https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a81f4ffda18b23966153b1a1371e9608.pdf c9c80438b89fea07451f26b8915ab2c0 PDF Text Text A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow was held on Thursday, November 20, 1997 at 8 PM in Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York. Present: Donald Stever, Chairman David Perlmutter Joanne Becker Betsy Sawyer-Gaylin Nicholas Cicchetti Donald Caetano Absent: Also Present: Edward McCarthy Janet Gandolfo, Village Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Stever called the meeting to order. Before moving to the regular order of business, discussion ensued on preliminary matters. The Planning Board members discussed the violations at the gas station and grocery store located near Dell Street. The Building Inspector stated that he has sent the Village Prosecutor, Emanuel Lobato, a request to prepare an Information to get the owner into court. Discussion also ensued regarding the owner of the property located at the corner of Clinton Street and Beekman Avenue who would like to build an eight unit apartment house on that lot. Chairman Stever made a motion that the applicant come before the Planning Board on December 18, 1997 for a preliminary review, motion was seconded by Mr. Perlmutter and carried unanimously. The applicant would then go before the Zoning Board in January, 1998. Antonio Rodrigues - 358 N. Broadway-Philipse Plaza John Hughes, attorney representing Mr. Rodrigues, addressed the Board commenting that they are here this evening to have the expired resolution that was adopted on February 15, 1996 granting the site plan approval for Philipse Plaza reinstated. He gave a brief explanation of the project since it started back in 1994. One of the members of the board asked why the applicant allowed the approval to expire. Chairman Stever commented that a coastal consistency form needs to be filled out. John Hughes commented that he will do that. John Hughes also commented that he wanted to adjourn the public hearing set for tonight on the other site plan approval for the building formerly known as Antonio's Cabinetry. 1 �Much discussion ensued on an additional ten foot setback for the Cabinetry building. Mr. Perlmutter commented that the Board should not reinstate the site plan approval for Philipse Plaza until Mr. Rodrigues moves the other building back an additional ten feet as requested. He stated that the two developments should be looked at as a whole in order to obtain the best possible site plan approval for the developer and the Village. Mr. Caetano commented that one variance has nothing to do with the other and the original site plan approval for Philipse Plaza should be reinstated. More discussion ensued on the appearance of the structure of the proposed Cabinetry building. Mr. Stever asked the Applicant whether he owned the former cabinet shop at the time Philipse Plaza was approved. He replied that he owned that lot but not the adjacent lot to the north, which he acquired subsequently. Mr. Stever noted that with the expiration of approval for Philipse Plaza, the Board arguably has a legal obligation to require the submission of a site plan addressing both Philipse Plaza and the new project. John Hughes stated that reinstating the site plan approval for Philipse Plaza is one project and the property known as Antonio Cabinetry is another. He commented that in all his experience, he has never found that any of the Boards ever denied the reinstatement of a approved resolution that had expired. His client is anxious to move forward with Philipse Plaza. Mr. Stever pointed out the absence of authority in the zoning ordinance for extending an expired approval. Mr. Perlmutter noted that the steelframethat remains in place was erected unlawfully and is an eyesore. He suggested that delay of an extension of the expired approval would provide the Applicant with additional incentive to modify the site plan for the new building. Mr. Cicchetti felt that one project has nothing to do with the other and commented that the Board should vote on the reinstatement of the original resolution. He moved that the February 15, 1996 resolution for site plan approval on Philipse Plaza be reinstated, motion was seconded by Mr. Caetano. A discussion was held concerning the fact that the Zoning Board had acted to provide additional parking variances to accommodate a reconfigured building for the new project. 2 �Mr. Caetano, Ms. Becker and Mr. Cicchetti voted yes, Mr. Perimutter and Ms. Gaylin voted no. Chairman stated vote was 3-2. Mr. Perimutter asked why the Chairman didn't vote. Discussion ensued on whether or not the Chairman could vote. Village Attorney stated that Roberts' Rules of Order dictate that the Chairman may vote if he wants to, but must vote if there is a tie. The Chairman then voted "no" which resulted in a tie, therefore the motion did not pass. Don Stever commented that Mr. Rodrigues should come back to the next Planning Board meeting with revised plans for the Antonio Cabinetry site plan, at which time the extension of the expired approval will be made. More discussion ensued among the board members regarding the applicants two proposed projects. There being no further business, Mr. Perimutter moved, seconded y Ms. Becker and carried. Respectfully submitted, Angela Everett Recording Clerk �Copy Village oi IMeepg Haltem Planning Board Donald W. Stever, Chairman November 21, 1997 John J. Hughes, Jr., Esq. 49 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Antonio Rodriguez Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to set forth the import of the Board's action at its November 20th meeting with respect to Mr. Rodriguez's request for an extension of the expired site plan approval for the "Philipse Plaza" segment of his proposed development on North Broadway. You may wish to communicate the substance of this letter to your client, so as to eliminate any misunderstanding on his part as to the status of the request for an extension of the expired approval. The Board did not deny the request for extension of the prior approval. What transpired at the meeting was that a motion to approve the request failed for lack of a majority vote in its favor. There was no follow-up motion made to deny the extension and therefore no further action on the matter was taken. The status of the matter thus is that your request for an extension of the expired approval of Philipse Plaza remains on the Planning Board's docket. My intention is to take the extension matter up at the same time the Board considers the merits of your client's pending application for site plan approval for the northern portion of the property, which 1 assume is likely to be next month 1 am hopeful that an amended site plan will be submitted to the Board at that time that will be sufficient to enable the Board to approve the project and extend the expired approval for the contiguous area. Very truly yours, Donald W Stever Cc: Planning Board Village Attorney Village Clerk (for tile) �Donald W. Stever 157 Millard Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 October 13, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE John J. Hughes, Attorney at Law Sleepy Hollow National Bank 29 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Antonio Cabinetry: Site Plan Submission Dear John: On Saturday, October 11,1 received in my mailbox a revised set of site planning documents, apparently hand delivered. I have reviewed those documents since the matter is scheduled for consideration at this week's Planning Board meeting, though we should have had them on Friday. There remain several gaps in the submission, which I will point out to you in this letter. First of all, let me say that this project bears all of the earmarks of the apparent absence of a qualified site planning consultant as part of the project team. It has been my experience, in many years of involvement with site plans, that architects normally do not attempt to engage in site planning for commercial developments. You may wish to urge your client to engage the services of a