What this text amendment, I'm going to 9 presume what the board will do, is give your 10 board flexibility to make a determination 11 about whether to waive certain aspects of 12 zoning with regard to new principal 13 structures, like the hospital building 14 itself, as well as accessory structures. 15 In a nutshell, because I know that 16 Mr. Foley asked this during the work session, 17 again, a legitimate question, what are we 18 talking about here. We're proposing 19 modification to the front of the building. 20 There is a 200-foot setback requirement in 21 the front. Right now our proposal meets the 22 200-foot setback. 23 The town, as you all know, is presently 24 working with DOT to do expansion of 202, a 115 1 taking along Route 202. If that taking goes 2 forward before this application is finalized, 3 that taking would result in our front yard 4 setback being slightly below 200 feet. This 5 provision would allow your board to have 6 flexibility to deal with this. 7 Similarly, there are a few other sections 8 of the zoning ordinance that, when we 9 reviewed with John and then Ken, we realized 10 that if your board were given the latitude 11 that it already has with regard to accessory 12 structures, your board will be able to 13 process this application and address those 14 concerns that relate to the buffering 15 requirement, some other setback requirements, 16 and a percentage calculation with regard to 17 accessory structures. 18 The application remains the same. It 19 remains exactly what you see before you. And 20 all this does is allow your board flexibility 21 in review and approval. You don't have to 22 grant the waivers. You don't have to pursue 23 it in that fashion. But the town board seems 24 interested in giving your board the 116 1 flexibility that you have and allowing you to 2 use that with regard to the new principal 3 structures. 4 MR. KLARL: Two things about that. 5 First of all, we're always surprised when we 6 hear our code we don't have a special 7 hospital zone. In other words, normally you 8 have a special hospital zone when you have a 9 hospital. 10 No. 2 is, Mr. Vergano and Mr. Verschoor 11 and myself never understood the basis for 12 that section of 307. We assume a former 13 board wanted to handcuff the planning board 14 for any new construction, that they wanted it 15 to come back to the town board. We're not 16 even sure why they put it in there. So, 17 obviously, there should be some play in the 18 role the planning board has, but it's up to 19 the planning board to exercise that. 20 MR. STEINMETZ: Correct. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Just so we're clear. 22 We're talking about new structures, and your 23 example we talked about was the 200-foot 24 setback, and what you're proposing you're 117 1 adding on. 2 MR. STEINMETZ: In the front. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: In the front. 4 MR. STEINMETZ: Correct, but in 5 compliance as of right now, as exists today. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. The point was 7 that that is a new structure that would come 8 under this revision should we adopt this? 9 MR. STEINMETZ: Correct, and it 10 wouldn't, Mr. Chairman, under the existing 11 provision because the existing provision only 12 deals with accessory structures. Opposite 13 the front of the hospital and the main 14 building is a clinical structure. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All right. I was 16 just going to ask the public here, anybody in 17 the audience who wishes to comment on the 18 proposed amendment to the code? No. Okay. 19 Mr. Kline. 20 MR. KLINE: Couple things. First, the 21 way this is worded, is, it meant, I mean, the 22 first part of the language that -- and I 23 gather you really drafted this, it seems to 24 be the same language that's in your letter 118 1 that came down as a referral from us from the 2 town board. The first part is meant to 3 track, I guess, the existing authority in 4 307-59. 5 MR. STEINMETZ: Right. 6 MR. KLINE: Right. 7 MR. STEINMETZ: Word for word. 8 MR. KLINE: The way this has been worded 9 now say, sort of the new power, where it 10 says, "or where a hospital or nursing home 11 facility proposes to construct a new building 12 or structure or addition thereto," it then 13 gives the planning board the right to 14 essentially override any of these various, 15 you know, limitations. Is that meant to mean 16 an existing hospital or nursing home 17 facility? 18 MR. STEINMETZ: I don't believe it's 19 limited in that fashion, Mr. Kline. And it 20 certainly was not our intent to draft it that 21 narrowly, because the prior version of the 22 code did not do that. 23 MR. KLINE: All right. The code as it 24 exists now strikes me as being just 119 1 consistent with the way zoning codes usually 2 work. That the town board sets certain 3 limitations, and that if an applicant for a 4 particular type of use wants to exceed them 5 or vary them in some way, it goes to the 6 zoning board. As we often face here in 7 connection with, I mean, you had on the 8 agenda tonight already one sort of commercial 9 type use where they have to go to the zoning 10 board for whatever reason. So, I mean, it 11 strikes me this is sort of purporting to 12 change the norm in order to really expedite 13 approvals of certain applications from 14 hospitals or nursing homes. 15 But the way this is worded, really, 16 anyone that wanted to put in a new nursing 17 home could now essentially come to the 18 planning board and seek whatever, whatever it 19 would want as a practical matter, without 20 having to ever go to the zoning board. 21 MR. STEINMETZ: And the planning board 22 would exercise its discretion, and should it 23 decide to do that, it could. I think the 24 issue that you put your finger on is, it's 120 1 not unusual in zoning ordinances to find a 2 use such as a hospital, which is obviously a 3 virtually public necessity in the community, 4 defined zoning treated in such a fashion, not 5 that it necessarily has preferential 6 treatment, but there's a certain degree of 7 leniency that is given in power to the local 8 boards so that application can be processed, 9 and be processed expeditiously, provided your 10 board decides to allow it to go in that 11 fashion. 12 MR. BIANCHI: I'm missing something here. 13 I thought we had something in place, a 14 mechanism to deal with these things. What, 15 what's in it for us, what is it that we 16 benefit from, we being the town, versus, the 17 applicant on something like this? We have a 18 process in place, we have a zoning board. We 19 have -- yes, it's a hospital, I understand 20 it's a little more critical than just a 21 subdivision or some other type of 22 application, but we have a process in place 23 to address these issues. Why change? For 24 the benefit of one or two applicants that 121 1 want a hospital or a nursing home facility? 2 We're not preventing them from doing 3 anything. It's a little more work but we 4 have a mechanism in place now. Why change 5 it? 6 MR. BERNARD: I think John can speak to 7 that. 8 MR. KLARL: For a few things, No. 1, 9 that hospitals are a unique animal. There's 10 probably some folks from the City Of 11 Peekskill tonight. They formally had a 12 hospital, they don't have one now, it's in 13 the Town of Cortlandt. So, it's a unique 14 structure. We don't look at it as a 15 commercial building or subdivision. 16 And, No. 2, it just to give the planning 17 board the ability to vary it. Not that the 18 planning board has to exercise that 19 discretion. Right now you're handcuffed and 20 can't even consider looking at a change in 21 the buffering requirement, change in the 22 setback, height restriction. And you might 23 want to say, you know, this height 24 restriction is two or three feet different 122 1 than what is proposed two or three feet 2 different than the code, and just handle it 3 at this level. 4 MR. STEINMETZ: Mr. Klarl, I'll even go 5 one better. 6 MR. BIANCHI: Why wouldn't the zoning 7 board make that determination, like they are 8 for all applications? 9 MR. KLARL: They do this also, but this 10 allows you to do it as part of -- 11 MR. STEINMETZ: It could, and there is 12 certainly no question to that. Take a step 13 back and look at what you have in your code. 14 Your point would be very well taken if 307-59 15 didn't exist. 