Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_10_09 Planning Board Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 9, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA Roll Call. Present:John Ortiz, Edmund Papazian, Ellen Dunkin, 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. Absent/Excused: George Roniger, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:00P.M. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of September 25, 2013 with technical corrections Action:Approved Moved by Ira Block, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. Mr. Ortiz recused himself APPLICATION NO. 1 Case No.296 1 Durham Road The Vice chair Ellen Dunkin stated the public hearing was closed last month and now is the time the Board will begin deliberations on all the information it has received. She thanked everyone as a result of the last 16 months the record is extensive and comprehensive. Ms. Dunkin gave a list of all the documents received since the close of the public hearing in no particular order. Raw data 1 Memo from Mr. Oliveri dated 10/9/2013 Letter dated 10/2/2013 from neighbors Letter dated 10/8/2013 from neighbors Letter dated 10/8/2013 from the Rosen's Letter dated 9/30/2013 from David Poneman Letter dated 10/4/2013 from neighbors Letter dated 10/52013 from the Schmelkin's Letter dated 9/15/2013 from Mr. Senor re: rock removal A packet from Cuddy& Feder dated 10/7/2013 Ms. Dunkin stated that she took a site visit and met with Mr. Saines to walk the property around school bus pick up time to check traffic. She further suggested to the other members also take a site visit. Ms. Dunkin stated that she also drove around the neighborhood. Ms. Hochman stated that if a quorum does a site visit she should be present also to confirm that there was no substantive discussion regarding the application. Mr. Marsh asked if Mr. Saines would accommodate the Board to which Mr. Saines replied yes. Ms. Dunkin asked whether members would like to make a statement or raise concerns as to how they feel about the application. Mr. Block stated he came to the process in the middle and finds the presentation on the quantitative analysis somewhat confusing, particularly after the neighbors retained experts. He further stated he read Mr. Oliveri's memo but was not sure if Hudson Engineering or Mr. Senors numbers are more accurate. He stated that it seems there will be many more truck loads then previously calculated. Mr. Oliveri discussed his memo with regard to cut and fill, stating he tried to work with both sides for a consensus.The CAD program that Hudson engineering used is presumably very accurate. There are a lot of variables and it is impossible to nail down exact amounts. The calculations translated to a 22 ton truck capacity with 5-9 trips daily over a 90 day period for the road and infrastructure. Michael Stein of Hudson Engineering stated that he and Mr. Oliver have gone back and forth over the calculations and suggested to Board Members that a site walk will clarify that there are areas without overcut. Mr. Block asked why it was necessary to do the calculations a second time. Mr. Oliver stated that he rejected the first submission out of hand stating he wanted the calculations done by a professional engineer. Mr. Block stated that until Mr. Senor wrote the letter there were short cuts taken and he added that this is a most sensitive subject to neighbors. Ms. Dunkin stated that the fact that the neighbors came and challenged the application is an indication that the process is working. The process of an open meeting gives the Planning board all sides to take into account. 2 Mr. Block continued that in light of the miscalculations with the rock he is concerned with the SWPPP, and the capability of the detention ponds. He stated that he believes there should be more retention, and the road should be moved. Therefore, he stated that under the circumstances he would be opposed to the subdivision. Chipping and Blasting was discussed as well as the time it would take to fill a truck. Mr. Oliveri stated that there should be about 230 truck trips as he went for the worst case scenario. Mr. Marsh stated that the Board is spending a lot of time regarding the trucks, when the Board should be discussing the protection of the drainage. Ms. Cooney stated although she has some concerns there is the protection of the performance bond, easements for each parcel and an engineer whose expertise the Board can rely on, and conditions can be written into the resolution for protection. Mr. Papazian stated that it is unfortunate that the parcel has a lot of rock and he feels for the neighbors, but that shouldn't hold up the project, the presentation is sufficient,the retention basins are more than adequate and the application should go forward. Ms. Dunkin agreed with the majority, she walked the property, her concern is to water issues. She further stated that blasting will come and go and the Board could put in measures to limit the number of trucks. She suggested that they need to take a hard look at the easement wording, drainage, and go forward with sufficient conditions. Ms. Hochman suggested that since the majority of the Board expressed an interest in moving forward, the Board look at the proposed Draft she prepared to facilitate discussion. The Board discussed the Draft resolution. The word "applicant" or"grantor" was discussed, Ms. Hochman stated grantor is forward looking, provisions of the easement will bind whoever owns the property. If necessary,the Town can make repairs and recoup the cost from the homeowners. Ms. Kane of 7 York Road stated that the neighbors only got to look at the Draft resolution tonight. Ms. Hochman explained that the Draft was recently circulated among the Board members and now it is part of the public record and subject to FOIL. Ms. Hochman repeated a point made earlier by Ms. Duncan that now is the point in the process where the Board has an opportunity to review and discuss all the information it has received. Ms. Kane argued that it was drafted without input from the neighbor's letters. Mr. Clifford asked why the resolution does not address the question of whether this is a staged development and expressed frustrations about other items of concern that were not addressed in the draft resolution. 