land use planner, if it is not too late for him to do so. I have noted the following, which the Board requested be available before a public hearing on this project are absent from the submission: (1) a traffic study including analysis of ingress and egress points; (2) a detailed site lighting plan and (3) a drainage plan. The plan still does not provide scaled curb cut drawings and other features normally contained as part of a New York site plan submission. The Board is not in a position to act on the application without these items, and it is not sufficient that they be delivered to the Board on the night of the meeting. Based on these gaps alone, I would have to recommend that consideration of the project be deferred for another month. I have also noticed that the Coastal Consistency Form contains one error. The box relating to the project being undertaken within a LWRP district is erroneously checked off "No". Because the entire Village of Sleepy Hollow is within the LWRP planning district, and since several of the local policies are directly applicable to the Route 9 corridor, you should submit a revised form, along with a discussion of how the proposed project fits within the relevant LWRP policies, including the policies relating to . This should not require an extensive amount of work, but it must be done. Because the Planning Board must concern itself with such matters as traffic circulation and the general public safety and welfare, we must be apprised of such things as the points of ingress and egress from the retail space by tradesmen as well as by the general public. The site plan your client's architect has submitted does not indicate whether this will be a single tenant or �., . . « a multiple tenant retail building. The exterior sketches imply a multi-tenant retail use, but the building footprint gives no indication of how many separate retail units there will be, where the customer entrance points will be and how inventory for those units will be delivered and how waste, such as packaging, will be removed from the building. The proposed building does not seem to provide for rear entry access to tenant space for employees and trades people. No accommodation is made for rear access, and none seems possible. As this plan is laid out, one has to infer that deliveries will be brought in and trash will be removed via the front door. This is not acceptable for a building so close to Route 9. We will need to see how this critical issue will be handled. Traffic circulation issues disappear, as largely does the problem presented by the absence of rear ingress and egress, if the front of the building is set back an additional ten or so feet from the currently proposed setback location and a service lane is constructed in front of the building connecting the south parking lot with the remainder of the development. The service road, which can easily be tastefully screened, would serve as a truck unloading point during off hours, and would allow traffic during retail business hours to flow one-wayfromthe south parking lot to the north lots and onto the side-street that parallels Broadway, and is served by a traffic light, thereby eliminating the necessity of egress to Broadway at a point where there is no traffic light, which the current plan necessitates. Since the presently non-conforming steel frame must be cut and new upright steel posts and footings placed to accommodate the limited variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, setting the building back another ten feet will not add significantly to the cost of construction. Close review of the proposed addition at the southeast corner of the building reveals that the square footage that is lost by the further setback from Route 9 can easily be gained by simply extending the new wing farther to the south toward the island in the parking lot. Only two or at most three parking spaces will be lost. The ZBA has already indicated a willingness to grant additional parking variances, and the loss of a couple of spaces east of the addition is not significant, particularly in view of the fact that patrons entering from the south would be able to drive around to the north side of the building if the southern parking lot were full - which is not possible given the current configuration of the building and lot. As I have indicated in conversations at Board meetings, I am very interested in seeing this project built. The points made in this letter are intended to provide sensible guidance toward that end. .Very truly yours, c" Donald W. Stever Chairman, Planning Board Cc: Janet Gandolfo, Village Attorney Planning Board Members James Margotta �Donald W. Stever 157 Millard Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York October 23,1997 John J. Hughes, Jr., Attorney At Law 49 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Antonio Rodrigues: Site Plan Dear John: Thank you for your prompt response to my letter of October 13. Since at your client's request, the Planning Board adjourned the October hearing, which had was itself an adjournment of a hearing that was noticed for the September meeting, I suggest that you re-notice the hearing should you wish the matter to be placed on the agenda for the November meeting of the Board. Before addressing the more fundamental issues, I want make certain that there is no misunderstanding on the point of what an adequate drainage plan involves. We received a letter from Agostino Paese which discussed the capacity of the existing sewer mains and storm sewers. I am assuming that this letter is not intended to be a drainage plan, for it would be inadequate for that purpose. A site drainage plan includes capacity calculations such as those Mr. Paese provided, but it must also show (1) the location and size of on-site catch basins and the pipes conveying on-site drainage to the public storm drainage system; and (2) the location of roof drains, downspouts and leaders and how roof drainage will be conveyed from the bottom of the leaders to the storm sewer. We have seen no such plan for this project. I have several comments on the points made in your letter, which I will make for the sake of convenience in numbered paragraphs. Before doing so, however, I would like to call your attention to the sketch attached to this letter. As I indicated in my October 13 letter, my desire in these communications is to be helpful in view of the absence of involvement by a professional site planner on this project. The attached sketch, which I have made from your client's most recent draft site plan, demonstrates very clearly how the structure can be set back an additional ten feet and the lost square footage regained by simply extending �John J. Hughes, Jr. October 23,1997 the ''Proposed Addition" to the south. Two, and at the very most, three, compact parking spaces are lost (depending on how much room is devoted to the relocated dumpster. There are a number of site planning advantages to this arrangement, and it also, in my view, enhances the flexibility of the rental space. • • • • • The dumpster is placed in a much better location, completely screened from public view. The front of the building is further set back eliminating any residual intrusiveness, thereby eliminating any basis for further public opposition based on the setback and bulk. The additional setback would allow for the development of a future optional vehicular passage from the south to the north areas of the development The new configuration provides flexibility for the placement of some retail entrances on the south side of the main part of the structure and entrances within the mall area to retail shops located in the expansion wing. A rear entrance is possible if a tenant desires a rear entrance for employee access/stock loading etc. - whereas there is no provision for a rear entrance in the present plan. No additional setback variances appear to be required. Now I will comment on some of the points made in your letter: 1. While the precise nature of tenant access, materials access and the nuances of internal configuration of the space are, as you state, matters that are determined at the time of leasing the space, the basic building plan must conform to a set of reasonable commercial real estate norms. I know of no upscale retail space that does not have rear access. A quick look around Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown confirms this. If "back office" access is going to be from the north and south sides of the building, then indicate it as such on the plan. Side access effectively limits the main part of the building to two tenants, although the architect's renderings imply that there will be as many as four retail units. 