307-59 exists, you already 16 have this significant, and as Mr. Kline 17 points out, unusual power bestowed upon you 18 by the town board, but for some reason it's 19 limited only to the sheds that we have behind 20 the hospital. It's not limited to the 21 hospital building itself. All we're asking 22 is that, to the extent that the town board 23 has given you this unique authority with 24 regard to stuff on our property, structures 123 1 on our property, we're asking that you give 2 that same latitude with regard to the 3 principal building, anything new that might 4 be constructed. 5 As long as the town board in its wisdom 6 is prepared to give you that authority, it's 7 not unlike, and this is something that I 8 think you can appreciate because we've been 9 involved in applications together on this, 10 it's not unlike a town board saying to your 11 board, you know, on this application we're 12 going to grant you cluster authorization. 13 Suddenly, the planning board with regard to a 14 simple residential subdivision is given 15 latitude that only the zoning board has. 16 It's given latitude to change setback and 17 dimensional requirements. Because the town 18 board in its legislative wisdom decides on 19 that given project we're going to give this 20 board regular authority. Here, your code 21 already says, on this property you have 22 greater authority. No problem. If I want to 23 modify the accessory structures on this 24 property, I can come to you, and during our 124 1 process you have that power. All we've done, 2 after sitting with John, sitting with Ken, 3 sitting with Ed, and looking at this and 4 said, we can do this in front of two 5 different boards. 6 And if we need to, Mr. Bianchi, we will 7 do that. I would hope that your board and 8 your town board would look at this as kind of 9 a beacon of the community in terms of 10 healthcare, help this facility stay on the 11 cutting edge, stay productive, help our -- 12 help your community, your citizens get the 13 quality care that they deserve. And do it as 14 fast as possible. We do not oppose the 15 pos-dec. We understood this is an 16 application of significant impact. Nobody 17 stood here banging the table saying, this 18 should be neg-decced, this should be approved 19 in a very short order. 20 We're ready to go through the process. 21 We just want your board to, essentially, have 22 control over its review and over the 23 dimensional requirements. I don't anticipate 24 that the town board is going to have a 125 1 problem with that. And I know my client 2 would appreciate it if the town would simply 3 allow you that authority. 4 MR. KLARL: Two things, Tom. As you 5 said before, we have this authority for 6 existing structures, but not for new 7 construction. We don't know why a former 8 town board made that distinction. You have 9 the power for old construction, not for new 10 construction. 11 No. 2, zoning board looks at variances 12 because we're concerned about setting 13 precedence for other similarly situated 14 residential/commercial property. Here with 15 the hospital, you're given some latitude. 16 There is not going to be another hospital 17 application, you know, by another hospital to 18 prepare what you've done where the zoning 19 board would get involved. 20 This is where the planning board looks at 21 that certain hospital application and 22 considers whether or not you think a 23 dimensional variation should be granted. 24 It's not like a zoning board has to look at a 126 1 host of properties in looking at one given 2 application, what its effect would be on a 3 host of properties. 4 MR. FOLEY: What about if the word 5 nursing home was removed? I mean, that's the 6 problem I have. I have no objection to the 7 hospital. I don't know what the likelihood 8 is, I don't know. 9 MR. BIANCHI: I think they're two 10 different types of applications. So, one 11 being necessity, yes, a hospital and the 12 other being, no, not really a necessity, not 13 something we would like to have. 14 MR. KLARL: We're working off language 15 from the present code. Present code had 16 language hospital and nursing home. We 17 weren't adding it, we were working on it. 18 MR. FOLEY: I understand that. The 19 problem I have on that, as I said at the work 20 session, could apply to any new construction 21 for, say, in a nursing home. That would be 22 my concern without, you know, really, and I 23 have no objection to it, just the word 24 hospital. 127 1 MR. STEINMETZ: Mr. Chairman, my client 2 obviously has no objection to if the board 3 decides to recommend to the town board that 4 it be pared down or limited in that fashion. 5 That is obviously up to your board and the 6 town board. 7 MR. KLINE: I assume also your client has 8 no objection to if the second part is worded 9 were an existing hospital? 10 MR. STEINMETZ: None whatsoever. 11 MR. KLINE: To me that would be 12 consistent with the initial intention of this 13 307-59(6), which is that if you're already 14 in, if you've already gotten approval once 15 through the normal process, so to speak, and 16 then you want to change something, the 17 planning board has certain greater powers to 18 allow those changes and not to separately 19 send you to the zoning board. I don't see 20 the logic of any -- because that power has 21 been granted for existing, some change to an 22 existing approved facility, to say it now 23 applies to 80 new hospitals or nursing homes, 24 because then essentially we have no -- we 128 1 have no zoning for those uses that anyone 2 could concede to site it in a residential 3 zone with not preset limitations. And, you 4 know, what would be standards the planning 5 board would use in those cases? 6 So, my own view would be, I could support 7 this if it were changed, the second part were 8 changed to, "or were an existing hospital 9 proposed to construct the new building." 10 MR. STEINMETZ: Once again, we have no 11 objection. 12 MR. BIANCHI: Is this an item in other 13 towns? 14 MR. KLARL: Lot of towns, Tom, as we 15 spoke about before, have actually a hospital 16 zone and certain set of regs concerning 17 hospitals. And I don't know why we don't 18 have a special hospital zone. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Any -- last 20 call front he audience? If not, it sounds 21 like we're amending this to take out nursing 22 home, including the words, "in area of 23 existing hospital," do I have that right? 24 MR. BERNARD: Sounds right. 129 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Is that the changed 2 proposal? 3 MR. STEINMETZ: Procedurally, we would 4 ask if the board make its recommendation 5 fairly quickly because we do have a public 6 hearing in front of the town board. 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Mr. Foley, you want 8 to? 9 Mr. Foley: Make a motion that we close 10 this public hearing and, with regard to 11 making recommendation, reserve 12 recommendation. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Is there proposed 14 language? 15 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yeah, I mean, do you 16 want us to prepare a recommendation to go to 17 the town board immediately or would you like 18 that to come back to you for adoption at a 19 future meeting? 20 MR. KLARL: The regular process is to do 21 a recommendation. And as part of that motion 22 again -- 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: It's just the 24 writing. We're not -- it's just the writing. 130 1 MR. KLARL: The right to do new 2 construction. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Right, it seems 4 pretty innocuous. 5 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 6 MR. FOLEY: With those two. 7 MR. VERSCHOOR: Right. That we would 8 say, existing hospital, and take out or 9 nursing home. 10 MR. KLARL: Remove nursing home and put 11 in existing hospital. 12 MR. STEINMETZ: We can have that 13 recommendation for the public hearing on the 14 15th? 15 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes. If you want to 16 assign a resolution number, we'll prepare it. 17 MR. KLARL: What are we up to? We did 18 10. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We did 10, we're up 20 to 11. This would be 11. 21 MR. VERSCHOOR: Okay. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I need a second. 