Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_11_13 Planning Board Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 13, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 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 Public Hearing Required Approvals Wetlands and Water courses Town Code Chapter 114 Location 16 York Road District R-15 Project Description addition of new garage Application No.3 Case No.308 529 Weaver Street Public Hearing Required Approvals Subdivision Approval Town Code Chapter 190 Location 529 Weaver Street District R-15 Project Description 2 lot subdivision 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 Mr. Ortiz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of October 9, 2013 Action: Approved 1 Moved by Ellen Dunkin, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 0, Abstain = 1). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. Abstain: George Roniger. The applications were taken out of order APPLICATION NO. 2 16 York Road Michael Fairweather Mr. Fairweather addressed the Board stating he is proposing a new 2 car garage with a family room on top. The reason he is here is because the property is in the wetlands buffer and requires a wetland permit. Motion:To open the public hearing, nunc pro tunc Action: Approved Moved by Ira Block, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. Mr. Fairweather further stated that he has been before the Coastal Zone Management Commission ("CZMC") and they requested the dry wells be moved to the front of the house but that is not possible. He will try to put the rechargers as close to the house as possible. Mr. Carpaneto stated that they shouldn't be within 10 feet of the house. Remediation was discussed. Mr. Fairweather stated that both he and Ms. Paul have not been able to get a written response from the adjoining landowners, the Edersheims, for permission to remediate their property. Mr. Oliveri stated that the application would result in a net reduction of impervious surface, 330 sq. ft. is being taken out. Mr. Oliveri also stated that the applicant has responded to all the requests outlined in his September memo. He has no outstanding comments, the only issue is the offsite remediation. The perc tests were satisfactory, in a smaller storm event it will provide a water quality component. Impact on the stream was discussed. 2 Ms. Paul stated that because the infiltrators are in the floodplain, water that gets there is the water flowing over the lawn and restoration of the buffer would protect the stream. Maintenance was discussed. Mr. Oliveri stated that yearly inspection and certification is required, also the Infiltrators should be in the back yard. The Board discussed the application. As the Building Department can withhold a building permit Mr. Block stated that if there is a violation the Town Court can order the Edersheims to comply. There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. Ortiz asked Ms. Hochman to prepare a draft resolution and also asked the applicant to supply an engineer's letter regarding the placement of the infiltrators. Ms. Paul stated she will continue to reach out to the Edersheims. The matter was adjourned to Dec 11, 2013. APPLICATION NO. 3 529 Weaver Street Ms. Hochman stated the Board must conclude SEAR in order to open the public hearing. Ms. Paul made a presentation to the Board. The shared driveway was discussed and Ms. Hochman stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals "ZBA" cannot grant a variance on the property without two approved, subdivided zoning lots, but if the Board requires a shared driveway it could be made it a condition of approval. Mr. Block suggested that the Planning Board ask the ZBA if there are any impediments to the granting of the variance as it would be a mistake to proceed without their input. Mr. Block questioned whether an environmental impact statement would be required. Mr. Charitou responded that the length of 2 separate driveways would not be much different from the shared driveway plan presented. Each lot would be about 6/10 of an acre, and the percentage of impervious coverage is 23.2 & 25.2%which includes the shared driveway. Motion:To accept the Negative Declaration as modified and conditioned on shared driveway 3 Action: Approved Moved by Ira Block, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Ellen Dunkin, Seconded by George Roniger. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. The applicant stated that all notices went out Mr. Ortiz stated he would like to see plans showing two 2 separate driveways and shared driveway for comparison. Mr. Oliveri stated that the two driveways are not practical. The Board discussed the application. Public Comments Robert Abrams of 531 Weaver Street, the nextdoor neighbor, stated that he has seen the plans and is pleased. The plot now is like a jungle and he is looking forward to the houses being built. He thanked the Board. Mr. Charitou stated he would like to start construction on lot 2, even if the subdivision doesn't go through. Both existing structures would be demolished. If a subdivision is approved and the shared driveway granted, a variance and easement would be required for access. Mr. Oliveri stated that everything is good with engineering and no blasting is planned. Mr. Ortiz asked Ms. Hochman to ascertain ZBA thoughts on a possible variance and Ms. Hochman agreed. The next ZBA meeting is scheduled for December 4, 2013. 