2. I understand your point about truck deliveries. However, even light retail uses require deliveries in and out, and our observations of other local light retail operations have been that such deliveries tend to be via the rear entrance. I am not necessarily advocating a vehicle lane in front of the �John J. Hughes, Jr. October 23,1997 building (I am not necessarily advocating anything at all - simply making suggestions that a site planner would make). A wide esplanade would clearly be better than a narrow esplanade and a drive-through lane, though the latter may, at some point, become an operational necessity in view of the site constraints. 3. I categorically disagree with the claim that removing an additional ten feet of structural steel will cost your client significant money. It will cost him no money at all. He has increased the cost of his project by proposing an addition, which gives him greater square footage than was provided in his original proposal. That cost increase also will presumably yield additional rental revenue. 4. Regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals, I have the following comments. First, the Planning Board did not refer your client to the ZBA "to determine the appropriate setback for the building/' The ''appropriate" setback is a site planning issue. The Planning Board simply told your client that his proposed site plan could not be approved because the setbacks violated the zoning ordinance. Your client applied for a variance. As I understand the record, the ZBA did not grant the variance your client requested, but agreed to a different setback variance that was propounded as an amendment. We have no formal documentation that any variance was granted at the present time, but even if we assume that a variance was granted, that variance does not establish the "appropriate" setback for the structure. The Planning Board will make that determination as a part of its site plan review. I am providing these comments as constructive suggestions. Obviously, your client is free to pursue his own course, and I am not by suggesting consideration of these modifications indicating how I may vote or how any other member of the Planning Board may vote on whatever site plan your client finally presents. However, I would hope that he will give these suggestions serious consideration, as I believe that if they are adopted the site plan will be improved by them. Very truly yours, Donald W. Stever �it> - . ' - ' " i."i /i-..riM,.,--) �MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD Of the VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Held at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday/, September 18 #,1997 At Village Hall, Village of Sleepy Hollow/, New York Re: 358 North Broadway/. Village of Sleepy Hollow. Presiding: DONALD W. STEVER/, ESQ./, Chairman. Members of Planning Board Present: Joanne Becker Betsy Guylin Don Caetano Ed Mc Carthy Nicholas Cichetti David Perlmutter Also present: Janet Gandolfo/, Esq./, Village Counsel David Schiff/ Village Planner Jim Margotta/, Building Inspector Mark Di Gennaro/, Village Engineer AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE 175 Main Street White Plains/ New York 10601 �2 Also present: Antonio Rodrigues/, Applicant. John H. Hughes,, Esq. Attorney for Applicant Lou Contadino Architect for Applicant Contadino Architects/, AIA 436 East Putnam Avenue Cos Cob/ Ct. 06807 1^ N D E X ££2£ John Hughes 6 Lou Contadino 12 David Schiff 19 Mark Di Gennaro 32 Gus Paese 35 Peter Castrone 40 Richard Piano 41 �1 CHAIRMAN STEVER: Why don't we come to 2 order. 3 application for site plan approval submitted by 4 Antonio Rodriguez. 5 this application on June 10 along with a site plan 6 checklist and a short environment assessment form. 7 We are aware that the applicant needed The one matter on the agenda tonight is an 8 certain variances 9 project. Just as a recap/, we received in order to proceed with the We did two things: 10 In the June meeting/, we referred it to 11 the Zoning Board 12 to his 13 appointed 14 compliance purposes. process 15 of Appeals for the applicant, request ourselves for lead Subsequently/, variances/, and agency the for we SEQUA applicant has 16 apparently gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals 17 and has secured certain variances from the Zoning 18 Board of Appeals relating to front yard setback/, 19 side 20 number of parking spaces for the building of the 21 size that is proposed/ 22 dock requirement was removed by the Zoning Board 23 of Appeals. 24 25 setback/, buffer or rear yard setback/, a and I believe a loading We have received a set of the revised site plan dated August 15/, 1997; we received it �last week/ and tonight we September 18,, 1997 revision. page this of site plan have received a This is the first (indicating)/, which complies with my request of the applicant that we be provided with a site plan/, which provides both the previously appproved structure as well as the proposed structure/ and along with all of the curb cuts/, the parking and other accoutrements associated with the earlier approved building. I should say that the applicant had allowed the approvals on the prior building which is situated/, proposed to be situated to the south of the building that we have in front of us today/, lapse; but I am told by applicant's counsel that the applicant intends to build the other building and will be approvals for requesting that reinstatement building of the in due course/, and it thus is appropriate for us to review the site plan that contains both of these buildings so that the prior site development can be reviewed by us/, or I should say that the proposed site development can be reviewed by us in its relationship to the rest of the development on the applicant's property. Now/, I should say also that this matter was noticed as a public hearing as a result �5 of miscommunications village attorney. notice went out public hearing between the Chair and the We didn't understand before the that this would be marked as a tonight. It is our feeling that this matter is more appropriately set down for a public hearing next month and that that might have been asked/, whether it was ripe for a public hearing before the notice went out. I would not have allowed the notice to go out. We don't yet have a complete set of application papers/, and there are certain things missing from the site plan/ and I think that I would like to put off the public hearing until we have a complete set of papers on the project; and thus I would like for you tonight/, if the Board is willing as a forum/ to discuss with the applicant the details of the site plan and make suggestions to the applicant as to where we might like to see further work done and perhaps some modifications that the applicant might consider for public hearing to be scheduled for the October meeting. I have had preliminary discussions applicant about that earlier today. with the So I think it is not a surprise. That is my particular view on this. �6 John might want to say something on that. MR. HUGHES: problem. Yes. I don't have a We did go to the time and expense and the village had also in publishing the notice. So what I would like to avoid is doing that again. It would be redundant for them to do that twice. CHAIRMAN noticed hearing,, STEVER: It was a properly but what I would propose we do simply/, since we have a public hearing notice/ we can open the public hearing and