23 MR. BERNARD: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? 131 1 All in favor? 2 (Board in favor.) 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 4 MR. STEINMETZ: Thank you, thank you for 5 your patience. And my voice, I promise to 6 come back screaming when it's normal next 7 month. 8 MR. KLARL: That's resolution 11-05, Ken? 9 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Our final public 11 hearing of the evening is Ulysse Ajram for 12 property of James and Barbara Delfa, 13 Preliminary Plat approval for a two lot major 14 subdivision of 5.85 acres for property 15 located on the east side of Croton Avenue, 16 south of South Gate Drive, as shown on 17 drawing entitled, "Proposed Subdivision of 18 Property for Ulysse Ajram," prepared by 19 Petruccelli Engineering, latest revision 20 date, January 31, 2005. Good evening. 21 MR. PETRUCCELLI: Good evening. I'm Rudy 22 Petruccelli of Petruccelli Engineering. And 23 this is Steve Pruzen (proper noun subject to 24 correction), from my office representing Mr. 132 1 Ajram on this project. It's a five-cluster 2 parcel on the east side of Croton Avenue. 3 It's our proposal to subdivide the parcel 4 into two lots. One just about two acres and 5 other about just about four acres. 6 The rear parcel would be accessed by a 7 strip which will create a flag lot. There is 8 some wetland on the parcel itself. As a 9 result the driveway will have to go through 10 the wetland buffer in order to access the 11 proposed residents at the rear of the 12 property. We will need a variance of the 13 zoning board of appeals because this lot then 14 becomes deficient in the mean width. And 15 we'll leave your group to refer us to that 16 zoning board of appeals. And that's the 17 proposal. 18 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. This is a 19 public hearing, but before we get to that, we 20 did also have scheduled a site inspection for 21 this property which has not occurred. 22 MR. PETRUCCELLI: That's correct. 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And we'll, of course, 24 do that hopefully on Sunday, March -- April 133 1 the 3rd. Therefore, we'll have to keep the 2 public hearing open until we conduct that 3 site inspection. But this is a public 4 hearing, is there anyone in the audience that 5 wishes to comment on the application? Yes, 6 sir, please, name and address for the record. 7 MR. DAVIS: Sure. Good evening, 8 Mr. Chairman, members of the planning board. 9 My name is Clifford Davis, I'm an attorney, I 10 represent David and Lilly Casden, who reside 11 at 6 Natalie Court. The Casdens, this is 12 their property right over here. They are 13 adjacent neighbors to the proposed Ajram 14 subdivision. 15 I had previously provided a letter dated 16 February 23rd to this board with an executed 17 agreement between the Casdens and the Ajrams, 18 and I respectfully request that letter be 19 included in the record. 20 The Ajrams have been gracious enough to 21 meet with the Casdens to address their 22 environmental concerns. This resulted in an 23 agreement which is before this board, which 24 we had provided to you. In essence, the 134 1 agreement provides that -- 2 MR. DELFA: Excuse me, point of order. 3 I'm Scott Delfa, son of James and Barbara. 4 Has that letter been forwarded to the owners 5 of the property? 6 MR. DAVIS: We provided it the Ajrams 7 and to the board. 8 MR. DELFA: But not provided to the owner 9 currently of the property? 10 MR. DAVIS: I did not provide it to the 11 owner. 12 MR DELFA: Thank you. 13 MR. BERNARD: Of which property? 14 MR. DAVIS: The Ajrams are contract 15 vendees to purchase the property. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Is that right? 17 MR. PETRUCCELLI: Right 18 MR. KLINE: Okay. You lost me. 19 MR. DAVIS: The agreement between the 20 neighbors, the Casdens and the Ajrams, is 21 subject to subdivision approval. And the 22 Ajrams purchasing the property, it would only 23 go into effect at that time. So, the 24 agreement is only between the Casdens and 135 1 Ajrams. 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. 3 MR. DAVIS: In essence -- 4 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Any turnover of the 5 property -- 6 MR. KLARL: Delfa. 7 MR. DELFA: That's correct, my parents 8 are current owners. 9 MR. KLARL: It should say contract 10 vendees. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: It should have said 12 that, yes. 13 MR. DAVIS: In essence, the Casdens are 14 buying, are proposing to buy, pursuant to the 15 agreement, subject to the approvals going 16 through, a point-one-seven acre parcel of 17 property from the Ajrams, which would be 18 about right over here. And the purpose of it 19 is to serve as a buffer to preserve the woods 20 which are in the back of Mr. Casdens' 21 property. 22 At this same time, there is going to be a 23 restrictive covenant put on that 24 point-one-seven acres so that Mr. Casden and 136 1 his wife and the successor owners of that 2 property cannot build anything on that 3 property. And there is also an additional 4 approximately point-one-seven acres on the 5 Ajram side of that property which will also 6 be a restrictive covenant. 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So, would you come 8 back with a lot line adjustment? 9 MR. DAVIS: What we're hoping is that 10 the lot line adjustment would be part of this 11 application process. Our planner, Magna 12 Shoberg had spoke to Ken Verschoor and he 13 thought that that would be -- 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Did you amend this 15 application? I'm a little confused. 16 MR. VERSCHOOR: No, if the board was in 17 agreement -- excuse me. If the board is in 18 agreement to approve the application with 19 preliminary approval, that would be a 20 condition that the -- that there be this lot 21 line adjustment, not being a building lot. 22 And then when they come back for final 23 approval, show it on the final plot. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Don't we have to 137 1 evaluate that as part of this? 2 MR. VERSCHOOR: Oh, yes, yes. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: That's why I'm 4 wondering why it's not part of the 5 application right now. 6 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, it's, in fact, 7 they are amending the application by 8 proposing it at this time. 9 MR. KLINE: Does a lot line adjustment 10 need a public hearing? 11 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, we can have a 12 public hearing on final plat. But any time 13 when the board grants preliminary approval 14 you can always, as a condition, request 15 modification of the plat. That is always in 16 your purview. 17 MR. KLARL: And also it was done as a 18 final plat, it's not a substantial agreement 19 and there can be a public hearing on that 20 also. 21 MR. KLINE: Just a modification would be 22 altering the lot line with a property that's 23 not part of the application to begin with. 24 MR. KLARL: They should do it now. They 138 1 should do it now. They should put it in the 2 part of the whole mix now. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Is part of it the 4 applicant come back? 5 MR. KLARL: The amended plan is, see, 6 right now he's asking for a two-lot major 7 subdivision. You still want two-lot major 8 subdivision? 9 MR. PETRUCCELLI: What will happen is, 10 that will be a three lot subdivision because 11 his lot has to be -- has to be placed on the 12 plat, when we finally come to the clerk's 13 office. So, final we'll have a three-lot 14 subdivision, not two. 15 MR. KLARL: So, right now you're doing 16 public hearing for preliminary lot? 17 MR. PETRUCCELLI: We're looking for 18 two-lot subdivision now. And if this 19 contract does go through, we'll amend the 20 plat for three-lot subdivision. 21 MR. KLARL: Why don't you amend your 22 application now and show us your plan that 23 shows us your ultimate plan. 24 MR. PETRUCCELLI: We can do that. 139 1 MR. KLARL: We want to see your final 2 plat. 3 MR. PETRUCCELLI: The public hearing 4 stays open anyway. We can do that. We'll 5 have a new plan shown and we'll be getting 6 their plat, their survey, and we'll place it 7 on the drawings. 8 MR. KLARL: Do you think we'll have a 9 plan to go out on April 3rd? 10 MR. PETRUCCELLI: Sure, absolutely. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: This is a public 12 hearing. Anyone wish to comment at this 13 time? No. We'll adjourn this -- oh, Mr. 14 Bernard. 15 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that 16 we adjourn this application to our April 5th 17 meeting and schedule the site visit on April 18 3rd. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 20 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? 22 MR. BERNARD: Are we going to have some 23 of the property staked out? 24 MR. PETRUCCELLI: It's already staked 140 1 out. 2 MR. BERNARD: It's already staked out? 3 MR. PETRUCCELLI: It's all done. It was 4 done for the last walk. 5 MR. BERNARD: Okay. 6 MR. KLARL: Is that staked out for a two 7 or three-lot? 8 MR. PETRUCCELLI: Pardon me? 9 MR. KLARL: Is that staked out for two 10 or three lots? 11 MR. PETRUCCELLI: What we did is, we 12 staked out the driveway location going across 13 the wetland and the house location. It's a 14 triangle piece of property, it's not staked 15 out. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Could you also stake 17 out the lot line adjustment that would occur? 18 MR. PETRUCCELLI: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All in favor? 20 (Board in favor.) 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 22 Thank you. All right. Onto old 23 business. 24 First item, application of Nicholas B. 141 1 and Hanay K. Angell for Preliminary Plat 2 Approval and Steep Slops, Wetlands and Tree 3 Removal Permits for a three-lot major 4 subdivision of two existing lots on 37.91 5 acres located in the Town of Cortlandt, and a 6 fourth lot in the Town of Phillipstown, as 7 shown on a seven-page set of drawings 8 entitled, "Subdivision plat for Nicholas B. 9 And Hanay K. Angell," prepared by Badey and 10 Watson, latest revision date January 7, 2005. 11 Good evening. 12 MR. WATSON: Glenn Watson for Nicholas 13 Angell. We're here to receive your comments 14 and hopefully have new direction from the 15 staff to prepare a draft resolution for this 16 approval. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We did discuss this 18 in the work session and I believe we are all 19 comfortable with the application as it now 20 stands. We did give some direction to staff 21 in terms of the resolution for some language 22 to be put in that. And I think we're going 23 to direct them to prepare that and hopefully 24 have it for our next meeting. Any other -- 142 1 anything I missed? 2 MR. VERSCHOOR: Well, basically, our 3 discussion had to do with the length of the 4 proposed road. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: The private driveway 6 in Phillipstown. 7 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Is there anything 9 else, any other issues that need to be 10 addressed in this resolution? 11 MR. KLINE: I think -- 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Are you okay on the 13 conservation easement? Any open issues on 14 the conservation easement? 15 MR. VERSCHOOR: Those have been 16 recorded, as far as I'm aware of. 17 MR. WATSON: They have been executed. 18 Whether or not they've been recorded, I'm not 19 sure. They have been executed. 20 MR. BERNARD: As I recall, the 21 conservation easements are going to be 22 monitored. Those go into the Westchester 23 Land Trust, so they'll be doing the 24 monitoring of those. 143 1 MR. WATSON: There are two, one is to 2 Westchester Land Trust that does affect the 3 lands of Cortlandt. Those lands, part of the 4 land in Phillipstown, went to the Hudson 5 Highlands Trust. 6 MR. BERNARD: They're both going to be in 7 the hands of a land trust that can do the 8 monitoring, that's the important thing. 9 MR. WATSON: Yes, absolutely. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Mr. Kline. 11 MR. KLINE: Mr. Chairman, I would move 12 that the -- that we direct staff to prepare a 13 resolution for the April meeting approving 14 the application with language that was 15 discussed at the work session, recognizing 16 that the road would not qualify to be a 17 public road in the Town of Phillipstown. And 18 I guess we're using staff's discretion with 19 respect to demarcation of the conversation 20 easements and things of that nature. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 22 MR. FOLEY: Second. 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 24 in favor. 144 1 (Board in favor.) 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? Thank you 3 very much. 4 Next item, application of Michael Degan 5 for Site Development Plan approval for a 6 garage to store landscape equipment for 7 property located on the west side of 7th 8 Street, approximately 100 feet east of 9 Highland Avenue, as shown on a drawing 10 entitled, "Site Development Plan Based On 11 Survey of Property prepared for Michael and 12 Deborah Degan," prepared by Badey and Watson, 13 latest revision dated February 17, 2005. 14 Good evening. 15 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: How are you? 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Sir, we're going to 17 set a public hearing for our April meeting. 18 And we're also going to join the applicant 19 for a site visit for April 3rd. Okay. 20 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: All right. 21 The pictures weren't good enough that I 22 already sent? Because it's only a flat piece 23 of property. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Sorry, sir, what? 145 1 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: It's a flat, 2 empty lot, fenced in. No trees or nothing. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: When did we set this 4 for site visit? 5 MR. VERSCHOOR: I can't recall. Yeah, 6 the photographs, I believe were copied to the 7 planning board. But the planning board will 8 be in the neighborhood on April 3rd, so they 9 thought they would look at the site. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: The problem is, what 11 we get of a site visit is making sure we see 12 the surrounding area, you know, what 13 properties abut your property. Just to see 14 if there are any landscaping issues and that 15 sort of thing. So, it gives us a little more 16 value than that of the photograph. 17 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: Okay. 18 MR. KLINE: Sorry, have you made 19 application to the zoning board? 20 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: Yes, for March 21 16th. 22 MR. KLINE: Okay. 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So, if there's no 24 other comments, Mr. Foley. 146 1 MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion 2 that we set a public hearing for April 5th 3 and site visit on April 3rd. 4 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 5 MR. BERNARD: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 7 in favor? 8 (Board in favor.) 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? All right. 10 See you out there on the 3rd. 11 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Next item, 13 application of Sue Ann and Raymond Leverich 14 for approval of a minor subdivision/lot line 15 adjustment with no new building lots proposed 16 for 1.2 acre parcel of property located on 17 the south side of Maple Avenue, approximately 18 400 feet east of the Peekskill municipal 19 line, as shown on a drawing entitled, 20 "Subdivision Plat and Lot Line Revision," 21 prepared by Stephen Miller, latest revision 22 date, February 18, 2005. Mr. Bernard. 23 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that 24 we set a public hearing for April 5th. 147 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 2 MR. KLINE: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? 4 We'll be out -- we'll hold a public hearing 5 at our April meeting on this, okay. Very 6 good. 7 All in favor. 8 (Board in favor.) 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 10 All right. Next item is application of 11 David Wald, as contract vendee, for property 12 of Mary Jennnings-Sluder, for Site 13 Development Approval Plan approval and a 14 change of use from a professional office to a 15 real estate office, for property located at 16 49 Conklin Avenue, as shown on a drawing 17 entitled, "As Built Site-Plan Based on Survey 18 of Property Prepared for David Wald," 19 prepared by Badey and Watson, latest revision 20 date February 17, 2005. Good evening. 