Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_09_11 Planning Board Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA Application No. 1 Case No.296 1 Durham Road Public Hearing Required Approvals Subdivision Approval Town Code Chapter 190 Location 1 Durham Road District R-30 Project Description 4 lot subdivision Application No.2 Case No.301 16 York Road Consideration Required Approvals Wetlands and Water courses Town Code Chapter 114 Location 16 York Road District R-15 Project Description addition of new garage Roll Call. Present:John Ortiz, Edmund Papazian, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger, Stephen Marsh, Ira Block, Elizabeth Cooney, Also Present: Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel,Anthony Oliveri P.E., Consulting Engineer, Elizabeth Paul, Environmental Consultant,Abby Katz,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:01 P.M. Mr. Ortiz, the Chairman, stated that the Town Board has appointed Ms. Dunkin as Vice Chair, and Ms. Cooney as a member. MINUTES Minutes of August 2013 meeting Motion:To approve the minutes of August 14,2013 Action:Approved Moved by Ellen Dunkin, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=6, No= 0,Abstain = 1). Yes: Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. 1 Abstain: Edmund Papazian. PROPOSED AMENDMENT Bill Maker,the Town Attorney, and Stephen Altieri,the Town Administrator, addressed the Board to explain the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. This amendment would expand the previous ordinance that allows fair and affordable housing in the business and service business districts,to also allow it in residential zoning districts. The proposal comes from the model ordinance written by Westchester County and the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Pursuant to the proposed amendment,the required number of fair and affordable housing units (FAHs) in a development shall be 1 FAH per 5-14 dwelling units in a proposed development. The Town Board will have authority to approve or disapprove site plan and subdivision plats for 5 or more FAHs. The Town will not be part of the certification or marketing process for the FAHs. Once an application is deemed complete,the Town Board will refer the application to the Planning Board for a written advisory opinion. The Planning Board would have 60 days to issue its opinion. Mr. Maker stated that the Town Board will meet next week and will designate itself lead agency and hopes to receive a response from the Planning Board by the November meeting. Mr. Ortiz stated that he expects the comments will be in line with the previous zoning amendment. Ms. Hochman stated that she would solicit comments from board members and attempt to circulate a draft opinion for the October Planning Board meeting. Application No. 1 Case No.296 1 Durham Road Public Hearing Mr. Ortiz recused himself and Ms. Dunkin chaired the public hearing. Ms. Dunkin stated that the public hearing was left open to review the 2 items the Board had requested clarification on at last month's meeting--rock removal and the staging of materials and trucks. She further stated that the Board received Hudson Engineering's packet dated August 29, 2013, Mr. Clifford's packet dated August 19, 2013 and Mr. Oliveri's memo dated September 11, 2013. Mr. Lachenauer addressed the Board, stating that staging will be limited to the subject property during the construction of the road. The staging and delivery area is shown on the submitted plan. The rock removal was calculated as requested, and a sedimentation basin will be added while the road is being built. Mr. Oliveri discussed his memo. Mr. Lachenauer stated that there is room for two sediment basins—one on the lower and one on the upper end of the road. 2 Mr. Oliveri asked for more information on the cut and fill. Mr. Lachenauer responded he had no problem giving the raw data. The performance bond was discussed. Mr. Senor asked how the cut and fill calculations were obtained, as his calculations of truckloads greatly differs from Mr. Lachenauer's (162 vs. 800+). Mr. Oliveri stated the best thing to do is see the auto CAD design from the engineer, as his calculation also differed from Mr. Lachenauer's. Rock removal was discussed and it was agreed that Mr. Lachenauer will work directly with Mr. Oliveri to provide additional information. There were no questions or comments from the Board regarding a packet submitted by Mr. Clifford. Anthony Gioffre, applicant's attorney, stated the only 2 open issues have been discussed and requested the Public hearing be closed while they provide the information Mr. Oliveri requested. Mr. Block asked if there is a drawing plan that specifically identifies the removal of trees. Ms. Dunkin responded by indicating Plan A-1 and -2 on the Hines Landscape plan. The removal of trees was discussed. Mr. Block suggested that the trees on the lots should not be included on the plan and, rather, only the trees on the road area. Mr. Lachenauer responded that the Board had previously asked him to show all the trees on the plan. Ms. Hochman stated the proposed lots are of sufficient size to be subject to the tree removal requirements of the Town Code. Ms. Paul explained the Town Code's tree ordinance, stating that it protects trees over 6' in diameter and a permit is required for any additional trees outside the proposed building footprint Mr. Block stated that because the proposed building footprints are hypothetical,the Board would be approving part of a hypothetical plan. Ms. Cooney stated that the application proposes to take out 90 trees and replace with 350 trees. Mr. Senor stated that he thinks Mr. Block means that the Board can only approve the trees to be removed for the construction of the road. Ms. Dunkin asked Ms. Hochman if they could remove the tree removal from the lots and only approve the road area to address Mr. Block's concerns. Ms. Hochman stated a condition could be imposed to require that each lot must get approval from the tree commission to remove any trees. 