then adjourn it. MR. HUGHES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STEVER: We can adjourn it to the October meeting. MR. HUGHES: Yes,, and I will just fill in your comments when you are ready and I will submit would a written like letter pertaining in whatever to the renewal form you of the Phillips Plaza application. I think I should do that writing for you. CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. matter of HUGHES: course Yes. And today I think for the it sake is a of consistency,, and this assessment form is something that is new to me. It is only a two-page form,, which I will submit to you as well. �7 In addition/ I submitted a short environmental assessment form and I will also submit the long form which I already did for the Zoning Board also. CHAIRMAN STEVER: It's the same form. You can submit it at the same time. MR. HUGHES: Also,, I think we agreed that we would be submitting a landscape plan to you. CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. HUGHES: Yes. In addition to which I can say right now that with respect to the landscaping on the property/ Board would like to proceed. however the My client is prepared to provide whatever landscaping that the village deems necessary. If you want to hire a professional to review this/, he'll do it. we I think you very adequately described where are procedurally. architect/, is here Lou before Contadino, you and the can describe once again the plans and variances we were granted/, quite frankly which I can do/, just stating again for the record that we received relief from the zoning code in terms of that we are ten feet back from the property line in tho �8 front* we are ten feet in the rear and we have 59 parking spaces and no loading space where 67 and a loading space are required by the code; so that was a discussion and where it ended up in the Zoning Board. So if I could let Lou just reintroduce you to this project/, both of them/, briefly MR. CAETANO: — Before you do that/, may we get some information. CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. CAETANO: Go ahead. Yes. You say you are going to have another public hearing right after we discuss this tonight/, right? CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. CAETANO: of the Board — feel — Right. O.K. I feel as a member I don't know how the other members but I feel after the public hearing that there's going to be more decisions changed in this project. Therefore/, I feel that we should have the public hearing understanding because the public/ from my outside and not here/( from talk/, hearsay/, is highly against this project/, for some reason which I will not mention; but if they could come here on a public hearing and we go into all of our process/, I think it's just wasting �9 Antonio's time and our Board members', time. I feel we should have a public hearing as soon as possible without it being in October/, not to delay this thing up until November and then and then it cannot continue. It's December up to the Board. CHAIRMAN STEVER: I will sayf although I share your concerns/, there is no reason for it. It is not my intent to create any delay here/, and I at least am not in the business of making decisions on site plans based on how many people speak for or against any particular proposal* My view technical role. is that our role is a We are asked to exercize our judgment and apply the law to the plans/, and that is what we are here to do/( and also to provide our judgment as to things that we have discretion in. MR. CAETANO: CHAIRMAN don't disagree STEVER: with agreement with you O.K. you/, SO/, you although know,, I am I in — MR. CAETANO: Many a time we had a certain party here not too long ago who wanted to develop land and the party was refused and there was a moratorium here at the time; and there are �10 1 things 2 attorney,, I'm 3 member 4 There 5 this 6 announcing 7 be a liability from this other party/, and I think/, 8 like I said/ 9 make a motion on that/ because it's going to cause 10 in this of that are — I'm not an a citizen of the village and I am a the Board/, and are things here thing from going in fact/ I do that understand are going to forward* with the here different plans. inhibit public things/, which there may if you wish/, I would like to a problem here. 11 I see we have a stenographer 12 would 13 stenographer. like 14 15 plan to know CHAIRMAN client is paying 16 MR. 18 offense is taken. MR. 20 glad to see 21 seriously 22 not out 23 as 24 this 25 any other to get is project/, be, and and for one good. place this because reason: I'm also/, No very but I I mean I am quite a bit/ not as much I hear a lot of talk I don't information and Very taking just mentioned to the some accurate m i n u t e s . in the community I used paying I think Mr. Hughes's Yes/ CAETANO: that is I stenographer. HUGHES: because we want who STEVER: the 17 19 also here. until wish to bring about forward it comes time for the �11 public hearing/ where maybe I could relate to them and you could relate to them or any member on ths Board could relate to them. But I feel that we should have this public hearing before we go any further on these plans so that we know/, and we are sitting here/ so we know what their needs are for this project and what their responses are on a lot of things that are on this table. CHAIRMAN STEVER: applicant's interest for I think it is in the us to work with the applicant. MR. CAETANO: Do you feel or do you have anything against doing that? I mean your client. CHAIRMAN STEVER: I think he is saying we should not do anything until we hold a public hearing. But my view on that is it makes no sense whatsoever,, as I had explained. MR. CAETANO: What good is a public hearing? CHAIRMAN STEVER: As I explained/, that notice was sent out/, in my view/( erroneously. We have actually opened a public hearing and I will certainly allow anybody from the audience tonight to express their views on this after we have had a �discussion with the applicant. My purpose is not to deny anybody the right to speak/, but my point is that this public hearing*, so to speak/, can only properly be held when we have a complete application before us* and we don't right now. So I am adjourning the public hearing until next — we will adjourn it/, we will hear from you tonight if you want to speak tonight when we come to that part of the session; but you will have a chance to come back in October as well because we will have a more complete set of plans and a better sense of what the project will look like. For landscaping example/ we plans available should have the by that time. Mr. Contadino/, do you want to proceed? MR. CONTADINO: explained with the Yes. As John Hughes what the variances were/, what we did ten-foot setback was*, we basically widened the sidewalk so as to create sort of a bigger area. configuration We of the did add building to the that present is there presently and did introduce a wider plaza which accents the entry into the building here and you can see here (indicating); and then we further set back the building some 48 feet at its extreme east �13 portion. The parking configurations are self-explanatory; everything sort of loops around the center with sort of a parking aisle in the middle. One of the concerns we had was trying to shield the cars along Broadway. is set back the parking seven And what we did feet from the setback line and created a slight berm in front of the cars so you wouldn't see a bunch of fenders and tail ends. And then dotted this little land- scape berm with decorative lighting which we are calling soft image lighting,, just to sort of enhance the character and the flavor of the building a little bit beyond. The previously approved project/, which is here (indicating)/ is sort of facing diagonally the historic district there/, across the way/, and seven cars that were designed for the previously approved building.garage are allocated to this building, which are the seven spaces that you see here. MS. BECKER: I'm sorry#( couia you say that again, please. MR. CONTADINO: submission,, which