21 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: Good evening. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We're also going to 23 set a public hearing for our April meeting on 24 this application as well. 148 1 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: Thank you very 2 much. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. So, Mr. Kline. 4 MR. KLINE: Mr. Chairman, I move to 5 schedule a public hearing on this application 6 for our April 5 meeting. 7 MR. KLARL: Just for the record, 8 Mr. Wald previously received favorable 9 decision from the ZBA from the January ZBA 10 meeting. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Good. Do I have a 12 second? 13 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All in favor? 15 (Board in favor.) 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? Thank you 17 very much. 18 Next item is the application of 260 19 Madalyn Corporation for Site Development Plan 20 approval for an industrial building located 21 at 260 Madalyn Avenue, as shown on a two-page 22 set of drawings entitled, Site Development 23 Plan for 260 Madalyn Corporation," prepared 24 by Tim Cronin, latest revision date, January 149 1 20, 2005. Tim, good evening. 2 MR. CRONIN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman 3 and members of the board. I guess the last 4 scheduled site inspection, it was canceled 5 due to inclement weather. I guess you're 6 going to reschedule that to April 3rd. 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We're rescheduling 8 that for April 3rd as well. Mr. Foley is 9 about to make a motion. 10 MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I make a 11 motion that we reschedule site visit for 12 April 3rd for this application. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 14 MR. KLINE: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 16 in favor? 17 (Board in favor.) 18 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 19 Next item under old business is 20 application of Nicholas and Diane Liscia for 21 Preliminary Plat approval and a Steep Slope 22 Permit for a two-lot minor subdivision of 23 1.931 acres located at the north end of 24 Stonefield Court, as shown on a two-page set 150 1 of drawings entitled, "Minor Subdivision Plan 2 For Nicholas and Diane Liscia," prepared by 3 Timothy Cronin, latest revision date, June 4 22, 2004. Mr. Bernard. 5 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that 6 we set a public hearing on our May 3rd 7 meeting. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: May 3rd. Second, 9 please? 10 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? 12 All in favor? 13 (Board in favor.) 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? That's May 15 9th. 16 MR. CRONIN: That's fine. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Page three, item is 18 application of Judy Hagerty for Final Plat 19 approval of a two-lot minor subdivision of 20 three acres located on the north side of Red 21 Mill Road, approximately, 50 feet east of 22 Mill Court, as shown on a two-page set of 23 drawings entitled, "Subdivision Plan for Judy 24 Hagerty," prepared by Tim Cronin, latest 151 1 revision date, February 11, 2005. 2 MR. KLINE: We didn't want you to get up 3 too many times. 4 MR. CRONIN: I make one request, and I 5 think you know what this is. Maybe bump it 6 to the top of page one at the next meeting. 7 That would be wonderful. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Mr. Kline. 9 MR. KLINE: I think, Mr. Chairman, I 10 move we adopt resolution 12. 11 MR. KLARL: We're going to do 13. 12 MR. KLINE: Just for the time extension. 13 MR. BERNARD: 12-05. 14 MR. KLINE: 12-05, an agreement of a 15 three-month time extension and that we direct 16 staff to prepare a resolution -- an approving 17 resolution for the next meeting if the 18 applicant has got the county health 19 department approvals. 20 MR. CRONIN: We actually, the plans have 21 been to the health department, now revised 22 twice based on their comments. So, we have 23 one signature, we're waiting for two more. 24 So, it's just a matter of the required 152 1 individuals, you know, signing off on the 2 plans. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Do we have a 4 second? 5 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 7 in favor? 8 (Board in favor.) 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 10 MR. CRONIN: Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: You're welcome. 12 Next item is application of Orlando 13 Papaleo for Preliminary Plat Approval and a 14 Wetland Permit for a nine lot major 15 subdivision of 13.9 acres located on the 16 northeast side of Locust Avenue, across from 17 Broadie Street, as shown on a two-page set of 18 drawings entitled, " Sunset Ridge 19 Subdivision," prepared by Jeffrey Contelmo. 20 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC: Contelmo. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. Latest 22 revision date, December 22, 2004. You're not 23 Jeff. 24 MS. RYAN: No, I'm Theresa Ryan from -- 153 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: What was that? 2 MS. RYAN: Theresa Ryan. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. We're also 4 going to set a site inspection for this as 5 well for April. That would be -- and, Ken, 6 there's some information that we received on 7 this. 8 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yeah, well, the 9 applicant has submitted a traffic study from 10 John Collins. And we're referring that to 11 the planning board's traffic consultant. We 12 have an estimate for his work, to review that 13 work, and we'll be giving that to the 14 applicant shortly for the funds to be paid to 15 the town so we can hire the planning board's 16 consultant to review this traffic study that 17 you provided for us. 18 Also, with regard to the amended drawing 19 and submission by the applicant, there is 20 also a wetland report by the applicant's 21 wetland consultant. We are arranging to have 22 the planning board's wetland consultant, 23 Steve Cohen, to review that report also, and 24 report to the planning board on that point. 154 1 Also, it is noted that we have submitted 2 a report regarding the contents or deed 3 restriction relative to the subject property, 4 that's being reviewed also at this time. 5 I don't know if there are any other 6 comments that the board has relative to what 7 has been submitted so far, but that's what 8 we're currently looking at now. 9 Also, there was another comment about the 10 conventional plan not showing dry sewers on 11 the drawing. Are you aware of that, that our 12 code requires dry sewers be shown? 13 MS. RYAN: Those were included. 14 MR. VERSCHOOR: If they were included on 15 the conventional plan, we didn't see them. 16 MS. RYAN: Okay. 17 MR. FOLEY: Is that in the December 22nd 18 plans? 19 MS. RYAN: Yeah, we had submitted 20 something. You mean for the, in connection 21 to existing sewer systems? We have submitted 22 an eight and half by 11 sketch showing how 23 dry sewers could be connected to existing 24 systems. There were two sheets listed on the 155 1 December 27th, 2004, subdivision road, water, 2 and sewer connection. We can resubmit those 3 again. 4 MR. VERGANO: What you're referring to 5 is this sheet. This really should be 6 included on the main set of plans. 7 MS. RYAN: Okay. 8 MR. VERGANO: Okay. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Mr. Foley. 10 MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I make a 11 motion that we set a site visit for April 3rd 12 for this project. And that as previously 13 stated we are reviewing the traffic review -- 14 the traffic study and wetlands report. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 16 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 18 in favor? 19 (Board in favor.) 20 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 21 MS. RYAN: There was also a mention in 22 the last review letter that we had received 23 from the board's consultant that there were 24 other referrals that were going to be made 156 1 relating to -- that will be made at this 2 time. One was the Cortlandt Conservation 3 Advisory Council, Fire Advisory Board, and 4 Open Space Committee. 5 MR. VERSCHOOR: Those referrals have 6 been made. We don't have anything at this 7 time to share with you with you. Once it's 8 in, we'll copy you on those. 