3 Ms. Hochman stated that she prepared the draft based on testimony from the public hearings but now she has an opportunity to get input from Planning Board members. Mr. Clifford stated there are a lot of fill in the blanks, and asked if there will be another draft. Ms. Hochman responded at this point it is between the Planning Board members and counsel as there is a time line to meet. Julie Kane stated she is concerned that all the raised issues are not properly vetted and were not looked at until the neighbors paid out of pocket for consultants. It appears that the Board is moving toward approval and asked if the Draft takes into account the performance bond, etc. Ms. Hochman repeated that now the Board has to process all the information they have received,this is a work in progress. David Poneman, of 7 Durham Road, asked if the record can show that Mr. Oliveri's numbers now differ. Ms. Dunkin responded his memo is part of the record. Ms. Dunkin stated the Board is trying to discuss all the issues. Jeff Rogoff of, 17 County Club, stated that there has been a failed leadership, and wants a substantive conversation. Ms. Dunkin stated that is what the Board is attempting to do. Mr. Block stated legal issues need clarification, and questioned staged development. Ms. Hochman responded that it was discussed, and there is no definition of a staged development, but the Board's past practice and majority board member view is that this is a subdivision and not a site plan application. Mr. Clifford stated for the record the Planning Board is saying this is not a staged development. Ms. Dunkin stated that there will be no vote tonight, the next meeting is scheduled for November 13, 2013 and Mr. Alexander agreed on behalf of the applicant that they would consent to a November 13th vote. Hours of construction and rock removal were discussed Mr. Carpaneto stated that the hours of construction are Monday—Friday 8-8, Saturday and Sunday 9-5. Rock removal is prohibited Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Papazian stated blasting and rock removal should be permitted Monday thru Friday 9-6 Ms. Dunkin stated the neighbor's letter of October 8th asked that trucks be limited to 9:30-2:00 Mr. Block stated he is concerned that the 60 homes on Country and York are only accessible through Durham and rock removal is restricted to 180 days in a calendar year. 4 The removal of rock and fill was discussed as well as truck size and tonnage. Ms. Hochman asked for guidance in the wording of the draft regarding truck size. Mr. Oliveri stated certain activities could be limited. Ms. Dunkin stated the neighbors don't want trucks when children are at the bus stop. Ms. Cooney stated the more limits put on the project the more time is involved. Traffic control was discussed. Ms. Dunkin stated the neighbors request that all traffic exit the site onto Fenimore Road. Mr. Block stated there should be someone to make sure the construction activity doesn't interfere with free passage of residents, possibly an off duty police officer at the developer's expense. The landscape and buffer area was discussed. Mr. Block stated no trees other than those necessary and specifically specified should be removed. Ms. Hochman and Mr. Oliveri asked for a complete set of the last revised removal and planting plan. The buffer is shown on the site plan to be 15 feet and the neighbors have requested that it be 25 feet. Wording of the maintenance of the buffer in perpetuity was discussed. The fact there is no buffer between the proposed road and 4 Durham was discussed. The matter was temporarily adjourned to take the Special Use permits on the agenda. Mr. Ortiz resumed the chair. APPLICATION NO. 3 Case No.309 2434 Boston Post Road Larchmont Car Wash Michael Lage,the applicant, addressed the Board requesting a continuation of his existing business. Mr. Carpaneto stated there had been a complaint regarding noise from the use of a buffer in the rear of the car wash from the rear neighbor. Once Mr. Lage was informed he stopped and there hasn't been a complaint since. Mr. Lage stated that sometimes due to volume, detailing was pushed further to the rear of the property. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant what he could do to be a good neighbor,to which Mr. Lage responded to eliminate detailing under the canopy at the rear of the property. Mr. Gomez an employee of the car wash stated the buffer is not too loud. Hours of operation are 7AM-7PM 5 Mr. Papazian stated this is a onetime violation, but if it continues the Board would have to eliminate it all together, buffing should be done towards the front of the property. Ms. Hochman suggested memorializing the noise complaint as a recital which will flag this as a potential issue when it returns for another renewal. Motion:To approve the special use permit with the addition of a recital clause regarding the noise complaint Action:Approved Moved by Edmund Papazian, Seconded by Stephen Marsh. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. SPECIAL USE PERMIT Larchmont Car Wash WHEREAS, Larchmont Car Wash (the "Applicant") submitted an application for site plan approval and a special use permit for a car wash (the "Application") at 2434 Boston Post Road; Block 503, Parcel 326.1 on the Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Property"); and goods; WHEREAS,The Property is located in the SB-Service Business zoning district; and WHEREAS,a duly noticed public hearing was held on October 9, 2013; and WHEREAS,the Applicant seeks to renew a special use permit originally granted on December 10, 2008 and renewed on April 13, 2011 (the "Special Use Permit"); and WHEREAS,The Applicant has requested no changes to the conditions of the previously issued and renewed Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS,the Director of Building stated that there has been a complaint about noise but he believes the issue has been resolved; and WHEREAS,the Planning Board considered the application for renewal of the Special Use Permit, the plans, comments and responses to questions by the Applicant,the reports and comments of the Planning Board staff and consultants and heard interested members of the public; and WHEREAS,the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and that, therefore, no further action is required under SEQRA. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1. The Planning Board has made the following findings of fact with respect to the Special Use Permit 6 1. The proposed car wash is in general harmony with the surrounding area and will not adversely impact upon adjacent properties due to the traffic generated by the car wash or the access of traffic from the car wash onto and off of adjoining streets. 2. The operations in connection with the proposed car wash will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,vibration,flashing of lights or other aspects than would be operations of any permitted use not requiring a special permit. 3. The proposed car wash will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area and that by the nature of its particular location it will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. 4. The property subject to this Special Permit has no existing violations of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance. 5. The Applicant has demonstrated that there has been no change in circumstance in the area,which would require the Planning Board to deny this request. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Planning Board Granted the Application of a Special Permit for a car wash at the Property subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. There shall be no signage placed on the rear of the site. 2. No gasoline shall be sold at the site 3. Maximum hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. 4. There shall be no externally audible public address system, bullhorns or walkie- talkies on the premises. 5. All lights, except for security lighting, shall be turned off at the close of business. 6. All lights, including those for the driveway, shall be directed toward the building and away from neighboring properties, particularly the residential properties to the rear. The final plans submitted prior to issuance of any Building Permit shall shoe traffic lanes on the property for ingress and egress. 7. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions of the easement agreement relating to the buffer zone. 8. This Special Use Permit shall expire after two (2)years. 9. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-31 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.310 613 Fifth Avenue Citi Park Service Station Tory Shelton addressed the Board. Mr. Carpaneto stated there was a recent anonymous complaint, but when inspected by the Code Enforcement Officer there was no evidence to substantiate the complaint. There is a body shop next door that paints. 7 IIVa Motion:To approve the Special Use Permit Renewal Action:Approved Moved by Ellen Dunkin, Seconded by Edmund Papazian. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. SPECIAL USE PERMIT RENEWAL CITIPARK SERVICE STATION WHEREAS, Citipark Service Station, Inc. submitted an application for the renewal of a Special Use Permit on the premises located at 613 Fifth Avenue/2 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131, Lot 1 as a private auto garage; and WHEREAS,the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board (the "Planning Board") has determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and that, therefore, no further action is required under SEQRA; and WHEREAS,the Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on October 9, 2013; and WHEREAS,the Planning Board, has considered the application of renewal of a Special Use Permit,the plans and zoning report and environmental assessment completed by the applicant, comments and responses to questions by the applicant,the reports and comments of the Inspector of Building and/or Consulting Engineer to the Town and any comments by interested members of the public. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board makes findings of facts as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets. 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes,vibrations,flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit. 8 3. The proposed Special Use Permit use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. 4. The property subject to this Special Permit has no existing violation of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance. 5. The applicant has demonstrated that there has been no change in circumstances in the area, which would require the Planning Board to deny this request. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board GRANTS the application of Citipark Service Station for the RENEWAL of a Special Use Permit for a private auto garage subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The hours of operation of the garage shall be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m on Saturdays. 