In the Phillips Plaza is this building here/, there �14 were seven spaces that were allocated to this building (indicating)/ which we are still currently using in our parking data* so that seven cars here are to be used exclusively for this one. Like John said/ we are currently working on a landscape plan which we will be able to get to you possibly the middle of next week for your review,, and I understand that we are also in communication with our site engineer as far as garage or any other information that you might need/ and I guess that should be following shortly as well. MS. GANDOLFO: On the variance? MR. CONTADINO: On the variance,, which was given for ten feet in the front. MS. GANDOLFO: I look sidewalk/ at that it's I'm just wondering/ as configuration sort of round/, and the but the building is straight across here (indicating). MR. CONTADINO: That portion of the building there/, the building itself/, is still straight and it will be ten feet at all points; actually at several points it may be ten feet threo. CHAIRMAN STEVER: But this brings up �15 another point*, which is that I'm used to seeing engineering site plans and/, you know/( one of our jobs here is to make sure that things such as the setbacks are in fact on the plans consistent with the variances granted; we have to be able to know exactly where the parking lines are and so forth. So with the next iteration of this I would like to have as an engineering site plan that was as of scale/, and that's more of a free-hand site plan/, and I'm used to seeing the engineering site plans. And that will take care of the problems like the one the attorney just brought up. MR. CICHETTI: Is this one to scale? MR. CONTADINO: Yes/, it is. MR. CICHETTS: This one here? MR. CONTADINO: Yes^ MR. CICHETTI: Then why can't we use that? CHAIRMAN STEVER: It's a free-hand drawing. MR. CICHETTI: It's this one here (indicating)? MR. SCHIFP: No. It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Well/, it's written to a scale/, but it's not to scale/, if you look at �16 1 the curb cuts here and there (indicating). 2 It's not — it's a free-hand drawing. MR. SCHIFF: 3 If I may* as an example, 4 and I have already discussed this with Luke/ 5 the park space that has a number 7 in it/ as 6 drawn 7 building; while that certainly can be worked 8 out/, but we can't tell from the plan that it 9 actually works. it backs CHAIRMAN STEVER: 10 11 MR. CONTADINO: 16 17 18 CHAIRMAN 21 22 23 24 25 STEVER: O.K., why don't I just bring out a couple of things that I have noticed/ some of which I have discussed with Mr. Hughes prior to the meeting*, a couple of things that I just want to pick off to you? Our zoning ordinance requires that we 19 20 I will entertain any questions that you have. 14 15 Do you have anything further? 12 13 up into the corner of the make a parking determination facilities that the off-street are adequately lighted/, which means that we need a lighting plan. MR. CONTADINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STEVER: list of things. So put that on your �17 MR. CONTADINO: The landscape architect is working on that. CHAIRMAN STEVER: going to be architecture/ Right. part make of sure If this is the that he landscape addresses that because I don't to have to send it back another time for a lighting plan. And I assume the engineer is going to produce the drainage sheets so we will see how the drains work? MR. CONTADINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STEVER: • I would appreciate it if on the landscape the architect could work with Mr. Schiff and we may want to discuss tonight's concepts that some of us on the Board might have for vegetation; but I would like Mr. Schiff to have some input into that before we see your landscape plan/ if that is possible/, and you can work it out with Mr. Schiff/( with his availability/, to review it based on discussions that we have tonight about the screening. And now,, John/, I am assuming that I am going to receive from you your reactivation letter that you are sending us along with �18 the environmental assessment form/, the so-called form,, if it is available? MR. HUGHES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STEVER: One thing you have,, and you and I have discussed,, is that you have some concerns about the traffic impact and whether or safety hazard coming not there created is a potential by strip generations in and out of Gordon Avenue as the sole means of ingress and egress to the large parking area here; and typically the way we address these things in site plan hearings is to have a traffic engineer do a traffic study that includes strip generation and termination and sight lines,, and if you will provide us with the basis to determine whether or not we have an increase or not an increase in traffic or whether we present a safety hazard here — I just can't tell from the plan whether we do or do not — but it's something that I would normally expect to see as part involves of a site plan commercial use, application particularly which one which does not involve a curb cut out of a state highway in which these functions are i �19 taken up by the Transportation. preliminary State So I discussion Department know about ve had that and of a it shouldn't take very long to get that through; but I would like to see a traffic study done by the applicant. MR. CICHETTI: Is there a curb cut just to the north of building 7? You have two curb lines. MR. CONTADINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STEVER: That is the curb cut that was related to the other building. MR. CICHETTI: Yes/ and from what l see here done is obviously coming along when they park here or here (indicating) MR. SCHIFF: — They are not connected. There's no connection,, and except for this building that only serves seven spots. MR. CICHETTI: No,, but I'm saying the cut goes into an open parking area/ where you go either left or right. MF. SCHIFF: Yes,, this whole section of this lot/, that has to go through. MR. CICHETTI: I'm not talking about this. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Yes,, that's the �20 principal lot for this building/ and that's if you are going to park for this building (indicating). That's where you're going to park. MR. CICHETTI: You should. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Well,, at this point we have no guarantee that the second building will be built within a reasonable period of time after the first building is built,, yes; but right now we can't park in there. It's essentially a hill side. It's overgrown in there/, so we have to look at the site plan that we have for this building/ and it's not to assume that you are going to be able to go in that curb cut and get over to this side of the building to park (indicating). So we have to assume that most of the people who use this building are going to come in and out of Court Street. I am just asking the applicant to do what people do all the time in this situation/, which is to provide us with a traffic impact study. MR. CICHETTI: study essentially Yes,, the traffic impact will include not Gordon Avenue/ which we are talking about only �21 right now,, but will include the other one,( which presumably will be Philips Manor or Philips Plaza,, rather. CHAIRMAN STEVER: point. Yes,, that's a good We have a funny jurisdictional issue here because we can't revisit the question of ingress and egress to the previously included approved site plan and MR. PERLMUTTER: — Why not? CHAIRMAN STEVER: Well, because it was already approved. MR. PERLMUTTER: It's not just the approval. We can revisit it to provide CHAIRMAN STEVER: Has the — approval expired? MS. GANDOLFO: MR. Yes,, it has. PERLMUTTER: That's the other question. MR. CAETANO: question. Hold it. I still have a Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Well, I believe that it is the curb cut for the Philips Plaza is correctly on Route 9 and Broadway. MS. GANDOLFO: Right,, and approved by the state already. that was �22 MR. CAETANO: Has the state asked anything for approval on this coming out on Gordon Avenue? CHAIRMAN