9 MS. RYAN: And, also, based on the last 10 submission that we made, we had agreed to 11 submit a lot of materials and lot of 12 responses relative to the last comment 13 letter. And we were wondering if we would be 14 obtaining another review on that submitted 15 material? 16 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yes, you will. 17 MR. KELLY: Will that review be coming 18 before the site visit or after the site 19 visit? We're kind of trying to get a time 20 frame. And, also, we're requesting that a 21 public hearing be scheduled on this. 22 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yeah, we'll try and have 23 that before, well before the next meeting. 24 The reason for reviewing the reports that 157 1 have been submitted is that the -- the 2 reports are looked at as a part of the 3 environmental assessment of the property. 4 And the board and, as well as staff, needs to 5 have input from our consultants, based on 6 what was submitted so far. So, we need to go 7 through this process before we're ready for 8 public hearing. 9 MR. KELLY: Okay. So after you have had 10 an opportunity to review it, you will give us 11 your comment letter, including all of the 12 aforementioned reports and various comments 13 that consultants have, and at that point 14 we'll submit the meeting -- or submit for set 15 up of the public hearing. I'm nearly asking 16 the question because our client is asking us. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Of course. 18 MR. VERSCHOOR: Of course. 19 MS. RYAN: We want to keep the process 20 moving forward. We had also requested a 21 waiver for trees. 22 MR. VERSCHOOR: That's a good point. 23 MS. RYAN: We would like to get a 24 surveyor out there to locate the trees. And 158 1 we had asked that in lieu of four-inch trees 2 to locate twelve inches, 12-inch trees or 3 greater. 4 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yeah, typically we've 5 done that with other applications where, 6 basically, if -- if they were to locate every 7 four-inch tree, I believe there are hundreds 8 of them out there. The 12 inch or greater 9 trees, of course, are the major trees that we 10 typically see indicated on a tree survey. 11 That's okay with the board. And if they wish 12 to start doing that, that's fine with us. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All right. 14 MS. RYAN: That's it? 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yes. 16 MR. KELLY: So, we're having a site 17 visit April 3rd? 18 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: I can't tell you what 19 time. 20 MR. VERSCHOOR: Use the microphone, 21 please. 22 MS. RYAN: We'll make available to the 23 board too, since we have our own file, and if 24 you want me to meet you at the site. 159 1 MR. KELLY: Just for the stenographer, 2 Thomas Kelly, I'm attorney for the applicant. 3 We're having a site visit on the 3rd. When 4 -- will we appear on the next agenda, will it 5 be the -- 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Under old business on 7 the next agenda. 8 MR. VERSCHOOR: April 5th. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: At which point we'll 10 see if we have enough information to 11 establish a public hearing. 12 MR. KELLY: Very good. Thank you. 13 MR. KLARL: Mr. Kelly, when did your 14 people acquire this parcel? 15 MR. KELLY: They acquired the parcel, 16 bear with me for one second. 17 MR. KLARL: Do you know the year? 18 MR. KELLY: It was, I'm looking for the 19 certification and title. 2001. 20 MR. KLARL: Can you have your title 21 policy sent to me so I can take a look at 22 that? And in looking at your December 21st 23 letter -- 24 MR. KELLY: What I'll do, Mr. Klarl, 160 1 I'll send you separate copies of all deeds 2 that have come out. We've had a surveyor go 3 out and look at the original deed that came 4 out of the Westchester, came out of the 5 referee to Westchester County National Bank. 6 MR. KLARL: Back in '41. 7 MR. KELLY: Yup, and we have identified 8 all lots that the 30 acres came out of. 9 MR. KLARL: I understand. I would like 10 to see your specific policy. 11 MR. KELLY: Not a problem. We'll send 12 it all over to you. 13 MR. KLARL: Thank you very much. 14 MR. KELLY: Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. And we 16 voted. Okay. 17 Now, next one is application of Ann Gold 18 for Preliminary Plat Approval for a two-lot 19 minor subdivision of 3.05 acres located on 20 the west side of Mountain View Road, 500 feet 21 east of Croton Avenue, as shown on a drawing 22 entitled, "Preliminary Plat Prepared for Ann 23 Gold," prepared by Ralph Mastromonaco, latest 24 revision date, February 9, 2005. Hi, Ralph. 161 1 MR. MASTROMONACO: Hi. 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We also set up a site 3 inspection for this application on April 3rd. 4 MR. MASTROMONACO: April 3rd. 5 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move we 6 set a site inspection for April 3rd on this 7 application. 8 MR. FOLEY: Second. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 10 in favor? 11 (Board in favor.) 12 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 13 MR. MASTROMONACO: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Application, JPJ, 15 Inc., and William E. And Rebecca A. Solander 16 for Final Plat Approval for a two-lot minor 17 subdivision of 3.15 acres located on the 18 northwest side of Dogwood Road, 150 feet 19 northeast of Pump House Road, as shown on 20 drawing entitled, "Final Plat Showing Minor 21 Subdivision prepared by JPJ, Inc., and 22 Solander," prepared by Robert E. Baxter, 23 latest revision date, January 11, 2005, 24 Mr. Kline. 162 1 MR. KLINE: Mr. Chairman, I move for 2 adoption of Resolution No. 13-05 that 3 approves the application. 4 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 5 MR. BERNARD: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 7 in favor? 8 (Board in favor.) 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 10 MR. VERSCHOOR: We're on 13? 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We added a 12 resolution. On the question? All in favor? 13 (Board in favor.) 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 15 Final item under old business is 16 application of Final Environmental Impact 17 Statement entitled, Furnace Dock Subdivision, 18 by Tim Miller Associates, dated December 10, 19 2004, of Furnace Dock, Inc., for Preliminary 20 Plat Approval and Steep Slope and Wetlands 21 Permits, for 23-lot conventional subdivision 22 of 42.43 acres, located on the north side of 23 Furnace Dock Road, 1,500 feet east of Albany 24 Post Road, as shown on a 15-page set of 163 1 drawings entitled, "Preliminary Plat, Furnace 2 Dock, Inc.," prepared by Ralph Mastromonaco, 3 latest revision date, December 7, 2004. 4 We discussed this at the work session and 5 I believe we have an agreement that we're 6 going to schedule a special meeting of this 7 planning board for March the 23rd; that's a 8 Wednesday evening, where I believe this is 9 going to be the only topic that evening. 10 We did receive the consultant's comments 11 on the FEIS, and at that time we'll also have 12 comments of the board. 13 So, with that, Mr. Foley. 14 MR. FOLEY: I make a motion we set a 15 special meeting for March 23rd on this 16 project. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 18 MR. BERNARD: Second. 19 MR. VERSCHOOR: 7:00 p.m.? 20 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: 7:00 p.m., that's 21 fine. On the question? 22 MR. KLINE: I have been recusing myself 23 on this matter. Since we now have four other 24 votes to set this special meeting, I'm going 164 1 to recuse myself from this vote. 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We're on the 3 question? All in favor? 4 (Board in favor.) 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 6 Let the record show that the vote was 7 four to one, with Mr. Kline recusing himself. 8 Next item, onto correspondence. 9 MR. VERSCHOOR: The vote is four-zero. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Four-zero, thank you. 11 Onto correspondence. We're to the 12 letter dated February 7, 2004, from Steve 13 Chester, requesting a new sign for Nathan's 14 Restaurant located at Cortlandt Town Center. 