1 25 9 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ae6e9c2db2efd9fa6661e3f6db955fa8.pdf 8be37c6a7c0853febb3914104c513fe5 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING January 18, 2012 The meeting was called to order by Timothy Judge , Acting Chairman at 8:15 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Michael Wernick Linda Moiron Timothy Judge, Acting Chairman M. Gorete Crowe Sherry Bishko Absent Peter Koffler, Chairman Jennifer Lobato-Church Also Present: Joe Paiva (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) A Agenda: • 1) Michael Kampen 12 Gorey Brook Road 2) Angelina Shaw 151 Highland Av 3) Minutes for November and December 2011 Announcements: None. This is an application for an area variance. The Chair stated that this application cannot be heard since the public was not properly noiced. 2) Angelina Shaw 151 Highland Avenue This is an application for an area variance. The Chair asked if proof of mailings was received. Joe Paiva responded yes. The Chair read the public notice aloud for the record. Addition - �Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application. Sam Vieira said that the owner is in a wheelchair and the proposed changes will enable her to live on the 1st floor. The alterations will include a wheelchair ramp and some interior renovations. He reviewed the footprint to establish the required variances. He stated that the deck was slid over to the other side to allow the owner to access the garage. Michael Wernick asked about the age of the house. Mrs. Mary Pearlman (owners daughter) stated that the house is at least 70 ^ year's old.. Sam Vieira reviewed the requested variances. He reviewed the pre-existing non-conforming variances and the variances created by the proposed work. The Chair stated that by sliding the deck over, the variances^weri crea Sam Vieira responded that the deck can be altered to eliminate any issues with the requested variances and the public notice. The Chair stated that the Board has received 1) Zoning compliance form 2) Short EAF 3) Application 4) Plans 1 ti Since there were no further Board questions, the Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no publi men Chair: c l d e d the public hearing. Joe Paiva stated that sever members of the public came to view the plans and he stated that the onform to the public notice. He stated that the deck was shown on the deck should be m other side of the property and the original plans did not propose a wheelchair ramp. The Chair stated that the deck wou d have to conform to the public notice regarding setbacks. Sam Vieira responded that : the deck will be shifted over 6-inches. Linda Moiron asked about the lot coverage. Sam Vieira responded ' that it was an error in transferring the information from the plans to the zoning form. Linda Moiron asked if plans were sent out to every neighbor. Joe Paiva responded that only the public notice is sent out. Sherry Bishko asked for clarification regarding the deck. Joe Paivia responded that a majority of the deck slid over to the other side of the house. The Chair stated that if the deck location is in compliance with the zoning code, a variance is not needed. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting,November16, 2011 2 �There was an open discussion on the revised location of the deck and the plans that were available to the public for review. The Chair stated that if the deck stays within the existing setbacks, then a variance is not needed. Linda Moiron asked about the location of the side yard neighbor. Sam Vieira responded that it is not shown on the drawing but he estimates about 11 -feet for each for a total of about 22-feet apart. Joe Paiva stated that the original deck is located on the drawing. He stated that the visualize the impacts of relocating the deck. can Mrs. Mary Pearlman (owners daughter) stated that the new plans neighbors on both sides as well as the neighbors across the street Sam Vieira also stated that the application will be presented to the ARB public will have the chance to comment on the new plans. eek and the The Chair stated that the application would not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. He stated that this is not a self-created hardship. He stated that the requested variances are not substantial. Linda Moiron made a motion t seconded. It was unanimous (55-0) s submitted. Michael Wernick The Chair urged the applicant to have the neighbors review the plans again so they can comment on the new plans. 3) Minutes forr Nov r and December 2011 - The minutes for the November and December 2011 meetings were reviewed. The minutes fro November 2011 meeting will be held over until the verbiage is received from the Village Attorney on the Valley Street application. The Chair made a motion to approve the December 2011 minutes as submitted. Michael Wernick seconded. It was approved (4-0). (Bishko abstained). Adjourned 8:49 pm. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 18, 2012 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-01-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1a75159cb64567469d077f21e6d8b3f6.pdf 48bf93b2e608fdbf60f746aec3f5dc68 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED March 21, 2012 The meeting was called to order by Peter Koffler, Chairman at 8:06 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Peter Koffler, Chairman Michael Wernick Linda Moiron Timothy Judge Jennifer Lobato-Church Absent : M. Gorete Crowe Sherry Bishko Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Kiran & Jenny Batheja 4 Webb Road Addition 2) Antonio Soares 64 Depeyster Street 3) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue Proposed 4) Minutes for November 2011 and January 2012 and alteration Convert 2-fam. to 3-fam. grocery store Announcements: None. 1) Kiran & Jenny Batheja 4 Webb Road Addition and alteration This is an application for an area variance. The Chair asked if proof of mailings was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair read the public notice aloud for the record. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Appeal and petition 2) Survey Robert Barstow is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. �Robert Barstow stated that the requested variances are for pre-existing non-conformities. He stated that the proposed work is only adding a portico in the front entrance and a deck is proposed over an existing patio. He stated that these are the only minor footprint changes. Jennifer Lobato-Church asked about the dormer and chimney. Robert Barstow responded that the dormer is being extended and the chimney is also being extended. The Chair asked if the rear deck is visible from the street. Robert Barstow responded no. Jennifer Lobato-Church asked if there are any neighbors near the proposed work. Robert Barstow responded there are neighbors on all 3 sides but they are not impacted by the proposed work. He stated that all setbacks are conforming. The Chair opened the public hearing. Chris Pike of 6 Webb Road stated that he is concerned with the extension to the rear since he is downhill of the property. He stated that from the street, the house has the appearance of being 2stories already since the basement is above grade. He stated that the proposed work will appear to be like a 3rd story. He stated that the 3rd story will be visible from the street and will negatively impact his property. He stated that the dormer expansion and other proposed changes are not impacting his property. Lastly, he also stated that the property slopes downward and during heavy rain and pores thru the existing rock wall that separates the properties. He stated that the existing downspouts discharge towards his property. He stated that the leaders have been extended towards his house and have caused water problems in his basement. Jennifer Lobato-Church asked if any of these issues addressed by this project. Robert Barstow responded that drywells are proposed so the runoff will be controlled. Chris Pike also stated that a proposed BBQ area is not shown on the drawing. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Chair asked about the 2nd floor addition. Robert Barstow responded that the master bedroom is being extended. Timothy Judge asked about the grade changes on the property from north to south. Robert Barstow responded that the grade change is rather large. Timothy Judge asked about the size of the dry well. Robert Barstow responded that he has not performed the calculation yet. Timothy Judge asked about the location of the dry well. Robert Barstow responded that probably the side yard. APPROVED -Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 21, 2012 2 �The Chair asked about any plans to landscape the south property boundary. Robert Barstow responded that there are no plans to landscape the boundary. Michael Wernick asked Sean McCarthy if the proposed drywell would benefit the rear neighbors storm water runoff issue. Sean McCarthy stated that it should help. The Chair asked about the size of the existing house. Robert Barstow responded about 1700sf. The Chair asked if the applicant has reviewed any alternatives. Robert Barstow responded yes. He stated that this is the minimal variance that can be approved that will accomplish the applicants needs. Jennifer Lobato-Church asked if the deck is part of the FAR calculation. Sean McCarthy responded no since it is not a covered deck. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There were none. Timothy Judge made a motion to approve the application. He stated that the variances were for lot size and lot width. The Chair seconded. He stated that the proposed application is not detrimental to the neighborhood and it is the minimal variance that can be granted to accomplish the applicants goals. The application was unanimously approved (5-0). 2) Antonio Soares 64 Depeyster Street Convert 2-fam. to 3-fam. This is an application for an area variance. The Chair asked if proof of mailings was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair read the public notice aloud for the record. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Appeal and petition 2) Deed 3) Survey 4) hand-drawn sketches APPROVED -Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 21, 2012 3 �Richard Blancato is an attorney and is representing this application along with the owner. Richard Blancato stated that the public notice is incorrect regarding the permitted use. He stated that the property is permitted to be a 2-family property. Sean McCarthy responded that the public hearing is correct based on the lot size. Richard Blancato stated that the previous meeting, there was no parking at the property. He stated that an easement has been agreed upon between the adjacent property owner so that parking can be accessed in the rear of the property. He stated that a parking variance of 1 parking space is still required. Richard Blancato stated that the property has been used as a 3-family property since 1972. He described the interior layout of the house from 1972. He stated that the owner applied for a building permit to convert the 2nd story into a separate dwelling unit. He stated that all the work was completed but there is no record in Village Hall. Richard Blancato stated that the owner did everything according to the codes at the time the work was done. He stated that it is taxed as a 3-family property and was only discovered by Robert Stiloski about 9 years ago that there was no 3-family Certificate of Occupancy in the Bldg Department files. There was an open discussion on the previous application. Richard Blancato reviewed the criteria for granting a variance for an area variance. He stated that there are other similar properties in the area so it is not detrimental to the neighborhood. The owner is paying tax on the property as a 3-family property. He also stated that it is not selfcreated since the applicant did everything possible to have the property converted legally. Richard Blancato provided electrical permits that were taken out on to increase the occupancy at the property. He provided a historical narrative on the work done at the property, when it was done and who did the work. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. Richard Blancato submitted numerous documents to the Board to support the 3-family dwelling claim. The Chair asked if the conversion from 2-family to a 3-family property exacerbates the density problem in the Village. Richard Blancato responded no. He stated that the property has been a 3-family property for many years. APPROVED -Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 21, 2012 4 �The Chair asked when the tax assessor changed the tax assessment from 2-family to a 3-family. Richard Blancato responded in 1972. The Chair stated that the conversion from a 2-family to a 3-family is significant. Richard Blancato responded that the conversion has been completed in good faith back in 1972. The Chair stated that there is a problem in the Village regarding illegal dwelling units. Richard Blancato stated that the conversion back to a 2-family house will ultimately cause the owner to evict the current tenant that has been living at the house since 1973. The Chair made a motion to deny the application based on the fact that the area already has parking and density issues and the proposed application is detrimental to the neighborhood. Linda Moiron stated that she would like to see the property to see the layout of the current property. There was an open discussion on the documentation provided to the Board. Janet Gandolfo stated that the last time the application was before the Board, the issue that the Board had was regarding the lack of parking. Richard Blancato stated that the documents that the Building Department currently have were provided by the applicant and not by the Building Department. The Chair withdrew his motion to deny the application. The Chair made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting. Michael Wernick seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue Proposed grocery store This is an application for an area variance. The Chair asked if proof of mailings was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair read the public notice aloud for the record. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application 2) Survey APPROVED -Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 21, 2012 5 �Kyle McGovern is an attorney and is representing this application on along with engineer, Miguel Castro and the owners. Kyle McGovern stated that there is only one variances required for parking. He stated that the other variance regarding §62-20.1 does not apply since the proposed business is not serving or preparing food at the site. Kyle McGovern stated that the application is for a full-service supermarket and not a delicatessen. Miguel Castro gave an overview of the parking plan as well as the interior of the property. He also spoke about a loading zone. He stated that 2 on-street parking spaces will be created since 2 garage spaces will be eliminated. He stated that no matter what the building was converted to, a parking variance will be required. He stated that the Planning Board gave a positive referral to the Zoning Board from their January 2012 meeting. Kyle McGovern spoke about the current use of the property. He stated that the trucks would be used during the day and returned at night. He stated that the proposed store would be serving the dense areas of the Village. Kyle McGovern stated that the proposed grocery store would be an enhancement to the area. He stated that a shuttle would be provided to bring people back home with their groceries. He stated that most customers will walk to the store. He stated that the Thai restaurant was approached for some temporary parking as well as Frank’s Chevrolet but the Thai restaurant could not spare the Parking spaces and Frank Chevrolet did not respond. Kyle McGovern stated that there is no impact to the environmental conditions to the area. He stated that site lighting and security cameras are proposed to further improve the site. Jennifer Lobato-Church asked why are the site lighting and cameras being installed now. Kyle McGovern responded that he did not know. He stated that the tenant is putting monies aside to install these items. Janet Gandolfo stated that since the applicant is amending his application to indicate that the property will be a retail grocery store and not a restaurant/delicatessen. The Chair asked if other uses were evaluated regarding parking. Miguel Castro responded that an office use would require a parking space for every 300-feet. Douglas Martino is representing the adjacent business owner Ms. Gonzales. He submitted a petition opposing the proposed supermarket. He stated that Ms. Gonzales owns a small bodega and she is concerned about her business. He stated that the applicant is suggesting that they are not serving prepared food but can change that situation in the future. The Chair responded that conditions could be placed on any approval. APPROVED -Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 21, 2012 6 �Douglas Martino stated that the parking requirements are significant. He stated that the proposed parking will be for employees only and there is no parking being provided for the public. He stated that this will only increase the existing parking issues in the area. He also stated that the proposed shuttle system for customers is not required under the current Village code. Jennifer Lobato-Church asked about the business that Ms. Gonzales owns. Douglas Martino responded that its off the shelf groceries and some food is prepared on-site. The Chair asked how many parking spaces are provided by the bodega. Douglas Martino responded none. He stated that its not that type of business where parking is needed. Robert Barstow is a local property owner and he said that he is in favor of the application. He also stated that the owner should offer delivery service. Joel Sherry (154 Valley Street) stated that the grocery store is a nice idea but it is a very congested area. He wanted to ask if the owners have looked into how much business will come by car. Yamaris Ferrera is interpreting for Ms Gonzales (adjacent property owner). She stated that this grocery store will hurt her business and she is opposed to the proposed application. She stated that 136 people have signed the petition opposing the grocery store. She also stated that food and medicine are not permitted to be sold in the store since the property used to be an automotive repair shop. Walter (applicant) stated that a bodega and a grocery store are different. He stated that when he was a little boy, he used to walk to C-Town and it’s rather far. He stated that there are a lot of choices in the area and people can shop where then want. Yamaris Ferrera lives 2 blocks from the property and she stated that parking is very difficult. She stated that at the corner is a bus stop for the school buses and the Westchester County BeeLine bus. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Chair wanted to see the positive referral from the Planning Board. Sherry Bishko asked about the size of the store. Miguel Castro responded about the size of the original C-Town. Linda Moiron asked about the number of employees. Walter responded 4 employees on double shifts plus cashiers. The Chair asked about the hours of operation. Walter responded 8am to 9pm M-F and some weekend hours. APPROVED -Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 21, 2012 7 �Timothy Judge asked about the parking on the roof. Walter responded that it is too dangerous to park on the roof of the structure. Timothy Judge asked about alcohol sales. Kyle McGovern responded that alcohol will be sold but tobacco will not be sold. Timothy Judge asked about the nearest fire hydrant. Kyle McGovern responded that it is across the street. He also showed photos showing some available parking during the daytime. The Chair made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting. He stated that he wanted to see the Planning Board’s minutes which showed the positive referral. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 4) Minutes for November 2011 and January 2012 The minutes for the November 2011 will be reviewed at the next meeting. The minutes for January 2012 were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Michael Wernick seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) Adjourned 10:42 pm. APPROVED -Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 21, 2012 8 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-03-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d3c1d9c114643b62678a73e0ef1816a1.pdf 3e155650869cbd9991d0cc57b4f79495 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING April 18, 2012 The meeting was called to order by Timothy Judge , Acting Chairman at 8:15 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Michael Wernick Linda Moiron Timothy Judge, Acting Chair Tom Capossela Sherry Bishko Absent : M. Gorete Crowe Peter Koffler, Chairman Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue 2) Antonio Soares 64 Depeyster Street 3) Kiran & Jenny Batheja 4 Webb Road 4) Minutes for November 2011 and January 2012 Proposed grocery store Convert 2-fam. to 3-fam. Addition and alteration Announcements: None. 1) Colette Weinstein 41 Amos Street Addition and alteration This is an application for an area variance. The Chair asked if proof of mailings was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair read the public notice aloud for the record. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Appeal and petition 2) Zoning Compliance form 3) Short EAF 4) Drawings The applicant was not present yet so this was adjourned to later in the meeting. �2) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue Proposed grocery store This is a continuation from the previous meeting. Kyle McGovern is an attorney and is representing this application on along with engineer, Stephen Costa and the owners. Kyle McGovern summarized the events from the last meeting. He stated that the owners are also proposing to make deliveries to residents in the area to further minimize the parking impacts. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair reopened the public hearing. Anna RAKIPI owns 128 Cortlandt St. She said that she owns the building next to the applicants property. She stated that she does not understand why another delicatessen is proposed next to an existing delicatessen. Douglas Martino is representing Maria Gonzalez who owns the delicatessen next to the applicants property. He presented a petition of 259 signatures opposing the application. He stated that the notice posted at the property does not show the date and time of the meeting. The Chair asked the Building Inspector if he sign is provided by the Village. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Janet Gandolfo responded that the law only requires the public mailings of adjacent property owners. Douglas Martino stated that the requested variance is dramatic. He stated that there are negative impacts to the neighborhood for parking and for local businesses. He presented a photo of the area showing a school bus stop pick-up location. He stated that the applicant knew the limitations of the property when they purchased it. He also stated that an application for a nearby Walgreens was converted into a different use from what was originally proposed. He stated that this property can change after the variance is granted. The Chair responded that the Walgreens pharmacy is not within this Village. Stephanie Greon is the daughter of Maria Gonzalez. She stated that this application will take away more jobs than it will create since many of the local businesses will close. Joe Foley of 126 Valley Street stated that the property used to be an automotive body shop. He stated that it was converted to a construction business. He stated that the parking was bad when it was a body shop. He stated that laws are put in place so that they are not abused. He asked that the application be denied. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 18, 2012 2 �Edwin Gonzalez from 126 Cortlandt Street owns a delicatessen. He stated that there are 7 other bodegas within 2 blocks of his property. He stated that the owners have to work 14-18 hours a day to make a living. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Chair stated that the Board does not evaluate issues regarding competition between businesses. He stated that the Board only determined the application based on the variances sought by the applicant. He stated that parking in the area during the day is ok. He stated that peak times may be different. Sherry Bishko asked when the store will open daily. Kyle McGovern responded 8am. Tom Capossela asked about the requested variances. Sean McCarthy responded that the parking variance is needed. He stated that the distance variance is not required since they are not serving food. Tom Capossela asked about the hours of operation. Kyle McGovern responded 8am-8pm Sat and 8am-6pm Sunday. There was an open discussion on the parking spaces needed. Kyle McGovern stated that 2 parking spaces will be restored so a total of 14 spaces are needed. Michael Wernick stated that property owners should be allowed to use their property but he is concerned with the impacts to the community. He stated that he takes his car to the supermarket and he thinks that the parking in the area will be an issue. He stated that the applicant should present their case regarding parking impacts to the area. Kyle McGovern responded that the applicant has exhausted efforts to secure parking in the area but was unsuccessful. Tom Capossela asked about the current use of the site. Kyle McGovern responded that the owner uses the site for a construction storage facility and parking garage. He stated that the owner has outgrown the space. He stated that anything that is built at the location will require a variance. Sherry Bishko stated that she thinks that the proposed use will be a benefit to the community. She asked about the process if the ZBA approves the application. Janet Gandolfo responded that it would need approval from the Planning Board. She gave an overview of the Planning Boards review process. Linda Moiron asked what can currently be operated at the site. Steven Costa responded that it can currently be used as a storage facility. He reviewed the parking requirements for other uses. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 18, 2012 3 �Tom Capossela stated that he will not vote tonight because he has not had an opportunity to review the application yet. The Chair asked if knowing the number of registered vehicles in the apartment buildings would help the Board in making a decision. Michael Wernick responded that the applicant is only providing 20% of the required parking. Linda Moiron responded that the local vehicle information would help. She stated that it would allow the Board to better understand the impacts to the area. The Chair made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting. He stated that the number of cars owned by the residents of the 2 large apartment buildings would help the Board. Michael Wernick seconded. The Chair asked if the applicant about the target market of the store. He also asked about the occupants of the apartment buildings and how many drive. He also asked about a traffic study be performed of the intersection. Michael Wernick responded that the study should add all of the school bus stop times and locations. He also stated that the Bee-line bus stops and locations should also be included. Janet Gandolfo stated that the traffic study at Valley St. and College Avenue along with a parking survey during several intervals throughout the day should be enough information for the Board. Linda Moiron asked why the employee parking was placed on site instead of customer parking. Steven Costa responded that there is a loading zone next to the parking. He stated that the owners did not want customers to enter the store thru the loading zone. He also stated that it is very narrow. The Chair asked if the parking area could be monitored. Douglas Martino presented a photo of the parking area to the Board. Sean McCarthy stated that the area is not in compliance with the Village Code. The Chair asked that the Board is requesting the parking information include the number of parking permits in the 2 apartment buildings in the area. Parking space survey at several intervals throughout the day as well as a vehicle count. He stated that 10-days of data should be sufficient. Kyle McGovern responded that industry standards are peak morning and peak afternoon. The Chair responded that he understood. He was more concerned with the available parking spaces throughout the day than the vehicle counts. It was unanimously adjourned (5-0). CONTINUED 1) Colette Weinstein 41 Amos Street Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 18, 2012 Addition and alteration4 �This was continued. Colette Weinstein is the owner and is representing this application. Colette Weinstein stated that the house is a pre-existing non-conforming structure. She stated that she was before the Board about 18 months ago. She stated that the variance has expired and the previous plans have been reduced from what was originally approved. She stated that the rear 2-story extension will not be constructed. She stated that she will build a small porch in the back of the house. She also stated that she wants to extend the entrance step by about 4 feet to provide a proper entranceway into the house. Michael Wernick asked for clarification on the additional 4-feet. Colette Weinstein stated that she wants to extend the single step by 4-feet so that you can enter the house without falling off of the step. The Chair asked if the proposed addition is still going to be constructed. Colette Weinstein responded that the new 2-story addition will not be built. She stated that the foundation will be reconstructed to support the 2 nd story construction. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Tom Capossela made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Michael Wernick seconded. The Chair stated that this is the minimum variance that can be approved to benefit the applicant. He also stated that the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the community and that it was not a self-created hardship. It was unanimously approved (5-0). 3) Antonio Soares 64 Depeyster Street Convert 2-fam. to 3-fam. This is a continuation from previous meetings. Richard Blancato is an attorney and is representing this application along with the applicant. Richard Blancato stated that at the last meeting that the Board wanted to visit the property. He stated that the Board never contacted the owner to access the interior. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 18, 2012 5 �Richard Blancato stated that the easement is still in the process of getting executed. He stated that the adjacent owner is going to sign the easement soon. Richard Blancato gave a historical summary of the application to date. Richard Blancato submitted a document that the applicant was the Chairman of the Electrical Board at the time of the conversion. He also stated that the licensed plumber that completed the work (Hugo Checci) was on the Board of Trustees at the time. He stated that all required permits were obtained by the applicant at the time the work was done but the Village has no record of it and neither does the owner. Richard Blancato stated that a variance for one parking space is needed. He stated that the house has been used as a 3-family since 1972 and the applicant has been paying taxes as a 3-family The Chair stated that the property taxes do not indicate the legal use of the property. Richard Blancato reviewed the reasons for granting an area variance. Michael Wernick asked the Building Inspector to clarify the required variances. Sean McCarthy responded that the 3-family use will trigger additional variances that need to be met. Tom Capossela stated that he will not vote on this application this evening because he is not aware of all of the facts. The Chair stated that if the Board votes on the application, since there are only 4 voting members, the vote must be unanimous or the application would be denied. Richard Blancato stated that the applicant does not have any problems with the adjournment since they would like to give Tom Capossela a chance to review the documents. Tom Capossela asked if a Building Permit was taken out for this proposed work. Richard Blancato responded yes. He stated that the owner has copies of the electrical permits but not the Certificate of Occupancy. At the request of the applicant, the Chair made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Minutes for November 2011, January 2012 and March 2012The minutes for the November 2011 and January 2012 meetings will be reviewed at the next meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting,November16,20112 �The March 2012 minutes were reviewed. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Michael Wernick seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Capossela abstained. Adjourned 9:36 pm. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting,November16,20112 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-04-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/4ad8dc3475134e996698b73090e794e3.pdf 88a8765c9120040673e52cced7ebbb92 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW APPROVED -ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING May 16, 2012 The meeting was called to order by Peter Koffler, Chairman, at 8:01 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Peter Koffler, Chairman Michael Wernick Linda Moiron Tim othy Judge Tom Capossela Sherry Bishko Absent : M. Gorete Crowe Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Antonio Soares 64 Depeyster Street Convert 2-fam. to 3-fam. 2) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue Proposed grocery store 3) Minutes for November 2011 and January and April 2012 Announcements: None. 1) Antonio Soares 64 Depeyster Street Convert 2-fam. to 3-fam. This is a continuation from previous meetings. Richard Blancato is an attorney and is representing this application along with the applicant. Richard Blancato stated that at the last meeting the easement for parking was discussed. He stated that the easement was executed but that it was not recorded in the property records because the title company required certain revisions. He did not have a copy of the easement he said was previously signed, or offer any proof that it had been signed. He stated that he expects the revised easement will be executed next week. Richard Blancato stated that the history of the property is important since it has been a 3-family for over 40 years. He stated that it is not detrimental to the neighborhood and is not a self-created hardship. He stated that there are other 3-family properties in the immediate area. He stated that the cost to convert the property back to a 2-family would be significant. He also stated that a tenant that has been at the property for over 30 years will have to relocate. He also stated that in considering the impact of the proposed variance on the neighborhood, the Board must compare the existing use with the proposed use. � The Chair disagreed with the statement that this property is currently a 3-family property, because legally it is only a 2-family property. The Chair also disagreed with Mr. Blancato’s assertion that in assessing potential adverse effect of the proposed variation the Board must consider the present use (even if illegal), rather than the legal use versus the requested one. The Chair stated that, to the contrary, the Board will consider the legally permitted use (in this case, 2-family) as compared to the requested use (in this case, 3family) in determining impact. Richard Blancato stated that the current ordinance requires 5 parking spaces and the applicant is providing 4 parking spaces. He stated that the variance is very small. He also stated that back in the1970s, the requirement was less. There was a general discussion regarding the criteria for a variance, including the character of the neighborhood, the potential impact upon the area if the variance was granted, and the substantiality of the requested variance. The Board noted the present crowding situation, parking shortage, and the general strain upon municipal services posed by increasing the neighborhood density. Tom Capossela responded that the impacts of granting the proposed variance would be significant. He stated that there would be impacts to water, garbage and other Village resources. There was an open discussion on the easement. The Chair asked Mr. Blancato if he had a copy of the previously signed easement or other proof it was signed. He stated that he did not. The Chair asked Mr. Blancato if the easement in its prior or present form was revocable or permanent. He stated that is was revocable. The Chair stated that the conversion from a 2-family to a 3-family is substantial. He stated that the change is undesirable and is detrimental to the neighborhood. He made a motion to deny the variance. Tom Capossela seconded. It was unanimously denied (6-0). 2) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue Proposed grocery store - This is a continuation from the previous meeting. Kyle McGovern is an attorney and is representing this application on along with the engineer, Stephen Costa and traffic engineer, Michael Calvi. The Chair stated that they have received the new traffic study. Kyle McGovern summarized the last meeting. He stated that the variance sought is an area variance and not a use variance. He stated that the petition submitted was allegedly signed by 200 residents. He stated that the petition contained inaccurate statements (including possible English-to-Spanish translation) that might have improperly swayed residents to sign the document. He also stated that there are no addresses on the document. Kyle McGovern spoke about the school bus safety issue. He stated that he spoke to the school Bus company and provided a copy of the school bus schedule. He stated that there is no school bus stops in the vicinity and provided documentation to support the statement. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 16, 2012 ‐APPROVED � Kyle McGovern spoke about the safety of elderly crossing the street in the area. He stated that the market will benefit the residents of the senior housing development by having a supermarket closer to their home. Kyle McGovern also provided a petition with 400 signatures in support of the application. He stated that the residents are all local to the area. Lastly, he stated that any use at the property would require a variance. He provided an analysis of numerous uses and their parking variances needed. Michael Calvi is the traffic engineer for this application and he spoke about the traffic study. He spoke about the parking available in the area and stated that there are about 50 street parking spaces available. He spoke about the parameters of the study. He stated that the highest traffic count was 60 cars in an hour. He stated that there is one public bus stop in the area. He stated that the intersection is not hazardous. He stated that that traffic count was performed on 2 different days. Sherry Bishko asked about the peak traffic times. Michael Calvi responded between 4pm and 5pm. The Chair stated that the report was comprehensive. He stated that the parking areas are a little far away but even eliminating some farther areas, there are over 20 parking spaces. Tom Capossela asked about any delivery services. Kyle McGovern responded yes. He stated that with a $50 purchase, there is free delivery. He stated that there are other benefits for senior citizens. Timothy Judge asked about the parking spaces for the 2 apartment buildings. Kyle McGovern responded that the number of spaces and vehicles was not able to be obtained. He stated that both buildings are at capacity. The Chair stated that contrary to what was previously suggested by the applicant, there was not a positive recommendation from the Planning Board. Kyle McGovern responded that there was positive feedback from the Board but a positive recommendation was not received. Kyle McGovern also submitted another 100 signatures from 100 College Avenue in support of the project. The Chair opened the public hearing. Jocelyn from 100 College Avenue stated that the application is a good idea. Ana is the owner of 99 College Avenue stated that she is concerned with parking. She owns a parking lot in the area and she is concerned with people parking in her lot. She stated that at the last meeting, it was mentioned that the applicant tried to rent spaces at the Thai restaurant. She stated that this is not true since she owns the parking lot for the Thai restaurant. Edwin Gonzales lives near 100 College Avenue. He stated that the traffic study doesn’t take into account the traffic impacts of the application. Maria Gonzalez owns 99 College Avenue. She stated that there are enough stores in the area already. She stated that the small businesses will suffer because of the application. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 16, 2012 ‐APPROVED � Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Chair asked about the loading zone. Stephen Costa responded that a loading zone is being provided. He stated that a box truck would back into the loading zone. He stated that there is no parking in front of the building since there is a bus stop in front of the property. The Chair asked about the proposed operating hours for the store. Kyle McGovern responded that the store hours are from 8am to 8pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 6pm on Sunday. The Chair stated that the public raised a good point that the traffic impacts will increase when people come home from work. There was an open discussion on the traffic and parking study. The Chair stated that the real impact is the parking. He stated that the application is not an undesirable change to the neighborhood. He stated that the site is limited in its potential uses. He stated that the substantial variance is in the required parking spaces. He stated that the traffic study doesn’t cover the peak time of parking need in the Village. Kyle McGovern responded that many local residents will walk to the property. He stated that the applicant is willing to expand the traffic study if needed. Sherry Bishko stated that the school bus issues have been satisfied. Tom Capossela stated that the proposed variance would allow getting rid of an autobody shop and construction yard and replacing it with a neighborhood supermarket. The Chair made a motion to grant the variance as requested. He stated that the application is not an undesirable change to the neighborhood. He stated that the requested variances are substantial, but that the target market, local apartment dwellers, is not going to require parking since they will be walking to the property. Linda Moiron requested that the hours as stated should be noted. The Chair disagreed. Sherry Bishko also disagreed with limiting the hours of operation. The application was unanimously approved by a 6-0 vote. 3) Minutes for November 2011 and January and April 2012 - The minutes for the November 2011, January and April 2012 meetings will be reviewed at the next meeting. Adjourned 9:00 pm. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 16, 2012 ‐APPROVED � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-05-16 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b7812ff4d9a6a040820de0d2e5ffd8b2.pdf 728028c4415e447f297c015be19a29b8 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING - APPROVED June 20, 2012 The meeting was called to order by Timothy Judge, Acting Chairman at 8:01 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Michael Wernick Linda Moiron Timothy Judge, Acting Chairman Tom Capossela Absent : M. Gorete Crowe Peter Koffler, Chairman Sherry Bishko Also Present: Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Luis Alvarez 80 Clinton Street 2) Lapin/Bouton 14 Webb Road 3) Resolution for 64 Depeyster Street Front Porch addition Addition and alteration 4) Minutes for November 2011 and January, April and May 2012 Announcements: The Chair stated that since there are only 4 members, the Board would have to be unanimous to approve an application. 1) Luis Alvarez 80 Clinton Street Front Porch addition - William Simeonfrides is representing this application on behalf of the owners. The Chair read the public notice aloud. The Chair stated that the proof of public mailings has been received. William Simeonfrides stated that the property is a pre-existing non-conforming property. He stated that the new front porch will be replacing a concrete stoop. He stated that the porch would not exceed the existing footprint. The Chair received: 1) 2) 3) stated that the mailings have been received. He also stated that the Board had plans zoning application short form EAF �Janet Gandolfo also stated that the applicant has submitted a notice to the MTA as well as a letter from an adjacent neighbor. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Tom Capossela seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Tom Capossela made a motion to grant the variance as requested. He stated that the application is not an undesirable change to the neighborhood. He stated that the requested variances are substantial but the property is a pre-existing non-conforming property. He stated that it is not a self-created hardship. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Lapin/Bouton 14 Webb Road Addition and alteration Niles Cain is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. The Chair read the public notice aloud. The Chair received: 1) 2) 3) stated that the mailings have been received. He also stated that the Board had plans zoning application short form EAF Niles Cain stated that the area that leads to the garage will be converted to a master suite. He stated that the FAR will be in compliance with the Village Zoning Code. He stated that the footprint will be extended 18-inches to the east (rear yard). He stated that the height of the addition will match the existing structure. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Jose Lashton of 7 Hemlock Drive stated that he is ok with the proposed application. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 20, 2012 2 �The Chair made a motion to grant the variance as requested. He stated that the application is not an undesirable change to the neighborhood. He stated that the requested variances are not substantial. He also stated that it is not a self-created hardship. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Resolution for 64 Depeyster Street Tom Capossela made a motion to approve the Resolution for 64 Depeyster Street. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 4) Minutes for November 2011 and January, April and May 2012The minutes for the November 2011 and January and April 2012 will be reviewed at the next meeting. The Board reviewed the May 2012 meeting minutes. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Michael Wernick seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned 8:32 pm. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 20, 2012 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-06-20 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b9d62cec7dd1e64bb9c6ec6cfe0c0746.pdf 61201e7f4435bfe6276ecba43b007e8d PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING - APPROVED September 19, 2012 The meeting was called to order by Timothy Judge, Acting Chairman at 8:01 pm. The Acting Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Michael Wernick Linda Moiron Timothy Judge, Acting Chairman Tom Capossela M. Gorete Crowe Absent: Peter Kofler, Chairman Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Rafael Mota 188 Cortlandt Street 2) Salvation Army 90 Valley Street 3) Minutes for November 2011, January, April and June 2012 Proposed restaurant Discussion Announcements: None. 1) Rafael Mota 188 Cortlandt Street Proposed restaurant JB Hernandez is the project architect and is representing this application along the owners. The Acting Chair read the public hearing aloud for the record. The Acting Chair asked if the proof of mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded that 2 property owners were not notified. He stated that the Board can start hearing the application but they cannot take any action this evening. JB Hernandez stated that the property was a former take-out restaurant. He stated that the proposed changes will not increase the square footage of the property. He also stated that they are adding a kitchen and 32 seats. The Acting Chair stated that if there was a former take-out restaurant, then there should have been a variance for the former use. Sean McCarthy responded that there was a previous variance issued for the take-out restaurant. The Acting Chair asked if the restaurant would fill the 32 seats. JB Hernandez responded that the restaurant might be full on the weekends. �The Acting Chair asked where would the patrons park. JB Hernandez responded on the street. Tom Capossela asked about the loading space. JB Hernandez responded that the garage space is being leased to a landscaping company. There was an open discussion on whether or not the landscaping company is operating the business out of the garage. JB Hernandez responded that there is no office in the space for the landscaping company to operate from. Sean McCarthy responded that the landscaping company continues to operate from the garage even though the Village Bldg Dept has issued a notice to vacate. The Acting Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Linda Moiron stated that the take-out variance is no longer valid because the restaurant was closed for more than a year. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Acting Chair asked about the house of operation. JB Hernandez responded from noon to midnight. He stated that they would be serving lunch and dinner. This was adjourned to the next meeting. No action was taken. 2) Salvation Army 90 Valley Street Discussion - Michael Stein is the project engineer and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Michael Stein gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated that the applicant has purchased the former Frank Chevrolet property. He stated that the site will demolished and a new community center and chapel will be constructed. He stated that the parking lot will be located in Tarrytown. He stated that 41 parking spaces would be required. Michael Stein stated that the Salvation Army location serves the immediate community. He stated that the parking need should not be that great since many people will be walking to the site. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Michael Stein stated that the applicant wanted to see if the required parking could be reduced since the parking need would be reduced. They wanted to increase the landscaping on the site. Linda Moiron asked about the street parking. Michael Stein responded that the curb cuts from the Frank Chevrolet site will be eliminated and the available street parking spaces will increase. Tom Capossela asked about the calculation of 82 required parking spaces. Sean McCarthy responded that it is based on the square footage of the site. Michael Stein stated that the applicant would like to get on the October meeting. The Acting Chair stated that the applicant should show how they tried to mitigate the parking. Michael Stein stated that many members come from the immediate area. The Acting Chair asked if these numbers can be substantiated. LT Alphonso Sierra stated that many of the congregants come from College Arms and Margotta Courts. The Acting Chair asked about the nearest comparable Salvation Army facility. Major Sue Foley stated White Plains, Portchester and Peekskill. Acting Chair asked if people park in the Walgreens parking lot. Major Sue Foley responded that the current building is not large enough to accommodate the need for the volume of parking. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 3) Minutes for November 2011, January, April and June 2012The minutes for the November 2011, January and April 2012 meetings will be reviewed at the next meeting. The Board reviewed the June 2012 meeting minutes. The Acting Chair made a motion to approve the June 2012 minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned 8:52 pm. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-09-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ff95c88b4bbf76bf5d82c051e26ddd76.pdf 6afc67cf9086469a90b4e315361adb1e PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board Meeting -APPROVED October 17, 2012 Peter Koffler, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:14pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Peter Koffler, Chairman Timothy Judge Michael Wernick Sherry Bishko Maria Gorete-Crowe Absent: Linda Moiron Tom Capossela Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Mary Gerlanc (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Salvation Army 2) Open Door Family Medical 90 Valley Street 1 New Broadway Public Hearing Public Hearing Announcements - There were no announcements. 1) Salvation Army 90 Valley Street Public Hearing The Chair read the public hearing aloud for the record. The Chair also stated that he had the following documents: • A letter from the Village of Sleepy Hollow to Michael Stein, Project Engineer for the Salvation Army, dated September 18, 2012 requiring an appeal for a variance. • Zoning Compliance form dated August 15, 2012 • Traffic Parking Evaluation by John Collins Engineers • Large maps received August 13, 2012 and August 15, 2012 William Null, attorney from Cuddy & Feder, Michael Stein from Hudson Engineering & Consulting and Major Sue Foley were representing the application. �Mr. Null gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated the applicant currently has a property on Valley Street and is acquiring the adjacent property to build a new facility. He asked the board's permission to have Michael Stein, the project engineer, explain the new project for those in attendance. Michael Stein, president of Hudson Engineering & Consulting, gave an overview of the application. The Salvation Army currently has a Community Center at the corner of Wildey and Valley Streets. As part of this application, they are in contract to purchase the adjacent property formerly known as Frank Chevrolet. Their plan is to demolish the existing building and erect a new chapel and community center. Once the new chapel and community center are up and running, the old building will be demolished and they will build a new parking area that also incorporates landscaping on the property. The dealership is approximately 38,000 sq. ft. Of that footage, 22,000 square feet are in the Village of Sleepy Hollow and 16,000 sq. ft. are in Tarrytown. The existing building is located within the municipal boundaries of Sleepy Hollow. He indicated the area on the map and stated that everything in the Village of Sleepy Hollow was impervious. There is asphalt around the existing chapel and community center. The new plan calls for decreasing impervious area by reducing asphalt, adding landscaping and a buffer zone. They would like to reduce the impervious area by 10,700 sq. ft. He stated the plan before the Board included four different variances that were required. The first was the parking variance. Two separate zoning analyses were performed. The first was an alternate parking schedule put together based on the assumption that all the facilities in the building would be used at the same time. He said this is not the case with the way the programs are set up. An alternate parking schedule was put together based on actual utilization of the facility. The example given was the chapel would not be occupied at the same time as the multi-purpose dinner room. Only one area would be run at one time. Based upon this requirement only 38 parking spaces would be necessary, whereas the whole utilization would require 82 parking spaces. Their plan provides for a total of 41 parking spaces, therefore, they are asking for a variance of 41 spaces. They are also looking at the possibility of land-banking 10 of those spaces. They would only be providing 31 spaces but could add 10 more spaces out of the land-banked area at a later date if necessary. Mr. Stein stated the next variance is for buffer area and setbacks for pavement. For the setback for the driveway they would have to require 15 feet, which he indicated on the plan. The driveway would need to be 15 feet from the property line. Currently that area is a parking area so that is one variance that the Salvation Army would need. The existing senior living building that is adjacent to the Salvation Army site has no windows on that side and the first two levels are parking depth. There would be no impact having the driveway up to the property line. The next variance required would be of similar nature and is in the rear of the property. A five-foot bumper is required, however the building on that side has two levels of parking area. Photos were submitted showing the adjacent buildings and the parking areas. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �William Null stated that there would be parking area adjacent to parking area. There are no residential windows or occupancies in the area adjacent to the areas they are asking for a variance. He also stated that they took counts at the last service regarding where people come from for service. There were only 4 cars in the parking lot. The Salvation Army has minimal use of private passenger vehicles. People arrived by small van or walked from the neighborhood. He stated the Salvation Army has very few members of congregation that have cars. Most walk from the neighborhood or share car pool, therefore, 41 parking spaces they are providing is more than ample for actual demand of use. There is a church service and then a meal provided after the service. The same people that attend the service then stay for the meal. The occupancy that is calculated for some of the zoning is based on what is maximum aggregate square footage for the ordinance required. That is how they arrive at a total of 81 required parking spaces. Yet like many religious institution, the multi-purpose room would not be operating when there is a service. Mr. Null submitted that based upon the actual realization, which the study by John Collins Engineers confirms, that the square footage is binary. The sanctuary and multi-purpose room would never both be functioning at the same time. At high holidays they feel they have ample parking space. Just like other religious institutions, they do not park for the busiest day of the year. They have photographs showing actual occupancy of the parking area, which is minimal. That is why with 41 parking spaces they are suggesting that some can be land-banked. The reason for landbanking is to minimize stormwater impacts by having more permeable surface and grass in the back. Currently that area is paved. The Salvation Army wants to take an area that is fully paved with a building and reducing the area that is paved or occupied by a building. Regarding the variance for the buffer, the area is already paved up to the wall. William Null asked if the board wanted to see elevations for the building. The Chair said yes. Mr. Null indicated the Sanctuary area, which is on the corner of Wildey and Valley Streets. He pointed out the distance between the end of this building and senior center. And also, between the sanctuary and the corner, because the Salvation Army's intention is to construct the new structure while existing building is up and then demolish the old building when new building is completed. There will be a greater setback from that corner due to the phasing of the construction. The Chair asked if the land-banking was prompted by a stormwater concern. He asked why they would land-bank 10 spaces. Mr. Null has done this before for religious institutions where the parking requirement is significantly more than it should be. Why should the Salvation Army pave over the site if they don't have to? It is an offer on the part of the Salvation Army. They have no concern over stormwater management even Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �thought storm water responds better to dirt and grass than to pavement. They felt if the paved area wasn't needed, then it would be a better use to have grass. They are asking for variance to provide the maximum amount of parking which would be 41 spaces. Michael Stein showed the existing building on the plans. He stated at the intersection of Valley and Wildey Street, the building is right up to the property line. They feel the property is a gateway between the two villages and it gives them the opportunity to do some landscaping and make it more attractive especially since it is across from a park. Michael Wernick asked if additional parking spaces could be added on the southwest corner of the property. Discussion ensued about the area in question, however it was determined the area is not the property of the Salvation Army. Michael Wernick asked if the property owners that are in question for the variance requests have been contacted. Michael Stein stated that notifications were sent to all the properties, that were required, including properties in Tarrytown. Michael Wernick asked if there was any dialog between the project and the owners. The applicant stated they had not heard from anyone. William Null submitted photographs taken Sunday, October 14, 2012 from 10am to 1pm and Sunday September 16, 2012 taken in the morning and later showing the amount of available parking. The photos were passed out to the board. Peter Koffler asked about the sequence of events for construction and demolition of the project. William Null stated the old building would remain in service to the congregation while the new building is being built. Peter Koeffler asked if the old building is the site of the new parking area. He also asked where the congregation is to park between the time the new building is opened and the old building is being demolished to put in parking? Michael Stein stated there is an overlap period of 60 days when the old building is being demolished and the new parking area constructed. At that time they will be gaining on-street parking because there are several curb cuts along the road that will be eliminated. However, in the photographs taken during service, there were no vehicles parked on the street during that time. Also, there are spaces in the back, which will have been built by then. William Null stated they have minimal demand and during that 60 day period they can agree to a stacked parking lot and they will pay to hire an attendant during that 60 day transition. It would be 8 services during peak times. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Peter Koffler asked where the equipment would be during the construction period. Michael Stein responded that the entire site could be used for staging of construction equipment during the time the building is being constructed. Then once the building is completed and can be used, the old building becomes a demolition site and is converted to a parking area. There is not much construction equipment required to make that transition. Further discussion ensued regarding parking construction equipment and vehicles for the project. The applicant showed the area that is available to the general contractor for his use. They stated that construction workers would have to locate their own parking spaces for their private vehicles. Peter Koffler asked the duration of the construction process. The applicant stated this project would take about 8 months to complete. Michael Wernick asked if angular parking would increase the capacity in the back? The applicant stated, that in order to have angled parking, there needs to be an area to turn around. They are looking at whether to put a curb cut on Valley Street. But typically, angled parking doesn't increase capacity and they would have to reduce the aisle width. Tim Judge asked if the applicant had thought of keeping the existing structure and making a smaller footprint with the new structure and rehabilitating the old structure. William Null stated that the existing sanctuary could accommodate 80-90 people. At Christmas and Easter they have about 120 people. So they need a bigger building. The reason for acquiring the space is so they can have a space where people can eat and have a meal afterwards. It's a critical part of the program for the Salvation Army. Tim Judge asked if there was any thought to rehabilitating the old office space. Discussion ensued about the cost effectiveness of renovating an old building, since that comes with problems that must be mitigated depending upon the age of the building. Tim Judge asked the age of the existing building. Major Sue Foley stated that the Salvation Army has been in Sleepy Hollow/Tarrytown for 70 years. The building was built in 1954. The structure is inadequate. There is one bathroom for men and one for women with one stall in each. There are no large meeting spaces. The sanctuary is the largest space. There is a need for larger program meeting space. The applicant stated that currently the building goes right up to property lines. Setting the building back from the corner gives a softer more appealing look to this property. William Null stated the current building does not have good air conditioning and is not energy efficient and they would like to make it more ADA accessible, which is important to the function of Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �the Salvation Army at this location. The applicant looked at these issues and doesn't believe the best way to continue is to save old building and address the program needs. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Michael Wernick seconded that motion. The Chair asked for any comments from the public regarding this application. There were no comments from the public. The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. The Board closed the public hearing. Peter Koffler asked the applicant if they had considered alternatives since they are asking for a significant parking variance of 41 spaces. The architect stated it comes down to site and environmental economics. He felt it was more responsible for stormwater management to only build the amount of spaces they would be using plus a few, instead of the maximum number of spaces called for in the ordinance. William Null stated the chapel alone required 31 spaces. Peter Koffler asked Sean McCarthy is this was correct. Sean McCarthy replied yes based upon the Village requirements. Mr. Null asked for the rational behind the variance. He stated it is not just a mathematical calculation but also the uses behind them. If the chapel doesn't have the space to provide the meals, then the facility doesn't serve the mission of the Salvation Army. The offices are not active when there is a service, but they are pertinent to the meals being provided. The ordinance requires the aggregation of all the spaces to come up with a number. If they were asked to reduce the amount of space, they would have to keep the chapel. However, if the Salvation Army were to eliminate office space, then they couldn't operate the program that is so much a part of the Salvation Army's mission. Reducing building size isn't something that addresses the needs of the mission. The building size doesn't generate more parking demand because those spaces aren't occupied when the sanctuary is in operation. Tim Judge asked if the office space was going to be occupied all the time. Major Sue Foley stated there would not be employees in the offices when chapel services were taking place. She also stated that the past Sunday services had an average attendance of 70-80 people with 7-10 cars parked. In addition, one of their main social service programs is the monthly food distribution. In July, August and September the average was 220 families per month and these recipients were from the local neighborhood and did not drive. Tim Judge asked if there were employees that worked to prepare and serve the food? Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Major Foley stated they were volunteers and part of the congregation. The architect stated they would count towards the occupancy of the multi-purpose room not the business-use portion. Peter Koffler commended the Salvation Army for its' work. He also stated his concern of the concept that the number of spaces required for the code is not really required because the use behind the spaces does not occur at the same time, therefore the applicant only needs a lesser number of spaces. As a precedent he has never seen this before and has hesitation in adopting this rationale for a number of reasons. He stated the Salvation Army runs a stable operation, which is commendable, but what if programs change or the operation changes. How can they say they will never use all the spaces at one time. Mr. Null stated he had experience with other religious institutions in other municipalities where the concept of certain areas being used when others are not. He gave examples of Calvary Baptist Church in White Plains and the synagogue in Briarcliff Manor. Mr. Null said he had no problem coming back before the board for review if the ownership use changes in the future. He stated they could have a condition so that an outside group couldn't their facility for catering and entertainment. That is not the mission of the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army recognizes this is a large variance but feel it is a shame to reduce the scale of the programs, especially when most of the congregation does not drive. The architect stated that if the programs were to change that required more parking, they would need to acquire another property in the area for parking. Peter Koffler stated that if people can't find a spot in the lot then they would have to find parking on the street and there is also limited parking in the area. William Null also felt they have to consider use. It's a financial reason for this congregation. People who use this sanctuary don't drive. We respectfully request the variance because of the nature of the users and the congregation that is unique to this organization. Sherry Bishko asked if it was permissible to put in a condition. Peter Koffler stated he was not prepared to vote on this tonight for two reasons. He wanted to consider some of the precedents cited by Mr. Null. He asked him to submit additional data for some of the other cases he stated. He also stated the Village would do some investigation from a legal standpoint. He also stated if the Board grants a variance they want to consider what the appropriate conditions might be for that variance. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Tim Judge agreed with these recommendations. He stated he would like to see the resolutions from White Plains on Calgary Baptist Church and Briarcliff regarding the synagogue to see how they were structured. Sherry Bishko stated she understood there were no conditions from those municipalities. William Null concurred but stated he would be happy to come up with conditions that would be appropriate for this project. That would address the non-religious concerns. Peter Koffler agreed with this proposal. He stated the Village would review from a legal standpoint. Sherry Bishko said no one from the community is complaining so parking doesn't seem to be an issue. Peter Koffler made a motion to adjourn this matter until next month. He asked the applicant to work with the Village Attorney on the conditions they would like to submit. The board agreed to the adjournment. Don Caetano of Lawrence Ave. asked if he could make a comment. The Chair agreed to his request. Mr. Caetano stated he had been sitting in the boardroom for the entire meeting. He also stated he didn't feel the Chair allotted enough time for the public comments. He asked if this was the first hearing for the Salvation Army. He stated he didn't hear anything about the beautification of the area, the shrubbery and what the building is being made of. The Chair suggested he come to next month's meeting because it will be on the agenda for that meeting. He also stated that there was an opportunity for Mr. Caetano to comment during the public hearing. Mr. Caetano again he didn't feel there was enough time allotted for public comments. Discussion ensued regarding the public hearing time. 2) Open Door Family Medical Center Public Hearing The Chair stated there was a preliminary matter before the public hearing regarding the notice of public returns. He asked Sean McCarthy if this matter was resolved. Sean McCarthy stated that his records indicated that there was one property on the map that was not noticed. The Chair stated he understood they don't have proper notice returns for this matter. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting,September19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Geraldine Tortorella, attorney from Hockerman, Tortorella & Weinstein, co-counsel with Kyle McGovern representing the applicant. She apologized to the board and stated that the first time this issue was raised was at 8:10 this evening. They have been using this list in Planning Board matters and it was never pointed out to them that there was a problem with the list. She said they would have to re-notice and be put over for the next meeting. She wanted clarification as to the next meeting date, which is scheduled the day before Thanksgiving. The Chair asked if this was actually the date. Janet Gandolfo stated that normally they do not meet the day before the Thanksgiving but it is up to the board. She stated they could hold the meeting the week before. Discussion ensued regarding the meeting date. Geraldine Tortorella said that would be enough time to notice the additional property. The applicant will re-notice. The hearing will be November 14 and they will be back before the board for that meeting. th The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-10-17 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d3dfa6a59fadcf3cf581640c759817c4.pdf 68c633128be813774509fd068f5b525d PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board Meeting - APPROVED November 14, 2012 Peter Koffler, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Peter Koffler, Chairman Timothy Judge Michael Wernick Sherry Bishko Maria Gorete-Crowe Linda Moiron Absent: Tom Capossela Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Mary Gerlanc (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Michael & Janet Pietsch 2) Salvation Army 2) Open Door Family Medical 9 Birch Close 90 Valley Street 1 New Broadway Public Hearing Continued Public Hearing Public Hearing Announcements - There were no announcements. 1) Michael & Janet Pietsch 9 Birch Close Public Hearing KOFFLER: PLEASE TAKE NOTE, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 8:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York to hear and consider the application of Michael & Janet Pietsch, requesting a variance from the Chapter 62 of Village Zoning Code, to add to and alter an existing single family residence, where the following variance is required: Article IV, Section 62-7.B.: Application of regulations. Minimum one side yard set-back Existing on side yard set-back 10.0 ft 7.9 ft. �The property involved in the application is located at 9 Birch Close, is situated in the R-2A zoning district, and is shown on Town tax assessment maps as Section 110.11, Block 1, Lot 23. All people are invited to attend the hearing and will be heard. KOFFLER: Sean - are the returns in? McCarthy: Yes. KOFFLER: I have an application received October 17th and some surveys and maps received October 17th. Is the applicant here? Please come up. COLE: Good evening, my name is Peter Cole. I am the architect for Janet and Michael Pietsch who are moving to this house and proposing to build an extension off the existing bedroom and a new portico out front. The house was built probably around 30 years ago and in 1999 previous owners got a variance from the Zoning Board to construct a deck on the property with a variance of two feet in the corner of it. We are not planning on making any changes at all to that end of that property. The proposed addition that we are going to build is at the center of the lot far away from all the setbacks, but because of the existing non-conforming situation, we have to come back to the Zoning Board to show that work is being done on the property so to speak. The actual amount that is the 2-foot variance is a very small triangular sliver at the corner of the deck. If you look on the site plan you'll see that its only in the front corner, well screened from neighboring properties, which is really just the corner of the Phelps Hospital property. There really isn't a whole lot more to present. If there are questions I would be happy to answer them. KOFFLER: Is the new addition visible from the street? COLE: No. Well, yes and no. There is a portico in the front that's visible and the extension in the back and that's the little corner that went before the Board in 1999. KOFFLER: I see. (The Board reviewed the plans) KOFFLER: I have no particular questions. Anyone from the Board have any questions? I make a motion to open the public portion of this hearing. JUDGE: I second. KOFFLER: Would anyone from the public like to speak with respect to this application? Okay, from the silence that's a no. I make a motion to close the public hearing. JUDGE: Seconded. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �KOFFLER: Based on what I have reviewed in the application, and from what I'm hearing and the lack of opposition from the public, I would make a motion to approve the variance as requested^ WERNICK: Seconded. KOFFLER: ^(Inaudible) I don't think it changes the nature or has an adverse effect on the neighborhood. I think it's minimal variance and I make a motion to approve. All in favor? The Board voted in favor to approve this variance. COLE: Thank you very much. Good night. KOFFLER: The next item on the agenda - actually we are going to switch the order to #3, which is Open Door Family Medical Center. I'll begin by reading the public notice: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 8:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York to hear and consider the application by the Open Door Medical Centers, requesting variances from Chapter 62 of the Village Zoning Code, where the following is required: 1. Article IV, 62-7.B. Application of regulations. Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. Front yard (New Broadway) required Front yard (New Broadway) existing 10.0 ft. 0.5 ft. Front yard (North Broadway) required Front yard (North Broadway) existing 20.0 ft. 0.5 ft. Rear yard required Rear yard existing 20.0 ft. 8.8 ft. Side yard required Side yard existing 10.0 ft. 5.4 ft. 2. Article IV, Section 62-8.: Schedule of regulations. Side yard required Side yard proposed 10.0 ft. 5.4 ft. 3. Article V, Section 62-9.C. (1): Buffer area. Required buffer width is Proposed buffer width is 5 ft. 0 ft. 4. Article V, Section 62-14.A. (2): Off-street loading. Minimum required loading space 1 Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Proposed loading space 0 5. Article V, Section 62-14.A. (3): Nontransient parking. Permitted spaces are Proposed space is 0 1 6. Article V, Section 62-14.A. (4): Compact cars. Permitted spaces are Proposed spaces are 0 5 7. Article V, Section 62-14.E.: Off-street parking and loading spaces. Required parking spaces are Proposed parking spaces are 40 4 8. Article VI, Section 62-14.B. (1) Parking location. Required parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot. Required parking is proposed off-site. The applicant is seeking an interpretation in alleging that no variances are needed from the requirements of Chapter 62-14.B. (1) and 62-21.A. & B., or in the alternative, the following variances are required: 9. Article VI, Section 62-21 .A. Off-site parking. An off-site parking area shall be located on the land in the same ownership or leasehold as that of the land on which is located the use to which it is appurtenant. The proposed off-site parking area is not located on the land in the same ownership or leasehold as that of the land on which is located the use to which it is appurtenant. 10. Article VI, Section 62-21.B. Off-site parking. An off-site parking area shall be so located that its pedestrian access shall be within two hundred fifty (250) feet from the effective entrance to the use which it serves. The proposed off-site parking area is greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet away from the effective entrance to the use which it serves. The property involved in the application is located at 1 New Broadway, is situated in the C-1 zoning district and is shown on Town tax assessment maps as Section 115.11, Block 4, Lot 27. All people are invited to attend the hearing and will be heard. KOFFLER: I have the notice. I have a number of things. I have - is this is part of the record your October 15th memo? Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �MCCARTHY: It is tonight. KOFFLER: I have a memo from Sean McCarthy, Building Inspector, dated October 15, 2012 to Chairman Koffler and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I have a letter from Jennifer Lobato-Church dated October 17, 2012 to members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, received October 17, 2012, various exhibits. I have a vellum-bound book received October 14th from Hockerman, Tortorella & Weckstein. And I have a letter^ actually that's it, that's all I have. Are these full application materials? GERALDINE TORTORELLA: They are as far as our submission. I think you mentioned other things that are not ours as well Mr. Chairman. KOFFLER: Really? Okay. TORTORELLA: Good evening. For the record, Geraldine Tortorella of Hockerman Tortorella & Weckstein, and when I mentioned that there were items that were referenced that we did not submit I was referring to some of the Ms. Lobato-Church's letters not in connection with us but that certainly pertains to this application. I'd like this evening to note that we have a stenographer here who will be making a verbatim transcript of the proceedings this evening. Again, my name is Geraldine Tortorella and I am coapp—I am co-attorney or co-counsel with Kyle McGovern from Lyons McGovern who's in the audience. We also have with us this evening, Gary Gianfrancesco who is the architect on the project, from Arconics Architecture, Bernie Adler who is a professional engineer with the traffic engineering and consulting firm of Adler Consulting and Lindsay Farrell who is the Chief Executive Officer of Open Door Family Medical Center. We are all here this evening to answer any questions or comments but I would like to see if I could do a lot of the presentation this evening supplemented by Mr. Adler, and also Ms. Farrell. We are proposing in this instance for Open Door to relocate it's existing medical office that's currently located at 80 Beekman Avenue to 300 North Broadway which is right around the corner. I have up here an aerial photograph - the existing location of Open Door's present offices on Beekman Avenue and we are looking to relocate to the area that's shaded here, again at 300 North Broadway. We've appeared before the Planning Board for many, many months and there have been a number of public hearing proceedings that occurred before the Planning Board. In July of this year the Planning Board closed the Public Hearing and in essence referred us to this Board because we have some deficiencies that require variances for. A number of them have been identified by the Building Inspector. We agree with some of the ones that have been identified. We don't agree with certain of the others and we would like to discuss those and that's what the subject of this Public Hearing is about this evening. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Open Door is a federally qualified, not-for-profit health center that receives federal grants for its' operation to provide medical and dental services to people in the community who otherwise cannot obtain them where there are not private for-profit medical providers who are able and willing to provide these services. It is open to everyone. It is not exclusively for under-privileged people, but it is the only provider of medical services in the Sleepy Hollow and surrounding area that provides services on a sliding fee scale basis based on financial need. It provides a very important service to this community and the area immediately surrounding it to a very broad segment of the population. Open Door as I mentioned, is currently located at 80 Beekman Avenue. It provides medical services currently. When it relocated and is involved in the Women's, Infants Nutritional program which is a program that provides nutritional counseling and financial assistance to pregnant women and children under the age of five. When it moves to 300 North Broadway, its' proposal is to expand its' services to include dental services as well as to engage in a joint family practice residency program which you'll hear more about this evening in collaboration with Phelps Hospital and New York Medical College. The reason Open Door needs to move from its current location is because the current location will not serve the needs of its program as expanded to include the residency program itself on a long-term basis. It is a building that has two floors but during the time that Open Door needed to investigate relocating that building was not usable on the second floor. There was structural integrity issues and Open Door could not economically and reasonably renovate that space to make it usable for its' purposes. But note that that space does not have any parking that accommodates it and what brings us here this evening and is the main focus of this application. The property is located on - the proposed property is located on North Broadway and is in a C-1 commercial district. And the area along it, on North Broadway is heavily developed with commercial operations and mixed commercial uses. We've got a limousine service right next door. We've got a landscaping business right across the street. There are other medical offices in that area. There are an auto body shop and other commercial activities. The property also has frontage on New Broadway, which is a residential district, as the Board well knows. The current approval for this site and the current physical conditions of this site have access from the frontage on North Broadway - on New Broadway out to New Broadway. Part of our proposal and the Open Door application is to eliminate that and in essence to focus all of the activity related to our operation onto the North Broadway frontage. Meaning all our parking will be there, all of our access - vehicular and pedestrian access will be in that area. We will be converting the doors that are on New Broadway to windows except to the extent we are required to have emergency egress and in that instance we will be converting those doors and I believe the number of them is two - to panic bar type emergency egress doors. What that means is that no activity will be allowed - no ingress or egress will be directed to or be allowed from New Broadway except in those limited circumstances of emergencies and that's because the Building Code requires us to do that. The building was - the site actually was historically been used, as you know as a car dealership. It was - had remained vacant and become deteriorated probably for over a period of 20 years of Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �non-use. In 2008, the Planning Board granted an approval to renovate the facility for office purposes. The applicant in that instance had a plumbing business and that was going to be one of the offices allowed in the building and he was going to have parking in the building for his vehicles and his trucks etc. The renovations were substantially completed but the space has never been occupied. And what's happened and what I see from reviewing the record is from the time that 300 North Broadway was separated from ownership from the site across the street, long ago and years before Open Door was ever involved, this site has struggled to find a use that would be able, that would generate a parking demand that the site could actually sustain. And what we have this evening is information that we provided to the Board and want to discuss with the Board to demonstrate that the Open Door use, is such a type of use because of its' unique characteristics, its' unconventional program, and its' atypical operation; that it has a special and unique fit to this site. Where we can use it as a medical office without creating an adverse impact that other types of uses are expected or worried about having impact on the neighborhood. As I mentioned, access to the site would strictly be from North Broadway. We have 10 parking spaces on the site. We have one loading space that's indicated On the drawing I just put up, this is the site plan that was submitted with the package as one of the exhibits. We have New Broadway on top and we have North Broadway on the bottom. As I mentioned, all the doors along New Broadway that are not required for emergency egress will be converted to windows and the only exterior renovation we're proposing besides that is the construction of a new entrance off of the North Broadway driveway so that all ingress and egress to the building will be in that location. And that will accommodate and entrance and a stair bringing you up to the upper level. This building also has an elevator within it so it is also handicap accessible. What makes the office work in this location - the medical office for Open Door - is because Open Door has been able to reach an agreement in principle which we expect to reduce to writing, with Phelps Hospital to allow all of Open Door's staff, employees and the residents who will be working at Open Door to park at Phelps on its' site and to be shuttled from the Phelps location to Open Door. It's not an option; it will be a requirement of employment. All of the employees, staff, residents, whatever category you might want to refer to that group as, will be required to utilize this parking arrangement. Secondly, we have a situation where the patient population that's served by Open Door have been demonstrated to be a walking population. Surveys were done; the information is in the record and will be discussed further tonight. At least 70% of the patients that arrive at Open Door arrive there by foot. This is an underprivileged population and a population that does not own cars or have access to a car. What we find is that less than 30% arrive other than by walking to the facility. This is a community-centered facility. There is a sufficient patient population in the immediate area that requires the services and frankly the people who require the services understand and have a lifestyle that requires they travel to the facility largely on foot. We have studied with Phelps the availability of its' parking and that also will be addressed this evening. It has more that 490 extra parking spaces on its' site and when I refer to them as extra, it's in terms of accommodating the existing uses on the Phelps site. Its sufficient parking in that and the 490 is extra. it's not required parking for the existing improvements on the Phelps site. So there's certainly enough parking on the Phelps site to accommodate the employees, the staff, the residents as well as the shuttle that will go back and forth. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �There are 8 categories of variances by my count that have been identified as being required. One through three in my own mind, I call them; I refer to as the old variances. They're variances that relate to the setback of the building on New Broadway in two locations. In this section, there's one setback that's applicable and in this section there's another setback that's applicable. It relates to the setback of the building along North Broadway. It relates to a buffer along the side property line. We are not proposing any modifications of the building in the area along New Broadway or North Broadway where it's referred to. The only modification of the building we are proposing is the new entrance. And if you can see it on the site plan and I'll point to it here, this very, very, very, small triangle is part of the new entrance. It's within this required side-yard setback, no closer to the side yard than the existing building. We're simply extending the building down and creating a feature so that the site exit is readily identifiable. But a small section of it clips the required setback of 10 feet and in that instance that is the only new construction for which a variance is required. This is on the commercial side of the property. It is not really visible. It won't have any impact on any residential community. It actually is a nice feature for this site. This is the entrance. I am talking about this little, little corner back here has a very, very small section that goes into the required setback. We believe, that as to those areas where we are not modifying the building whatsoever, those variances have already been granted. We don't believe they are required but if the Board believes they are required, there's really no basis not to continue to reaffirm those, with respect to not making any changes to this and as for this little small section that I referred to, for the main entrance, I think it stands for itself - there's really very small impact if any in that location. The parking layout on this site was really brought forward from the prior approved applications, commonly known as the Grotto application for this site. When Open Door purchased it, its' architect simply used the same layout because that layout had previously been approved. What happened was that there was also parking on the interior, bottom level of the building, which we are not providing because that's being converted to medical office space and other accessory activities related to the medical office. Some of these spaces meet the full size requirements, others are compact and I believe one is deemed a transient space per your code. But we are providing 10 spaces. They are similar to what was on the Grotto application as to the outside spaces. KOFFLER: Can you just be clear when you say you are providing 10 spaces? Can you explain those spaces - they're full size, compact, transient - what are those 10 spaces you say you are providing? TORTORELLA: There are 3 full size spaces, 5 compact spaces, 1 transient space and a handicapped space which we believe meets the code but it's not your traditional full size or regular cars, it's a handicapped parking space. KOFFLER: I assume you'll get to this but also I don't hear anything about buffers. TORTORELLA: Perfect. We also have 1 loading space, which is 10 by 35 feet - 10 feet wide by 35 feet in length. It's in this location here. It meets the size requirements. My understanding is that the Building Inspector believes it doesn't qualify or conform t o the building requirements or Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �ordinances because it intrudes into the travel area or parking aisle in which cars come in and out. And by the way this entrance is wide, it's a two-way entrance. One-way in, one-way out. Sean, is that a fair characterization? McCARTHY: Yes. TORTORELLA: I will tell you that on the Grotto application, the loading area was generally in the area where our entrance is proposed and it was not 350 square feet. It was approved at a smaller dimension. I'm not suggesting that is any sort of basis for us to claim that we're allowed this parking, this loading space but I do want you to understand that we utilized the parking layout that was previously approved and we're providing a loading space. I'd like to turn to the interpretation that we'll require a variance for the parking that's being required at Phelps Hospital for staff and employees and residents. Under Section 62-41.E of the village ordinance we're required to provide one space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. By our calculations that means 40 spaces are required. We are providing 10 and I understand they are not all full-size, we'll get into that discussion, but clearly it's less than what's required. As mitigation for the number of parking spaces, which we are deficient, we've reached an arrangement with Phelps for the off-site parking. Under section 62-14.B and 62.53.A and B of the Zoning ordinance, the ordinance says where there are practical difficulties providing parking on site, an applicant can propose with the approval of your Board, to take care of its' parking and to provide off street parking on another site in common ownership that's within 250 feet of the site and that's conveniently available for use. There's two different ways we can meet the parking requirement under the zoning ordinance. One is to provide all of our parking on site. The alternative is to provide it off site under that section. The parking at Phelps is mitigation. The provisions of the zoning ordinance pose an either or situation. If I get my parking variance to have my parking at Phelps, I really am not required to put any parking on this site if I provide my requisite number over at Phelps. Conversely if I provide the requisite number on my site or get a variance for the number that is required on my site, I'm not required to get a variance because I'm trying to provide mitigation off site. The variance for the off site parking would be in lieu of the variance for the on site parking. Our parking at Phelps is mitigation. It is not the way we are proposing to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance to provide off-street parking. We believe therefore that that variance is not required. If the Board disagrees and adopts the interpretation of the Building Inspector the information we're providing tonight is equally applicable and relevant to the standards that you apply to that variance as well in terms of balancing the benefit to the applicant and the burden on the community. And frankly, the largest portion or segment of the demand for parking for this use comes from the staff and the employees and the residents. We are taking that demand and burden and we are putting it elsewhere and in essence compelling those people to park elsewhere and frankly, which I would suggest to you reduces the potential impact of traffic in the area rather than complicates it. Zoning BoardofApealsMeeting, September 19, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �How do we address it? We address it by way of a written agreement with Phelps which we would expect the Board would require and we address it by ensuring that Open Door makes it a requirement of employment that everyone uses that method of parking if you are an employee, a staff member or otherwise a resident at this facility. Variances 4 through 8 are really the heart of what we're here about this evening; the parking and I guess the loading variance, but really the parking variance. It's really the matter of concern before the Board. Before turning to looking at the criteria that you have to balance in examining this application, I'd like to have Ms. Farrell and Mr. Adler speak to the Board on a couple of different issues. I'd like you to understand what Open Door's program is, how the residency program works, the due diligence that Open Door employed before they purchased this site, the enforcement process Open Door will apply here to ensure that the parking at Phelps works and makes the office work and the reasons why when Open Door looked at this site, the number of parking spaces that were provided it was not a matter of concern to it. It wasn't that it ignored it Open Door has a very specific and detailed experience with having to deal with parking issues and its' operations and I want the Board to understand what its' prior experiences have been. Traffic and pedestrian safety and utilization of neighborhood resources is going to be a matter of concern. Adler Consulting was hired to evaluate the increase in traffic as a result of the increase in size of the medical office, the impact of that on area intersections. They looked at accidents in the area, the condition of pedestrian facilities, the adequacy of pedestrian facilities, the availability of parking in the neighborhood, on street parking should it become necessary to utilize any of it by Open Door's patients and a number of other issues related to traffic safety, parking and pedestrian safety. Before we talk about the balancing test I would like to be able to have that information discussed with the Board. KOFFLER: That's fine. Just in the interest of time, you made a very comprehensive presentation, so obviously we're eager to hear what they have to add to it but I urge them not to repeat a lot of what you've already said if that's part of it. Thank you. LINDSAY FARRELL: Thank you and I am going to read a statement. What is Open Door? We are a federally qualified health center. We've operated in Ossining since 1 9 7 2 ^ JUDGE: Can you please introduce yourself for the record? FARRELL: Oh yes. I'm Lindsay Farrell. I'm the President and CEO of Open Door Family Medical Center. We've operated in Sleepy Hollow since 1985. We're also in Mount Kisco and Port Chester. We are the family doctor and dentist to thousands of local people in the area who are (inaudible) and are covered by government-subsidized insurance. We're a non-profit organization that receives government grant from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to operate medical and dental practices in communities where private physicians and dentists can't or won't serve. We also operate a women's, infants and children's nutrition program. We serve (inaudible) patients in our Sleepy Hollow facility in 2011; we expect to serve close to 5,000 in 2012. The census and HUD data shows that there are more than 9,000 low and Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 10 �moderate-income people in the zip code of 10591 in Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown. We have won national awards for our use of innovative health centered technology and we have some of the highest quality scores in the nation as recorded recently in the Journal News and in the USA Today. We are a finalist in the 2012 New York Non-Profit Excellence Award. We are accredited by the joint commission and we are recognized by the National Committee on Quality Assurance as a Level 3 patient qualified medical home and for our superior diabetes care. Yesterday, Crain's New York reported that we were one of the State's top three patient centered medical homes. Open Door sites our practices where our patients live. Our patients are low income and typically don't own their own homes or automobiles. The majority of our patients, 70% of them, walk to their appointments. Open Door's staff and patients have been very successfully accommodated in each of our communities for 40 years - for 27 years in the case of Sleepy Hollow. In addition to preventing disease and treating illness, we generate economic activity that helps local merchants. (inaudible ) about the residency program. In early 2009, Open Door was approached by Phelps and New York Medical College about a new family medical residency program. There is a terrible shortage of primary medical care physicians nationally and Phelps primary care physicians are aging, so this collaboration seemed like a natural fit. There is fierce competition among hospitals for the limited pool of primary medical care physicians. So Phelps Board of Directors adopted this residency program as part of its' strategic plan as a way to ensure the future viability of the hospital. Open Door's Board adopted the residency program as well as one of its' strategic objectives. Residency programs require accreditation by the American Council on Graduate Medical Education, which entails an extensive preparation process and an application. Residency training programs have to meet minimum square footage and space configuration requirements as well. ACGME reviewed the Beekman Avenue site and told us it was inadequate to meet the physical space requirements of the program. New York Medical in particular wanted to ensure that the facility be adequate to accommodate the full number of residents. Why are residency programs different from standard medical practices? Residency programs have strict guidelines about how they must be staffed and operated. Residents must be supervised by physician faculty and they are limited in their scope of practice and as a result they work very slowly and deliberately. In their first year they are only in the health center one half day a week. They spend the rest of their time at the hospital or in class. They pick up some speed in their second year, when they are at the health center one day a week and in their third year they are in the health center a day and a half. Their patient volumes are well below experienced physicians. They see about one patient per hour. The supervising faculty physicians must be totally available to support the residents. And they cannot see their own patients when they are supervising. One faculty cannot supervise more than four residents. This places capacity restrictions on the practice reducing the volume of patients that can be seen as compared to a more typical physician office or health center. Most private practices are unable to accommodate residency training because of the impact it has on the practicing physician's compensation. This is why Phelps reached out to Open Door rather than other private practicing physicians in the community. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 11 �And now I'll talk about our due diligence. Open Door was approached in the fall of 2010 by representatives of the Sleepy Hollow Downtown Revitalization Committee about possibly relocating from 80 Beekman Avenue. There was an interest in reclaiming what was the old Strand Theater and potentially returning it to the theater that it once was. Because Open Door for years had problems with getting our landlord to properly maintain the building, we were considering relocation. In early 2009 we had concerns about the structural integrity of the roof, having done some demolition, we were thinking about installing an elevator so that we could use the second floor. These elevator plans had to be scrapped and we had to actually shore up the roof with temporary jacks. As a result, although we've been paying rent on the whole building, we've been unable to use the second floor of 80 Beekman Avenue. It stands vacant today. We set out to look at other locations and we considered 144 Valley, 149 Cortlandt, Frank's Chevrolet and 300 North Broadway. We considered each facility, its' structural and site concerns, environmental issues, price and location. Thanks to the connection with the Sleepy Hollow Downtown Revitalization Committee, I also spoke to Ms. Callas about her apartment building on the corner of Beekman Avenue and Broadway as well as the vacant lot where the fire was on Beekman Avenue. It burned down all the stores and the apartments. Ultimately we determined that 300 North Broadway was best suited to our long-term needs. I communicated with a representative from the Downtown Revitalization Committee and also to the Mayor about that location prior to purchase. Our other locations. We own facilities in Ossining and Port Chester and we've rented in Mount Kisco since 2005 and we've rented in Sleepy Hollow since 1985. For 10 years in Sleepy Hollow we were located at a smaller facility at 46 Beekman. We've owned Ossining since 1975 and we've owned Port Chester since 2003. We're regarded by owners as a very good neighbor and an asset to the community. Why didn't the lack of parking concern us? The number of parking spaces at 300 North Broadway didn't' seem like an insurmountable concern as it's typical of our operating conditions in our other communities in Westchester. In Ossining, Sleepy Hollow and Port Chester we have no patient parking whatsoever. In Mount Kisco we have 16 spaces adjacent to our building. In Ossining, Port Chester and Mount Kisco we have Village tags purchased for our staff. We had purchased tags for staff in Sleepy Hollow, but we later learned that we were not permitted to renew them. We thought this was very unfortunate given the fact that we spend $100,000 in property and school taxes in Sleepy Hollow. Because we've never had problems in Sleepy Hollow, we didn't anticipate the opposition we are now facing. Phelps commitment: Phelps has made a commitment to give Open Door a long term irrevocable license to permit parking and the operation of a shuttle bus to and from the hospital to 300 North Broadway. We would enforce staff parking at Phelps through our staff parking and disciplinary policies, which are of course required for employment. Base on our track record, Open Door believes we're a really good neighbor and a good occupant for a building that has been virtually unoccupied for decades. Thank you. KOFFLER: Can I ask you a question? FARRELL: Yeah. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 12 �KOFFLER: You cited that some national statistics or global statistics and then you said that 70% of the patients walk. Is that a Sleepy Hollow statistic or a global statistic? FARRELL: Oh g o s h ^ I didn't mean we studied it from Mount Kisco and off the top of my head I don't if that 70% is related to the traffic studies that we did here in Sleepy Hollow. KOFFLER: Okay. FARRELL: I think it's probably consistent with our other locations but the formal traffic studies we did many years ago. TORTORELLA: To clarify - I don't want there to be misunderstanding - the survey that was done that Mr. Adler will speak about was at Sleepy Hollow and the 70% number relates to the Sleepy Hollow population so we're not trying to borrow from another community and transfer (inaudible) KOFFLER: Okay. TORTORELLA: There was a variance required for parking in Mount Kisco, which was granted. The number of parking spaces was less than what was required under the code and that building is about 10,000 square feet in an area that is along and within a residential community as well. JANET GANDOLFO: Mr. Chairman, just so the record is clear and we're talking about the same application, the address for the premises is 1 New Broadway not 300 North Broadway. KOFFLER: Thanks. TORTORELLA: Just to clarify, if you use the GIS system it comes up a s _ GANDOLFO: But in our Village official records, the tax assessment records, it's 1 New Broadway. It's never been changed. I don't know where 300 North Broadway came into_ KOFFLER: Well we know it's that building. GANDOLFO: That's correct. BERNARD ADLER: For the record, my name is Bernard Adler. I am a registered, professional engineer in the State of New York. I have been practicing traffic engineering for almost 50 years, maybe more. We have been retained by Open Door Family Medical Center to look at a number of issues related to the application and the very first issue that we addressed happens to be related to that 70% number. So what did we do? We went to 80 Beekman, which is down on the bottom of the facility, down on Beekman Avenue, where we actually interviewed everybody who came into the facility between 8:00am and 7:00pm. We had multilingual staff that was able to communicate with everybody. We asked everybody who came how they arrived, whether they arrived by foot, whether they arrived by private car, were they dropped off or did they use public Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 13 �transportation. And in fact we asked the same question when they left. feel for how this worked. So we got a very good In addition, the first time we did it, we were having our anniversary, we did it November of last year and then we repeated the study in March of 2012 and what we found was almost identical results. 70% of all the clients, patients that came into the facility arrived by foot. 25% drove and then a combination of 2% and 3% using mass transit or were dropped off. It could have been taxi or something else. Traditionally, a traffic study, tries to find how a new facility works so what we did was we took the numbers that we derived from the counts at 80 Beekman and we extrapolated because we have about 5,000 square feet at Beekman and we're going to 1 New Broadway or 300 South Broadway and that facility is 12,300 square feet, approximately two and a half times or a little less than 2 and a half times. So to be very conservative, we took all the numbers of arrivals and we multiplied it by two and a half to take those numbers and assign them to the new facility. And that included staff. It included all the medical people who came in, all the doctors, the nurses, technicians. It included all the clerical people as well. Now, as was pointed out so far, twice, we have another ability to reduce that number because all the staff is going to be coming in by shuttle from Phelps. But in order to be very conservative, to prepare a conservative analysis, we took the higher number and extrapolated onto the street system and looked at the intersection of Broadway and Beekman, Hudson, Bedford, New Broadway and we also looked at Lawrence and Gordon. KOFFLER: Can you go back over this extrapolation concept? You take the existing patient base - 70% of whom apparently walk - you're in a different building, in a different location. How did you calculate how many patients you're going to have and how many are going to walk? And versus drive? ADLER: It's based on the same type of population. The type of population that we're serving currently on Beekman will be the same type of population that we're serving at the intersection of North Broadway and New Broadway. KOFFLER: So be clear, even though the building's in a different location you expect the same 70% of the people that walk now to walk_ ADLER: Absolutely. KOFFLER: Okay. ADLER: That's based on what the numbers showed and based on the history of provided to us by Open Door and all the other facilities that have been there. So basically the existing shows that there are 11 cars entering and f i v e ^ t h e equivalent of 11 cars entering and five cars exiting in the morning peak, five cars entering and six cars exiting in the pm peak. Extrapolating that by multiplying it by the 2.3 factor, we've got 27 cars entering and 12 exiting and that was all documented in a large traffic study, which I'm sure everybody has read. The point of course is because the staff will no longer be driving to the facility; those numbers are very conservative and very, very high. What we found was, based on the analysis of those intersections we had addressed; there would not be a traffic impact. The total delay would be increase by eight tenths Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 14 �of a second and the worst-case scenario and they remain at the levels of service C and D. We have looked at the two facilities, 80 Beekman and the one to its' west and it was our feeling along with staff that the impact of the new facility would not be a detriment to the New Broadway/Webber park neighborhood. It is our professional judgment that case. There is a minimal amount of traffic to be generated by Open Door because all of its' staff will be coming from Phelps and because only 25% of the population, the patient/client population will be driving. We anticipate no travel on New Broadway because as was pointed out there is no access on New Broadway. There is no ability to get into the facility or if you go out the panic door you'll set off alarms, so its' not intended to have somebody pick you up on New Broadway or to drop you off on New Broadway because all you'll have to do is walk around the block to travel into the facility through the parking lot as shown and the main entrance at the lower level. And the last component of that is because it's important to Open Door, they have prepared and will be disseminating to all its' staff, to all its' clients, to all the taxi operators, a circular, which is in both English and Spanish, how we anticipate the people who walk to the facility which will be as shown in our document. And as shown on this graph, we expect everybody to walk along Beekman and then travel north on Broadway and then cross over opposite the facility at North Broadway. We w i l l ^ I need to address a number of other t h i n g s ^ . but let me get to those right away. The second thing we did was do a parking analysis. The question where people can park if there is no parking available is commonly used by traffic engineers looking at from a demand perspective, a quarter of a mile from the end point. So if you take a radius of a quarter of a mile and you look at all the vacant facilities, vacant parking facilities that are in the area, you can then determine how large a supply is available. So what we did was, even though we recognized there are 40 spaces required, we looked at Beekman Avenue, Lawrence, the municipal lot on Beekman, Hudson Terrace, New Broadway and Pine Close. And what we found was that there was an inventory of 743 spaces that are available, not on a full-time basis, but that if you look at the size, the dimension, about 25 feet, parallel to a curb, that's defined as a parking space. And what we found is that of those 743 spaces, during the morning peak time frame, between 8:00am and noon, there was an average of 103 spaces available in the area. Between noon and 4pm there were 98 spaces available and between 4:00pm and 7:00pm when the facility closes, there was an average of 70 spaces available. In addition to our traffic study, which we did in November, we repeated this study and we did the exact same study in parking and lo and behold the numbers are replicated. In our considered professional opinion, these numbers are valid and they are representative of the number of spaces that could be available for overflow. Now how does that relate to the actual demand for the operation? Open Door Medical projects that in the morning peak, when its' full residency, as described not in the first year but after the third year of residency, they expect to have 18 patients per hour between 8:00am and noon, 27 patients per hour between noon and 4:00pm, and 17 patients per hour between 4:00 and 7:00pm. Taking into demand of 70% of all patients who walk, there will be a demand -subtracting that and- applying 30% and saying all of those are cars, we find that we will need 7 spaces during the peak time frame. That's 30% of the 27, that's 6.3 rounded upwards to 7. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 15 �In addition, we said perhaps there'll be an overlap because some people come in early, some people come in late, so we took 50% of that number, which is another common practice, so we said what if there were four extra spaces that were necessary, so what we then say is that even though we're requiring seven spaces during the peak time frame, we said we would need eleven spaces during that peak time frame. Accordingly, for the 10-space facility, we would be short one on the demand basis. MICHAEL WERNICK: Mr. Adler, what is the current volume of patients being seen on Beekman Avenue location compared to the figures you just cited? ADLER: This is the projection based on the new program so maybe I'll let Lindsay explain that. KOFFLER: So these numbers all take into account this projected extrapolated patient base? ADLER: No the numbers that I quoted, the 18, 27, 17 in the three time frames, were based on the number of patients that can be seen by the number of residents in the program, by the number of supervising attending physicians that will be supervising them and based on the program that has been adopted between Phelps and Open Door. KOFFLER: Well let me ask it another way. You have this existing patient base, a regular place, it's been around and in operation and you know how many patients you have. There must be a projection of how many patients you want to have, you expect to have or expect to end up with without backing into it by how many people you've actually serviced. Is there a projection for how many patients you expect to have versus how many patients you have now? Is that what was used for this study? TORTORELLA: The answer is there is a projection and I don't have a number for you as to what the delta is. That changes from existing to proposed. Because it's not based on the square footage increase, it's based on the number of medical providers that will be in the facility and that's the numbers that Mr. Adler has used for the calculations. So we can - do you have the number of current patients - we can give you that number although I just want to make sure it's clear that the projected numbers we are talking about are really dictated by the number of people who can be served by the number of medical providers. KOFFLER: Understood. But none of the math means anything unless we are starting with the right numbers. So it's important to understand that the math is based on a baseline of not just the patients today but what is realistically, if this were to go forward, the patient base you expect to have. FARRELL: So it's about 16 per hour and that 16 number is if everybody is in the facility. That doesn't take into account someone who might be out because they have a sick child or someone who might be out because you know.... that's, that's full tilt and all of the analysis we did is based on full tilt per year based on the number of residents and faculty that would be in the facility and the support staff. MARIA GORETE-CROWE: My question would be (inaudible) 16 per hour, that's 16 providers^ Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 16 �FARRELL: No, no, no that's patients. GORETE-CROWE: Just patients. How many providers for the 16? FARRELL: 4.15 GORETE-CROWE: Now my other question was, you are definitely increasing things like dental. Was that projection also for how many patients are going to be seen dental? How many providers are going to be there? Do we have an estimate on that? FARRELL: I don't have that. There's a social worker also. GORETE-CROWE: Okay s o ^ WERNICK: Do the dental and social programs fall under the same conditions as the residency program, meaning as far as staff to patient ratio? FARRELL: Well dentists are slower because they are doing procedures. GORETE-CROWE: So there's going to be a hygienist also? FARRELL: Of course. GORETE-CROWE: But not as slow. FARRELL: (Laughs) Half an hour. (Inaudible) the occasion half an hour. TIM JUDGE: One other question for you, this survey that you did where you interviewed the patients, at the Beekman Avenue facility. When was that conducted? ADLER: In November, November 2011 and then again in February, I think or May. JUDGE: And then again in the spring. ADLER: And then in spring, in March. It was November 2011 and March of 2012. LINDA MOIRON: And then did you consider if there was a mother and two children, would that be three patients? ADLER: We asked what, how many patients there were so if they came in in three, it was one patient. If the mother brought a toddler with her while she brought one patient, it was still one patient. MOIRON: So you only counted the actual patient? Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 17 �ADLER: That's correct. It's equivalent to one care for three people. WERNICK: Are patients seen only by appointment? FARRELL: We will see walk-ins but we encourage appointments. KOFFLER: What is the walk-in distance to the new location from the old location? Not straight line but actual walking distance? ADLER: It's a quarter of a mile. (Inaudible speakers) KOFFLER: And how long does it take to walk a quarter mile? ADLER: Fifteen minutes. KOFFLER: Do you think it's realistic that somebody who's seeing a doctor, if he's sick, and infirm ADLER: You have to remember not everybody is sick. KOFFLER: I understand that, but I'm just asking it's realistic to expect that somebody to see a doctor is going to walk a quarter of a mile - that's your realistic expectation? ADLER: Yes. TORTORELLA: In this facility with this patient population what I want to emphasize is that a lot of the conventional wisdom that we bring to applications like this needs to be put aside because this is not a conventional use, its' not a conventional application. So, while you and I who if we have a fever, probably wouldn't walk a quarter of a mile, we don't have to because we have the ability to drive (inaudible). It is not that kind of an operation, which is what makes this a unique use in this location. I also just want to clarify that the number of patients we refer to, that we use for projection purposes, includes everyone getting services. They may be in there for counseling for women's, infants and children. Your mind may not think of them as patients but they were included in that count as well- people who were obtaining services at the facility. KOFFLER: I'm just trying to get my mind around it. Because if somebody lived between the old facility and the new one, it's a quarter mile less but if they lived on the other side, now you're talking significantly further. Granted maybe some people will make that walk but it's not, it's, if the existing 70% in the quarter mile radius of Beekman - that could be up to a half mile away from the new facility. GORETE-CROWE: I have another question and this is in r e g a r d ^ I wanted to know if you have statistics^. do you know how many times emergency vehicles have to go to Open Door in Beekman Avenue? Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 18 �FARRELL: It's not all that common and I don't know off the top of my head. We were asked the same thing in Mount Kisco and it was five for the year. GORETE-CROWE: I'm only asking because an ambulance would have to make a turn into that facility. FARRELL: Right. GORETE-CROWE: And my biggest concern is the turn there because that's such a busy intersection. My question would be would you be the possibility of having a security person to make sure that the car can get in properly because getting in and out of that area - I remember what it was like when it was a car facility and you couldn't get out sometimes. FARRELL: We've got a crossing guard that we appropriate. GORETE-CROWE: Who's going to provide it? FARRELL: Us. Well we would have to pay the Village. KOFFLER: A crossing guard? You mean someone for pedestrians or cars? GORETE-CROWE: For cars and pedestrians. There should be someone there to like to monitor^ KOFFLER: There's a couple different things. If it's pedestrians coming^ GORETE-CROWE: She's talking pedestrians but I'm talking about the cars, which is so hard to get out in that area. KOFFLER: Right well there are a few issues. One is getting in and out of the area. There are cars coming north having to turn left across traffic into the site. GORETE-CROWE: Right. KOFFLER: And then the cars exiting and then coming south; having to turn east into across traffic. There's a few different things, there's no turning lane on this road. And also to be clear, the proposal's for a pedestrian traffic guard? Or somebody to actually stop cars, let cars in and out? ADLER: It's pedestrian and I'll get to that when I get to that. KOFFLER: Okay. JUDGE: One last question if I may here. Your projection on numbers where you were basing it on patient load, by the maximum number of patients the provider can see, that's for the residency Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 19 �program. How many patients are you including in your projections for the social worker, for women's infants and children^ FARRELL: That's all included. It's the whole practice. JUDGE: Then how do you arrive at those figures? Because those aren't provider based? FARRELL: For example, a social worker sees one patient every 45 minutes and so then they chart so it's one patient per hour. That's all factored in. ADLER: That's part of the 2 7 ^ FARRELL: It's part of the analysis. ADLER: ^ t h a t we did. KOFFLER: So there's no group therapy? FARRELL: New York State doesn't like that. JUDGE: Women's Infants Children that's a very different program rather than provider specific so how many (inaudible). FARRELL: Again, there are nutritionists who see patients face to face. GORETE-CROWE: So it's not like a group? FARRELL: No we don't do groups. JUDGE: Okay so there are nutritionists but there are also other aspects to the weight program other than just nutritionists. FARRELL: And that's all (inaudible) JUDGE: That's all? WERNICK: Does that mean that the number of patients that can be seen due to the residency constraints can't get larger? Can't change- they can't get bigger? FARRELL: No the ACGME has specific requirements on their volumes and the number of supervising faculty that must be there. WERNICK: Right. MOIRON: But what happens if you don't have that residency program. When we give a variance, we give it to a building, not in three years. What happens in five years, 10 years? The Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 20 �residency program doesn't work so they find a better solution. Do you have numbers for maximum (inaudible) without the residency program? FARRELL: I have not calculated that. GORETE-CROWE: One other question. Are you also providing any elder care? FARRELL: We see the whole family. We are a family practice, so family physicians can deliver babies. They see children, they see teenagers, they see adults. Yes they do see the elderly. GORETE-CROWE: How m a n y ^ d o you know how many are walking in and how many are brought in by wheelchair? FARRELL: No, no I don't. I don't have that estimate. KOFFLER: Yes it would be interesting to breakdown seniors^the elderly. FARRELL: Elderly is only around 4% of our business. I suspect that as the case here in Sleepy, most elderly people have Medicare and most doctors accept Medicare and so they have a lot of choices. KOFFLER: Yeah the only reason I'm asking is obviously (inaudible) walk-in. FARRELL: Our practice is largely young families. TORTORELLA: Lindsay if you could just comment-because it goes to trying to figure out the number of people who will be on the site at any given time- just comment on the fact that people package their appointments together. FARRELL: Sure. I mean just like you would not like to make multiple trips, you'd want to do as much as you possibly can you know when you're on your way to the facility so it's not uncommon for a patient to be seen by a physician and a social worker for example or to pick up their WIC checks and have an immunization would be another example. MOIRON: How much of the business is well care and how much is (inaudible). FARRELL: We would love it all to be well care because that's what we're all about. I mean that's why we think walking is a really great thing, but of course people indeed get sick and our job is to prevent them from getting sicker. To prevent people from having diabetes that's uncontrolled. To prevent people from winding up in the emergency room with their asthma attack. MOIRON: I guess what I'm asking is do you have numbers saying what percentage of the business is more seeing people on well care as opposed to (inaudible). FARRELL: Yes. I wish I knew that off the top of my head. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 21 �TORTORELLA: I'm making a list of these questions. WERNICK: What's the number of employees currently at the Beekman location and what's the proposed number of staff at the Broadway location? FARRELL: Right now with residents in the facility and support staff we have 17 and next year it's 24 and the following year it's 31. WERNICK: So the 17 employees currently have to drive and park at the current facility? FARRELL: Yes on the streets WERNICK: And the 24 employees will not be allowed to drive to the facility. Is that correct? FARRELL: Correct. TORTORELLA: And 31 is anticipated to be the maximum operation. Year three is when that residency program in the new space is expected to be fully operational. ADLER: So let me talk a little bit about pedestrians now. First of all, I did a quick calculation of how long it takes to walk. The average walking speed is about three and a half, four feet per second. So based on the 1200, 1300 hundred feet which is a quarter mile, it would take approximately five to six minutes to walk a quarter of a mile. Not a mile. A mile would be 15, 20 minutes. I guess very conservative in that number but based on the number - if we say it takes ten minutes - that would probably be a good number. So we did a pedestrian study also and what is that pedestrian study? We counted in addition to all the cars that go through the intersection; we studied all pedestrians that cross every light of all the intersections that we addressed. The Beekman, Hudson, Lawrence etc. and what we found was that in the morning, between 8:00 and 9:00, which is the peak highway hour, there were 270 people who actually crossed today. In the noon hour there are 230 pedestrians and between 4:00 and 5:00pm there are 115 pedestrians. And just to put that in perspective, based on the number, the 70% who are going to walk, we anticipate there will be an additional 13 pedestrians per hour between 8:00 and noon, 19 between noon and 4:00pm and 12 between 4:00 and 7:00pm. MOIRON: Excuse me; is that just the intersection, the one that you want them to cross or all five? ADLER: We will anticipate and we will hope and we will instruct them that they will all cross at that one intersection. MOIRON: Right, but your numbers today. Where were they from? ADLER: (Pointing to drawing) They are at this intersection, this intersection and that intersection. They're (inaudible). Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 22 �WERNICK: I'm a little bit concerned about those numbers you just stated because I think based on the other figures you gave about how many patients were going to be seen during those periods, those would all be in addition to any current traffic that's being done now. ADLER: That's corrects WERNICK: So you said that between 12:00 and 4:00 there'll only be 13 additional pedestrians? ADLER: 13 additional pedestrians per hour. WERNICK: Oh per hour. ADLER: Per hour. WERNICK: But you didn't give the other figures on a per hour basis? ADLER: I did. 19 per hour between noon and 4:00, 12 per hour between 4:00 and 7:00. Each hour. WERNICK: Yeah but the other figures you gave were 2 0 0 ^ . ADLER: 270. That's correct. We calculated the peak hour when we did the analysis. And in fact what we did in order to determine how well the intersection works, we also did a sensitivity analysis by saying let's assume I have 200 pedestrians cross each and every leg of every intersection and it changed nothing. So from an analysis from a traffic impact, adding an additional 200 pedestrians as compared to only 13, and again that was the peak hour that I'm addressing, 1:14;06 KOFFLER: So I'm particularly concerned about Route 9. How many pedestrians did you project initially during these three segments would cross Route 9? ADLER: I expect 13 per h o u r _ . KOFFLER: This is just the Route 9 crossing? ADLER: Just the Route 9 crossing. They could cross Beekman but they will stay along the west side of Broadway until they get to the auto parts store and that's where they will cross in this crosswalk. WERNICK: So for the 10 hours it would be an approximate 130 additional pedestrians. Correct? ADLER: It could be. I don't want to inflate the numbers^it's, it's^they're not... if you look at 13 per hour and you divide that over the hour, it's like one every couple of minutes. (inaudible) Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 23 �WERNICK: So if it's 13 per hour and you multiply it by 10 hours it's still 130 additional pedestrians. ADLER: Rights. it could be 130 but you don't want it to be inflammatory to assume that all 130 are coming at one second. KOFFLER: No. Understood that. But to put it another way every three minutes someone's going to cross the road. ADLER: That's, that's the way I'd like you to look at it. Every three minutes one person will cross the road. MOIRON: And your study was done on a school day? ADLER: Yes. Both times. WERNICK: So are a lot of those pedestrians students as far as you know or was there no way to determine that? ADLER: I'd have to check with our counters. And I'm not sure I'd know what they did for a living. TORTORELLA: People always look younger as you age. WERNICK: I know. ADLER: I have relatively young counters so they might have got a better feel, but it would have been good if I'd been asked that question last March. I could have said hey, they would have told me right away. KOFFLER: But the crosswalk at the top of the hill there^there's a walk, don't walk sign at the crosswalk? ADLER: Yes. There is a crosswalk. There are pedestrian displays on the east and the west of North Broadway. Yes. Let me get to adequacy of pedestrians and then I want to talk about accidents. GORETE-CROWE: One of my concerns is there's an auto shop there and there's cars coming out of that area. Right across the street there's an auto body and there's cars coming out of that area all the time and there's also pedestrians going. And I find I as a driver I am totally scared when I get to that area because I use Mickey's and I, I always have to worry. You'd be surprised how many times I have to stop my car so I wouldn't hit someone. ADLER: I wouldn't be surprised at all. GORETE-CROWE: So I have to be concerned there. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 24 �ADLER: You have to be careful as a driver. You should always be careful as a driver^. GORETE-CROWE: I understand^because there is no light for the (inaudible) so it's a blind sight coming out there. ADLER: It's a little bit away from _ b u t you get your cues from the motorists that are driving^but if you see traffic on Broadway, you know that they have the green. GORETE-CROWE: I'm well aware of that. But I'm just saying actually it's the pedestrians that I worry more. ADLER: Okay but pedestrians, pedestrians always have to be careful of curb cuts in the middle of a block. And the motorists who are coming out of the driveway in the middle of the block have to be careful of pedestrians. BISHKO: Can I ask a question? Have you looked at the combination of these increased pedestrians who will presumably pushing a light, stopping traffic at the intersection, cars that are coming down that road, extra seven that will be making the cut in either left or right, and the impact that it has up Broadway into Tarrytown and down? I mean when you're commuting at 8:00am, the line of traffic leads down. Have you looked at the impact of the excessive traffic both in Tarrytown and in Sleepy Hollow? ADLER: That's why I've tried to emphasize how many people are actually walking today. BISHKO: Not just walking but the cars also turning. ADLER: But the cars are counted as part of this. These people, these 230. BISHKO: But the cars are turning now ADLER: I know but the pedestrians are walking now. The 230 pedestrians that we talked about between 8:00 and 9:00am are currently on the street crossing there. They're crossing Broadway. They're crossing Beekman. They're crossing Bedford. They're crossing right now. They're walking in the middle of the block and there are cars because they're walking in the, in t h e _ BISHKO: And the traffic^ ADLER:_.and the traffic^ BISHKO: _ d o w n Route 9 and up Route 9 is really difficult at that hour. ADLER: The s a m e ^ b u t they're there today. BISHKO: Is t h e r e ^ h a v e you looked at that impact? Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 25 �ADLER: I have and what I said was in addition to worrying about only 13 cars, we looked at it if we had 200 c a r s ^ I ' m sorry^pedestrians. BISHKO: And what was the impact to traffic? ADLER: It was minimal. It was like a tenth of a second change. Because you're walking only when you have the WALK sign. KOFFLER: As a traffic expert and a pedestrian expert, what do you think the percentage of people are that actually don't jaywalk, who actually wait for the light to change, who wait for it to turn (inaudible) across the street? Just statistically. ADLER: Well I couldn't give you the statistics but I would agree there are a lot of pedestrians who look at the traffic north and south and they think that they could cross and it's common and they try to cross. I discourage it. When I walk with my grandchildren, I tell them that they have to wait for the upright hand-don't walk and the walking man they should walk. KOFFLER: Understand. I just want to question the assumption that every single person waits until the light to change to cross the street. ADLER: That is not my assumption and that was not counted when I counted the 230 pedestrians. JUDGE: Do we know what the pedestrian load is coming off of Lawrence? If the facility is moved a quarter of a mile further away from essentially the center of the population it serves in the Village, it has moved further out, and your entranceway is not on New Broadway but it's in fact on North Broadway - human nature will probably carry people down Lawrence and across Broadway where there is no crosswalk. ADLER: There is no crosswalk, no traffic signal and that's why we have said we are going to encourage everybody and our people, if you ask Lindsay, and the operators, right here as well as all over, they're very receptive to our instructions. If we tell them that we need them to walk at this location, that's where they should walk. KOFFLER: What are the hours of operation? TORTORELLA: Monday through Thursday 8:30 to 7:00. Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm. And we're anticipating eventually we'd like to be able to have Saturday hours 8:30 to 2:30. ADLER: Which is not part of the study yet. So in addition to the counting of the pedestrians and the projected pedestrians, we also looked at every pedestrian facility. All of the crosswalks, the width of the crosswalk. The ability to have the pedestrian display - Walk/Don't Walk - or the upright hand and the walking man. We looked at the (inaudible) pads for the drop curbs where the pedestrians cross the intersection. And we found there is sufficient width, they're generally good condition of the walking services and the time for crossing is sufficient for the pedestrian to Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 26 �cross at the rate we quoted which is the national rate of 3.5 feet per second which is what traffic engineers throughout the United States. The next thing we did was an accident study. KOFFLER: I'm sorry^maybe we just back up? ADLER: Yes. KOFFLER: Is there a ^ h a s it been considered the lighting on the pedestrian walkways? I mean I don't know the area that well but are the sidewalks well lit? Are the streets where they are crossing lit enough? Is sit going from Route 9 towards Beekman Avenue, I think the streets are actually pretty dark? ADLER: I don't have an answer to that. WERNICK: I live on Lawrence and there are lights on the street. And there's lights between Lawrence and the top of the hill, streetlights, so my observation is that's pretty well lit at night. ADLER: So we did an accident study. What we did was collected five years of data from 2006 inclusive through 2011 to determine how many accidents actually occur because there is a perception and as it turned out there's a reality that some of these intersections are really not as safe as we'd like them to be. We found that there are 98 accidents over the three years and that at North Broadway and Beekman, which is Beekman/Hudson, that that had the worst accident rate. 40 accidents total or 8 accidents per year. At Bedford there were an average of 4 per year. At North Broadway/Gordon/Lawrence there were 4 per year and at the intersection of North Broadway/New Broadway there's an accident rate of 1 per year. I want to emphasize that during the entire 5-year period there was not one pedestrian accident. In addition, we were asked by Open Door gratuitously, to look at what is the accident picture? So in addition to looking at how many they are and what the critical rates of accidents and whether they conform to State standards or not, we actually d i d ^ w e laid out the accident picture of the causative relationship between the type of accidents and the location. Sideswipes, rear-ends, that type of thing and the location. And what we found is that as you're heading north on North Broadway, there is a turn and a lane drop and that's where there were 17 accidents over the period. In addition, there were additional accidents as you approach Beekman and that also is very wide, open intersection, not clearly defined in terms of lanes. It's just a wide intersection that should really be more carefully planned out. We recognize that it is a State road. It should be done by New York State. We would hope that the Village would contact the State and say this is the accident picture, this is what we have is a problem here, we would like your approval to either letting us put up signs to show that there are land drops, to put up additional pavement markings which are rubbing out on the road, which are erasing with the traffic and to find any other measure that would help ameliorate the accident picture and to improve it. The last two additional points that I would like to make is concerning the crossing guard. One is that Open Door has volunteered or will volunteer to employ through the Village, and we did check Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 27 �this with New York State DOT and they said that that would perfectly, would be in in line with like a crossing guard, that would be okay to help the pedestrians to cross the intersection opposite our facility in this crosswalk and they would only do it during the walk cycle. They wouldn't stop cars. They would be there to alert cars that are turning that there are pedestrians in the crosswalk but that when we add these pedestrians we would hope that the addition of the crossing guard would be another method to provide some more security to continue a good accident picture at that location. KOFFLER: Excuse me. What does it mean to employ them "through the Village"? ADLER: Well it appears that we can't assign somebody to go work in the middle of the street. KOFFLER: Right. ADLER: But the Village can. So that just like a crossing guard at the school, at the high school down on Broadway^. KOFFLER: Right. ADLER: So the Village or in that case it could be the school district or the Village would be paying another crossing guard. GANDOLFO: But you understand that this Board doesn't have that jurisdiction to approve that. It's the Board of Trustees. ADLER: I'm just explaining what our approach is. KOFFLER: I just want to understand so it's not ADLER: It's a total picture so while the ZBA has certain parts, I just want them to understand what we're trying to do. GORETE-CROWE: That was my question then in the beginning you said you would provide it, so who's going to be paying? The Village o r _ . ADLER: We would pay the bill to the Village who pays the bill who pays the crossing guard. TORTORELLA: It's offered in the nature of mitigation to facilitate the movement of pedestrians across that intersection. KOFFLER: Let's see if we can pace ourselves because we have another thing on here. Tell me just what other things you have planned for the rest of the presentation? ADLER: I just have one more point and I hope it's quick. One of the comments raised at the last meeting, at the Planning Board meeting, about the ability to be able to drop off either a van or an ambulance in the presence of all the cars that are parked. We did turning movement diagrams Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 28 �simulating that larger vehicle to be able to come in and go out and it does work. There are no left turns coming out of the driveway. It's a left turn prohibition. We intend to keep that left turn prohibition; so all cars exiting onto Broadway will be heading north. KOFFLER: So one less^for somebody that's going south, how are they going to go? ADLER: They'd have to go through Lawrence, turn left and come back. TORTORELLA: That's a restriction under the current approval for this site - no left turns. KOFFLER: I understand - just trying to think of the practical applications if someone needs to go the other way. TORTORELLA: Right. GORETE-CROWE: I'm thinking of an ambulance, if they need to go farther than Phelps because^. KOFFLER: Okay^just, just a g a i n ^ . just so y o u ^ i f we could get a sense of what is on your agenda for the rest of the presentation. TORTORELLA: I had a couple of things to address in terms of the balancing. I think you've heard largely the reasons we believe that the parking variances won't result in any adverse traffic impact either in the community, in the residential neighborhood. We don't think pedestrian traffic will. But there are the other variances that are out here that are being discussed. The distance separation, the distance of the Phelps parking form the site which we have, we have talked about not so much in terms of the impact but really it comes down to the fact that those cars won't be coming to this site. Those people will be transported in a van and so to me there's really no traffic impact that's associated with that. KOFFLER: Can I ask you another question on that? You said something about Phelps is going to give an irrevocable license? What is that? There's no such thing as an irrevocable license. TORTORELLA: Its' a contract. KOFFLER: Right. TORTORELLA: That w i l l ^ a binding contract that will allow Open Door to be able to have the cars parked on the site and to operate the shuttle service. It is not a recorded legal instrument in the sense of an easement, which is one of the mechanisms that's provided for in your code if you are seeking to provide all your parking off site. It is a binding agreement. We call it a license because it touches the real estate but it's not an easement. There will be terms to it obviously. We've talked to Phelps, you know it's not, it's not, has not been completed yet so I can't provide you a copy. I can't represent to you the final terms but we are anticipating it to be, the term of it to be a long term, multi-year kind of agreement that will automatically renew itself unless certain Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 29 �events occur, such as Open Door no longer operates its' facility. You know obviously they (inaudible). KOFFLER: So it sounds more like a lease than anything. TORTORELLA: You c o u l d ^ y o u could call it a lease. You could call it a lease. GORETE-CROWE: Where's that van bringing in employees? Where's it going to drop them off? TORORELLA: It will drop them off in the parking lot and Bernie one thing that I was going to ask you to address are the turning movements within the parking lot for taxis because there's a concern about taxis being able to maneuver in the parking lot, emergency vehicles such as ambulances and then the larger vans that are associated with the handicapped parking if someone were to come in a handicapped van. ADLER: Basically it was that t h e ^ . w e did some turning movements for larger vehicles. For example, a van, the van that Open Door will be operating twice an hour from Phelps to this facility. They will drop off the staff at this location, back up and be able to go out in this facility. The plans^the turning movements have been presented. They are documented. That goes for taxis, ambulances and vans. So we did it for a large size vehicle. It's not an SU30 truck but it is a large vehicle. JUDGE: You're looking at about a 20-foot vehicle based on your scale of number 1-10 on your^figure 13 in your report. How do you address the issue of because it's a very tight turn radius and there are, there are three movements to getting a vehicle to come back out - how to you deal with it when you have a vehicle that's about to move backwards after having discharged its' passengers and another vehicle enters into the parking lot? What's to prevent traffic from starting to queue up out on the roadway itself? ADLER: It's like any parking lot. A motorist has to be careful of the cars entering. He has to let the car entering to do his movement first, then you back out. KOFFLER: Wait but there's not, there's not an in lane and an out lane. It's just a one lane. ADLER: No. No. There's an in lane and an out lane. KOFFLER: There is? Okay. ADLER: There are two lanes. JUDGE: But effectively, but effectively you're locking off the two entrances when one vehicle is making the three point turn to back u p _ . ADLER: Nope. No they don't block the entrance because they come in and go around. They're stopped somewhere near this cross hatch area, which is where the entrance is and it doesn't Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 30 �make sense to drop them off any other place. A standard car is typically 16 feet. 20 feet would be a large size vehicle. The Cadillac Escalade, which we're not going to use. JUDGE: The issue though is that you have a relatively confined driveway. I realize you can get two cars there. You have the correct space, but you don't have a lot of forward space to the building. The vehicles have to make a turn and so the vehicles that are making the turn in that then need to back around are necessarily cutting off the entrance way again during their three point turn maneuver. And that's when you're going to have vehicles starting to queue up. As much as I would like to say drivers need to be cautious, I'm never amazed when I get into a parking lot like or local shopping or local grocery store on Route 9, C-Town, and how people stop and they just don't move forward and how quickly traffic becomes an issue as it backs up and how unsafe that is. S o _ ADLER: So it could be interpreted as being unsafe but it tends not to deal and lead to property damage accidents. People will honk your car, will honk their horn and somebody will back up and there is a lot o f ^ . I ' v e been in this business a long time and while people look at me askance when I say this, there is a lot of common courtesy afforded to motorists especially in parking. BISHKO: Right. But if they are waiting to make that turn, this is a intersection? Have you driven on this ADLER: Of course. BISHKO: I'm there 15 times a day dropping kids in and out. The traffic backs up very quickly and C-Town is a perfect example of that, waiting for people in and out of the lot. People don't drive well. I would hesitate to make that right into the parking lot and that's my question to you. Have you looked into if that does happen, how quickly that traffic builds up into Tarrytown? ADLER: What we said is that we really do not anticipate a lot of cars coming into the driveway. There are seven cars that are coming in every 20 minutes for their appointment. That's seven cars. It's not 100 cars. BISHKO: But the van's coming in an hour_ ADLER: An hour. That's once every 30 minutes. There's a lot of time between cars approaching and vans leaving and turnover. GORETE-CROWE: My other question and this I don't recall^.I know I passed by it and I was t r y i n g ^ o n the road itself is there a break-way on the yellow line to make that turn? There isn't yet, right? So they would be making an illegal turn? If they were going south? For they making a left to get in. KOFFLER: It's a yellow line GORETE-CROWE: So it's n o t ^ . Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 31 �KOFFLER: You can't make a left turn going south legally. GORETE-CROWE: But you know that's what I'm anticipating people are going to do. ADLER: First of all that's not true. You're allowed to make a left turn over a double yellow line into a driveway. Perfectly legal. The New York State Vehicle Code allows it. You're not allowed to cross a median. You're not allowed to cross a protection zone. But if you're on a street and you want to cross over a double yellow to go into a driveway on the opposite side of the street, it is permissible. KOFFLER: Good to know. ADLER: It's just the law. So you're allowed to do that. Especially if you're coming south and want to make that left turn in. But we are prohibited from making left turns out to go n o r t h ^ I mean to go south. We can only make right turns out. MOIRON: Same as C-Town. GORETE-CROWE: That would be (inaudible) TORTORELLA: But that's not a Vehicle and Traffic Code requirement, it is a condition of the site plan, which we would anticipate carrying forward with this use. JUDGE: Which at C-Town probably obeyed no more than 80% of the time, KOFFLER: Anyway is that your presentation? Any questions before we move on? TORTORELLA: We could talk all night. There's one other issue I really do want to address with the Board and that is the question of alternatives and you have heard testimony about the alternative sites that were evaluated and why they were not suitable. A location needs to be in an area that people can access it and our pedestrian^our patient population is largely pedestrian, so we believe this location meets that requirement. And we have certain size requirements, which we really can't deviate from because of the context of which we're talking about our application. I want to address one of the rooms within the building because there's been a lot of concern about that and implications for traffic. And that is the conference room in this facility, which has an occupancy of 50 people. It's marked on the architectural plans as having an occupancy for 50 people because there's an occupancy limitation based on the size of it. It's not anticipated to be used for 50 people. It's not anticipated to be used for outside purposes or outside users. It's a room that will be used for the professionals and para-professionals to be able to meet and have discussions. It's not anticipated to offer seminars or conferences where people will come in and speak to a group of 49 people if it's a one-person program, speaking program. I want to clarify that. It was an issue that came up at the Planning Board and I think it's important for you to understand we are certainly willing to agree to conditions and limitations on use of that space. It kind o f ^ i t grew a life of its' own as an issue. It was never intended for that purpose and it wasn't meant to identify the fact that we would have 50 visitors coming for any sort of program. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 32 �The other issue I wanted to talk about is alternatives to our non-conforming parking. Because we can modify our parking and our loading to conform to the Code. We did look at how that would happen. This was an issue that was raised at the end of the Planning Board proceedings, so this is not a plan that was seen by the Planning Board and it has not been submitted to this Board but it will be. But we didn't' want to not address this. There is a way to redesign the parking field if you will to provide for full size parking and a conforming loading space. What it does though is reduces the number of parking spaces on the site from the 10 that we're showing to seven full size, one of which is a conforming handicap spot. But for the reasons that Mr. Adler already discussed, based on kind of the anticipated need of the project and the patients for on-street parking, we're talking about going from one or two during the peak hour to three or four during the peak hour. Meaning that patients during our peak period which now is currently Mondays 12:00 to 4:00 and we anticipate that that will continue because we have a long track record with that. Patients coming to the site, driving to the site may need 13 to 14 spaces instead of 11 to 12. But based on the number of available parking spaces, that Mr. Adler's firm calculated and counted, based on the field survey, there's certainly enough parking in the area to be able to support that. The other thing that this plan does is that it addresses a concern that the Building Inspector raised with us at the end of the Planning Board proceeding about how you move pedestrians from the street into the site. Because currently as shown those pedestrians would be walking from the sidewalk around and through the parking lot, much like if you'd be parked in a parking lot, you'd be walking. What this revised site plan allows us to do is create a dedicated pedestrian path from the sidewalk on North Broadway and come up along the front of the building and then into the new main entrance. This is a plan Open Door's prepared to pursue if it's able to get the approvals for it. It's a modification to our existing plan. It's the same building, same size of entrance, same location of improvements, except for the reconfiguration of the parking field, the reconfiguration of the loading space and the creation of that dedicated pedestrian access-way. The last item I just want to point out to you has to do with the loading space. Open Door is n o t ^ d o e s not have a lot of tractor-trailer type deliveries that come to its' site. It, the large trucks that would be coming to the site, mainly for waste removal, trash removal and occasionally to deliver heavy equipment and furniture, things of that nature. Other deliveries that come to Open Door are really in panel size trucks, which could adequately and safely make deliveries in a much smaller loading area. So we can comply with the loading requirement in this way out but I would just remind you that on the Grotto application, that was previously approved by this Board and the Planning Board, there was a smaller loading area, and we're certainly amenable and feel we could function adequately with a smaller loading area at this site. We have provided you with a tractor study to hear testimony on tonight, we have analyzed the criteria. It's getting late and I won't go through all of it in terms of the balancing test. Final thing that I'd like you to have in your mind as you consider the balancing is that t h i s ^ t h e benefit we believe you have to weigh is not just a direct benefit to Open Door, in terms of being able to provide services to its' clients and to have the residency program, but rather the benefit that also (inaudible) inures to the community by virtue of the fact that we are promoting family practitioners and family practice in the community and we are facilitating that with Phelps Memorial Hospital and that Phelps Memorial Hospital as you know, provides services and benefits to a much broader section of the population. We're also taking a building that was vacant for a very long time, that looks beautiful Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 33 �now, but has been vacant since 2008, 2009 or 2010 when the renovations were completed and putting it to use by an owner who's got an investment and vested interest in making sure it continues to look nice and making sure that it's an active member of the community. That is a benefit that the community realizes. We believe you have to look at both the indirect and direct benefits when you're weighing that. KOFFLER: Thank you. What I'm going to do is go to the public portion of the hearing and hear what the public has to say and then come back and just talk^this is not going to be decided tonight...talk about a to-do list of what information you need to be thinking about and what we need to be thinking about too. So with that said, I make a motion to open up the public portion of the hearing. WERNICK: Seconded. KOFFLER: All in favor? BOARD: Aye. KOFFLER: Anyone from the public like to speak with respect to this application please rise, state your name and address, and say what you have to say. EDNA ROBINSON: My name is Edna Robinson. 