STEVBR: No,, because the state has no jurisdiction. MR. CAETANO: O.K. Why does the village have to do a traffic study/ when you already have . a traffic study coining out there/, with people living there/, deliveries — I would say mostly just living on Marsh Avenue/ right there at the corner? I would say you have 350 cars that go in and out of that street. CHAIRMAN STEVER: that if the The problem/, Don/ is applicant's traffic engineer comes in with the guy who can tell us that/, he can tell us how many cars come in and out of that street now/ which way they turn when they come out/, and tell us based on standard methodologies how many additional cars will come in and out as a result of this use; and if the number of traditional cars that come out is not significant^ then •— MR. CAETANO: You know/, if the village would put a light there for Lawrence and �23 Gordon Avenue/. That's the biggest hazard you have. CHAIRMAN STEVER: The village has no jurisdiction over lights on Broadway. MR. CAETANO: You can ask for them. You'll never get it. It's too close to the place that we have here. MR. CAETANO: They've got full stops in the village every other fifty feet. CHAIRMAN STEVER: the applicant/, and I think indicated preliminarily MR. HUGHES: I made a request of the applicant — We will study the traffic effect of this project on Gordon Avenue and the safety aspects of making right and left turns from Gordon Avenue on to Route 9 and Broadway. I think that's what you are looking for. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Yes#, and the other one that I am looking for is a traffic impact study that is done for site plans like this all the time. MR. PERLMUTTER: factor? Can we posit one more I have tried to make that turn into Gordon when there's traffic and I have had �24 trouble making that turn into Gordon. I feel that it would be much better to have that curb cut out on to Route 9f; and could we have the traffic engineer posit both factors and figure out which one is safer? CHAIRMAN probably STEVER: I think that is something that we can suggest the applicant consider if he wants to look at it; I mean it is something — MR. PERLMUTTER: I would suggest that the applicant consider that and look at it. MR. CAETANO: I know that there are laws that take care of the cars on existing state highways and I know I fought that years ago with the homeowners/ and I think this is a law you have to have. Is there a hundred feet on that lot where you pull into Marsh Avenue? MR. HUGHES: MR. A hundred feet. CONTADINO: The frontage on Broadway? MR. CAETANO: it as an exception Yes. — MR. PERLMUTTER: be much better. Maybe he could get On Route 9 that would �25 CHAIRMAN STEVER: of the things Certainly it is one to consider, because if you have a problem you could put an angle curb cut so people can only turn right off of that lot. I don't think you can put a "no right turn,/' only on Gordon Avenue; that would make no sense because you never know/ it people; intervenes but you with can a have a — lot certainly of do you other that internally. It's something that you might look at in the course of the next couple of weeks. MS. BECKER: is that entire Don/, what you are saying exit from Gordon Avenue or vice versa? CHAIRMAN STEVER: problem. Well/ I don't see a I may differ with David on this. I never did see a safety problem anyway from entering the parking lot from Gordon Avenue because — MR. PERLMUTTER: There is. The problem is entering Gordon Avenue from Route 9. CHAIRMAN inconvenience/ STEVER: but from Yes,, it becomes an the safety problem �26 that I saw — MR. PERLMUTTER: That's where you are going to be rear-ended/ there (indicating). CHAIRMAN STEVER: — people coming down/, exiting from Gordon Avenue and wanting to turn south on Route 9/ or even if they turn north on Route 9/, there's lane by Dr. Green's/, from implying Mr. the Cabbage Rodriguez Building and is turning the Philips Manor Plaza/, and I'm afraid we will end up with accidents out there because of that/, because people come down there pretty fast and maybe that I am overseeing this in a traffic study/, that will tell me. So that's why it seems I want to go into this with a good record on the traffic impacts so my conscience is clear after all is said and done/ you know/r that I had the best advice that I had to get the traffic study. MR. SCHIFF: I would suggest if some issue was raised about perhaps the traffic signals probably you could ask for a traffic study to use to just look at the question if the traffic warrants it/, whether or not with �27 the increased traffic on Gordon/whether then there might be the possibility of getting a light there. CHAIRMAN STEVER: You have already got a light at Pocantico Street/, you have got a light 200 yards farther down. You know#( I just can't see the state putting a light at Gordon Avenue/ which is about 350 feet from — looking at those three lights/, I just don't see it. MR. CAETANO: that in Ossining. You have lights I don't see — like they're 100 feet; you have got another one 75 feet right up the road. CHAIRMAN STEVER: That's right/, you have got them in Ossining/, you have got them in Mount saying Kisco you something DOT's the same should you could requirements look way. at look for I am it/ at but to distances not it is determine between lights. MR. SCHIFF: There is also the metropolitan study. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Yes. I don't want to monopolize the discussion here. Any �member of the Board want to ask a question? Go ahead. MS. BECKER: Will the building be used for Antonio Cabinetry then? MR. HUGHES: No. MS. BECKER: What will the space be used for then? MR. HUGHES: Retail on the first floor/, proposed office space on the second floor. So we commercial envision tenants renting who it out to just be would providing you with household goods services, that type of business/, regular retail. MS. BECKER: to what Is the business similar is applying for space in Philips Plaza? MR. HUGHES: MR. Correct. PERLMUTTER: observation. It is my I just view that have one if this building were built in the more traditional way/ getting the proper permits and then building the building and having come to us with site plan approval before the building was built/, this site plan woulcl be totally unacceptable. O.K./, the building is too �29 imposing/, the parking is in the site the wrong place/ lines are really messed up going down Broadway; and I think even if you knock down the ten feet/, it's just going to be — I tried it; it does it again — I think you really should consider going back another ten feet/, and I know you have the variance. MR. CAETANOr Do you want to say something? MR. SCHIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. SCHIFF: Do you have comments? Well/, some of the things I guess have been taken care of. Number one on my memo/ the loading space/, I understand that they got mentioned to location shown dumpster — address: how a variance the for architect for garbage an issue they there is I no pickups/, for a you are that. want to them handle to that/, commercial/, solely for that? CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. SCHIFF: Right. Which is something not on here/, and the question that I raised before: on the north elevation/, as I mentioned before/, there appears to have been a loading �30 1 door. 2 considered 3 now. 4 would 5 something 6 that 7 door or just a window. 8 9 10 I the know way if the that is parking is still aligned I don't know if it would work/ how that relate is to that that; we need intended From about don't the my to to be memo driveway so that clarify* an 3 is I is whehther overhead number which this garage had now asked clear/now that you have shown the rest of the property. 11 Additional landscaping we have already 12 discussed; 13 plan,, if you could have a landscape 14 show 15 signs in and out/, directional signs. 16 a 17 sign to describe which are the compact spots/ 18 which are 19 have to 20 located. 