15 MR. CHESTER: Hot dog. 16 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move we -- 17 I move we refer this back to the ZBA with the 18 planning board's approval. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. And can I have 20 second, please? 21 MR. BIANCHI: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And, on the record, 23 we also did receive a letter from the town's 24 Architectural Advisory Council approving the 165 1 sign. So, on the question? All in favor? 2 (Board in favor.) 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 4 MR. CHESTER: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. Next item 6 is a letter dated February 9, 2004, from Joel 7 Greenberg, requesting the six-month time 8 extension of preliminary plat approval for 9 the Appian Way Estates Subdivision, located 10 at the end of Fawn Ridge Drive. 11 MR. KLINE: I move for adoption of 12 Resolution 14-05, which grants a three-month 13 extension. 14 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Can I have second? 15 MR. BERNARD: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 17 in favor? 18 (Board in favor.) 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 20 Letter dated February 15, 2005, from Al 21 Mikula, requesting planning board approval of 22 new signs at the A&P store located at the 23 Cortlandt Town Center. Good evening. 24 MR. SOLLIS: Good evening. Mr. 166 1 Chairman, members of the board. My name is 2 Steve Sollis, I'm attorney on behalf of A&P. 3 And we have previously provided a sketch and 4 additional information as requested in terms 5 of the comparison of the new sign with the 6 old sign. And we have that here this 7 evening. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We have received that 9 in our packets, so we're all familiar with 10 it. We also do have a letter from our 11 Architectural Advisory Council finding that 12 the changes you're recommending to be 13 acceptable. 14 You will, of course, need a ZBA variance 15 for the sign, similar to the one I think that 16 currently exists, there is one for the A&P 17 sign as well. 18 So, with that, I think we're -- 19 MR. SOLLIS: If I may just ask, I guess 20 there was a variance previously granted on -- 21 this sign is actually smaller, is it still 22 required? 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: It's still more than 24 code allows. 167 1 MR. VERSCHOOR: Yeah, also, one point of 2 information that you may have tonight that 3 you didn't have previously was comparing the 4 existing sign to the proposed sign. Its 5 square foot area, do you have that? 6 MR. SOLLIS: I have that. 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Yes. 8 MR. VERSCHOOR: Can you just read that 9 into the record? 10 MR. SOLLIS: Sure. The existing square 11 footage of the Super A&P Food Market sign is 12 197 -- 197.77 square feet. And the proposed 13 square footage of the A&P Fresh Market sign 14 is 160 square feet. Basically what it is, 15 it's being effectuated due to a complete 16 overhaul of their brand, it's not just this 17 store, it's stores throughout the entire 18 country. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And I believe the 20 code allows 120. 21 MR. VERSCHOOR: The code allows 120. 22 And also the other part of this is letter 23 height. In our code, letter height should 24 not exceed three feet. I think this is like 168 1 five, between five and six feet. The Fresh 2 part of the sign height has letters exceeding 3 what code allows. So, therein, the 4 requirement is from the zoning board. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We have no objection 6 to it. 7 MR. VERSCHOOR: Correct. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We will inform ZBA of 9 that fact. Thank you. Mr. Foley. 10 MR. FOLEY: I make motion that we 11 approve the sign change of the A&P, subject 12 to the ZBA approval. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 14 MR. BERNARD: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 16 in favor? 17 (Board in favor.) 18 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 19 MR. SOLLIS: Thank you. Have a good 20 evening. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Next item under 22 correspondence, letter dated February 15, 23 2005, from Stacey Richards requesting 24 planning board approval of a new sign at 169 1 Lazar's GMC located at 2293 Crompond Road. 2 Good. 3 Evening. We discussed this also at the 4 work session. We also have a letter from our 5 Architectural Advisory Council whereby they 6 have no objection to what you're proposing. 7 I believe, though, staff noted at the work 8 session there are some window signs that need 9 to come down. 10 MR. VERSCHOOR: Right. 11 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And this sign 12 replaces existing free-standing sign as well? 13 MR. VERSCHOOR: That's correct. That 14 will be removed when this one is installed. 15 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Yes, we're going 16 do that. 17 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So, without any 18 further comment, Mr. Bernard. 19 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that 20 we approve this application, with the 21 condition that the applicant remove existing 22 free-standing signs and the window signs. 23 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. Second, 24 please? 170 1 MR. FOLEY: Second. 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 3 in favor? 4 (Board in favor.) 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? Thank you. 6 Good luck. 7 Next item under correspondence is a 8 letter dated September 17, 2004, from Michael 9 Dickson, requesting approval of an outdoor 10 sitting area at the Rock'n Horse Steak House, 11 located at 2016 Albany Post Road. 12 Anybody here representing the applicant? 13 How do we proceed? This is now the second or 14 third time. 15 MR. VERSCHOOR: Just refer it back. 16 MR. VERGANO: I'll make sure. 17 MR. KLINE: I move that we refer this 18 back to staff. 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. Second, 20 please? 21 MR. BERNARD: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 23 in favor? 24 (Board in favor.) 171 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 2 Final item under correspondence is the 3 planning board guidelines for preservation of 4 wetland and steep slopes. We did discuss 5 this at the work session. I think we're 6 going to have staff go back and redraft it 7 with more detail for steep slopes. 8 MR. VERSCHOOR: Between 15 and 20 9 percent. 10 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Well, actually I 11 think ten to 15 and 15 to 20, I think 20 12 plus. I think those were the indications of 13 steep slopes. I don't know if there's 14 anything to add? So, we'll just have a 15 motion. Mr. Foley. 16 MR. FOLEY: I make motion to refer this 17 back to staff for those details. 18 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second? 19 MR. BERNARD: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. On to new 21 business. What do you have, four items on 22 new business? 23 First item is application of Richard 24 Albert for Site Development Plan Approval for 172 1 mixed use, building retail on the first 2 floor, and eight residential units on the 3 second floor, for property located on the 4 south side of Route 9A, approximately 250 5 feet west of the interchange with Route 9, as 6 shown on a drawing entitled, "Preliminary 7 Site Plan For 2028 Albany Post Road, LLC," 8 prepared by Ed Gemmola, dated January 27, 9 2005. 10 Anybody here? 11 MR. NOVIAN: Hi. Good evening. I'm 12 Andrew Novian (proper noun subject to 13 correction), from Ed Gemmola's. I'm 14 representing this project this evening. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All right. We're 16 going to refer this back to staff, but there 17 is some issue about. 18 MR. VERSCHOOR: One issue here is that 19 the plan indicated there will be eight 20 residential units in the proposed building. 21 In this zone you're only allowed four. So, 22 that -- that's our preliminary reaction to 23 this, that we're not sure why eight units is 24 being proposed here. 173 1 MR. KLARL: HC-9A. 2 MR. VERSCHOOR: In the HC-9A. 3 MR. NOVIAN: We'll try and get an answer 4 for that question. 5 MR. VERSCHOOR: And then also another 6 question about existing units in the back of 7 the property, what will be done with those? 