4 The matter was adjourned to December 11, 2013. APPLICATION NO. 1 1 Durham Road Mr. Ortiz recused himself. Ms. Dunkin stated that last week they discussed the proposed draft resolution and now have a new draft, which incorporated the suggested comments. Ms. Dunkin further stated that the Board received a letter from Mr. Senor dated November 13, 2013 and although the record is officially closed, the letter was accepted it into the record. Mr. Gioffre objected. Mr. Roniger stated he was concerned about disruption to the neighborhood because of the road and asked if the Board has the right to deny on that basis. Ms. Hochman stated that the alternative location for the proposed road is permissible and would possibly require less rock removal; however, each Board member would need to determine whether there is a rational reason to deny the application before the Board. Mr. Gioffre stated the Board discussed the location of the road and came to a decision previously. Mr. Block stated he addressed the issue and was met with a wall of objection, the applicant has not demonstrated any flexibility. Mr. Clifford, attorney for the neighbors, stated there will be a temporary discomfort from blasting. The Shofmann's property value will be affected negatively, trees will be removed which will permanently damage the neighborhood. Neighbors have asked to move the road to reduce the impact. Mr. Block asked if Mr. Clifford could explain Mr. Senor's plan. Ms. Dunkin showed the plan to explain. Mr. Block further stated that the change would reduce the amount of rock removal. Mr. Stein of Hudson Engineering stated that is the minimum of the best practice standards and they have reduced the rate of both volume and runoff. Mr. Clifford stated the Planning Board has to take all information into account, and objected to counsel stating the need for rational reason. 5 Mr. Block stated there was no expert testimony regarding the value of the adjoining property, although Mr. Shofmann's house will most likely be impacted. Ms. Kane asked if the meeting can be recorded stating she thinks it being done. The Board discussed the draft resolution. The filing sequence of the plat and the easement was discussed. Performance and maintenance bonds were discussed. It was suggested that the length of time the Town holds the bond should be longer. Mr. Block read the provision in the Town Code, Section 95.19 into the record. Mr. Gioffre quoted Section 277.9 of the New York State Town Law, which limits bonds to 3 years, and with respect to the laws of construction, he asserted that there is legal precedent to construe any ambiguity of zoning laws against the municipality in favor of property owners. Ms. Hochman stated she agreed with Mr. Gioffre's assertion. Mr. Block stated the easement runs in perpetuity. Mr. Padgett of 20 Country Club Road asked why the bond lengths are different. Ms. Hochman stated the 3-year limit is for a subdivision performance bond, the maintenance bond is under the purview of the Town Building Inspector and the engineer, not the Planning Board. Mr. Padgett suggested a length of 10 years. The Board discussed the length of the bonds and Mr. Block stated that he initially thought a longer period would be an undo imposition on the applicant. Mr. Marsh stated the Town has the right to be compensated in perpetuity for any repairs required that the home owner neglects to do. Ms. Dunkin stated it would be onerous to extend the bond beyond 3 years but inspections should be yearly. Mr. Oliveri stated Inspections are needed on an ongoing basis, required by the Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), irrespective of the Planning Board's decision. Ms. Dunkin stated the bond is to insure that something is completed and working, and, as such, 5 years would be adequate. 6 Mr. Arnold asked for something protecting the neighbors and asked for a baseline survey at the cost to the applicant in case the scheme doesn't work. Ms. Dunkin stated that this has been discussed, and not something the Planning Board has authority to do, even if there was a way to do this. Ms. Cooney suggested a two prong approach, that if everything is fine in 5 years refund the bond can be released, but if it is not working as expected that the bond be extended another 5 years. Ms. Hochman stated that the Building Department can impose that. Mr. Block stated Chapter 95 says "shall be required" and believes that as long as the system is operating it should remain in place. Shop drawings were discussed. Mr. Arnold again stated that some of the metrics might not be correct and the system may not work. Neighbor's basements are dry now and they want some protection if they get water damage after construction is started. He further stated surveys can be taken for blasting so why not for water. Mr. Block stated the difference is you can take a survey of a house before and after. Ms. Kane stated she never had water in her basement and if this goes bad and her basement gets water what could she do. Ms. Dunkin stated she doesn't know how it could ever be proven. . Mr. Oliveri stated he never heard a baseline measurement that the neighbors are asking for. Mr. Block stated if neighbors are concerned they can do their own survey. Mr. Arnold asked if the neighbors can be told when there will be blasting or chipping. Mr. Carpaneto stated yes; there are provisions in the Town Code for notifications regarding blasting and chipping. Hours of rock removal and construction was discussed. The proposed easement was discussed. Ms. Cooney asked about an outside date on time to cure. 7 Ms. Hochman suggested rather than a time frame it should be to the discretion of the Town Attorney. The Board discussed the wording and made technical corrections to the propose easement. Mr. Arnold stated that the neighbors spent money on the engineer and the metrics were wrong --each time the numbers changed. But when a member of the Board considered voting to deny the application, counsel stated that the Board can deny but must have a rational reason. Ms. Hochman stated each Board member is advised to evaluate the facts and votes accordingly. Ms. Dunkin closed the discussion. Motion:To approve the resolution and easement as revised Action: Approved Moved by Elizabeth Cooney, Seconded by Ira Block. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes =4, No = 2, Abstain = 1). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Stephen Marsh. No: George Roniger, Ira Block. Recused:John Ortiz. Ms. Dunkin thanked everyone. Motion:To close the meeting. Action: Approved Moved by Ira Block, Seconded by Stephen Marsh. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Planning Board Secretary 8