21 the relationship of your directional signs to 22 any traffic signs in the streets/ 23 avoid any potential conflict 24 25 where and as there requirement MR. part would in the the regular show where And of be employees/, too. any landscaping spots. that architect free-standing ordinance the ordinance CAETANO: the There is there So you sign be a would would be also talks about Meaning I guess/, to there. signs for the �31 MR. SCHIFF: Whatever they are/, you know/ will be in the landscape plan, just to know where they go/ how high they are/, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Following up on the landscaping point/ it seems to me/, and again I am sort of addressing this to Mr. Schiff and to the applicant/ I would be interested in seeing a plan which involves at least in the critical sight line places rather mature trees*, right out of the box/ so that we are not waiting many years to have a tree grow up to modify the visual impact of the corner of the building as you view it from this street or from Philipsburg Manor/, and I am looking at both corners of the building/, and you will see I would be interested in making sure that you have some coniferous vegetation as part of your screening/ not just the trees and the leaves fall off in the winter so that you are sweeping and it's more or less consistent throughout the year/ so you don't lose it all in the winter/ that you have got some left; and that I am going to throw out to you to pass on to your landscape designer for the �32 landscaping plan. Any other questions from any of the Board members at this point? MS. GANDOLFO: We retaining walls in here. also have new You are also going to have to show how tall and whe.re- there are fences on these walls. All right? CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. DI GENNARO: the Chairman And our engineer? That is. exactly what addressed/ and also to reiterate/ and you have addressed it several times/ Steve/, already: seeing a more the detailed importance site plan of in two scale/ also showing the topography so we can get an accurate view of what the drainage patterns are going to be. Additionally/ some — used we are going to need I guess the existing building was for a cabinetry business or was a factory or had just one use or it was just one facility? MS. GANDOLFO: Just one use/( Antonio Cabinetry Production/, cabinet making. MR. DI GENNARO: Being it is going, to be a second floor office* second floor �33 retail/ increasing the amount of sanitary sewage that is going to be discharged into the village's system/, we need that addressed as well/, what volume we can expect and whether or not the system can handle it at that point. CHAIRMAN reason to STEVER: Do you have any believe that we have a massive problem there? MR. DI GENNARO: I don't know,, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Do you have any reason to believe that we have any capacity problem in that vein? MR. idea. DI The GENNARO: village I don't in the past have any has had certain problems in different •areas. Where they are certainly/, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Is there a low spot? Is this one of the areas where during rain events you get kind of a surcharge • and you get a back pressure? MR. DI GENNARO: Well/, there are areas in the village that have restrictions and we have looked at them very often in the past. �34 We have never done a detailed study for the village. I would have to research where these areas would be. MR. CAETANO: Do you want the village to do this or Mr. Rodrigues? CHAIRMAN STEVER: MR. DI GENNARO: No; the village. What we need from the village is the volume of sanitary sewage that is going to be generated from the facility and then also determine whether — submitted that is*, from the applicant* what capacity of the main that is going to be tied into us in that location is going to be. CHAIRMAN STEVER: — I would assume that who has that? MR. DI GENNARO: I think the Water Works Department/, yes. CHAIRMAN STEVER: the calculation multiplication And I would assume of the of the load is simply the number of bathrooms times some sort of standard cost for the use of the space/, and that is a computation that you do? MR. DI GENNARO: CHAIRMAN STEVER: Right. O.K./, any other �35 comment from the Board? MR. HUGHES: May I say something. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Yes. I was going to exhaust the comments from the Board and the people who are here. I will be happy to hear you* MR. HUGHES: Gus is our engineer here. I think he knows this stuff quite well. If you want to say something/ so we can just see what you want. MR. PAESE friend. (Gus): I feel I'm more a My first name is Gus/, Gus Paese. I have been a consulting engineer since 1968/ and that's thirty years for Tarrytown/ North Tarrytown and the Town of Ossining for the last twelve years. I received Rodriguez. I am retired. a call He says*. "Gus, from Antonio I need some help with some engineering at the site." I says/, "Where? " He says/, "Where the old Pickwich Post used to be." I said/, "What's the problem?" He says a little ' drainage huge wall in the back. and that "Wo\ild you take a �36 look at it?" And I says I would be happy to. I have been to the Pickwick Post many/ many times. There are absolutely no sewer problems in that area — eight-inch sanitary severs/, the design for the capacity of the final development of the area. So we can verify with the village or with the county* the environmental facilities/, to see if they have any problems with the sanitary sewer. When John Verrose (phonetic) was the superintendent of public works/ not being a professional engineer/ North Tarrytown retained me to do a survey and we got a grant for a catch basin improvement. increased the John Verrose size of the storm line that traverses the Pickwick Post parking lot from either an 18 or 24 to a 30 inch. We have four catch basins surrounding the corner enlarged down of Gordon and Broadway/, and we the size of the storm line coming from Katrina and into the basins on Gordon Avenue. There is a storm culvert that traverses the Pickwick Post parking lot/, and �37 it would be my suggestion that they uncover it and build a catch basin over it to drain the parking lot. I agree with the engineer/ and I told Mr. Rodriguez he must have an up-to-date survey of the parcel and he must have all the dimensions on the drawing. With years respect that Pickwick to traffic in all the I have been here/ Post was there and when the the auto dealership was there/, there was never any traffic problems coming in and out of Gordon Avenue. One of the driveways to the Pickwick Post parking lot lines up with Katrina. I suggested to Mr. Rodriguez that he remove the driveway very close to the intersection of Gordon and Broadway/ either move that further up Gordon Avenue or eliminate it completely. The concrete abutment at the rear of the property. in front assured of that anywhere. I asked him to dig a test pit the abutment that abutment The four feet thick/ so I could would be never go footing at the abutment is twelve feet wide; massive concrete structure. it's a Years ago/, when �38 I went in, I guess they didn't put in any reinforcing there rods. longer That than — abutment well* will it's just be a cosmetic crack in the center of the abutment; it's cosmetic only. out two inches/ that tree on The wingwall has moved and that's because there's the corner 105 feet away* an eight-inch root over the wingwall curved back and went in back of the wall. So the wing wall more or less has moved out/, but that's not a structural deficiency. I told Mr. Rodriguez I hate to go before boards because I was the consulting town engineer Planning Board. for the Town of Ossining It's time consuming and very costly* but I would be willing to state that there are no sewage problems there/ no storm drainage problems there/, and the abutment condition will be there after we are all gone. But I do agree with the Board: they should have dimensions. an up-to-date survey with I looked at all the stuff that they have here and I think it's beautiful. I think if that could be accomplished at that �39 corner/ which is really like the gateway to the village/ I