8 MR. NOVIAN: Okay. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: So, anybody want to 10 take this? 11 MR. BERNARD: Mr. Chairman, I move we 12 refer this back to staff. 13 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second? 14 MR. NOVIAN: Please. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Do you have a 16 question? 17 MR. NOVIAN: I have a question with 18 respect to process. Is it for your board to 19 consider in declaring themselves lead agency 20 or issuing notice of intent for lead agency? 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. 22 MR. BERNARD: I'll modify that, with the 23 recommendation that the planning board be the 24 lead agency on this application. 174 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. Second, 2 please? 3 MR. FOLEY: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 5 in favor? 6 (Board in favor.) 7 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 8 MR. NOVIAN: Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: All right. 10 Application by Michael Americo for 11 Preliminary Plat Approval and a Steep Slope 12 Permit for a two-lot minor subdivision of 13 38,649 square foot lot located on the east 14 side of Dutch Street, approximately 1,700 15 feet south of Route 9A, as shown on a drawing 16 entitled, "Preliminary Plat Prepared For 17 Michael Americo," prepared by Ralph 18 Mastromonaco, dated February 11, 2005. Good 19 evening. 20 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Good evening. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We'll refer this back 22 as well. 23 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Yes, I just wanted 24 to ask before you do that, I have one 175 1 question, if I can have your indulgence for 2 one minute on a general subject? 3 MR. KLARL: Like? 4 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We have nowhere else 5 to go. 6 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: One minute. I 7 have sat back there watching this car wash 8 trying to get approved. And there is 9 something that Mr. Marwell said that 10 concerned me, and that is that when you 11 looked like you're going to issue this 12 denial, that your denial is not actually 13 backed up by expert reports or testimony and, 14 apparently, is somewhat wishy-washy. And, 15 now, you have this extra month or so, or 16 whatever you have, if you want that denial to 17 sit, I'm just giving you some friendly 18 advice, you probably do need to get some sort 19 of expert testimony on the record today. 20 I don't think -- I think Mr. Marwell was 21 quite correct in what he was saying. And I 22 think if they do take it to that next step, I 23 think -- 24 MR. KLARL: They're going to the merits. 176 1 He's talking about the expert retained by the 2 town. It was the town, we had one. 3 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I think you did. 4 But as far as I heard, it wasn't that -- it 5 didn't sound like it was really that 6 supportive. And I know it was only traffic, 7 it was only a traffic report. I think that 8 expert testimony, if you want that to stick, 9 it's going have to hit on every single topic 10 that was discussed. And I think the whole 11 cueing issue is critical. And as you can 12 tell, I sort of can't believe myself they 13 want to put a car wash there. But not 14 getting into that, the merit, I'm sitting 15 here thinking this is something that I hope 16 that you would not think of considering. 17 MR. KLARL: Are you speaking as property 18 owner or expert? 19 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: I'm speaking as a 20 resident of the town. 21 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We appreciate that. 22 So, let's go. Mr. Bianchi. 23 MR. BIANCHI: Mr. Chairman, I move to 24 refer this back to the staff. 177 1 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. Second, 2 please? 3 MR. FOLEY: Second. 4 MR. BERNARD: Second. 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 6 in favor? 7 (Board in favor.) 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 9 Next item is application of Loreto and 10 Anna Rinaldi, Jack and Wendy Smith, and Joan 11 Bernard, for Preliminary Plat Approval of a 12 two-lot major subdivison/lot line adjustment, 13 with no new building lots created, for 14 property located on the east side of 15 Buttonwood Road, approximately 2,000 feet 16 south of Route 202, as shown on drawing 17 entitled, "Preliminary Sketch Plan prepared 18 for Loreto and Anna Rinaldi and Smith and 19 Bernard," prepared by Robert Baxter; latest 20 revision date January 11, 2005. Good 21 evening. 22 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Good evening. 23 MR. KLARL: I am recusing myself. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: We're going to refer 178 1 this back to staff. They'll review it, 2 they'll issue a review memorandum to you, 3 with the -- if they have some questions on 4 the application. And then we'll bring it 5 back and hopefully schedule a public hearing. 6 MR. VERSCHOOR: Just one question on 7 this. The lot that is being increased in 8 area, does it have an existing house on it? 9 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Vacant. 10 MR. VERSCHOOR: But is it your intent to 11 build on this property? 12 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Eventually. 13 MR. VERSCHOOR: All right. 14 MR. FOLEY: Is that when you first go in 15 Buttonwood? 16 MR. VERSCHOOR: It's all the way at the 17 end of Buttonwood, across from the hospital. 18 SPEAKER FROM PUBLIC: Thank you 19 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Motion, please. 20 MR. BIANCHI: Mr. Chairman, I move to 21 refer this back to staff. 22 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 23 MR. FOLEY: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: On the question? All 179 1 in favor? 2 (Board in favor.) 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: The final item of the 4 evening is the application of Angel and Maria 5 Martinez for Preliminary Plat Approval for a 6 three-lot major subdivison of a 3.83 acre 7 parcel of property located on the west side 8 of Locust Avenue, approximately 500 feet 9 south of Oregon Road, as shown on a drawing 10 entitled, "Preliminary Subdivision Plan For 11 Angel and Maria Martinez," prepared by Tim 12 Cronin, dated February 16, 2005. 13 Mr. Bianchi. 14 MR. BIANCHI: Mr. Chairman, I move to 15 refer this back to staff. 16 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second, please? 17 MR. FOLEY: Second. 18 MR. VERSCHOOR: On the question, I just 19 want to -- we did receive some correspondence 20 today from a neighboring property owner, Joan 21 and Kim DeRosa (proper noun subject to 22 correction), Locust Avenue. We'll refer this 23 to the applicant's engineer that they have 24 asked many questions concerning this proposed 180 1 subdivision. 2 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Thank you. On the 3 question? All in favor? 4 (Board in favor.) 5 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Opposed? 6 MR. KLARL: Make a motion to have an 7 executive section. 8 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: First, we adjourn. 9 MR. KLINE: Move to adjourn. 10 MR. KLARL: We have to keep the record 11 open. We're going to meet, then come out of 12 executive session, and then adjourn. 13 MR. KLINE: Move to go into executive 14 session. 15 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Second? 16 MR. BERNARD: Second. 17 (Executive session held.) 18 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Motion to come out of 19 executive session? 20 21 22 (Continued) 23 24 181 1 MR. KLINE: So moved. 2 MR. BIANCHI: So moved. 3 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: And now? 4 MR. KLINE: I move we adjourn. 5 MR. BERNARD: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN KESSLER: Okay. 7 8 9 10 11 (Time Noted: 11:03 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 182 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Michael McAliney, a Court Reporter and 5 Notary Public of the State of New York, do hereby 6 certify that the transcript of the foregoing 7 proceedings, taken at the time and place 8 aforesaid, is a true and correct transcription of 9 my shorthand notes. 10 11 12 13 14 X 15 Michael McAliney 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24