65 New Broadway. I'd like to express my concern regarding the numbers here tonight. Decisions municipalities make impact communities for many years. As obviously the Board is aware of this and (inaudible). As the recent storm shows us the potential for change is considered at its' greatest. The greatest number of cars, the greatest number of patients, the numbers of people with cars must be expected to increase. Office hours can increase. After hours meetings can increase or occur. The number of attending doctors, dentists, nurses and assistants can increase. Salesmen, lab specimen pickups - the list can go on to include multiple possibilities for this proposed clinic location. Lastly, I have a question. Are there any disclaimers to the binding agreement with the long-term parking or the shuttle? And the reason it would be for both. KOFFLER: Is that a question for us? ROBINSON: I guess. KOFFLER: We'll get into the particulars. That's one of our questions as well - is to actually see what kind of agreements there are regarding this off site arrangement. We'll be looking at that. ROBINSON: Thank you. KEITH SAFIAN: Hi, I'm Keith Safian, the President and CEO of Phelps Memorial Hospital, which I've served for 23 years in that capacity. So the answer is there will be no exceptions. If there's a need for parking, Phelps will accommodate it. Remember that the residents belong to Phelps and I think I wanted to take this opportunity to set a context. National Health reform. President Obama was just reelected by a very wide margin. One of the major accomplishments of his Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 34 �presidency was national health reform, which is focused substantially on primary care. Those of you who live in this community know a lot of our physicians are mature-we don't like the word aging. But our medical staff is maturing. We have found in our strategic planning process, we need to take very positive, proactive steps at Phelps to make sure this community has the right number of primary care physicians. Three years from now, five years from now and 20 years from now. That's one of the reasons this residency program was developed. Fortunately for us there's a confluence of interest from New York Medical College and Open Door to develop what is the first new family medicine residency program in 15 years. We are the exemplar of the future of how to serve the people who are newly insured under National health reform and there are many, many of us who are waking up to the fact that wellness is a very important focus. Every individual has to focus on their wellness and need to go for their preventative visits and get their inoculations. Just this evening the County Health Commissioner was presenting at Phelps about public health and how the responsibility of the individual patients is increasing. People are more aware of that. That means we need more primary care physicians, family medicine doctors. So we have some of our residents sitting here this evening. These are going to be your doctors. When your children get older and are able to cross the street by themselves, they're going to need a doctor, who are one of our residents who will then become an attending physician. So Phelps becoming a teaching hospital, I would say it is the most significant change at Phelps. And again, I've been there for 23 years. I guess since I signed the contract with Memorial Sloan Kettering to come to Sleepy Hollow in 1995. There we brought the world's best cancer treatment to Sleepy Hollow, New York. Now we're bringing a teaching hospital to Sleepy Hollow, New York to meet the future needs of this entire community. Why the confluence is even more remarkablewe've had a 100 of our physicians volunteer to be faculty for six residents. We've received grants from the federal and state governments that add up to millions of dollars. We just got another grant a few weeks ago for $300,000. Again, jointly issued to Phelps, Open Door and New York Medical College to support family-focused healthcare. And you're right in the middle of the exact right place for the future of healthcare. And it's important, it would be a tragedy if this parking is what brought this down. This residency program cannot succeed without Open Door having this new facility. You have six residents now. We'll be recruiting the next six for July 2013. We have 1,075 applicants for six positions for next July at Phelps. That's 180 doctors choosing to apply for a residency for each slot we have at Phelps, Sleepy Hollow, New York, in a brand new residency program. So having this many applicants, the applications will continue to come in through the end of December. So in six more weeks, my guess is we'll have 1,200 or 1,300 medical students who are applying to become a resident at Phelps. So this is really the most significant opportunity this community has to really do something for national health reform for ensuring the health care delivery in this community and I would urge the Zoning Board to find a way to make sure that parking doesn't do what's really essential for the future of health care in this region. Thank you. KOFFLER: Thank you. JENNIFER LOBATO-CHURCH: HI. Jennifer Lobato-Church. I live at 85 New Broadway. I also would like to disclose I am a previous member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and a current Trustee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. I do not come before you in that capacity at all. I come before you as a homeowner and a resident of Webber Park. I did submit a very lengthy letter to this Board. I know all of you well enough to know you either have read it or will read it, so I don't Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 35 �want to go over everything that's in it. A lot of the read letter does refute, contradict and challenge some of the arguments and statements made by both counsel and Mr. Adler's (inaudible) traffic study. A few things I do feel I need to point out though. My understanding is the residency program is already operational. It's operating out of Sleepy Hollow so I don't know why it's so critical that this residency program exists at 1 New Broadway. Maybe somebody can elaborate on that, at a later time but my understanding is it is already operating out of Phelps Memorial Hospital. The crossing guard - the issue of placing a crossing guard- my understanding is that or my belief is that Open Door has not engaged the Village on this. I have not heard any discussions either way with the Board of Trustees about employing a crossing guard for this intersection for the benefit of Open Door's operations. I also want to point out that Route 9 is a State owned and controlled road. We cannot post any signs on it. We cannot control sign turns, crossing guards, etc. We need permission from the State to do any of that. So the idea of engaging the Village to put these types of measures in place on Route 9 is impossible. We have no control over it. Part of the letter that I sent to you included police statistics over a 10-year period for the accidents on this section of New Broadway but that is (inaudible) the section that is of issue here. It also included memorandum to the Board of Trustees that I wrote on behalf of Webber Park regarding traffic and safety and speeding issues on New Broadway and addendum to that memorandum. If you see when you drive by that Webber Park sign, at the entrance of New Broadway, that was a result of the neighborhood coming together and pointing out to the Board of Trustees that we really had a significant traffic volume and speeding issue on New Broadway and we needed some mitigation to reduce the amount of traffic on that road and the Board of Trustees agreed and erected that sign to let people know they were entering a residential neighborhood. Also included with that letter were I believe two letters, that I drafted on behalf of the Police Advisory Committee, when I was Chair of the Police Advisory Committee to the State Department of Transportation discussing the safety concerns of that intersection and asking the State to intercede at that intersection. I think that letter was written maybe close to two years ago and we still have not heard back. The Village has engaged the State on many occasions to try and get them to come in and study the safety of that intersection, the timing of the traffic lights, etc. etc. and we still have not heard back from the State. So clearly things do not move quickly with the State when it comes to coming in and looking at traffic impact and assessment on Route 9. I don't know if those additional documents were posted on the website but I do know that the letter that I submitted to you is on the website for anybody who wants to read some of the arguments that I made. With regards to the variance requested for offsite parking, I also went in to lengthy detail in my letter to you regarding my interpretation of the Code and I would argue that it's not an either or, it is an and- this variance request- and the offsite parking at Phelps would be a condition to a variance, not in lieu of a variance. And that condition you know from precedence is going to be incredibly unenforceable from the Village's perspective - unenforceable. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 36 �And then one thing I do want to contradict that counsel ceded was that this location is impossible to fill given the parking restrictions on this location. For those of you who were not on the Board at the time and I was not on the Board at the time, that the Grotto application was before the Zoning Board, if you look at the minutes of the Planning Board or the Zoning Board for the previous owner's application, he didn't ultimately need a variance for parking. He was able to configure the parking lot to fulfill all of his parking requirements. He abandoned the property for other reasons unrelated to parking. What did occur though as part of that variance, was the condition that medical offices and dental offices not be put in that location. And a lot of the discussion around that condition of the variance was due to the Board's belief that we needed to reduce the amount of pedestrian vehicular traffic in the Webber Park neighborhood and specifically on New Broadway. So there was a condition on the variance that no medical or dental office be placed in that building. So those are just the really big points I want to highlight to you. Again, more detail in the letter, more detail around the deficiencies in the parking and the traffic study. The numbers around how they're counting patients crossing the street; are they taking into account a patient plus three children, who may be in strollers and toddlers whose hands you have to hold as you cross Route 9. Also if the projected numbers of increased patients attending this facility, maybe they're going to be out-of-towners - where is this projected number coming from? I don't know if Sleepy Hollow's numbers actually support those projections, so I would argue those would be out-oftowners who would have to (inaudible). Finally I want to raise something that's not in the letter and it's of concern to me and I'm wavering on whether to bring it up to you because I see that Mr. Capossela isn't here and I know he wasn't here last month and I don't know for obvious reasons if I can come next month or the month thereafter, so I want to bring up the idea that Mr. Capossela- I'm assuming he's still on the Board? KOFFLER: Correct. LOBATO-CHURCH: Okay. I'd like to bring up the idea I don't personally feel that Mr. Capossela is going to objectively impartially hear the application before the Board and I hesitate to proceed because he's not here to speak on his behalf but I would urge the Board to discuss this issue with him and get some sort of assurance that he is impartially hearing the application and not predeciding where he wants it to come out. And I say that because I personally have been stopped on the street by him and told I am wrong about Open Door and that they're a great organization. I have heard from many people and I realize it's hearsay but I've heard from many people that he is on Beekman Avenue, in J&G Deli speaking to neighbors saying what a great organization Open Door is and he's just going to pass this through. I've heard that he has made statements to members of the Planning Board saying he fully intends on passing this application through and it was before this application was before this Board so there was no application for him to be discussing. And so I would just ask that you speak with him and ask him if he can really truly impartially sit and listen to the application with an open mind and not pre-determine where his vote is going to go. I also have first-hand information that leads me to believe as Ms. Farrell has stated on several occasions, Village officials in the past have made reassurances to Open Door Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 37 �that this location is great and that they're going to get to move in there and I have first-hand information that leads me to believe that Mr. Capossela, when he was Trustee, was one of those Village officials who had that conversation. I cannot verify it. Again, I would ask that you have that conversation with him. I have no further comments. Thank you. KOFFLER. Thank you. ROSEMARIE McMANUS: Rosemarie McManus. 31 New Broadway. I'm a resident of this Village since 1968 and in my present house for the last 40 years. I am a community nurse and I can vouch for the integrity and the care doctors give to patients because I take care. I need to notify the doctors and I work with them. That is not the question here. The question here is safety. Sorry Mr. CEO it is an important issue. It really truly is. We cannot as she said; we cannot change the laws of New York State. It is already documented years ago that that five point area is one of the most dangerous in New York State. This Village cannot afford to pass this building to be an Open Door, which is a good facility, in lieu of safety and the possibility of being sued because you knew this knowledge before it was granted, by any person was hurt by a car in that area. Now we have bad weather, rain, snow; I don't think a lot of crossing guards should be standing outside for seven hours or eight hours a day directing people. It's just not realistic. You said we have directions to tell people how to cross the street safely. I observed seven or eight Open Door people this past week, crossing at the corner of New Broadway and Route 9 against the traffic - up, down, dash across the street. These are the doctors and nurses and other people that I saw do this. And these are the professional people who know better and you're going to tell me that a mother with two or three kids in hand, stroller, is going to be able to cross that street? It's not going to happen. Now there's talk about the traffic going into the area and out of the area. Well we can't make coming out of the project- we can't make a left hand turn. That's New York State law. They can make a right and it's a very good point to mention that going north, coming south they can't make a left into it either because it's double yellow line, which I know they can get a variance on that- but to block that traffic-I just think it's too busy. It's just too dangerous. I want to remind the Board that as this lady presented to you, the original variances were for totally different reasons. A small handful of businesses, which were going to utilize their garages, is now remaining to office space. So you cannot judge the previous variances under the new condition. It has to be taken by itself, in its' own entity on what they'll be used for. They say that all these people walk, all these projected figures. Well you know we can (inaudible) on figures. Anybody can (inaudible) on figures. But the real issue is from Mickey's place to across the street, is very, very dangerous. There'll be roughly 400 - 500 people crossing that on a weekly basis now. I don't have to be a mathematician to figure this out, alright; I don't care what they say they project. It's nice to have a projection but don't we have facts? People will cross when they want to, where they have to and will do what they have to do. The van, guaranteed, will probably come Gory Brook Avenue to Van Tassel and come up New Broadway to go down Route 9 to make a right hand turn. That's going to happen. Okay it's going to happen. That little island that we have now at the top of New Broadway was really to prevent trucks, who by accident, didn't follow the route to Route 9 but came up to New Broadway. Now it doesn't happen although it's been knocked down once already the sign, so we'll see what happens. It's important that Mr. CEO and everybody else realize that the life of a person is at stake here. We're talking and I'm not even exaggerating, you're talking about figures based on the small amount of people crossing the Avenue and now I'm talking about 400-500 hundred a Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 38 �week, which magnifies the potential of an accident with a car. I have a solution. White Plains Hospital, Westchester Medical Center, St. Joe's down in Yonkers- all have their clinic hospitalbased. And if you're worried about your people getting to you, provide them with the bus service. I'm sure the Village doesn't mind giving them a space where they could park their van and you take them right into Phelps. You can utilize all of Tarrytown and Ossining. Get rid of that. Utilize one area. These hospitals have successful clinics. You could do the exact same thing without jeopardizing a potential problem. I don't want my Village sued. That's my taxes and it could easily happen. Not too long ago there was an accident here. I won't mention her name. She tripped over the raised sidewalks due to the roots of the trees, okay pretty seriously. She's trying to save her four teeth, okay, among other things. Now I don't know what she's going to do personally. Within days, the Village went through those sidewalks and redid them all so no one would trip again. I can't replace a life or part of a life if we continue to let this program go on. That building has always been a white elephant and the bottom line has always been parking. With Grotto, it was workable. It's not under this condition. KOFFLER: Thank you. BAIBA RUDZITIS-PINNIS: Good evening. My name is Baiba Rudzitis-Pinnis. I reside at 148 New Broadway. I know the hour's late but I would like to raise four issues. My first issue is zoning law should apply to all equally, whether for an entrepreneur, small business owner or a non-profit. Political influence in whom you know should not determine whether zoning laws should be ignored. The rule of law should apply equally to all parties. When I invested in the community, it was with the understanding that all would be treated the same under the law. Number two: Currently Phelps Memorial and Open Door have made arrangements to have its' employees shuttled from Phelps Memorial to Open Door. What guarantee do the residents of Webber Park, especially New Broadway have, that this arrangement will be forever? Managements change and conditions change. If there is a budget constraint and gas prices skyrocket, there's no guarantee that the shuttle service will continue. What will be the consequences if any? Will the Village be able to revoke the certificate of occupancy? In dealing with Phelps Memorial, the Village has already noticed a change in direction. Originally plans for Kendal-on-Hudson called for a walkway between the Manors and Kendal. To this day the plans have not been implemented for whatever reasons. Number three: In reviewing the petitions, supporting Open Door's relocation to 1 New Broadway, I noticed that many of the signatures, signatories did not write down their address. At a quick glance, approximately 205 signatures were collected, but 93, which is approximately 45%, did not have addresses listed. The signatures that listed their address at 95 Beekman Ave., the great majority did not include apartment numbers. As we all know, 95 Beekman Ave. is a large complex. As a result of incomplete information, the validity of at least 45% of signatures in support of Open Door is questionable. And my final issue is-as the discussion about Open Door's facility at 1 New Broadway continuesI urge for transparency in all discussions. In the application, Open Door states the following and I'm quoting, and this is on page 15: Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 39 �"In the summer of 2010, prior to purchasing the property, Open Door actually met with Village leaders to discuss the relocation of its' clinic to the property. Village leaders expressed support for the Open Door's proposed use of the property." Now my question is-the resident in issue- is the residents, the taxpayers of Sleepy Hollow should be informed about any commitments that were made on behalf of the Village for a project, which flagrantly violates zoning laws without approval from the Zoning Board and without the chance for a commentary. I know for a fact that Karin Wompa did discuss relocation, but it wasn't to the 1 New Broadway facility. My question to Ms. Farrell is who else was this issue discussed with-the Downtown Revitalization Corporation and who gave any guarantees? Also I would like to know, who from the Village Board or also gave any guarantees to Open Door? We, as taxpayers and residents of this community, should be informed. Thank you. KOFFLER: Thank you. Anybody else? JOHN WINDAS: Thank you Board and everybody for speaking. My name is John Windas. I live at 6 Katrina Avenue. I've lived here 36 years I've owned that house. I'm born and raised in this Village. Open Door is a great organization. I have a lot of friends and valuable services from there. But I just want to give you some history as to what the residents of Webber Park and Katrina Avenue have gone through with variances in parking that this Village has passed. There was a variance for the automotive shop on Lawrence and Broadway. To this day, every mechanic there parks on my street. To this day, two mechanics have these huge pickup trucks that have commercial plows that have commercial salters, that park on Katrina Avenue. By the way, Katrina Avenue is a dead-end street. Let's talk about Enterprise, another variance granted. I come home one day, there's eight parking spaces on Katrina Avenue for the five houses that pay taxes on them. There's four Econoline vans from Enterprise on the street. They're there all weekend. Another variance. Granted you folks do a lot of good work. You're going to bring a tremendous amount of vehicular traffic that's not there now. Whether it's 40 parking spaces that's required. Whether it's 10 parking spaces that's required. You're bringing in a lot of vehicles. You're bringing in - I want to see a doctor from Phelps take the bus. I want to see that. That'll last all of about three months. The gentleman right here said you're going to increase the vehicular traffic 25% in that area. Not 5%, nor 10%. 25% that's what he just said. Parking doesn't comply with the use of the building that wants to get done. Ms. McManus said it (inaudible). All those hospitals have their training facilities on their property. That would solve everything. Bus the people from here to Phelps. End of conversation. Plenty of parking spaces, plenty of service, plenty of benefits for the Village. I just don't see how it's absolutely feasible not to believe that this is going to cause a tremendous impact to the Webber Park area. I just can't. Both for people, traffic, safety issues, vehicular issues, parking spaces. There are no parking. 66 years in this Village-there are no parking Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 40 �spaces in this Village during the daytime. They're not. And at 5:00 this is a parking lot up here and you're going to have people crossing Broadway. I can't believe that. The last thing I'm going to say is- General Motors is putting a lot of people in here. That's going to increase vehicular traffic even more on Route 9. When that occurs, that's going to be another problem in this Village. I like the idea of the Open Door. I think it's a tremendous organization. I just don't see that facility being able to utilize and preserve the quality of life that the residents of this Village should have. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. KOFFLER: Thank you. JEREMY ZIFCHOK: Jeremy Zifchok, 15 Pine Street. We've spent a lot of time over the past several meetings, both through the Planning Board and here, hearing Open Door and the residents talk about what a valuable program this is and how important it is to the community. I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think there is anybody in this room that has question as to whether or not the program is good and it's valuable and it's great for the community. What's at issue here, however, is, is this the right place for this facility? And the answer as everyone else has pointed out is no. I have a few questions not to the Board but rather to the presenters today. You mentioned that there would be a split of the crossing guards - I'm not exactly sure what the words that you usedbut I'm curious as to who pays the pension and benefits of these guards? What happens if one of those guards gets hit by a car? And is the Village saddled with that debt? How many parking guards would be required? Okay? Next, the five-point turn that was pointed out by Mr. Adler comes extremely close to a compact parking spot. If a full size vehicle is in that spot or based on the newly proposed parking plan, how can that turnaround happen? It's not absolutely clear. Next, you had mentioned^sorry^that the, that the lawyer had mentioned that large vehicles would only happen during garbage pickups, etc. at limited times. I'm curious as to how often that would actually be and at what times? Now the ADA recommends that a greater number of handicapped spaces are provided for medical facilities. The supposition that since Open Door is not providing more than 10 spaces, that they only need one handicapped parking space. For a medical facility that's going to be having that many people, I feel is a little bit irresponsible. And I hope that that's passed along to the Board that you know, I mean, there's^if you need handicapped people to come to your facility and granted you said there aren't very many people who are mobility-impaired-that's today. What's to say what's going to happen tomorrow or next year, whatever, you know. So I think that that seriously needs to be considered given that the limited spaces that are being provided. The next handicapped spot is a quarter mile away. So that's just for consideration. It was mentioned that it's not uncommon for patients to stay for multiple reasons. If each hour sees three new vehicles, 20 minutes out to see each reason and time for the waiting room, which anybody who's been to the hospital or a doctor's appointment, knows that you are going to spend Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 41 �a lot of time in the waiting room. It's not hard to see how quickly those three new vehicles every 20 minutes are going to get backed up. Okay. You know, with 10 spots, it's going happen extremely quickly. As the day progresses, that time in the waiting room, those things are going to get backed up. It happens everyday at doctors^you know they get backed up. And so, with that is going to come additional parking requirement. So if they had quite a few more, if they were closer to that 40 number, I think it would be easier to overlook that. But, I think given the numbers they provided, that that leads it into serious question. Some of the other people that have spoken tonight came to the same conclusion that I did. And that is - sell the building, use the money and the money you're not paying the crossing guards to supplement a shuttle to go to Phelps every half an hour or more. It could easily be paid for by just the crossing guards. Thank you. KOFFLER: Thank you. Anybody else? ED OLIVEIRA: Oh yeah. Ed Oliveira. I'm in Webber Park as well - 117 Van Tassel Avenue. I, as others, and there's a few that can't be here just because they have young kids, and the time and the hour of course, ask this Board to protect the character, health, safety, welfare of our neighbors and our neighborhood in regards to the Open Door variances. The proposed change of use and requested variances would be an undesirable change to the character of our neighborhood. The change would create the following and more, which have been discussed. Use of neighborhood parking which now happens by adjacent businesses as it is. I've witnessed that. Excessive, dangerous traffic patterns, which have been discussed, which obviously cannot be controlled. We'd have to have our police department policing that on a consistent basis (inaudible) and it would just be impossible. Evening hours of operation, which is a little bit inconsistent with the previous owner's use. These are going to be a bit extended and that's going to compound the issue. This type of use also would be a detriment to nearby properties, meaning likely decrease in home values would occur. Definitely they would not go up. Very similar to what's going on in the Tappan Zee Bridge construction down at the Cay and Tappan Landing. Alternative cures could be sought by having residents (inaudible) another time instead and having doctors practice at the hospital and have the patients shipped up. Shuttling patients to Phelps and not the staff would be the reasonable course of action. The proposed change in use variance is not only substantial but it's actually excessively in extreme when it comes to the amount of parking needed. It's just ridiculous. And, in addition too, the previous owner, this is also would be adding to not to a, also a non-conforming use, which was already banned too by the previous owner. In closing, I would say, that especially such an excessive parking variance should not be entertained by any method other than on-site parking, meaning a lease. I have witnessed a lease agreement, leases agreements that failed in this Village. One of them actually came to court action and they're just not enforceable. Three years, five years, we all know that- I won't go on about that- and but and they will fail. This facility has been proposed in our neighborhood just will Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 42 �not work and is extreme. It is best suited at its' current location or Frank Chevrolet or wherever the other people propose as well. It's just not a good fit for our, for that part of the Village. Thank you for your time. KOFFLER: Thank you. CAROLINE HARGREAVES: I am Caroline Hargreaves, a homeowner at 73 New Broadway. Like everyone else has said, Open Door provides a valuable service to the community and I've been coming to Planning Board meetings and listening to their presentations. When I first heard that they purchased the building, I was shocked. I had no idea. They came to our door and said we just bought this building, come to a breakfast or something. I thought oh something's happening I should pay attention. It turns out they bought this building and now that I'm looking at the parking lot, it just takes common sense to see this is so tiny with a five point turn for anyone coming in, dropping off to have to do, and share that driveway with all the patients, parents with children, strollers, everybody that would plan on walking across Route 9? 200 people a day? It's just shocking that a large agency could purchase a building and plan for such a huge parking and traffic and safety issue. I have been listening and reading the Adler report and I want to make sure that, you know, as residents our response to their conclusion that there's going to be no safety impact and no problem with this? Just look at their own numbers. The critical accident rates on Table 9. Five are above State average. Three exceed critical accident rates. Their onstreet parking chart didn't account for alternate side parking. They corrected it in a later letter just on New Broadway. But there's also some alternate side parking two days a week on Lawrence. That's not accounted for. I'm not sure about some of these other streets but these are residential streets that they included that are maxed out. Residents need these spaces to park their cars. And the extended hours from 8:00 - 7:00 is just really going to go into you know people coming home from work not being able to find spaces. The other point in their own study - they say people could easily take a right turn out of the parking lot and then turn left onto Lawrence to go back towards Beekman. Well the level of service for Lawrence is out already so it can't decrease. According to their chart it's already an out so there's no further (inaudible) for it to worsen, but check it out. It's in their own- and they're asking us to ignore this. If they're planning for traffic to go either left onto Lawrence and down onto Beekman-take a drive, try that out. Take a drive up right instead of - take a right out of the parking lot and try to turn right onto Gordon and Rice and then up Broadway - see how many cars you have to avoid in those with the on street parking on a two-way. If there's too much cars, the volume of cars is already maxed out. And this recommendation of the Adler study just doesn't' make common sense. It makes no common sense. Just take a look and you'll see. Thank you. KOFFLER: Thank you. MICHAEL KAMPEN: My name is Michael Kampen and I am a homeowner at 12 Gory Brook Road, also in Webber Park. First, I wanted to say to the Adler traffic study, as many people pointed out, not just at this meeting and previous meetings too, but we think many people are unable to (inaudible) that we stated already repeatedly that the basic conclusion of this traffic study is not reasonable. And I think that the only, for me at least, possible way to feel at ease with the traffic study, maybe believe rather than science, in common sense and daily own Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 43 �experiences, would be if the Village orders their own traffic study. And I don't know if the Village can afford it or if Open Door could actually as (inaudible) effort with money, but frankly we have pointed out many, many times and it was mentioned again and again this current Adler traffic study still not correct. It very easy to see that it's not correct and we've pointed it out several times in writing and in letters. One thing I just want to mention, Mr. Adler just mentioned today. He said because our common belief in the neighborhood is that the only viable section of this whole area around the new proposed location is in the New Broadway, Webber Park area. And but Mr. Adler just said today - no, no that would not happen because people would drive on New Broadway- would park there or drop off people and they would have to walk around the block to go to the entrance. But the whole basis of his traffic study is that they can walk a quarter mile, no problem or even one-half mile, no problem. But they will not park on New Broadway because they would have to walk-how much- 30 feet around the block? It's just something that came up today and I found it rather interesting. The other thing that I didn't understand and I wanted to ask Ms. Farrell. If I understood this correctly you said, we will only treat 16 patients per hour as a max for forever because that's even State law or whatever (inaudible). Is that correct? KOFFLER: We're not going to do this as a dialog. KAMPEN: Okay that's okay. Then I just wanted to say how I understood it. Okay. I understood that you said 16 patients, approximately 10 hours of open hours would be 160 patients a day? There would be less patients then they serve now, which I think is 270. So does that mean that by moving into this location Open Door would actually be serving less patients? I did not really understand that. But if that is true then obviously moving to that location is a disservice to the clientele that Open Door promises to serve and I wouldn't understand that just because of that I would say that's not a good move. So we talked about the traffic impact, parking very shortly. Then I want to talk about the dangerous intersection, also very shortly because it was mentioned. But recently we had this water main break down Broadway and there was a report in the Patch that said it's already hectic and possibly is the most dangerous intersection of the Village is now rendered chaotic and it goes further a little bit. And then it says "DPW Foreman, Richard Gross, who is only partially kidding when he said that the water wasn't stopping cars from going 90 miles per hour and splashing the workers and breaking our stuff. He added that cars getting too close to construction cone drove over a set of sound-deafening headphones." So this is just, you know, we are not making this up. This is a very dangerous intersection as documented in many areas. And just recently it is, it is intersection where any kind of decrees of traffic I think needs to be very careful observed and only when there is really absolute need that it has to happen should we approve. Meaning if the Village would approve the very significant variance and due to that variance foot traffic, car traffic through that intersection increases, accidents may happen. I hope they will not happen. But if they happen, I think the Village will be in big trouble with this suit for any kind of personal litigation, personal injury lawyer. And I think Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 44 �again, as a resident of this Village, I would feel only comfortable if actually Open Door and Phelps together would like one of sign a contract or whatever legal document that would be to say they that would indemnify the Village or hold the Village harmless for any Open Door related accidents at that crossing for the time of the operation of Open Door. I don't know if Open Door and Phelps would do that but at least I would feel comfortable that the Village would not be sued by anybody who experienced an accident after the Village approved this kind of variance. Lastly, very shortly also, we have said already many times there's the likely event of backing up traffic, just because this traffic lot is very small. I think, you know, we could create a field studypark seven cars in there and then just drive in and out at the same time as the passenger van and then see what happens. I think there would be a tremendous backup on Route 9 and I just wondered, as a question to the Board, of how we possibly, the Village need to get approval or comment from the DOT actually, because by creating, by approving a variance it would allow affecting the traffic on the State road. I somehow would think it's common sense the DOT would need to approve that or need at least to be involved in that and need to know about it and need to give a statement because you always say we can not even put a stop sign or anything on Route 9- we have no control over Route 9- but how come if that's true that we can allow a variance that would very significantly increase backup on a State road. So I think, for me, that makes sense. I think I would like to know if the DOT needs to approve it or in any way get comment to that. But my last, my very last comment is actually^I would like to speak directly to Open Door and Phelps. I'm not expecting an answer, just addressing it. I would like to ask Open Door to actually reconsider Open Door's current decision to do whatever it can to push this application through. Ms. Tortorella's office specializes in among other things, litigation against municipalities on behalf of developers if these developers and business owners cannot obtain the permits and approvals they seek. Instead of hiring lawyers like Ms. Tortorella, I ask Open door to actually step back and reconsider the current application. I ask Open Door now realizes there's very strong opposition from hundreds of people in the residential neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed new Open Door location. I have actually friends who know you personally. They think you are a very nice person. I think that nobody wants to admit that one's previous decisions might not have been the best. But Ms. Farrell said Open Door prides itself to be a very good neighbor and that they did not anticipate this opposition from the neighborhood. So please re-think your position. Open Door and Phelps have other options. Phelps, if I read that correctly and I remember correctly, had a profit of $9,000,000 dollars in the last two years. We also heard just today that Open Door and Phelps got another mini-grants, one of the smaller grants, just $300,000 dollars. So one of the possibilities that was mentioned already was actually creating a shuttle service from the community, from the community that needs to be served in Sleepy Hollow to Phelps. Ample parking, ample facilities. And obviously, Open Door and Phelps, they do have the money, they can do that option. And they can do other options, there are many other options mentioned from residents in Webber Park and other areas already to the various Boards. So basically I really want to strengthen, you know, we do not have other options. We live in that neighborhood. Many of us, for many years, like myself- many of us for decades. We can't move, we won't move. We want to live there. We don't have any other options but you do. So I want really to ask you personally to step back. I know it's difficult. You are going on this track and you want to push this through. (inaudible)and you hire more (inaudible). Just step back. Maybe Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 45 �there's another possibility and I think I would ask you to do that and I'd be very happy if you could do that and we'd have Open Door as a very good neighbor somewhere else in the (inaudible). KOFFLER: Thank you. CAROL JANE HANSHAW: Hello. My name is Carol Jane Hanshaw and I am a physician and a new resident at Phelps Memorial Hospital. I'm very proud to be here. I am so blessed by all of the support we've received from members of the community. I feel that this is a very warm and embracing community and I don't feel I have to defend the residency because I know that you fully support it. I know that you fully support Open Door and I know that if an emergency were to happen you would go to Phelps. I just wanted to clarify some points about our residency and how it functions. I'm currently doing my medicine rotation and I'm at Phelps six days of the w e e k _ Monday^ well six days of the week. Saturday and Sunday we rotate. I spend four hours of every week so that's 80 hours total at Phelps minus four hours at Open Door. And this is how all of the residents function. We only spend four hours a week at Open Door. Our residency is a three-year program. Currently we only have six members because we're a new program. Next year we will have 12. After that we will have 18. We don't plan on this residency (inaudible) or support (inaudible). We're supported by the State of New York. We're supported by the US Government. We're supported by Open Door. We're supported by New York Medical College. Which supports - I don't know- 30, 50 so many residencies and fellowship programs. We're all very successful and not planning on going anywhere so we anticipate having 18 residents every single year starting in 2015. So again, in a week there will be three residents at the most, on a given day, for four hours a day only, which is actually eight hours and we're only allowed to see one patient per hour so that's only eight times three, 12 patients. But we're not there at the same time. Some will come in the morning. Some will come at night. A Day. So that's 12 at the most but we'll say four to 12. And that's per hour for only four hours to be eight hours a day. That's only two patients an hour so - or three at the most so it's not very many. Again, at Phelps I see 85% private patients. I only in a given week, maybe I'll have two Open Door patients. Really when I am at Phelps I am supporting you. I am supporting the community. All the residents live on-site in Sleepy Hollow, pay taxes to Sleepy Hollow not anywhere else. I don't want to be up here forever. Again, very happy to be here. And I just hope you'll understand where we're coming from. We're here really to support the community. The road's definitely are an issue, but I believe they are being addressed. I also have a letter that I am reading on behalf of another resident who couldn't be here today. Dr. Sarah Paul. (LETTER READ BY DR. HANSHAW) Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the Zoning Committee Board of Sleepy Hollow. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meeting in person but I will trust that this letter finds you well. My name is Dr. Sarah Paul. I am one of the new family medicine residents training at Phelps Memorial Hospital Center and Open Door. I have been a resident of Sleepy Hollow since June 18, 2012. I knew on the day of my residency interview in December of 2011 that Sleepy Hollow was a community that I wanted to be a part of both personally and professionally. Over Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 46 �the past several months since the inauguration of this program, I have had the extraordinary privilege of training at Phelps and Open Door, which is only for a (inaudible) what I realized on my interview day. The patient population I have had the opportunity to serve at Open Door is a constant reminder of why I became a doctor. These patients are gracious, deserving and an absolute pleasure to serve. The new clinic site is critical to their healthcare and the education of the future physicians in Sleepy Hollow. With this clinic we will be able to see more patients, offer more services and make it better equipped to address their medical needs in conjunction with training future doctors of this community. Beyond that, the clinic presents a special and unique opportunity for the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The New York Medical College Phelps Family Residency Program is the first family medicine program that's (inaudible) in 15 years and with that brings an exceptional amount of recognition to Sleepy Hollow. Recognition for being progressive, supportive of the future of healthcare and supportive of the training and education of the future doctors of the State of New York. I have been to several Planning Board meetings and heard the issues that are concerning the resident members of Sleepy Hollow. I've the upmost respect for everyone who stands up and expresses their concerns and think it a genuine expression of passion and dedication the residents have for their community. That being said, Open Door has addressed every issue that has surfaced. Although it may not be the answer some people are seeking, it is nonetheless a proposed solution, a compromise, an attempt to work together for the greater good of the Sleepy Hollow physicians of the Sleepy Hollow oh (inaudible) sorry^Sleepy Hollow p a t i e n t ^ o k a y ^ a n d the future physicians of Sleepy Hollow. I hope the bigger picture will shine through and everyone will work together to support our vision and purpose. Sincerely, Sarah M. Paul, M.D. One Phelps Lane, Apt. 316, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 HANSHAW: Thank you. KOFFLER: Thank you. (INAUDIBLE NAME/NEW MEDICAL RESIDENT): One Phelps Lane. I also am one of the family medicine residents in the program. I'd like to thank everybody for coming out and speaking about your concerns and the presentations that were made. As a new resident and a new member of the community and a new physician to the community, I chose this program for one reason. The demand and need in this community for family practitioners for the future. We apply to 50 to 100 programs across the United States when we are looking for a residency program. We go to 30 to 50 interviews at a time. We pick one place and that one place picks us. The six of us have been chosen by Phelps. We chose Phelps as the place we would get our family medicine training. Having said that, a lot of good points were raised today and just to clarify, the new site is not only going to be the new home for Open Door, it's going to be a new site for our training, for our future. Having said that, we do need space for our training and the ACGME, which, is our regulating body, does require a certain amount of square footage for us to get properly trained. Like Dr. Choi had outlined, we do need space and our program is expanding. And we want to be in the center of the community to be there for the center-to be in the middle of the community for a long time. This isn't something that's going to be temporary. This is going to be for years and years and years. We are one of the newest family medicine training programs in the United States, in New York State as well. And the future of medicine is primary care. I can't stress that enough to Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 47 �you. We see all the patients in the hospital. I'm doing OBGYN right now so I'm delivering babies on the floor and I do spend four hours in the clinic on Beekman. Space is tight. We want to expand. We want to expand our facilities. If we can all work together beyond the six of us- we're young, we're affluent, we're looking for a new home to stay in, to serve the community as well. So, again, thank everyone for coming and hope to see your support. KOFFLER: Thank you. GRACE BELTRAN: Good evening. I'm Grace Beltran. I'm the Director of Marketing and Community Relations for all the Open Door Family Medical Centers. That's a huge privilege for me because what that means is that I get to know each of the communities in which we're located really well and I know the residents and I know the programs we're able to offer at each of our sites to those patients. Something that I just really want to address is the fact that the arguments for the opposition in regards to our bigger location are pretty much the same. Everybody who came out here opposing our relocation the arguments are the same. It's parking and safety. Open Door has gone above and beyond addressing those issues in making sure that we've done the appropriate studies and that we've, you know, we're putting together our case as to why we're relocating. And so we do that for one very simple reason. Open Door's priority and what our mission is, what our values are, what our vision is, is creating healthy communities. Communities, that are able to be safe, whether that's through their health or out in the streets. So our education, we do along with just providing healthcare day to day. What we do is above and beyond just a normal doctor's appointment at a private practice where you guys might go to. So for anybody, I invite you to come and take a look at what we do. And we handle everything responsibly. Just the way you handle the relocation of Open Door. Responsibly and with the appropriate studies. If there were something that we truly found would compromise the safety and the wellness of the community at large, I assure you that we would immediately back out because our intention is to build healthier, stronger communities, not the opposite. And in regards to, and we've had opposition in other communities and every time we've been able to deal with those issues and then the community gets to see what we're really about and the fact that we approach everything responsibly, they're really happy to have us there. And so we've been able to deal at each of the communities. We have some similarities and some differences in the other communities, but we're thriving and we're doing well in each of those communities. In regards to something one of the other speaker's said previously, which is for you guys, please the Board to take into account the feelings and the cases being made by hundreds of residents that are being personally affected. I ask you to take into consideration the feelings and sentiments of the thousands of people, people that are affected and that are benefiting from the services that we provide by being able to have accessible healthcare right in the middle of the communities in which we're located. And that's what we're really about. It's about affordable, quality healthcare being accessible to the community at large. Thank you. KOFFLER: Thank you. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 48 �SHANTIE HARKISOON, MD: Good evening. My name is Shantie Harkisoon. I'm a physician at Phelps. I'm also the Program Director of the residency program and as someone who's lived in congested areas for over 10 years, (Inaudible) and Forest Hills, New York, I really feel your sentiment about not wanting to lose your parking rights as a citizen and as a taxpaying person. Excuse me. Being at Open Door all the time, I see the patients all the time. They walk miles to come to Open Door. They don't just walk a quarter mile; they come from wherever they can come because they can't get care anywhere else. And from some of the places that these people come from; they walk even more, they walk days. Or they would have to spend overnight before they can see a doctor, if they at all can see a doctor. So this is a whole another world that you, you can't (Inaudible) what it's like. Wonderful conveniences when we have insurance and can see doctors at will in our vehicles. These are not the kinds of patients that we take care of. I come all the way from Forest Hills because these are the patients I love to take care of because they're immensely grateful. They love getting any kind of care and which it's really an honor and privilege to take care of them. And, also affords a wonderful opportunity to train future doctors because they have to be very keen diagnosticians. They can't send you for a cat scan or send you for an x-ray at will. They have to do all their diagnostic skills. They have to know their interviewing skills. It just creates a wonderful environment to train doctors. (Inaudible) it would be really great at getting a history. I don't know how much time your doctor spends with you, but these doctors they get an hour. They have to have an hour because they have to do a complete history and physical on each patient so that they do it well. So by the time they only have five minutes to do the history and physical, they know exactly what to ask you. That's why we're here. That's why I come a long way to work here with Phelps and Open Door. What these wonderful CEO's haven't told you is that they've invested millions of dollars in this program. That's why there aren't very many new programs every year. We're lucky if there's one new family medicine residency program opened every year. That's lucky because usually there's none. And that's because it's taken over $2,000,000 dollars of Phelps and several, I don't know how much it's taken from Open Door, but certainly that building we're talking about, possibly $3,000,000 dollars in grant money that we wouldn't get, we wouldn't get it. We'd just have to give it right back if we gave away this building. It's not like we can just put it in the bank and buy a new building. So I urge you to look at the future. You're going to need doctors. Many more people are going to need doctors next year and we're training them for you. We're training them right here in Sleepy Hollow. We're training them at Phelps. We're training them to know the community. We take them on tours. Let me just take a breath. I'm a little nervous here. We train them at Open Door so that they know the area. We take them for kayaking on the river so they love the Hudson. We take them to the cemetery so that they know the history of this community. We're really are training doctors to take care in Sleepy Hollow and we're training them so they take really good care of all of you. Because in the hospital we don't know who's going to come. Like Dr. (Inaudible) aptly described to you, they take care of all of the community, not just (inaudible) patients. I'm looking at my team because they always tell me anything else I'm missing. Anything I'm missing? Ah yes, the shuttle. Guess who gets to make sure the residents are on the shuttle? I'm the boss. I don't plan on going anywhere. I asked my boss to buy me a house in Webber Park so I can be your neighbor. In medical school I was in Kentucky. It's even more rural than here, I promise you and we took a shuttle every day. As a university, a big university, we had to take a shuttle, a 15minute shuttle. It was worse than what we have now and we didn't have a choice. So I can Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 49 �assure you personally that our residents and our faculty and our physicians would be happy to ride that shuttle because it would be to provide excellent care for Open Door members and for our Open Door patients. And we do it with all the joy in the world. I come all the way from Forest Hills right now. What's another five-minute shuttle ride? Not a big deal. Thank you. KOFFLER: Thank you. MARIS PIANO: Hi my name is Maris Piano and I am a doctor at Open Door and I just want to take a moment to tell you why I'm not a doctor at Phelps. I'm not a doctor at Phelps because my people, my patients can barely get to Phelps when I order the x-ray. They don't have the transportation so the idea that we take all the patients and herd them into a shuttle and shuttle them out- it doesn't address a community that you guys also are responsible to. That Sleepy Hollow community that we serve. That community needs a community health center and that's the (inaudible) where we are. We have to be in the community and not in the hospital. This is why we are a new program because people have seen the St. Joseph's program. These residents didn't pick to be part of the St. Joseph's residency program because they don't want to be part of the hospital. They understand that the people that they serve - you need to go into the home. We are a patient center (inaudible) home and for that to be possible you have to be in the community where the people live. This is half a mile maybe, away because most of our patients do live on 95 Beekman. I mean you guys think we are making this up. They mostly live on 95 Beekman. That's our patient population. They will continue to walk a half a block more because nobody else will see them. It is we that see them and that is our community. They are more than willing to walk that block. Our staff members also walk the walk. The ones that we have who live in the community walk the walk. And as community members, we are used to, many of us live in (inaudible) places. So we're not Phelps doctors so the idea that a Phelps doctor won't take a shuttle, maybe, but an Open Door doctor will. An Open Door doctor will work all hours to serve the patient population and I think that should also be noted. KOFFLER: Okay. Thank you. SAFIAN: (Inaudible) two quick follow-ups? KOFFLER: Is this additional or are you responding? SAFIAN: No. I'm responding. My point (inaudible) KOFFLER: Hang on. You've already spoken once and next month, this will go over to next month, you'll have an opportunity to speak again. Just based on the hour, I don't want to deprive you of your opportunity to speak, but we've also, you've also had an opportunity once this evening so if you could hold that thought until next month, I would appreciate it. SAFIAN: Okay. LENA MUSE: Hi. I'm Dr. Lena Muse. I'm one of the new resident physicians here at Phelps and Open Door. I went to New York Medical College so I've been around for a while. One of the reasons I chose to stay, even though I'm from Iowa originally, is I love the community. I love the Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 50 �feel of Phelps and I love the feel of both the clinics and I've had the chance to visit this new clinic site. And when I stepped in there, I could just envision the patients in our medical home that we all speak of. Where we're all working together. Where the patients can come and see everyone they need to see in one sitting. So they don't need to wait an hour each time they see a physician. And what this all comes down to is teamwork. I just urge that we all work together as a team, just as the patients in our medical home works together as a team. It's much more efficient. We'll get things done and we'll make many more people happy. Thank you and I live at One Phelps Lane in Sleepy Hollow. KOFFLER: Thank you. Anyone else here to speak? I make a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. GANDOLFO: Just keep it open. Adjourn it to the next meeting. Don't close it. Unless you're going t o _ KOFFLER: Well I want to go back to the applicant now before we can reopen it next meeting. GANDOLFO: I would suggest you just adjourn the public hearing portion if you're intending to listen to other public comments. KOFFLER: I am. GANDOLFO: Okay, then I would suggest you just adjourn that portion. You can go to the applicant but just adjourn it rather than close it. KOFFLER: On advice of counsels GANDOLFO: We don't want to re-notice again. KOFFLER: I got it. Adjourn the public portion. What I'd like to do only because it's getting late and I know you probably have a lot of responses, a lot of (inaudible), a lot of concerns, a lot of questions this evening is have y o u ^ I think we could adjourn^push over to next month but have y o u _ you have questions as to question we can talk about it, but I think I saw you taking a lot of notes. I think you probably have a good idea of what the questions and concerns were. I have a couple, one or two that I'd like you to specifically address but in general I'm guessing of your own (inaudible) and asking people and things I'd like you to address for next month. But just because of the time, I'm not sure if it makes sense for you to specifically start responding to the various concerns. TORTORELLA: I don't propose to respond to everything in that fashion. What I'd like to do is take our notes back and we have a transcript and anything else you want to supplement your questions about. I'd like to put together our responses in a written format so that it will be beneficial to the Board. You can review it in advance and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to digest some of that information. There are a number of things we've been asked to clarify. Happy to do that and if there's anything else you wanted to add to that list, please do so. If there's a way to convey it after if you think of it after and there's a reasonable way to convey it, if Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 51 �Counsel is comfortable with that we're happy to take those questions and address them as well. We appreciate that opportunity. KOFFLER: One question I had is - i t wasn't really a question but I'd like to hear more about it- a number of members of the public questioned the idea of a shuttle bringing the patients to the facility, versus the reverse. Maybe you could perhaps explain a little bit if that was considered, what's involved with that. Why it does work or why it doesn't work. That would be helpful. TORTORELLA: That's one of the items that we intend to address and I suspect that's one of the items Mr. Safian was going to address, but we will do that in writing. KOFFLER: Do you have anything in particular other t h a n _ ? MCCARTHY: (Inaudible) I think we've covered a lot of ground. KOFFLER: Alright. I would like first before we adjourn to thank everyone- a lot of people left- but thank everyone from the public who came out tonight. I know it's a long meeting. JUDGE: I have one quick question. You mentioned due diligence that your client had done. My one quick question I have, when was your client aware of the pre-conditions that existed on the property relative to the variances granted? In other words, was your client aware of those restrictions and conditions of the variance at the time of purchase? TORTORELLA: The variances that were granted for Grotto? JUDGE: That's correct. TORTORELLA: Or of the need for variances? JUDGE: Variances that were granted on the property prior on the Grotto application. WERNICK: I'll do that one question. It was brought up on one of the public comments. I don't know if you planned on responding to it. What would be the position of Open Door to do a second independent traffic study directed by the Village and whether or not there would be any fiscal support to do that? TORTORELLA: We will address that. There's actually has been a review of the traffic analysis by the Village's traffic consultant but we will expound upon that. BISHKO: Is that available to the public? GANDOLFO: Not to the extent that they've studied it. They may have addressed certain points but there hasn't been a traffic study. TORTORELLA: We did the traffic study. The study was reviewed by Mr. Canning of VHB and he issued comments. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 52 �GANDOLFO: Yes he issued comments but there was n o t ^ h e didn't do an independent study. TORTORELLA: Well in my experience that's not a typical and I don't think I suggested that he did an independent study. GANDOLFO: Okay. TORTORELLA: I didn't intend to if that's the message I conveyed. In my experience, a traffic study is done by an applicant's consultant, and it's reviewed and clarified and supplemented at the request of the Village's consultant. GANDOLFO: And we will we will have that done for this Board. If he wants to submit the same thing, same report he submitted to the Planning Board or to supplement it, it will be done for this Board. TORTORELLA: As a procedural matter, I just want to clarify that the referrals that are required to be made have been taken care of. Has that been done or if not can we just make sure that that gets done in advance of the next meeting? GANDOLFO: I think a l s o ^ d i d you want to address the site plan for the parking at this point? MCCARTHY: (inaudible) in a list. GANDOLFO: We'll put it in a list. I think staff has a list of questions as well that we will get to after and we'll copy the Board. KOFFLER: And anything you submit, obviously as you reference anything further in advance the better so we get a chance to fully digest it, especially during the holiday season. TORTORELLA: We would try very hard to do that and I w o u l d ^ S e a n do we anticipate having comments and questions for us shortly so it's something we can address a s _ . McCARTHY: Absolutely. TORTORELLA: Very good. KOFFLER: Thank you very much and thank you everyone from the public who came out this evening and the applicant. May I make a motion to I guess we formally adjourn to next month on this application? BOARD: (check video) TORTORELLA: Have a good holiday. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 53 �KOFFLER: Thank you. You too. Believe it or not we still have one more application to take care of this evening. Excuse me. Could everyone just move out of the room if you're done? We have another hearing to go. 3) Salvation Army Hearing 90 Valley Street Continued Public KOFFLER: I'd like to introduce the (inaudible). We're here still as the Board and we have a quorum. You're here. My concern is, that the public who was noticed, came but because of the hour may not still be here. I'm not sure if that's a procedural issue - you snooze, you lose, but WILLIAM NULL: With due respect Mr. Chairman, I think you closed the public hearing at the last session. That means that the public wouldn't have come back to speak in any event. KOFFLER: Check the minutes. (Inaudible) NULL: To the best of my recollection you closed the public hearing. There was a gentleman who stood up and asked if you closed it, and said but I didn't get a chance to speak and we already closed the public hearing. KOFFLER: I remember the gentleman stood up to speak. Discussion among the room regarding this matter. GANDOLFO: Mr. Chairman, the minutes state you had made a motion to adjourn the matter until next month. He asked the applicant to work with the Village Attorney on the conditions they would like to submit. I believe that was in reference to the Church issue. So it doesn't indicate in the minutes that the MOIRON: Well it says the Board closed the public hearing on this page. GANDOLFO: Which page? MOIRON: They're not numbered so go back four pages. It says, "The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing." JUDGE: Well we have a conflict because it does state that there but if you go two more pages, just before the Open Door, second paragraph to the end. "The Chair suggested he come to next month's meeting because it will be on the agenda for that meeting. He also stated that there was an opportunity for Mr. Caetano to comment during the public hearing." I'm not quite sure whether that means (inaudible)^. KOFFLER: Well he wasn't here this evening. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 54 �GANDOLFO: He wasn't here. And Mr. Chairman, I think the meeting, the meeting is noticed for 8:00 or as soon thereafter as the Board can get to it. I think that's an understanding s o _ . KOFFLER: Well we're all here s o ^ . GANDOLFO: I think you can proceed. NULL: Thank you. KOFFLER: And just to pick u p ^ I ' l l let you speak in a minute^.but where we left off last as I recall was among other things you were going to submit backup for the precedential citations you had about other municipalities. Number two, perhaps formulate some of those conditions that would be applicable to this unique situation. NULL: I think I needed your guidance on -related to why some of the cases I presented to you not just the sample, for example, the resolutions indicated it's fairly common practice that those, those members of the congregation attend service in the sanctuary and then go and occupy the social hall and we had been talking about how to limit what would take place. It's not typical to limit a church so...we're comfortable having the limitations I mentioned to you and not having catered events. That's not a problem. I don't know-I'm really not aware of KOFFLER: I understand. We really don't have to focus on that right away. Just_ NULL: But the reason I didn't submit conditions is I'm not really clear what are the particular concerns. KOFFLER: Okay. I also received as part of the package, a letter dated November 8 th from Cuddy & Feder. And I have - is that November 8 th o r _ ? GANDOLFO: November 7th. Mr. Chairman^ NULL: There's two letters. KOFFLER: One of (inaudible) NULL: There's a two-page letter on the 8th.. KOFFLER: And November 6 th ? NULL: And the letter enclosing the sample-example resolutions- is the one on the 7th. KOFFLER: Right. The 2 nd letter's dated November 7th. (Inaudible) We seem to be missing (inaudible). NULL: The one that's clipped is the 7th. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 55 �JUDGE: Right. I'm missing the 8th. MORION: Yeah me too. GANDOLFO: Yeah. McCARTHY: I have extra copies BISHKO: I have 7. JUDGE: Thank you Sean. GANDOLFO: It was omitted, it must have been omitted from some of the packets. Mr. McCarthy has extras. KOFFLER: There's a lot of material. It's quite a comprehensive presentation last month. I've taken a look and I think the other members have as well at materials you submitted particularly the municipalities of Briarcliff, New Castle and whatnot. I've asked the Village Attorney to prepare a brief or really a memo, a legal memo that we can look at addressing the matters you raised which haven't occurred yet, to get a second set of eyes looking at it. Although it seems like you covered the topic pretty comprehensively. Is there anything in particular you'd like to add to last month's presentation at this point? NULL: We're welcoming and inviting comments so that we can have the next installment on a dialog, construct a dialog on this. I recognize the hour but we've been waiting also. We're hoping that perhaps you'd give us some enlightenment on what, what may be concerns of yours so that you're telling me that next month we'll be back here. With a dialog we'll be able in the meantime to get the responses that help advance things. KOFFLER: Well, but part of t h e ^ . s o m e of my questions definitely relate to the idea of, again, this idea of practical use versus permitted use and how that's going to work and that's something that I've certainly been _ NULL: Could you, could you explain that for me? KOFFLER: The idea that you need a certain number of parking spaces based on the- I mean permitted use based on the space. You're telling us it's a practical matter. You don't ever need that many spaces because the multi-purpose room is used at different times than the sanctuary is used and so even though while you may need on paper a certain number of spaces, as a matter of practicality you don't really use or need that many spaces. So that's something that I know I've been considering in reading materials you've submitted. Certain of those cases and minutes are on point and a lot of it wasn't on point but still was important concepts. And you did provide backup for the discussion regarding different deference to religious-based organizations and functions and you know, one of the things we're considering is how much deference is appropriate and what that really means. And so, at this point I'm not sure I have so many Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 56 �questions as I still- I, personally need to digest this a little bit more, and I also want to get some guidance from the Village Attorney as to some of the courts and case law you raised. NULL: One of the key components of any of those decisions, whether it's White Plains or New Castle, frankly a number of different religious institutions I've represented in any number of municipalities throughout Westchester, is that just like the, any applicant for a variance , you consider the particulars of a situation and recognize the usage of the institution. But unlike most other uses, religious institutions have special standing and therefore there's a certain deference that's involved, to be given to them. And what we're saying is, when we've got a population of people who walk, many of whom are in downtown Sleepy Hollow, we've got data that shows that they don't drive their cars and don't park and we don't have a meaningful demand. The reason I submitted those other resolutions, is because each of those instances, there was similar consideration when you might need parking, when you wouldn't need parking. And the purpose of it was to show on a case-by-case basis, the deference to the religious institution. These Boards each, for different reasons, granted the relief and permitted them to go ahead and build the addition, whether it was an addition that was twice the size or whatever any number of other religious institutions in other communities. So I'm sure in that case_ KOFFLER: In that c a s e ^ w h a t the point though is that it's a little hard to gauge that deference without looking at the facts behind the particular variance at hand because some of the variances were not so substantial, some of them were substantial and others this has its' own degree of substantiality. I'm not weighing in on it, I'm just simply sharing my observation. NULL: Yeah, Congregation Sons of Israel, there was no variance at all. What was recognized though is that the highest demand was on the high holidays and for that there could be flow parking on other streets. In otherwise, flexible parking on the site so the flexible parking is similar to what I was talking about Salvation Army- we could stack the rear parking lot and probably add another 15 parking spaces by stacking both lots, which could be a good part of what we're talking about here. And we don't think we're ever going to get there. As the need the, t h e ^ . I think there's only one variance actually in the mix, Cavalry Baptist Church, ended up providing satellite parking. We have about 56 parking spaces on site. They'd acquired, not to connect myself necessarily with other applications you have before you, but they had bought an auto dealership, that was immediately adjacent to their church and the church was a freestanding building that had no parking on it at all. So the question was converting the auto dealership to a church-how much parking did they need? And the recognition there also was that new building was going to be primarily for your entry space and classroom space, gymnasium space. None of which was going to be active at the time of the church. Be active in the sanctuary. KOFFLER: I know we covered this last month but you have an existing clientele, however you want to-a group that visits and uses the facility, and you expect that to expand? This isn't just to accommodate those existing members. It's actually to attract a broader base? NULL: Major Foley? MAJOR FOLEY: Because the building would become larger, the goal would be to expand the ministry hopefully to the community that is surrounding the community center that is there. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 57 �NULL: But the primary purpose of the sanctuary being larger is that on high holidays, Christmas, Easter, whatever, the full congregation is attending at various times, numbers around 200 and you can't put them in the sanctuary so we wanted the sanctuary large enough to accommodate them. So a sanctuary of 200 where we already have 200 at these holidays is not a meaningful expansion for the neighborhood. It's just recognizing the current demands are such that the building can't provide for. KOFFLER: But as an example, the Temple Beth-El matter that you put before us. That was the situation where the congregation was static. This was simply to expand, to better accommodate the existing^ NULL: What Temple Beth-El had was a building where everything flowed through the sanctuary in order to get to different classrooms. So they were expanding the sanctuary but they were adding classrooms, they were adding the social hall separately and we were arguing that we didn't really need much more parking. The similarity-maybe I know this stuff too well because I lived through it-but the purpose from my perspective was to say here again they were adding sanct, a social hall that was going to (inaudible) be used, they weren't adding parking. And because it was recognized that the social hall was not going to be occupied, except perhaps on high holidays, when the sanctuary was occupied. And therefore the actual demand, peak demand, the way it's measured in most land use matters wasn't really going to change. KOFFLER: Who else has any questions? I'm not sure, I mean I'm not certainly in a position to make a motion tonight. I would like to hear from Village Counsel on some of the legal particulars that have been raised only recently and relatively speaking, I've not had a chance or she's had a chance to go through. So I will push this to next month as well. Does anyone have any specific questions we should be focusing on for next month? WERNICK: I was convinced about the argument for practicality in the first presentation. I don't know if he was going to reaffirm that when we come back next month. KOFFLE: Listen, if it's a specific question of one of confirming it but two is the practical. How do you enforce it and monitor it and police it? Is it self-policing versus just a natural function of the way it operates? I mean these are all things we need to consider and may be folded in to conditions if ultimately if we go down that road. NULL: I'm more than willing to discuss possible conditions. KOFFLER: Understood. NULL: If there are issues that your mission can mitigate in some way. Otherwise.. KOFFLER: Yeah, but that's part.. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 58 �MICHAEL STEIN: We would have to know what those conditions are. KOFFLER: Understood. We'll come up with them. STEIN: That's where we're struggling. We could have had them prepared now but_ KOFFLER: Understood and I'm not holding it against you that you don't have them. It was just simply more to discuss so the idea that if you're saying look we never used the- we don't do, we don't rent out the multi-purpose room for bar mitzvahs and we don't, you know, it's really just forthere's certain things that would be helpful. We'll come up with them ourselves but I think you know what we're thinking which is that it's one thing to say we don't do this but it's another that what could actually happen. Maybe there's an opportunity where this multi-purpose room could be a moneymaker where someone will rent it out f o r _ . STEIN: How do we start that dialog though because this came up last time. I don't want it to come up again next time. How do we start that dialogue^ KOFFLER: I don't think there's much of a dialog. I think it's^we, w e ^ . I was hoping, maybe unrealistically, that you would come to us with something. But I understand, I understand what you're saying. You can't unilaterally NULL: Let me put this on the table Mr. Chairman. I'm willing to say that we will not rent the social hall for outside activities and that we will not have catering events at the social. Does that address sufficiently? KOFFLER: It's the right path. I mean but I ^ NULL: I need to know if there's something more but that seems to me to be the key generator of traffic beyond what w e ' r e ^ GANDOLFO: Can I just say, what other events would you anticipate, other than catering, that would draw a large crowd? NULL: We're not anticipating any activities that would draw a large crowd. That's why I'm challenged here. GANDOLFO: Okay. JUDGE: Well let me just ask this. If you had two congregants who decided they were going to get married and they're members of the community that uses the sanctuary, attend services there and they wanted to have their family come in and they wanted to use the multi-family room. Would that be, you k n o w ^ w h e r e do you draw that line I guess between^ NULL: We have had, we have had weddings in other Salvation Army churches. They're not large events and.,., Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 59 �JUDGE: I understand and I guess to this gentleman's point is, and what the Chairman says is where do you, where do you draw that line between what are essentially church functions and then something that would be outside of the church, like a catering function. Where do you draw that distinction? I think maybe I'm wrong in this, but I think that's what we were kind of what we were hoping.. KOFFLER: But I think we can draw it out and we can work together, and as you put it, have a dialogue about it in more detail. And the other issue just for us to really get our head is enforcing that, you know. No one's going to sit and come and visit every weekend. How do you ever really know and maybe that's baked into the way, you know it's inherent that the way this institution functions. They all function the same way is how it's always functioned, this is how it's going to continue to function. There's a history, there's a track record. That kind of stuff is helpful as opposed to here's our plan today, it doesn't work we'll change our plan next year. NULL: I'm a firm believer that no matter how well I can draft any contract, that someone's not going to abide by it. It doesn't really matter. Conversely, this is the way this congregation functions. They're not looking to change it. We're looking to describe it accurately to you so you can get the variances and we can get the building built to serve the congregation. So if there, if there are representations that would be that you want to put in conditions, I think we can work with that to make that clear and enforceable. GANDOLFO: Perhaps it would help the Board to have a list of all the functions and types of events that you have? Would that be of any assistance? NULL : We could do that. GANDOLFO: And then maybe they would sort of get an idea what questions to ask. STEIN: I think the main distinction here is the Salvation Army is using the building. They are not renting it to other organizations or private people. It's for the congregants. So they may have a wedding there or they may have a soup kitchen there but it's all geared toward the function of the Army. They're not^it's not a revenue generator for other groups. JUDGE: Right. But if we put catering events on the table and say no catering events, does that preclude a wedding and we d o n ' t ^ I don't personally want to preclude something nor give carte blanche. I think that's where.. STEIN: That boils down to the verbiage of how the bill was constructed in saying okay that it's events held by the Army not for revenue generating purposes. JUDGE: My point exactly. Where do we draw that demarcation. KOFFLER: I think that's right and so we want to look at that, consider that and we also want to just consider because there's a lot of legal nuances that you introduced with the precedents. We're not, I think I said this last time, this is I think the first time I think we've been asked to consider an application, a variance based on, as I put it before, the practical use versus technical Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 60 �permitted use. And so, in particular, I'd like to confer with the Village Counsel on it and then we can also just address some of the finer points in the application. About esthetics, about setbacks and some of the other areas and things introduced which are always part of the discussion. NULL: The setbacks are no different than what now exists. With the lot being fully paved and the building location significantly closer to the property line than the new building so we're actually improving existing conditions from what, improving over existing conditions. But I could take all the concerns you have with regard to the setbacks because I hadn't seen that that was the key concern. It seemed like the key concern was the parking. KOFFLER: It's all^there's a lot that you have to consider. You seem a little frustrated there we're not having a more substantive dialogue. NULL: Well only because we waited three hours so, you know, we thought we were #2 and we're #3 and we're looking to make sure that next time when we come back, given that Open Door's going to be on the agenda again, and that we have a constructive advanced discussion. That's the only frustration I have. KOFFLER: I understand. Well let me point out it's highly unusual for a meeting to go this late. This is not the norm. NULL: And we appreciate you're still going. We know how difficult it is. JUDGE: Where is your application with regard to Zoning and Planning and the Village of Tarrytown? NULL: We cannot go forward until we get the variances here. We don't have a real project unless we get the variances here. STEIN: In order to actually make submissions to the Village of Tarrytown, the Village of Sleepy Hollow first needs to make a determination that the parking is adequate, that the parking layout so that the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board needs to determine that the usage for the site and then it will go before the Village of Tarrytown Planning Board to determine the layout and how it impacts the Village of Tarrytown. NULL: What we anticipated doing was when this Board acts and hopefully favorably we will simultaneously submit to the Planning Board in Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown both. Our hope is that we won't need variances in Tarrytown. If we need variances in Tarrytown, then we're going to bounce back and forth a little bit. Hopefully not. GANDOLFO: I think you do need variances in Tarrytown. I've had discussions with Tarrytown. I think you do. NULL: I understand that there are some questions about it. I have certain concerns about the way those interpretations would be and I'm going to sit down with Tarrytown's Building Department also just to discuss it because it's one of those unusual situations where with the Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 61 �Village line being where it is, the boundary being where it is, the question what setbacks govern the area in the next community. KOFFLER: But I think you're right. The key issue- at least the key for- not the only issue, the real focal issue is the whole parking. The letter we got was November 8th, November 7 th and even today it's, we, we, it's timely. I'm just simply saying it's a relatively different issue than we've dealt with before. And it's a legal issue that we're not accustomed to dealing with. We've asked advice of Village Counsel which we'll hopefully have well in advance of the next meeting. And I would expect the next meeting to be more substantive. NULL: Janet if there's a way I can speak to you in the next few days. We'll see where we're going, what more can be developed. I'd appreciate it. GANDOLFO: Sure. NULL: Every week if there's something to say further, I can get back to y o u _ KOFFLER: You know we're not looking to extend this any more than you are. To the extent that we are, make a rolling, have you fully heard as expeditiously as possible, we're on (inaudible). NULL: Okay. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. GANDOLFO: You are consenting to the adjournment and waiving any code requirements with regard to the time that the ZBA has to make a decision within the 60 days of closing the public hearing. NULL: We'll consent to an adjournment till next month and not anytime, next month. I'd like a decision in 2012 if possible. GANDOLFO: No, but the Board has 60 days after the public hearing is closed. I just don't want to run into issues NULL: I understand, I understand. The hearing's been closed and our understanding is that you want more time and we look forward to seeing you in December and we wish you a Happy Thanksgiving in the meantime. GANDOLFO: So you'll waive that time requirement? NULL: To decide. GANDOLFO: At least until December? NULL: Yeah. GANDOLFO: Okay. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 62 �NULL: Okay. Thank you very much. KOFFLER: Based on the hour, I don't think anyone has an appetite for looking at the minutes. GANDOLFO: No. KOFFLER: I make a motion to adjourn. GORETE-CROWE: Seconded. KOFFLER: Meeting adjourned. Thank you all. The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:32pm. Zoning Board Meeting, November 14, 2012 - APPROVED 63 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-11-14 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/289074335541c8a635196c7abfa06eea.pdf e11177797293b8fe92fdbf385cc0e4a1 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board Meeting - APPROVED December 19, 2 0 1 2 Peter Koffler, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:07pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Peter Koffler, Chairman Timothy Judge Michael Wernick Sherry Bishko Maria Gorete-Crowe Linda Moiron Absent: Tom Capossela Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Mary Gerlanc (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) Salvation Army Open Door Family Medical Rafael Mota Approval of Minutes 9 0 Valley Street 1 New Broadway 1 8 8 Cortlandt Street Announcements - There were no announcements. 1) Salvation Army Hearing 9 0 Valley Street Continued Public Hearing Continued Public Hearing Public Hearing September 19, 2 0 1 2 October 17, 2 0 1 2 November 14, 2 0 1 2 Continued Public This is a continuation from a previous meeting. William Null, attorney from Cuddy & Feder represented this application, along with Michael Stein and Major Sue Foley from the Salvation Army. Mr. Null stated he had submitted a letter to the Board citing case law, which the Board had requested at the last meeting. He also submitted some suggested conditions for the Board to review. Mr. Null asked if the Board had any issues they would like to discuss. �The Chair asked about potential conditions and if this application were approved, would the intended use be the same as the actual use going forward. Mr. Koffler asked Mr. Null to review the overlap period of construction and demotion and how the parking would be addressed during that period. Mr. Null stated the Salvation Army would be willing to do stacked attendant parking in the lot that would be available for services or events during that period. He stated the Salvation Army would have parking available for the existing church while the new church is being built. The Chair asked if they would be using the existing parking as a staging area for the construction. William Null said they would not, rather they would use the new parking area, which is now the auto dealership, rather than the existing area. He stated that it would be fairly quick to take down the existing church and they would already have the ability to use the new parking area. He stated they will have some additional parking available when they take down the existing church and for that brief period they could do stacked attendant parking in the area to the east of the new church. The Chair asked the applicant to clarify on the plans, which parking area Mr. Null referred to. Michael Stein pointed out the area on the drawing and stated that area is the proposed parking lot. He stated they would be able to accommodate another 12 vehicles in the access lanes of this lot with stacked parking. The Chair asked if this area would be used for approximately 60 days for stacked parking. Michael Stein stated the time period would probably be less than 60 days. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy if this proposed parking area has been approved in terms of its legality and the layout of the spaces without regard to the number of spaces that are needed for the variance. Sean McCarthy agreed the size of the spaces were what is required by Village zoning law. The Chair asked Mr. Null about the area marked for land banking. Mr. Null asked Mr. Stein to explain which spaces would be used for this purpose. Michael Stein explained the Salvation Army would like to eliminate some of the spaces that are proposed for parking in order to create more green space on the lot. He also pointed out spaces on the corner that could be landscaped. The Chair asked if this proposed landscaped area could be converted in to parking spaces again if the need arose. Michael Stein stated the retaining wall would still be constructed in the proposed place and parking spaces would shift to create green space. In the future if parking were needed, the lot would be extended and a curb added but the retaining wall would remain. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 2 �William Null stated this could be condition of the resolution, that given notice by the Village, the Salvation Army would need to implement. He also suggested filing a land banking agreement with the Westchester County Clerk's office. Mr. Null also suggested adding grass but not landscaping and then the cars could drive or park on the grass. Michael Wernick stated he would like to see the green space whether or not it was a condition of the land banking. He stated if parking would be necessary, then the Salvation Army would make that space available on its' own for the congregation. He asked if in the past there were any parking situations. William Null stated that currently there could be 100 people in the sanctuary with only 1415 spaces. Now the Salvation Army will have ability to have 200 people in the sanctuary with 41 spaces. He stated even if they lose a few spaces to land banking, they would more than double the current parking. The Chair asked what would be in the green space. Michael Stein stated the green space would be lawn and landscaping. He stated a landscape architect had not been retained yet because the plans were not finalized. Timothy Judge asked if the surfaces would be permeable in terms of stormwater runoff. Michael Stein stated their calculations would all be based upon it being impervious so if they decided to expand the area, it would be a relatively minor change. Cost-wise it wouldn't make that much of a difference to stormwater design. Michael Wernick asked if there was outside access for the children of the congregation during services. Major Sue Foley stated the children have Sunday school on Sundays but they are not outside for any time and they would be using the main entrance. Major Foley stated that if the Salvation Army has summer school then potentially the green space could be used for the children. Michael Stein stated the current occupancy is 100 congregants and with the new facility they would have 200 people coming to the services, however the parking need would not be any greater. He felt it was unlikely they would need to stack cars except for Christmas or another holiday service. The Chair asked if some portion of this site is in Tarrytown. He also asked if Sleepy Hollow granted a variance and the project would move forward, would the Salvation Army have to go before Tarrytown's Zoning Board. Mr. Null indicated the areas on the plan, which were located in Tarrytown. He stated the Salvation Army would have to meet with Tarrytown to determine if they would also require variances. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 3 �Timothy Judge asked about rental of the hall for outside activities. He asked what the Salvation Army would consider outside activities. Mr. Null stated they would consider a christening or a wedding to be congregational involvement. Mr. Null gave examples of a community group who wanted to have a meeting or a member of the neighborhood who wanted to have a child's birthday party, as outside activities. He stated the Salvation Army wouldn't lease its' space for outside use. Mr. Null stated the parking count is generated by activities of the church and not by activities of the community not related to the church. Michael Wernick asked if there was any history of community activity at the current location. Major Sue Foley stated not that she was aware of. Michael Wernick asked Major Foley how long she had been at that location. Major Foley stated she worked at the Salvation Army's divisional headquarters that oversee the corps community centers in the division. Michael Wernick asked if there was anyone representing the Salvation Army from this location in Sleepy Hollow. Major Foley stated no one was present tonight. William Null stated the Salvation Army does not have a social hall now. He stated it is not typical for the Salvation Army to rent out its' facilities to outside organizations when they are needed by the church itself. The Chair asked if the Salvation Army would accommodate a wedding for a member of the congregation. Mr. Null agreed. Timothy Judge asked how the Salvation Army would address potential parking issues if there were a large wedding. Mr. Null stated there were only a few weddings in the history of the church and because of the nature of the population; they are not very large weddings. He stated they had the ability for 41 parking spaces and for a wedding event that would mean two people per car. He stated it would be rare to have a wedding for 200 people, which is the maximum occupancy for the church, however they could accommodate 60-70 cars on-site by valet parking and attendant parking. Mr. Null showed on the drawing where they could park 50-60 cars in one area and another 15-20 cars in a separate area. He stated the rest would go into adjacent parking areas such as on the street. Timothy Judge stated it might be up to the Board to determine at what level they would require the Salvation Army to provide valet parking. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 4 �William Null stated the Salvation Army could be required to give the Village notice in advance of any large event like a wedding so they could coordinate with the police how to manage the event. The Chair asked if the Salvation Army would be willing to do stacked parking or valet parking for the one or two larger events per year. Mr. Null agreed they would accommodate that request from the Village. Janet Gandolfo stated that per Village code, 160 is the maximum occupancy rate for the multi-purpose room that the Salvation Army is planning. Mr. Null stated his calculation for 200 is based on the zoning tabulation chart, which states 1 parking space per 8 seats and a line that said 25. He took 25 and multiplied it by 8 and arrived at 200. Ms. Gandolfo stated if the code states 160, then the Salvation Army wouldn't have an event for 200. William Stein stated it was 160 for a meal service and 200 maximum seating for the chapel. Discussion ensued about opening the public hearing. Ms. Gandolfo asked the Chair if he wanted to reopen the public hearing. She stated it had been closed two meetings prior. The Chair decided it would remain closed. He asked if there were any other questions from the Board. The Chair stated he was prepared to make a motion to approve based on appropriate conditions. He stated that the benefits granted to the applicant outweighed the detriments to the neighborhood and the area. The Chair stated that given appropriate conditions, he did not feel this would have an adverse affect on the neighborhood and environment. He also stated that the variance is substantial but based on the unique nature of the use and the staggered use of the various portions of the property and presuming appropriate conditions and giving deference to the religious nature of the organization, he is comfortable making a motion to approve based on conditions. Janet Gandolfo stated it should be noted for the record that because this is a religious institution, accommodations are required to be made in terms of granting the variance and the Board is allowed to impose reasonable conditions and should make reasonable accommodations because this is a religious institution. The Chair agreed. He also stated that one of the conditions is that there be no rental of the social hall or the chapel for outside events and non-congregational matters. Janet Gandolfo stated that has been suggested by the applicant. She asked William Null if he was agreeing on the record that that was a reasonable condition. Mr. Null agreed. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 5 �The Chair stated these conditions would be set in a formal resolution. The Chair stated with regard to parking; if the facility has exceeded the available on-site parking space three weekends in a row, the applicant shall implement on-site, stacked, attendant parking to reduce potential, if any, for vehicles that the events will have to park in the street. Janet Gandolfo asked if this was agreeable to the applicant. William Null agreed. The Chair stated there would be a condition regarding the land bank area. If at a later date it became necessary to accommodate regular parking, this area would be reverted back to usable space. William Null stated that was acceptable however he asked it include a reasonable time period to be able to put in pavement. The Chair stated for the record that whatever conditions these are, none of this is intended to override the applicable parking restrictions in the Village which still apply. The Chair also suggested there be a condition that there is no fundamental change in the nature of the applicant's use of the space as described which would include the nature of the use but also the frequency of events. William Null's concern is that the nature of a typical community event for a church or a religious institution may change over time. He stated if the condition were directed to the larger use or the peak demand being the sanctuary and the social hall and the meals as part of it, then he would agree. He stated the smaller components such as the after-school program might have some other components added over time. The Chair added the statement - those changes were such that they would materially change the parking needs. Mr. Null stated if the parking needs increase, then the Salvation Army would be implementing stacked parking and that would be acceptable. The Chair also suggested that it would be a condition that the variance applies so long as the Salvation Army continues its' use of the property itself. Mr. Null stated if the Salvation Army became a foundation then ownership isn't the issue. Janet Gandolfo stated the issue is if the Salvation Army is a religious institution or not. Mr. Null stated if the Salvation Army is no longer functioning as a religious institution in a similar manner that doesn't generate different parking demands, that entity would need to Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 103 �appear before the Board before being able to use the facility, because the parking is the key component. The Chair stated that was appropriate and Janet Gandolfo agreed. William Null also agreed. The Chair stated they would craft that language in a more formal resolution. Peter Koffler stated that a reasonable condition would be that for weddings and other special events with greater that 100 guests, special parking accommodations would be made. Discussion ensued regarding special events. The Chair stated that this variance would be subject to requisite approval from Tarrytown and whatever conditions are imposed by Tarrytown, providing they do not contradict the conditions from Sleepy Hollow. Mr. Null stated they wouldn't be able to complete the project if they do not get approval from Tarrytown. He suggested the condition was subject to the Salvation Army being able to provide the parking in Tarrytown that is shown because he does not know what approvals are needed from Tarrytown at this point. The Chair asked if there were any setback or FAR (Floor Area Ratio) issues with Tarrytown or was it just a parking issue. William Null stated there might be setback issues but they are reducing the non-conformity by removing the building. Timothy Judge suggested a condition stating approval for the project pending no conflict from Tarrytown so if they were to grant variances or impose variances, they would not impinge on any conditions or variances requested by Sleepy Hollow. The Chair agreed but also added providing the variance from Tarrytown doesn't increase in any way the variances necessary from Sleepy Hollow. Mr. Null asked for wording saying "approval from Tarrytown" instead of variance. The Chair agreed. Mr. Null asked for more specific wording. Discussion ensued regarding the approvals needed from Tarrytown. Janet Gandolfo stated that Tarrytown's issue was the setback and commercial on the residential line. She stated that if Tarrytown's setback requirements demand the Salvation Army eliminate parking then the Salvation Army would have to appear again before the Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board. The Chair asked if this application had to go before the Planning Board. Sean McCarthy agreed the applicant had to go before the Planning Board. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 7 �Mr. Null stated they could present the final land bank landscape plan before the Planning Board. The Chair asked if there were any other conditions from the Board. There were no comments. The Chair made a motion to approve the variance subject to conditions discussed and incorporating them into a formal resolution. Michael Wernick seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor. Tom Capossela was absent. 2 ) Open Door Family Medical 1 New Broadway Continued Public Hearing This is a continuation from a previous meeting. The Chair read a list of items received: • Letter dated 1 2 / 1 4 / 1 2 from Hockerman, Tortorella & Weckstein • 6-DVD's with an affidavit from Robert Weir giving breakdown of what is on the DVDs Letter dated 1 2 / 1 8 / 1 2 from Hockerman, Tortorella & Weckstein with a number of exhibits Letter dated 1 2 / 1 9 / 1 2 from David Schroedel to the Board Email dated 1 2 / 1 8 / 1 2 from Daniel Rutledge to Sean McCarthy Email dated 1 0 / 1 6 / 1 2 from Tom Capossela to Peter Koeffler Email dated 1 2 / 1 7 / 1 2 from Tom Capossela to Peter Koeffler • • • • • The Chair asked if there was anything else to add to the record. There was nothing. Geraldine Tortorella from Hockerman, Tortorella & Weckstein, co-counsel along with Kyle McGovern from Lyons McGovern are representing Open Door. Geraldine Tortorella asked if the Board had received a letter dated 1 2 / 1 2 / 1 2 from her firm along with a number of submissions of material exhibits. The Chair stated he had received a letter dated 1 2 / 1 2 / 1 2 from Hockerman, Tortorella & Weckstein with a number of attachments. Ms. Tortorella introduced her team: Gary Gianfrancesco, the project architect, from Arconics Architecture, Lindsay Farrell, the CEO and President of Open Door, Mr. Adler, the Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 8 �traffic consultant from Adler Consulting is out of town and is represented by Michael O'Rourke, a professional traffic engineer and finally Anita Wolenkin, COO from Open Door. Geraldine Tortorella stated the goal of their submissions to the Board is to address questions raised at the last hearing and provide additional information. She stated they had attempted to address requests for information from Sean McCarthy or identify reasons whey they believe those requests for information are not pertinent to this application. One of the questions, Ms. Tortorella addressed, was why the Family Residency program can't be moved to Phelps Memorial Hospital. She stated they had provided an explanation as to why that is legally and operationally impractical to happen. She stated the Board has a letter from Keith Safian that addresses this point as well as an affidavit from Ms. Farrell, Ms. Tortorella stated that Open Door is well situated to run the Family Residency Program and it is a federally qualified health center and by law it needs to be located in a place that makes it accessible to its' patients. She noted that in Mr. Safian's letter to the Board, he stated that Phelps is not a federally qualified health center nor can it qualify as one, therefor it would not be able to operate a health center on its' campus. Mr. Safian also stated that there is not adequate existing medical office space on Phelps' campus. Nor in his view is there the time or monetary resources available to be able to construct a new building in enough time to have the residency program operating in a timely fashion. Ms. Tortorella stated that Open Door is a federally qualified health center. She stated there is a concern on the part of both Phelps and Open Door that if you move the function and facility of the health center to Phelps, then they are not making health care accessible to those who need it. Busing 70% of patients from Open Door to Phelps would not encourage this health care. Ms. Tortorella stated it would be a logistical and operational nightmare to run a shuttle system throughout the Village and then depositing patients en masse at Phelps Memorial Hospital. She stated medical offices stagger office visits so physicians can treat patients in a timely manner. If everyone arrives at once it would create problems for both patients and doctors. Ms. Tortorella stated there were concerns about the added traffic impact with running a shuttle service throughout the Village. Open Door has no area where patients could meet which means the shuttle would have to make stops at locations along the street. She addressed the comment from several speakers at the last hearing regarding medical providers who have their health center closely located or at the hospital, which is the sponsor of the health center. In the examples given, (St. Joseph's in Yonkers, White Plains Hospital), those health centers are centrally located in close proximity to where the patients reside which follows the model that Open Door is following. She stated Phelps is 1.6 miles away from the center of the Village, in a location with no sidewalks that will take patients from the center of the Village safely to Phelps Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 9 �Geraldine Tortorella commented on the concerns from the last meeting regarding the dangerous intersection where the proposed Open Door office is located. She stated that Adler Consulting had prepared a report, a diagram and a map that explained how the intersections work and the relationship of the crosswalks and pedestrian activity where they expect their patients to cross and the various vehicle intersections. She asked Mr. O'Rourke, Sr. Associate from Adler Consulting in White Plains to explain. In addition, Open Door has provided a brief synopsis on videotape of what they witnessed in how the intersection traffic operated in relation to pedestrians. Michael O'Rourke stated he is a professional engineer in the State of New York. He displayed a diagram for the Board, which indicated views of the crosswalk. There were photos showing the view from Mickey's Automotive towards Open Door and one that showed the alternate view. He showed the traffic signal display (Hand Man) on one side and a Don't Walk sign on the other. He stated it was a safe crosswalk because it was a wide-open marked crosswalk with pedestrian signals. In their analysis, Adler Consulting did a 5-year accident study, which showed a total of 7 accidents, none of which were at that intersection and no accidents in the area involved pedestrians. Mr. O'Rourke discussed the operation of what happens when a pedestrian pushes the traffic signal display button. When the pedestrian is given the "Walking Man' display, at the same time, all the other movements on southbound New Broadway and northbound New Broadway are stopped. The only traffic movements that are permitted at that time involve New Broadway. Those vehicles would be permitted to come into the intersection. The vehicles can make a right turn but under New York State Law the pedestrian has the rightof-way. In addition, they found only 5 vehicles make that turn during a peak period at the same time pedestrians are moving into that intersection. He stated all the other movements on North Broadway are stopped. He stated that statistics show this is a safe intersection. Geraldine Tortorella stated they have provided the Board with approximately six hours of videotape with an affidavit from the videographer, Robert Weir. She also stated the tapes are time stamped and were done before, during and after the morning peak hour period. And were submitted with a summary of activity. She asked the Board to view 1-2 minutes, which showed the activity in the crosswalk from Mickey's Automotive to the Open Door. The time stamp started at 9:57. The Board viewed the video. Peter Koffler asked where the "Crossing Man' was in the video. Geraldine Tortorella indicated the location on the pole. He asked if it was white when the pedestrian crossed. Sherry Bishko asked why they had picked 9:57am and not an earlier time when traffic is backed up through that intersection. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 10 �The Chair stated he had watched the videotape and was amazed at how few people crossed when the traffic display was white. He stated they crossed when it was red and didn't stay in the crosswalk but ran across diagonally south. Based on his own viewing he stated he was not sure if this video was representational or accurate. Geraldine Tortorella stated Open Door would engage in an educational campaign with its' patients and expect them to cross safely. They would propose to have a crossing guard available, particularly at those busiest times. She stated they chose 9:57am as an example of how one crosses properly and how effective it is. They also wanted to show the lack of traffic in that area when someone is allowed to cross with the signal. Ms. Tortorella acknowledged the Chairman's point but she also stated that those people are not Open Door patients and they are not responsible for them. Timothy Judge asked how she could know that those people in the video are not Open Door patients because she stated that Open Door serves the community. Ms. Tortorella stated the basis for her statement was that the majority of Open Door patients do not come from the area around the crosswalk but rather from south of Beekman Avenue and the Open Door proposed location. She stated Mr. Judge was correct and she accepted that correction and clarification. Ms. Tortorella stated that the people in the videotape are getting across the crosswalk safely and the conflicts that were testified to at previous hearings don't seem to exist at that intersection based on the morning peak hour they conducted the taping. The Chair stated that the videotape doesn't back up what Mr. O'Rourke stated; that pedestrians wait for the white signal before they cross. He stated this was a concern that had been raised at prior meetings that not everyone waits until that moment when the traffic is frozen to cross. And if the Board were taking what they've viewed on videotape as representation and multiplying it by increased pedestrian traffic for the facility, there would be more people who just look both ways and run across the intersection. Ms. Tortorella stated the point is that people can walk across this intersection safely. She felt the conflicts they heard testimony about and the dangerousness of the intersection is not born by what they videotaped in terms of actual conditions. She stated they reviewed the accident records over a five-year period and there were no pedestrian accidents during that peak hour period. The Chair stated that although Mr. O'Rourke said that people would wait for the proper signal to cross in the crosswalk, the reality is different. Most people don't wait for that time to cross. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 11 �Timothy Judge stated his concern that people will take the shortest path and come down Lawrence Ave. and cross Route 9 where there is no crosswalk or signal and that poses a significant safety issue. Geraldine Tortorella clarified some statistics that are on record in the traffic study. During the 8:00-9:00am period, there were 270 pedestrians counted crossing the street not just at this crosswalk but in the area that was studied including Lawrence Ave. She also stated during the peak hour period which is the height of their operation in year three of the residency program, they are adding 13 additional pedestrians. The Chair asked if this was 13 pedestrians per hour. Ms. Tortorella said yes but during the peak hour 8:00-9:00am period. Ms. Tortorella stated at the 12:00-1:00pm period, they currently have 230 people crossing the street. Their projections indicate Open Door will be adding 19 pedestrians based on their patient projections. During the 4:00-5:00pm period, 115 people will be crossing the street and their projections indicate they would be adding 12 pedestrians per hour. Ms. Tortorella also stated that even though people don't necessarily follow the rules, they still believe people can cross safely at this intersection without coming into conflict with vehicles. Open Door has proposed, if the Village would allow, to have a crossing guard. She stated Open Door would bear the cost of the crossing guard. They would also educate their patients in the safest routes to travel and provide them with diagrams until they become accustomed to the route. She stated she couldn't guarantee they will walk those routes but their patients are savvy pedestrians who will understand where it's safe to cross and where it is not safe. Linda Moiron asked if the ^"Walk Man" sign was only activated by pushing the button. Mr. O'Rourke stated it was. Ms. Moiron asked if it was approximately 10-12 seconds for the flashing sign to allow someone to cross the street. Mr. O'Rourke stated he did not have actual numbers in front of him, but the white would flashes for approximately six seconds or longer and then the flashing hand which would be a specific set of time and then a solid hand and then after that a 3-second clearance. He stated there are actually three components to allow people to cross. Linda Moiron asked if there was a difference in timing for all the other lights in the area. Mr. O'Rourke stated the WALK signal works concurrent with the signal coming out of New Broadway. Ms. Moiron asked if the NYS DOT was responsible for the WALK sign. Mr. O'Rourke stated that the NYS DOT was responsible for the entire cycle and the phasing because Route 9 is their responsibility. Linda Moiron asked if the pedestrian didn't push the button then they wouldn't get a signal to cross. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 12 �Mr. O'Rourke stated that was correct. The button must be pushed to activate the pedestrian crossing. The Chair asked if this was the only crosswalk in the vicinity. Discussion ensued regarding the crosswalks in the area. Mr. O'Rourke indicated on the diagram where other crosswalks were located. Linda Moiron stated there was a trip on that light coming out of New Broadway. She stated if at some point that would be changed and there was no green light on New Broadway then it would affect the pedestrian crossing on North Broadway. Ms. Moiron stated the pedestrian wouldn't get that time they have now to cross. Mr. O'Rourke stated that pushing the pedestrian button would activate that signal and it would probably activate the green traffic light at New Broadway. The Chair asked Ms. Tortorella to explain the crossing guard proposal. Geraldine Tortorella stated the crossing guard is mitigation they have proposed if the Village of Sleepy Hollow believes it's needed to safely cross the pedestrians. This person would be employed by the Village but paid for by Open Door, similar to the type of operation that occurs with the crossing guard at the high school/middle school location. That crossing guard could not stop traffic but would be available to push the button for people and assist them when it is time to cross the street. Open Door doesn't believe this mitigation is necessary but they have offered it as mitigation to address some of the concerns about the safety of the pedestrians crossing the street. The Chair stated that Open Door couldn't guarantee this arrangement because it would not be under their control. Ms. Tortorella agreed that Open Door would need the assistance and cooperation of the Village in order to implement that mitigation. Open Door would expect this to be a condition of any variance that was granted if this is mitigation the Board feels is necessary in connection with this application. The Chair stated that this crossing guard service was not the same as the high school/middle school guard as was stated earlier by Ms. Tortorella. He stated this was not a municipal service but rather a private enterprise asking the Village to hire someone and have the private company pay that person. He asked if Ms. Tortorella had discussed this with the Village Board of Trustees. Ms. Tortorella replied she had not, however she stated if Open Door were to bear the cost, she did not understand what reason the Board of Trustees would not cooperate with that measure if they deemed it an appropriate condition. She stated she did not understand why the Village Board would not want to do something to make this intersection safer, since a number of residents in the Village have said it is a treacherous intersection. The Chair asked about the radius of anticipated pedestrians and the increased commute for the patients who live southwest of the existing facility Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 13 �Ms. Tortorella displayed a diagram called the Patient Vicinity Map. She stated this was part of their original submission and showed a snapshot in time of their patient population and diagramming numerically where the patients are coming from who area using the services of Open Door. Based on the number of patients who were evaluated with this analysis, they have 2,657 of the 6,253 patients within one-mile of the current location at 80 Beekman Avenue. Gary Gianfrancesco from Arconics Architecture PC explained the diagram. Based on Open Door's patient records, they mapped the patient population. They divided Sleepy Hollow and part of Tarrytown included into four quadrants with North Broadway being the centerline. Mr. Gianfrancesco stated there were 2,657 patients within a one-mile area from Open Door. In the northwest quadrant (Quadrant 1) there are 242 patients; in Quadrant 2, which includes the Webber Park area, there are 62 patients. In Quadrant 3, the Beekman Avenue area, there are 2,288 patients. And then in Quadrant 4, the easterly side of North Broadway, there are only 65 patients who currently reside in that area. He also pointed out that the difference in distance between the current Open Door location on Beekman Avenue and the proposed location is a quarter mile walking distance. The Chair asked if that was a quarter mile straight line or walking distance. Mr. Gianfrancesco confirmed it was walking distance. He stated they had mapped it walking up Beekman Avenue to Lawrence Avenue and then to the proposed location on New Broadway. He stated that was the most direct map utilizing Google maps as the basis for calculating the area. He also stated that Open Door clients would not be deterred from health care by having to walk another quarter mile. The Chair asked what was the maximum distance someone would have to walk based on the quadrants. Mr. Gianfrancesco stated that the patients walking from furthest away might choose to take a more direct route so they could be walking less than a quarter mile to get to the proposed locations. Mr. Gianfrancesco displayed an aerial diagram for the Board, which mapped the origin of the patients based on Open Door records. The streets indicated in color represented 80% of the users of the current Sleepy Hollow facility in zip code 10591. The red area represented the higher density of patients, which ranged from 200-375 patients. Those streets indicated were Beekman Avenue, Washington Street, Cortlandt Avenue and College Avenue. He stated the yellow area represented a range of patients from 70-200 and those streets were Depeyster Street, Valley Street, Clinton Street and Chestnut Street. The last grouping, Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 14 �the purple area, represented a patient density of 50-70 patients and those streets were Howard Street, Cedar Street, Broadway, Pocantico Street and Lawrence Avenue. Mr. Gianfrancesco stated that residents who reside in zip code 10591 represent 70% of the total users of the current Beekman Avenue Open Door facility. The Chair asked if 30% of the patients are from outside the 10591 zip code area and if this diagram represents 80% of that 70% of patients that use the current Open Door facility. Mr. Gianfrancesco agreed that was correct. Geraldine Tortorella stated they had done a survey on two different dates where patients were interviewed when they arrived for their patient visits and asked how they arrived at the site. She stated Adler Consulting did this analysis in November 2 0 1 1 and March 2012. The results of that survey were 70% of patients arrived to the site by walking, 2% arrived by public transportation, the remaining 3% arrived by another mode such as taxi or being driven and dropped off. Timothy Judge asked for the number of total patients that Open Door serves regardless of zip code. Lindsay Farrell stated that Open Door could serve up to 9,000 people based on HUD designated low-income statistics. Michael Wernick asked if Open Door's current patient population was approximately 6,700 patients. Geraldine Tortorella stated that the current patient population as reflected on the map displayed for the Board, was 6,253. She stated the patients that Open Door has on their patient list are approximately 4,000 patients. Ms. Tortorella stated that Open Door's current space is 5,000 sq. ft. and the new proposed space will be approximately 12,000 sq. ft. Michael Wernick asked if that included classroom space. Ms. Tortorella stated there was no classroom space. There were medical offices and a conference room that is a meeting room. She stated there would be no classes conducted in that meeting room. Maria Gorete-Crowe asked if Open Door would have education for patients at this facility. Ms. Tortorella responded that education for patients would be facilitated by patient advocates who work with the patients but there would be no group therapy or group education programs. Ms. Gorete-Crowe asked if Open Door's diabetes education would be conducted individually. Ms. Tortorella agreed it would be conducted individually on a case-by-case basis. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 15 �Sherry Bishko asked about the statistics given by Open Door regarding pedestrian traffic. She asked if this reflected the 4,000 patients seen at the current facility or what they anticipate will be increased patient load at the new facility. Ms. Tortorella stated those numbers were based on patient projections, based on Open Door's increased space and the changes in their operational program. Discussion ensued regarding these statistics. Sherry Bishko asked how often the shuttle would run between Phelps Memorial Hospital and the Open Door facility. Geraldine Tortorella stated the shuttle would run twice an hour if not more frequently when shifts are changing. She stated Open Door would be willing to provide that information based on what their expectations would be. Ms. Bishko asked if the shuttle was a bus. Ms. Tortorella stated it would be a van. Ms. Bishko asked if the van would make the left off Route 9 into the facility. Ms. Tortorella agreed that coming from Phelps the van would make the left into the facility. The Chair asked if the shuttle would make the multi-point turn in order to exit the parking area. Ms. Tortorella agreed and stated they had provided diagrams to show how vehicles would turn around in the parking lot. She stated the turning diagrams provided were for vehicles such as ambulances, taxis and other vehicles. Sherry Bishko asked if cars were prohibited from making a left turn when exiting the parking lot. Ms. Tortorella agreed it was not allowed to make a left turn out of the lot. Sherry Bishko asked if a car could enter and exit at the same time in the parking lot. Ms. Tortorella stated the opening to the parking lot was over 21 feet wide, which is a twoway curb cut. Discussion ensued regarding anticipated traffic backup on Broadway during the peak morning hours. Timothy Judge stated his concern that while a vehicle is making a five-point turn to exit and another vehicle is entering, traffic might start to back up on route 9. He cited the traffic near C-Town in Tarrytown as an example. Michael O'Rourke stated there was sufficient space for a vehicle to turn and a fairly wide northbound lane on Route 9, plus a four or five-foot sidewalk that theoretically could be used as storage as a vehicle starts to move into the lot. He stated he believed the chances of blocking the roadway would be slim. Gary Gianfrancesco stated they had provided a revised site plan, which takes away the fivepoint turn, by consolidating the parking so the vehicle can use the open loading space and then exit. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 16 �The Chair stated that assumes that all vehicles are parked in their spaces and no other cars in the lot, although that might not be the reality of the situation. He also stated that people would tend to slow down to look into the lot and see if any spaces are available. He asked where they would go if the lot is full. Mr. Gianfrancesco stated he hoped they would move on to any available street parking, which they have demonstrated exists. Sherry Bishko stated the slowing down to look could also cause traffic to back up on Route 9. Mr. Gianfrancesco stated there are only 242 patients within one mile who might take that route and if 70% of them were walkers then the number would greatly diminish. Timothy Judge asked for a clarification of the number of patients that Open Door schedules per hour. Lindsay Farrell stated a typical physician sees three patients in an hour, therefor one patient every 20 minutes. With regards to staffing the facility, in its' maximum, in the third year of operation, with 18 residents and a variety of physicians and faculty, the range of patients seen would be between 10 and 27 per hour. The Chair asked if Open Door had any statistics as to the number of patients who show up alone. Dr. Naida Henriquez, M.D. stated she had practiced at Open Door's Ossining site for 15 years and they have a similar situation with a high school within walking distance and many of their patients are students that will walk to Open Door by themselves. Timothy Judge stated that based on Open Door's statistics as to how many patients will drive, there might be 3-7 vehicles and there will be overlap in the parking lot. He stated this is where the issue of traffic backing up into Route 9 could happen. Geraldine Tortorella stated they have addressed that overlap issue in terms of demand for parking. She asked if the Board's concern was what impact would the full occupancy of the parking lot have in instances where people will come by and look for parking but won't be able to park because there will be times when Open Door's 30% number is more than seven parking spaces and what impact will this have on traffic. Timothy Judge further clarified the point by adding that Open Door would also have a shuttle bus that has to make a turn around in the lot and that inhibits the flow of vehicles into and out of that parking lot. The Chair also added another component; people stopping to drop off patients at Open Door. Sherry Bishko stated they might drop off patients on Route 9 instead of pulling into the parking lot. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 17 �Maria Gorete-Crowe stated she had witnessed people stopping in front of Open Door's location on Beekman Avenue and how it blocks traffic. She stated the traffic on Beekman Avenue is not as heavy as the traffic on North Broadway. She also stated they have to consider the cars that are dropping people off. Geraldine Tortorella stated she was not trying to suggest that all Open Door patients walk. The Board has pointed out an area that they will address it further with the Board. Linda Moiron asked about the shift changes and the shuttle schedule. Ms. Tortorella stated the shuttle would work for employees, staff and resident participants in the program. She stated they would look into how many hours of the day would involve shift changes and the number of people needing to come to the site and get that information to the Board Michael Wernick asked for clarification on how many times per hour the shuttle will bring non- patient personnel from Phelps to the facility and how many shift changes there are at Open Door. Ms. Tortorella stated they would get back to the Board with that information. The Chair stated that the Board hasn't embraced the idea that the off-site parking even qualifies as parking. Timothy Judge asked if they had included people who come to Open Door just to pick up their WIC checks as part of their patient load on an hourly basis. Ms. Tortorella confirmed these people had been included in the patient load numbers. Geraldine Tortorella stated that Open Door has provided the signed agreement with Phelps Memorial Hospital regarding the parking. This agreement indicates that up to 40 spaces will be made available for Open Door residents, staff and employees to park at Phelps and Phelps is authorizing the operation of a shuttle van from Phelps. The minimum term of this agreement is 10 years but will be renewed automatically as long as Open Door operates a medical facility on this site. There are limited instances where it can be terminated by Phelps but they are all basically related to Open Door no longer operating this medical office in this location as a health center not-for-profit. If Open Door leases the facility to a for-profit entity or other events occur, then the special model that Open Door presents would no longer be relevant and Phelps is not willing to agree to that. Linda Moiron asked if the residency program was a condition of the parking. Ms. Tortorella stated they had made the agreement broader and not limited to the residency program. The Chair stated he wanted to address some of the points raised in the December 18, 2012 letter submitted by Geraldine Tortorella in response to Sean McCarthy's letter dated December 12, 2012. He asked if everyone had a copy of McCarthy's letter. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 18 �Mr. McCarthy made copies of the letter for the Board. The Chair referred to Ms. Tortorella's letter, which asked if the requests in Mr. McCarthy's 1 2 / 1 2 / 1 2 letter, were generated by the Board. The Chair stated they were not. He also asked Ms. Tortorella about her statement that ^"We are concerned that some seem to be expressed in a negative tone." Geraldine Tortorella stated they felt that some of the information requested by Mr. McCarthy in his 1 2 / 1 2 / 1 2 letter has already been provided in the form of testimony that was given during the November 14, 2012 hearing. She stated that testimony had been given as to the problems of 80 Beekman Avenue and yet they are being asked for a feasibility study for 80 Beekman Avenue. The Chair again asked Ms. Tortorella what she meant by "negative tone". He stated he understood that she might not agree with all the questions, but he did not see a positive or negative spin on Mr. McCarthy's letter. It was simply a request for information. Ms. Tortorella stated their interpretation was that the testimony was not believed and they were now being asked for paper documentation. She also stated they gave their reasons why they don't believe the requests were pertinent but in instances where they have the information, it has been provided to the Village. The Chair also stated that Mr. McCarthy's letter is just a request for information and in no way has any bearing or control on the Board's requested variance. Ms. Tortorella stated there was a memorandum prepared on October 15, 2012 but not given to Open Door until the November 14, 2012 meeting even though the applicant was present at the October meeting. It was an outline of all of the variances required and a statement as to the showing that Open Door needs to make with respect to those variances. She stated that some of those statements are correct and some are incorrect and they want to make sure they convey to the Board their belief as to the controlling standard that Open Door has to meet with respect to the variances. The Chair discussed the requests in order. The first concerned the request for a site plan of proposed of site parking areas. The Chair stated that Ms. Tortorella's response pointed to one of her exhibits and spoke about Phelps Hospital having an excess of 4 9 1 parking spaces. He asked Ms. Tortorella if that was based on full utilization of the hospital. Ms. Tortorella stated it was based on utilization of the existing improvements on the site. She also stated the exhibit was a letter from Phelps planning Consultant, Andrew Tung from Divney, Tung and Schwalbe. She pointed to item 5 on the second page of this exhibit, which indicates the existing parking on the Phelps site exceeds the zoning requirement by 4 9 1 spaces. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 19 �Sean McCarthy stated that the first page of the Tung letter from June, demonstrated Mr. Tung has not calculated any of the required parking for the existing hospital. He also stated that after two amendments from the master plan, the actual 32 additional parking spaces were not constructed. Mr. McCarthy stated they did not count the hospital, the residency building, Building 9 or floors 1 and 2 of the new medical facility. He stated the hospital couldn't count spaces they didn't build. Janet Gandolfo stated it was totally appropriate for Mr. McCarthy to ask for a site plan since the applicant has made it an issue that there is parking available at the hospital. There have been improvements at the hospital where the parking has not kept up with the improvements. Mr. McCarthy stated it was required under Village code under the section that requests offsite parking. Geraldine Tortorella stated the June 5, 2012 letter was submitted at the Planning Board stage and the issue was never indicated to us that this was an inadequate assessment of the parking that was available at Phelps. Ms. Tortorella stated they had done a survey of the available parking at Phelps and counted upwards of more than 565 spaces during various times. She stated they felt the analysis was adequate and they also believe there is a clear indication that the parking on site at Phelps could accommodate 40 spaces. Ms. Tortorella asked why the Village has never required Phelps to do a zoning analysis based on the existing hospital because there have been approvals for improvements at Phelps that the master plan is the basis of and why is it being asked for at this point in time. Janet Gandolfo stated the determination of the Planning Board was a different consideration. She stated that Open Door is asking the Zoning Board to approve a variance for parking and they are basing their application on their statement there is plenty of available parking at the hospital site. She stated the Zoning Board needs to know this statement is accurate and Mr. McCarthy is asking for the plan on behalf of the Board. Geraldine Tortorella stated if the master plan didn't require the existing hospital to be counted in the parking number, then why is Open Door being asked to make sure it is counted now, when they are talking about 40 parking spaces and they have a survey result that shows there is an excess of 560 spaces available. Sean McCarthy stated that the master plan was not followed. He stated that Phelps did not construct parking they said they would and there have been several modifications to the master plan which is the reason Phelps has still not received a Certificate of Occupancy from the Village. Mr. McCarthy asked for clarification of how many spaces are available at Phelps and the breakdown of where those spaces are required throughout the facility. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 20 �Geraldine Tortorella asked if the Village were interested in an existing condition type of site plan and where Open Door's 40 parking spaces would be located as well as the existing parking. Mr. McCarthy also added the Andrew Tung's table analyzing the required parking should be complete and shows all the buildings with all the floors and the required parking for each. Janet Gandolfo stated the applicant needs to show the parking for the Phelps site now and what spaces are allocated for each use on the facility and then where would they intend to put the parking for the Open Door. Ms. Tortorella asked if it was fair for the applicant to base this on existing improvements, not what might be able to be built in the future. Janet Gandolfo agreed to existing improvements but no existing occupancy. Keith Safian, CEO of Phelps, stated that Phelps built more parking than was required by the Village code. He stated they would give Mr. McCarthy the documentation he requested. Discussion ensued regarding which site plan from Phelps the applicant could work from to provide the parking information to the Board. The Chair referred to Item 3, known as the Grotto resolution, approving the hiring of a crossing guard. He stated his understanding that the applicant had not spoken about this with the appropriate authorities but they have suggested it be included as a condition. Geraldine Tortorella agreed and stated it be a condition of approval they would have to demonstrate compliance with in order to move ahead with any construction. Timothy Judge asked for some kind of outline as to salary, benefits and overhead costs for the crossing guard so the Board could understand what is covered under this arrangement if the arrangement is to be made. Michael Wernick asked if the Board had ever imposed a crossing guard condition on any variance. The Chair stated that since he has been on the Zoning Board, there had not. Michael Wernick stated the implication is that citizens don't know how to cross the street. He stated he didn't believe it was the responsibility of the Zoning Board to address that issue when talking about a parking variance. The Chair stated that if the Board feels it is a dangerous to cross in that area, then the applicant is suggesting this as a way of mitigating the danger. Michael Wernick stated there are many business in the area that people will cross the street for so why do we think this business requires a crossing guard. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 21 �The Chair stated the applicant is suggesting it and the question is how practical is this suggestion. Ms. Tortorella stated the applicant doesn't have to pursue this if the Board doesn't feel it is necessary or appropriate. The Chair read Item 4: the number of patients that are residents of Sleepy Hollow. He stated this had been covered by the applicant's charts. In regards to Items 5 & 6, a feasibility study, the Chair stated it seemed clear from the documentation that the applicant is asserting there are structural deficiencies in the current Open Door location that make if unusable. He asked if the landlord was refusing to do repairs. Ms. Tortorella stated this information was already in the Building Department and they were aware of what the problems have been with that building Ms. Tortorella also stated that they provided communications from two consultants that indicate the structural issues Open Door encountered when they wanted to install an elevator. She also stated that Open Door had historically had difficulty with the landlord maintaining repairs. Since Open Door needed to add space and could not install an elevator, they began to look elsewhere for appropriate office space. The Chair stated he was trying to understand the difference between the space not being usable because of repairs the landlord won't make, between changes Open Door could make but don't want to make, versus structural defects that just could not accommodate the use the applicant would like. Ms. Tortorella stated Open Door began to look for an alternative location when the landlord wouldn't make the repairs but subsequently the landlord has been required to make some of the structural repairs. Sean McCarthy stated the Building Department is aware of one structural repair that was made and there are no other violations on record at the Building Department. The Chair asked Ms. Tortorella if the landlord were to make all the repairs necessary would that accommodate all of Open Door's needs. Ms. Tortorella stated it would not because of the accreditation committee for the residency program indicated the current space at 80 Beekman would not work. She stated Open Door had already purchased the location at 300 No. Broadway before the landlord had made the repairs. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 22 �The Chair stated that the applicant has provided the lease agreement requested in item 7 but the Board has not had the chance to review. He mentioned Item 8: a copy of an employment agreement regarding use of off-site parking. He stated the Board would review and asked if this was a draft. Ms. Tortorella agreed it was a draft. Item 9 - an amended traffic study - the Chair asked if this would be provided to the Board by next month. Ms. Tortorella confirmed this. Item 10 - Define Family Medicine Residency Outpatient Program. The Chair stated this was a definitional issue. Item 11: Indicate if the Family Medicine program accepts other than low-income families. The Chair asked Open Door if their position is that they must make service available to all income levels. Geraldine Tortorella stated that Open Door does not only provide services to low-income people. They provide services on a sliding fee scale. Open Door's experience indicates they provide services to low-income population much more than those who have private insurance. She stated that for Open Door to become licensed as a federally qualified health center, they need to demonstrate there is a particular need in an area for their services because either doctors can't or won't provide services to a population that needs those medical services. The Chair stated he wanted to cover the side yard variance that Ms. Tortorella referenced in response to Sean McCarthy's October 15, 2012 memorandum. He stated there was a change in the layout designed to increase the open area in the parking lot. Ms. Tortorella stated that the need for the side yard variance applied to either site plan they had submitted. She asked Mr. Gianfrancesco to indicate where that variance is located on the plan. Gary Gianfrancesco indicated an area on the plan that represents an area less than five square feet. He stated the reason for the stair at this point was a desire to limit pedestrian access from New Broadway; therefore the parking level became the main handicapped access to the facility. He stated that the main entrance had to be in close proximity to the elevator to make it as handicapped accessible as possible. The Chair asked if this changed the requested variance. Mr. Gianfrancesco said it did not but the stair tower does not protrude into the side yard any further than the existing building that predates this structure. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 23 �Sean McCarthy asked if they were now constructing a stair and area within that side yard. Mr. Gianfrancesco stated the stair is currently proposed to service a utility area that is proposed under the stair, which does not exceed parking lot grade. They thought the question revolved around the stair tower but would be willing to eliminate the access to the utility area if necessary. The Chair made a motion to reopen the public hearing that was adjourned from last month. John Craft from 54 New Broadway stated he thought the shuttle bus would be taking people to Phelps and patients would not be walking to Phelps as mentioned if Open Door were located on the Phelps site. Mr. Craft also mentioned that when pedestrians cross at the crosswalk on Broadway, vehicles are allowed to make the turn from Beekman Avenue onto North Broadway as well as the vehicles making the turn from Bedford Road onto North Broadway. He also stated there is a clock timer at the mentioned crosswalk, not a hand and he pointed out there is no crosswalk at Lawrence Avenue across Route 9. Kimberly Martinez of 117 Depyester Street stated it was more convenient for her to see a dentist at Open Door's proposed location rather than at their location in Ossining. Vladimir Klemenko from 64 New Broadway stated that his neighborhood of Webber Park is not unanimous in its' opposition to the proposed Open Door facility. He stated he felt the tone that Open Door was subject to at this meeting was skeptical and hostile. He also stated that Open Door has addressed issues of parking and safety and the patients who should be concerned for their safely area absent from the meetings. He stated the concerns of the public were not about safety but about property values. Mr. Klemenko also stated that the important concern was the public health risk of a working class population not being able to get health care. Ed Andrews of Spruce Street stated that this proposed facility would be an asset to the community and an enhancement to the neighborhood. He mentioned previous suggested uses of the space that all required parking variances. He stated he didn't think whatever was built could meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Andrews suggested an option for the Village to issue parking permits to restrict parking to the residents along New Broadway. Mr. Andrews also stated he felt the medical center would blend in with the neighborhood and enhance the community of Webber Park. Cynthia Scharf of 64 New Broadway stated that the intersection where the Headless Horseman Bridge is located is much more of a danger than the crosswalk to Open Door. Ms. Scharf stated her concern over who Sleepy Hollow wants to be as a community and as a neighborhood. She stated she would like to live in a place where there is room for an Open Door. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 24 �Julio Wellington from 58 College Avenue is the owner of National Taxi in Sleepy Hollow. He stated he trains his drivers not to have to turn into the property from the opposite side of the street but approach it on the same side. He doesn't' believe people will park on New Broadway and he is won't drop off patients in Webber Park. He also stated he uses Open Door's facility and is very happy with their services. Arthur McKinley who resides at 18 Kingsland Road stated that Open Door is a great organization in this Village. He stated it was a perfect use for the building and he is in favor of it. Generis Mardell from Ossining, New York is a patient of Open Door and believes it is a great idea for Open Door to expand. She stated as a mother she is concerned with safety and makes sure her son crosses the street properly. She stated we need to educate each other as to how to make the crossing safely. Dr. Naida Henriquez, M.D. resides at 2 Riverview Farm Road in Ossining, NY. She stated Open Door has over 40 years of community commitment in Ossining and also in Sleepy Hollow. She stated they would bring much needed services in healthcare and education to the community. Ann Gashey from 22 Church Street in Tarrytown. She is an employee of Hackley school and used to live in Webber Park. She stated she is an Open Door client and has been for about a year and a half. She has recommended their services to colleagues and feels they are a fantastic group of medical practitioners in the community. She stated the outcome of not integrating our community would be more dire than the problem of making a left turn off of Route 9. Ed Oliveira from 117 Van Tassel Avenue stated that his street is a cut-through for those attending activities at Philipse Manor restoration. He stated the Board is not adversarial but conducting due diligence to represent the people in Webber Park. He also stated that Open Door knowingly purchased a building with the knowledge that they would need an excessive parking variance. He believes that people will travel down Route 9 if there are no parking spaces in the lot and make a right onto Gordon Avenue, go up Holland and cut through New Broadway. Grace Beltran, employee of Open Door stated that the gentleman who spoke before her doesn't understand what Open Door is all about. She stated that Open Door is being responsive and speaking on behalf of their patients needs. She stated his concerns go towards NIMBYism (Not In MY Backyard). Margaret Rubick who resides at 12 Spruce Street in Webber Park is a professional health advocate. She stated she wrote to the Planning Board in May 2012 supporting the move of Open Door to 300 Broadway. She stated it would be an asset to the neighborhood and we need to be more inclusive and provide healthcare to everybody. She also stated that Open Door pays $100,00/year in taxes and has spent thousands on plan after presentation and Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 25 �these meetings area costing the taxpayers money too. She felt it was important for the community to work with Open Door. Mario Belanich of 153 North Washington Street asked if Open Door could provide home health care services. He also stated that parking law says a business must provide parking for their employees and if not they can have another area not more that200 feet from their business that they also own. Not drive them from Phelps Memorial Hospital. He asked how many people who use Open Door live outside Sleepy Hollow. He stated they mentioned outside the 10591 zip code but Tarrytown is part of that zip code too. Mr. Belanich also stated there have been problems with parking on New Broadway and Lawrence Avenue before when the space at 1 New Broadway was occupied by Tappan Motors. He asked if there would be a public hearing again next month. The Chair replied there would be a public hearing again. Marian Oliveira lives at 117 Van Tassel Avenue stated she is trying to understand why Open Door feels justified in moving their practice to 1 New Broadway. She stated that Open Door should have met with the Building Department to determine the applicability of this location for their use. She mentioned Mr. Grotto the previous owner, came before the Zoning Board at least 10 times for parking variances and she believed he claimed he was expecting 4 visitor per hour and he was providing 22 parking spaces. Ms. Oliveira stated she walks to stores and will not cross Broadway at the location the traffic consultant has stated is a safe crossing. She also gave examples of instances where there was excessive traffic due to weather or street closures and asked how pedestrians would be expected to cross safely when vehicles can't get out of New Broadway safely. Ms. Oliveira stated this would be the only Open Door facility located at an intersection of two State Routes. It would be the only facility that doesn't provide adequate parking. She asked what recourse the Village would have if they granted the variance based on employees of Open Door parking at Phelps Keith Safian, CEO of Phelps Memorial Hospital for 23 years. Mr. Safian responded to the silliness of crossing the street. He stated that the high school and grammar school students cross safely and that should be the focus not the adults who are crossing to Open Door. He stated that Phelps is facing an 80 million dollar cut because of the Affordable Care Act but at the same time are trying to expand by having this residency program. The residency program cannot succeed without this Open Door site. Mr. Safian urged the Zoning Board to not let this stop Phelps and Open Door in doing the right thing for the community in providing good access to good healthcare. The Chair made a motion to adjourn the public hearing portion of this meeting. Linda Moron seconded the motion. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 26 �The Chair stated that the emphasis of this meeting has been on parking, traffic and pedestrian issues. He asked Geraldine Tortorella to be prepared to address the parking, traffic and pedestrian issues. Geraldine Tortorella stated she has a sense of the issues Open Door needs to develop and adjust further. She asked the Chair for what additional pedestrian information the Board requires. The Chair stated the Board has to review all the materials given to make sure they are accurate and credible from a statistical as well as practical standpoint. The Board will weigh the benefits against the potential detriments. Geraldine Tortorella asked if any Board members had any concerns with respect to pedestrian movement, path, numbers or location. Linda Moiron asked for more information on the shuttle schedule with the residency program and all the shift changes for the employees. Michael Wernick stated his concern about the frequency of the shuttle. Timothy Judge asked how the shuttle would work getting in and out of the parking lot with other vehicles entering and how can the loading space be used to deliver supplies needed by Open Door. He asked how Open Door would make this all work so traffic doesn't back up. The Chair stated that Route 9 is the sole artery running north and south through Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown and even a small disruption can cause a significant effect. Ms. Tortorella stated they would provide additional traffic analysis. Maria Gorete-Crowe commented that the Board is not making this hard for Open Door but rather trying to make it safe for everyone. She stated she is a nurse and knows that healthcare is needed but her biggest concern is safety. The Chair made a motion to adjourn this matter until next month. He stated the Zoning Board meetings area the third Wednesday of the month. The next meeting would be January 16, 2013. 3 ) Rafael Mota 1 8 8 Cortlandt Street Public Hearing The Chair read the public hearing notice for this application. Jaime Hernandez, architect for this project, and Rafael Mota, the building owner, presented this application. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 27 �Mr. Hernandez stated the garage would now be part of this application and the proposed parking spaces are zero and his client proposes to use his garage on Chestnut Street as parking for his restaurant. Mr. Hernandez stated the building has 10 parking spaces of which four are already in use and one was for the take-out restaurant. The applicant is increasing the parking spaces by six for the restaurant, which will have 33 seats. Mr. Hernandez stated that there is not much parking for Mr. Mota's clientele and in order to attempt to provide parking, he would like to utilize the existing garage even if it is valet parking to fit those 4 or 5 cars. He stated his client doesn't feel he will need those parking spaces. The Chair stated that the zoning calls for 10 parking spaces and one loading space. Michael Wernick asked if the garage is now providing spaces and how many. Mr. Hernandez stated the garage was being used for storage for another tenant but that matter has been resolved. Sherry Bishko asked if clients can drive in and park or would it be just valet parking. Mr. Hernandez stated the garage was around the corner from the restaurant. The applicant felt it was better for valet to park because they could fit more cars in that space. Timothy Judge asked if the previous parking tabulation had changed. He asked how many parking spaces are needed and how many do they currently have. Mr. Hernandez stated that they need 10 parking spaces and 1 loading space. He stated if the owner uses the garage as it is, then they could provide 2 parking spaces. Michael Wernick asked if there currently was a business in this location, Mr. Hernandez stated it was a take-out restaurant that they want to convert to a sit down restaurant. Michael Wernick asked if the take out restaurant was currently in operation. Mr. Hernandez replied it had not been in operation for about two years. Michael Wernick asked if this was a business that was open before with no parking spaces. The Chair stated this business was a 4 seat take out restaurant before and now they want to be a 33 sit down restaurant that requires 10 spaces. Linda Moiron stated they required fewer spaces when it was a take-out restaurant. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 28 �Sherry Bishko stated that this restaurant has a requirement of 10 spaces and maybe could provide three. Linda Moiron asked Sean McCarthy if the spaces were legal spaces. Sean McCarthy stated he had not seen the spaces. Timothy Judge asked if the tenant who occupied the garage is out of that space. Janet Gandolfo asked if the restaurant and the garage were located on the same property. Mr. Hernandez replied that they were. Sherry Bishko asked if the spaces were difficult to access by customers. Maria Gorete-Crowe asked if the garage was being torn down to provide the spaces or were customers going to park in the garage. Mr. Hernandez stated the customers would park in the garage. Discussion ensued about the restaurant location. Michael Wernick asked if this restaurant would cater to local clientele. Mr. Hernandez agreed it would. The Chair asked how many parking spaces would the restaurant have needed as a take out restaurant. Mr. Hernandez replied one space. The Chair asked why the restaurant stopped operating as a take out restaurant. Mr. Hernandez said it had progressed to being a sit down restaurant and that's when it became an issue with the building department. Sean McCarthy stated they had converted it to a bar without a permit and this is the owner's attempt to revert to a more compliant use. Mr. Hernandez stated the kitchen is not changing but they are making the bathroom more handicapped-accessible. The Chair stated that the plan makes it looks like they area maximizing the space with many tables and chairs. Mr. Hernandez stated that was for the purpose of parking calculation. Linda Moiron asked if this was the same size space as the take out restaurant. Mr. Hernandez replied yes. Michael Wernick asked Sean McCarthy if this plan fits into the occupancy for the building code and egress requirements. Mr. McCarthy stated the plan complied with the code and requirements. He stated they could actually have up to 49 people with the current arrangement of that space. Timothy Judge asked if that would include staff. Mr. Hernandez agreed. Michael Wernick asked the square footage. Mr. Hernandez replied it was 900 square feet. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 29 �Mr. Wernick asked why they are making the occupancy so high with such a deficiency of parking. He also asked why they don't make it a 20-seat restaurant so the variance is not so severe. Mr. Hernandez wanted to account for all the space. The Chair asked if this was a viable business as a take out restaurant and pointed out that as a take out they would only require one space. Mr. Hernandez said at the time the take-out restaurant was operating they didn't have the garage space. The Chair stated that assuming the three parking spaces in the garage were legal, they could still have a 15-seat restaurant with no variance. Mr. Hernandez stated with valet parking they could park more cars in the garage. Linda Moiron stated they applicant still doesn't have the loading space. Michael Wernick asked if the applicant were to consider reducing his occupancy, it wouldn't appear that he would be losing any income and he would be reducing his requirement for parking spaces. The Chair agreed that if the applicant were to reduce table occupancy to a number that was at or close to 15 and the assumption that the garage provided legitimate parking, which would substantially reduce the number of the requested variance. The Chair could not say they would necessarily grant the variance because they still have the 200-foot rule for the restaurant separation plus the loading space, but that would make it a simpler decision. Timothy Judge asked about the parking status on the corner of Cortlandt and Chestnut Streets. Sean McCarthy stated there is no loading zone there on Cortlandt and there is parking on both sides of the street. He also stated there is parking on only one side of Chestnut and a hydrant on the south side of Chestnut Street. The Chair asked if Mr. Mota would consider reducing the occupancy. Mr. Hernandez stated he would. He also stated he could make adjustments to 24 seats. Michael Wernick stated that 25 seats requires 5 parking spaces and he would be more inclined to consider the application at that number. The Chair asked how often the restaurant received deliveries. Mr. Hernandez spoke to his client in Spanish. He translated that Mr. Mota said they received deliveries twice a week. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 30 �The Chair asked if the delivery trucks double-parked in the street. Mr. Hernandez stated Mr. Mota said for several small supplies they deliver all at once to an area. The Chair asked Sean if he needed to make a physical inspection of the garage to determine how many legal spaces were there. Sean McCarthy stated the architect could illustrate the parking layout on the plan. Then the Building Department will do a field inspection to verify the plan corresponds with the actual conditions. The Chair asked if it was appropriate to wait for the parking verification to be completed before the Board makes a decision, versus make a decision now based on conditions. Janet Gandolfo stated it was better to have all the plans in the record before the Board makes a decision. She stated the applicant would have to come back next month for a public hearing. The Chair suggested Mr. Hernandez and his client work with Sean McCarthy and substantiate the garage spaces. The Chair made a motion to open a public hearing for comments. Timothy Judge seconded the motion. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. There were none. The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. Timothy Judge seconded the motion. The Chair made a motion to adjourn so the applicant can address the concerns of the Board. Michael Wernick added the suggestion to lower the occupancy of the restaurant. Sherry Bishko added that the applicant had to confirm parking spaces. The Chair asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There were none. The Chair made a motion to adjourn this matter to next month. Sherry Bishko seconded the motion. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 31 �4 ) Approval of Minutes September 19, 2 0 1 2 October 17, 2 0 1 2 November 14, 2 0 1 2 Timothy Judge made a motion to approve the October 17, 2012 minutes as amended. The Chair seconded the motion., The Board voted in favor. Tom Capossela was absent. The Chair made a motion to approve the November 14, 2012 verbatim minutes. Michael Wernick seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor to approve. Tom Capossela was absent. Peter Koffler asked for the minutes of September 19, 2012 to be changed to reflect that he was absent and Mr. Judge was Acting Chair for that meeting. Timothy judge made a motion to approve the September 19, 2012 minutes subject to the requested corrections. The Chair seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor. Tom Capossela was absent. The Chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Michael Wernick seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 12:02am. Zoning Board Meeting, December 19, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 32 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_2012-12-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text