3 Mr. Block explained his concerns regarding trees, lot coverage and erosion. Ms. Paul and Ms. Hochman explained that the Planning Board has authority pursuant to the subdivision regulations to impose conditions regarding tree removal and Ms. Paul recommended that it would be better for the Planning Board to assert its authority during subdivision approval rather than delegating its authority to the Tree Commission. Mr. Block asked when the buffer would be planted. Mr. Lachenauer responded that no Certificate of Occupancy would be issued until all the plantings on the lot are completed. Mr. Carpaneto confirmed and stated that the applicant can't obtain a building permit for a house until the road and infrastructure is completed. Therefore they can't clear any of the lots until building permits are acquired. There was discussion about the distinctions between site plan and subdivision review. Ms. Hochman explained that the site plan regulations do not apply to one-and two-family dwellings that are not part of a staged development. There was discussion about the meaning of"staged development." Ms. Hochman stated that although she maintains her opinion that this application is not subject to site plan review,the Planning Board has the right to impose reasonable conditions that would otherwise be associated with site plan regulations. Mr. Gioffre stated that they are opposed to the application being reviewed as a site plan as it is contrary to code but they are not opposed to reasonable conditions. Mr. Block stated he had a conversation with counsel, and was unable to find any reference in the laws of New York State as to what constitutes a staged development. He also stated that he understands that heretofore applications like this have been treated as a subdivision. Mr. Oliveri stated that by an engineer's standards, this is not large enough to be considered a staged development; it would require more houses and roads. Mr. Papazian stated his view that this application is not staged construction because there is only one proposed road and added that other applications of this size that have been before the Board were considered subdivision. Mr. Clifford agreed that there is no definition of staged development and asked the Board to follow Ms. Hochman's suggestion regarding the imposition of reasonable conditions. Mr. Gioffre responded that this is not a staged development, he agrees that the Board has the right to impose reasonable conditions but will not agree that the Board can retain jurisdiction that is not permitted pursuant to case law. Mr. Padgett stated that the public hearing shouldn't be closed until all the backup information is provided. 4 Mr. Poneman stated a site plan review is needed. Mr. Block stated others would like to know that the plan will not cause more flooding. Mr. Rogoff of 15 Country Club Drive stated he is concerned that children waiting for school buses will be inconvenienced, and also stated his concerns about access of emergency vehicles and fire trucks. Mrs. Saines of 1 Durham Road stated she is a neighbor of all the proposed houses and road, has children of her own and promises to make this a positive for the neighborhood. Mr. Oliveri stated that a performance bond is required for the road. Mr. Rogoff asked for bonds on the individual lots,to give assurances. Mr. Arnold, of 3 York stated this is a massive project, multiple years in phasing, although he believes this is staged this project can take years to complete and the neighbors are going to suffer. He further stated he wants the Planning Board to get the data first, he doubts anything will be done when neighbors basement floods. His concerns are water, traffic, chipping, blasting and deforestation. He stated that the neighbors will supply the Planning Board with a long list of conditions. Mr. Poneman stated that he believes the placement of the road is to get it further away from 1 Durham, and not necessarily the best placement. Ty Schofman of 4 Durham stated the reason why everyone has a problem is it is a large project and requested that the Planning Board keep the public hearing open until all the data is reviewed. Harris Freidus of 3 Ridgeway stated he believes this should be a site plan. Joan Rosen of 17 York Road stated this is a complex project that needs site plan review. Mr. Arnold agrees site plan review is necessary and that Mr. Saines is trying not to do site plan review. The Board should do more work to understand what you are getting us into. Mr. Harris asked if the Board can impose conditions to be enforced by the neighbors; an easement recorded giving the neighbors rights against the developer. Ms. Hochman responded that she is not aware of any condition the Board can impose to do that. Mr. Block responded that neither the Board nor the Town can do that. James Marsh of 18 York Road asked about the draft resolutions which had been earlier circulated and Ms. Hochman responded that drafts were prepared to assist Planning Board members and hopefully clarify and focus their attention to issues of concern. Future maintenance or noncompliance of the maintenance of the drainage infrastructure was discussed. Mr. Block stated the Town has the right of enforcement, Ms. Katz continued that the Town Code allows the Town to do the maintenance and bill the property owner. 