2. Petroleum waste shall be removed from the premises by a properly licensed disposer of such material. 3. The operation shall be limited to servicing corporate vehicles; it shall not be open to the general public. 4. There shall be no parking or storage of any vehicle on the four-foot wide area along the lengths of the Fifth Avenue boundary and the Valley Place boundary;these areas shall be striped;the words "No Parking" shall be painted on both sides of the Fifth Avenue side and Valley Place side. 5. There shall be no parking of any vehicles belonging to either employees or vehicles being serviced on Fifth Avenue,where the local law provides no parking. 6. No car parts or metal shall be stored outside the building except in the properly enclosed refuse containers. 7. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30B of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. 8. This Special Use Permit shall be valid for two (2)years from the date hereof. 9 APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.311 2430 Boston Post Road Nordone and Sons Public hearing Joseph Nordone addressed the Board. Mr. Carpaneto stated that there was a complaint from the same neighbor who complained about the car wash regarding noise. When informed of the complaint Mr. Nordone corrected the problem. Mr. Ortiz stated the permit expired over one year ago and advised the applicant to keep on top of the renewal. Mr. Block suggested that the permit be issued nunc pro tunc to last year. Motion:To approve the special use permit September 14, 2012 Nunc Pro Tunc Action:Approved Moved by Ira Block, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. SPECIAL USE PERMIT RENEWAL—NORDONE&SONS AUTO BODY, INC. WHEREAS, Nordone & Sons Auto Body, Inc. submitted an application for a Special Use Permit Renewal for use of the premises at 2430 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 421 to perform auto body and fender repair;and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq.,accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on October 9, 2013 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for the Special Use Permit Renewal, the plans and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant, comments and responses to questions by the applicant, comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets. 10 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit Renewal will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes, vibrations, flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit Renewal. 3. The proposed Special Use Permit Renewal use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board APPROVES the application of Nordone & Sons Auto Body, Inc. for a Special Use Permit Renewal for an automobile repair facility performing auto body and fender repair at the premises located at 2430 Boston Post Road subject to the terms and conditions set forth below: 1. Services on the premises shall be limited to auto body and fender repair. No repairs requiring breakdown of the motor, transmission or universal joint shall be permitted. Repairs to the electrical system shall not be performed, except as related to accidents and loss. 2. All heavy work shall be done on the upper level and only sanding, painting, polishing and reassembly of vehicles shall be performed on the lower level. 3. The applicant agrees to provide and maintain the pollution control services and activities as previously set forth in a memorandum from the Coastal Zone Management Commission, dated December 5, 1990, and such activities shall constitute conditions of this Special Permit. 4. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. However,drop-off and pickup shall be permitted outside of these hours. 5. No noise emanating from inside the building shall be audible outside the building and there shall be no externally audible public address system, bullhorns or walkie-talkies on the premises. 6. All lights, except for security lighting, shall be turned off when the premises are vacated for the evening. 7. All lights for the driveway and parking area shall be directed towards the building. 8. All doors shall be kept closed while work is in progress, except for times when the vehicles are moving in and out of the building. All work shall be performed inside the building. 9. The applicant shall maintain and use reasonably available odor control technology. 11 10. The applicant shall promptly furnish current copies of all required permits and renewals or replacements thereof to the Building Department in the event that any permit is revoked or lapses,for any reason. 11. The applicant shall use a containment tracking material in the exterior drains ("pig mat" or equivalent) and to have the mats collected by an approved toxic waste removal company. In addition, the application shall place a small piece of absorbent material in the interior floor drain to collect any pollutants before they enter the sanitary sewer system. 12. The applicant shall maintain all necessary permits from the Westchester County Department of Health and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation relating to air pollution emissions,waste disposal and spray painting processes. 13. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in section 240-31 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. 14. This Special Use Permit shall expire on September 14, 2014. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.301 16 York Road Consideration Michael Fairweather,the applicant, addressed the Board, stating he resubmitted a new plan for restoration. Ms. Paul stated that she has been in contact with the neighbors to get permission for restoration to their property and has received a verbal agreement as long as it is restored with the same type of plantings that were originally there--Forsythia. She is waiting for the Edersheim's to respond in writing. The board is discussed whether to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Fairweather stated he is aware that the Building Department can withhold a building permit until the violation is corrected. Ms. Paul stated the Board could have public hearing next month, but SEQRA has to be concluded and the applicant has to go to coastal zone. Mr. Oliveri stated the new plan addressed his comments. Ms. Hochman and Ms. Paul stated that no wetlands permit is required for restoration. The matter was referred to the Coastal Zone Management Committee and adjourned to public hearing November 13, 2013. 12 APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 308 529 Weaver Street Mike Charitou,the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Oliveri stated that the applicant went to Coastal Zone Management Commission which requested an increase in storm water retention to the 100 year storm that was done by the increase of a dry well,the plan has been signed off by the Health Department and is now ready for a public hearing. Ms. Paul had asked Mr. Charitou for information on the EAF, and would like to review the document to present at the next meeting The matter was adjourned to November 13, 2013 for public hearing the applicant will notify the neighbors and correct the date on the sign. Abby Katz The Advisory opinion and Recommendation Certification was discussed. Ms. Katz stated that Ms. Hochman and Mr. Block attended a seminar, as the Town has been put on a bad list, because it has been deemed that zoning excludes fair and affordable housing. Proposed local laws related to conflict of interest and notification distance were discussed and Ms. Katz stated Mr. Alteiri is looking into it and that he feels signage is more important. Motion: To approve the Advisory opinion and Recommendation Certification for the proposed local law related to fair and affordable housing Action:Approved Moved by Ellen Dunkin, Seconded by Stephen Marsh. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.296 Durham Road (resumed) Discussion continued on the landscape and buffer area. Ms. Dunkin stated that there is no buffer in the part of the property that is between the proposed road and 4 Durham. 13 Ty Schoffman of 4 Durham stated the location of the road determines the value of his property and asserted that the road should be moved over closer to Mr. Saines' property, as it would allow for a shorter, straighter road. Mr. Block stated that Mr. Schoffman's property has a large out cropping and the proposed road cuts through that rock out cropping. Mr. Oliveri stated the rock removal is on the Saines property, although the rock outcropping crosses the property line slightly. The placement of the road was discussed, the 150 foot sight distance for a road was discussed. Mr. Lachenauer stated that there would need to be a stipulation that the applicant be allowed to maintain a buffer between Mr. Schoffman's and the proposed road. Ms. Cooney asked if at this point the road was moved would drainage be affected, Mr. Oliver yes it would require a significant redesign. Ms. Dunkin again stated that the Board should do a site visit, Mr. Saines will show the property and where the road is intended to be placed. Mr. Alexander stated that the road has been in place for 18 months and the applicant is not amenable to moving it, if the road is moved closer the driver's reaction time would be less and the Town would not want to dedicate the road. The buffer 15 feet vs. 25 feet was discussed. Mr. Alexander stated that 15 feet is adequate separation that any more would reduce the yards. Mr. Lachenauer stated that the property behind two of the lots is land locked and heavily wooded Maintenance of the buffer was discussed. Mr. Block stated a restrictive covenant on the deed should be incorporated. Mr. Oliveri stated the landscaping should be installed as per the plan, maintenance should be at the discretion of the building inspector that it is in substantial compliance with the planting plan. Ms. Hochman stated that she would also put a note on the plat regarding the planting of the vegetative buffer to be maintained. The Board stated that they would keep the buffer 15 feet, continue it down towards Durham, shown on the plat and maintained when the road is completed. Ms. Hochman stated she will provide the proper language for the plat. The road was discussed. 14 Ms. Dunkin stated that the engineering standard for the road is a distance of 150 feet, if road is moved it would require a redesign of the drainage system, and it would not be code compliant. Mr. Block stated that the Board is calling it a road when it functions as a driveway for three houses. Mr. Lachenauer stated it is being built to Town standards. Mr. Alexander stated the Town may not accept the road if it is not up to code. Mr. Oliveri sited Town code 190-11,which drove the layout of the road. ADJOURNMENT The matter was adjourned for a special meeting Ms. Brill will check for available dates October 21st, November 4th, or 6th and email the Board. Mr. Arnold stated that the neighbors would like the road removed entirely. Ms. Dunkin stated that Board can only review the application before it. Mr. Pagett stated the Board should walk the site for a better perspective. Ms. Hochman stated that if the Board goes as a group she will go to testify the application was not discussed. Motion: To adjourn the matter to a Special Meeting date to be determined. The meeting was adjourned at 11:41P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Edmund Papazian, Seconded by Stephen Marsh. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Planning Board Secretary 15