think it's beautiful; but that's my own personal opinion. the Board's decision. It has to be But I will answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Will you be putting together the numbers we need/ because we need just the loading numbers to give to the Water & Sewerage Department and we need the drainage plans so we know where the culverts are and so forth. MR. doubt PAESE: it. I understand/, sir. I I refuse to do things like that because to my thinking it's repetitious and I can look at a building and I can tell you if it is good or bad. we can get engineer; a I But I will assist them if young will draftsman do the or a young trouble-shooting work/, I will get all the information that I can. With suggest highway. how respect that you to Route 9/, I strongly stay out of the state They will jerk you around God knows long. You're better off staying on Gordon Avenue and/, like your attorney said/, �40 if an existing curb cut exists on the state highway/, it's better that you hold on to it because if you give it up you will never get it back. I will aid them in any way I can. Any questions? CHAIRMAN indulge/, tonight we in STEVER: have a response public hearing. Thank you very much. If the Board will few to people the who cause came of the I don't want anybody feeling that we have wasted their time. You will have an opportunity next month to speak on this matter. But if anybody would like to say anything/, if you have any observations we are happy to hear from you. MR. CASTRONE: My name is Peter Castrone/, the owner of the Amco Station at Lawrence and Broadway/, right across from Mr. Rodriguez's property/, and I would just like to say that this town needs more people.like Mr. Rodriguez/. we need development in this town. Manor who are complaining this kind of The people in the about this job don't shop on Beekman Avenue/, they don't know what it is like on Beekman'Avenue. There's no place to buy sneakers in �41 this town. You can't buy jeans in this town. I mean we need people who want to bring business in and at the same time make the community look beautiful; and that's exactly what he's things doing. that we And 1 feel a lot of the are doing here are just holding him back/ we are just holding up the man/, and there are not too many people that want to be in this community when they have to deal with these things. We brought in Meinecke Mufflers. But it's hard enough to be in business here/, when we have hearings and hearings and more hearings and people don't show up and notices don't go month/ out and another gentleman think nobody month/, and is spending you comes. And next meanwhile this a lot of money. should take that I into consideration/, and it's costing him a lot of money to be here tonight. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Is there anybody else who has anything that they wish to say? MR. PLANO: I am Richard Piano/ president of the Phillipse Manor Improvement Association/, and I would like to state �42 specifically requested that that the our association proper has procedures take place in approving the zoning of the review board. We have made no statements about size/, architectural style of the building or anything. proper Our interest procedures appeared at is we wanted followed the beginning/ because when the it the steel girders went up,, that this was in violation of various codes that we had. So our position is here strictly that the appropriate board be involved in the project/, which is the architectural review. As an aside/, a summary of this meeting is whether this is very clear to Mr. Rodriguez and the people that he has here/, the architect/, the lawyers/, what it is that is required — that it has to be made next month/, because as I listened in/, I am not sure that every message has been communicated properly/, what precisely is needed so that the project can be completed and approved/ so I will state that in behalf of Mr. Rodrigues/ because there are things and I just want to make sure that things are clear and the Board �43 is not dragging it on and that it is carrying out the letter of the law,, which is really all that I ask you to do. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Thank you. I can assure you that those who know roe well know me to be an individual who believes in dealing officially in procedure and I don't take lightly cutting corners and I am also a stickler for'detail; and I thought we were pretty clear when we ticked off pretty specific things that we want to see from the applicants the site plan provisions — I think the applicant can understand what those are. Again,, I think we have discussed just about all of the jurisdiction over. issues that we have I mean if any member of the Board wants to bring up something else that we would like to discuss with the applicant,, right now is the time to do it. But we are moving forward here and my goal is not to look at these plans from now until the end of the year. plans in I am going to have these whatever shape we find them acceptable away from my desk as promptly as I can get them away from my desk so that we can �44 1 move on to other things. 2 We are going to be having your friends 3 from General Motors here in a few months and 4 we are going to be very/, very busy. 5 MR. HUGHES: To make 6 clear/, you 7 hearing next month? 8 9 John/, want a renotice CHAIRMAN STEVER: I think don't 10 renotice. 11 next month. 12 on this point/, but I you it absolutely for will legally a public tell you, have to We have adjourned the hearing for I will turn to learned counsel — 13 MS. GANDOLFO: 14 MR. PERLMUTTER: NO/, no notice — • Is it the result that 15 we have to adjourn for a month? 16 me to so move? 17 CHAIRMAN STEVER: Please do. 18 MR. PERLMUTTER: 19 Do you want I so move*, that we adjourn the meeting to the next meeting. 20 CHAIRMAN STEVER: 21 MR. HUGHES: 22 respect 23 Philips Plaza. All in favor? One final point with to the renewal of the approval of 24 CHAIRMAN STEVER: 25 MR. HUGHES: Yes? In ray 18 years of practice �45 1 here/( echoing Gusfl I have done that by letter 2 form/( by letter request form. 3 proper procedure? 4 MS. GANDOLFO: Is that the That's the way we 5 usually do it/, and then the Board will take 6 it up at the meeting after it has received 7 the letters. 8 each board you need an extenstion from 9 But/, John/, just remember that CHAIRMAN STEVER: 10 MR. CICHETTI: — Don't forget one* On that matter *( John/, 11 on the reopening 12 only 13 variances have been approved/, were approved a 14 year ago. of the Philips Plaza/, my understanding is that all zoning 15 CHAIRMAN STEVER: 16 MR. CICHETTI: On Philips Plaza? 17 CHAIRMAN STEVER: That's correct - 18 MR. CICHETTI: 19 On Philips Pl<*za. Does this mean that it now has to go through the whole procedure? 20 CHAIRMAN STEVER: NO/, that • s the 21 point. 22 apparently 23 received approvals which have lapsed because 24 construction hasn't commenced 25 apply for essentially a reinstatement Our is custom that here an in the applicant village who has can routinely �46 of the approvals. There may be a time bar on that at some point/, but this applicant hasn't run into that yet. MR. HUGHES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STEVER: Thank you very much. I think we have no other business tonight/, so I think that I will entertain a motion. MR. CICHETTI: I make a motion that we close the meeting. MR. PERLMUTTER: Second. CHAIRMAN STEVER: there is always O.K./ that's it/, and the third Thursday of the month. (Meeting closed at 9:10 p.m. and was adjourned to Thursday/, October 16/, 1997.) C e r t i f i c a t e I/, Thomas P. Foley/, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of New York/ do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate verbatim reproduction of my Stenograph Machine notes to the best of my ability. \Jl<cmd<t f. Thomas P. Foley/, CSR � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1997 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_PLAN_1997-11-20 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1997 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997