5 Mr. Levere of Fenimore Road asked for a condition if a neighbor can prove that the new construction causes damage can the Board give neighbors a remedy without proving negligence. Mr. Roniger responded that such condition would have to be imposed as an amendment to the Town Code, and Mr. Block stated that it would have to start with the state legislature. Mr. Arnold stated the Board should do the work and get the data as he is concerned that the 100 year flood has happened 3 times in the last 7 years, blasting could change the water courses,the buffer should be 25 feet. Mr. Padgett asked who is responsible for damage from blasting and Mr. Carpaneto answered that the contractor is responsible. Mr. Padgett asked if a similar approach could be conditioned on the contractor regarding flooding, if the contractor has confidence in his engineer's calculations. Ms. Dunkin stated the Board is allowed to impose conditions as long as they are reasonable and not arbitrary. The Board is open to reasonable conditions. Mr. Levere again stated that the Board wants to protect the neighborhood but if the water is worse it is not fair to the neighbors that they have to pay out of pocket. Mr. Oliveri asked how a base line could be established,what kind of a conditions could be made, how determination will be made. A judge would have to decide and that would be very problematic. Ms. Hochman stated that any conditions have to address the land use impact. Mr. Gioffre stated the Board has ample information to make an informed decision tonight and noted that the Board touched on more than the 2 issues that were on the agenda, this has to stop. Mr. Arnold asked counsel while public hearing is still open if the Board could ask the developer to calculate 35%coverage. Ms. Dunkin responded no because that was discussed and decided last month. She recalled that the Board refused to make such request because board members deemed it would be destructive to the property. Mr. Block stated it can be revisited. Mr. Arnold stated that the water issue is front and center and more information is needed. Ms. Hochman stated the next decision is whether the Board has sufficient information in the record to make a rational decision. If so,there is a basis to close the public hearing. Or, the Board may decide to close the public hearing but leave the record open for the submission of written comments. After the public hearing is closed,the Board will continue to discuss and deliberate. However,the Town Code specifies that the decision shall be made within 62 days of the close of the public hearing. 6 Motion:To close the public hearing allowing (nunc pro tunc)submission of written documents for 20 days Action:Approved Moved by Edmund Papazian, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=6, No= 0,Abstain = 1). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. Abstain: Ira Block. Ms. Hochman stated that she will circulate a proposed draft resolution to highlight open issues and concerns. APPLICATION NO. 2 Case No.301 16 York Road Fairweather Mr. Ortiz resumed his role as chair. Treavor Spearman,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Fairweather was not present. Mr. Spearman gave an overview of the application, stating that there has been communication between the applicant and Ms. Paul and the adjoining landowner to correct the open violation. He further stated that deep tests and perk tests have been done and has found the perk rate is acceptable. The application proposes dry wells as a good will gesture. Mr. Oliveri addressed comments stated on his memo dated September 11, 2013. The Board discussed how to address the application and whether a separate application is necessary for the required remediation to the wetland buffer and the adjoining property that have notices of violation. Mr. Ortiz asked Mr. Carpaneto how violations are handled. Mr. Carpaneto responded that after Ms. Paul found work being done in the buffer, a violation was issued and when the property owner responds to an issued violation and attempts to remedy,the clock stops. If there is no response within 10 days a second violation is sent. If there is no response within 10 days a summons to appear in court is sent. No building permit can be issued to any property that has a violation. Ms. Paul stated a second violation was sent in May 2013, and talks are occurring. The owner of the adjoining property was recently sent a violation notice. Mr. Block stated his concern that someone who has taken about 2 years with a violation won't necessarily wait for a building permit. 7 Ms. Hochman stated that the Town Code is written against violator, not the landowner and Fairweather is the violator. Ms. Paul stated that the violation on the buffer is on both sides of property line and she previously showed Mr. Fairweather the survey so he knew it was not his property when he cleared it. A year later he cleared more. Mr. Papazian stated that the Board and staff would do their homework as to whether a wetland permit is required for the restoration component. Mr. Spearman asked if there is no agreement with the neighbor to fix the violation,whether the application would go forward. Mr. Block stated in order to be in compliance, Mr. Fairweather has to restore the buffer and the violation must be taken care of. Mr. Ortiz stated there has been no enforcement for 15 months and added that if there is no authorization from the neighbor then both parties will have to go to court. Motion:the matter was adjourned to October 9,2013 for consideration Action:Approved Moved by Edmund Papazian, Seconded by Ellen Dunkin. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Planning Board Secretary 8