Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_11_06 Planning Board Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 6, 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 Roll Call. Present: 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. Absent/Excused: John Ortiz, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel,Abby Katz,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:00P.M. by the Vice Chair Ms. Dunkin. MINUTES Motion: To defer the minutes of October 9, 2013. Action:Approved Moved by Ira Block, Seconded by Stephen Marsh. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes: Edmund Papazian, Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, Ira Block, George Roniger, Stephen Marsh. APPLICATION NO. 1 Case No.296 1 Durham Road Ms. Dunkin stated that the public hearing is closed,the time for written comments has expired, but she stated that Mr. Clifford's letter dated October 18, 2013 has been received and will be entered into the record. Mr. Gioffre noted an objection, as the comment period had expired. Ms. Dunkin continued, stating that the purpose of the meeting is for the Board to discuss the application as well as the revised draft resolution prepared by counsel. She further stated that she will allow brief public comments. The Board discussed the proposed draft. 1 Traffic and trucks were discussed; Mr. Oliveri noted that the applicant should provide for proper maintenance and protection of the traffic site as shown in the traffic site manual for traffic patterns-- the "MUTCD", and/or to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer or Building Director. Mr. Block stated that it should be an objective standard, Mr. Oliveri, responded yes, if a truck is just pulling out it is a standard maneuver, but if a truck is backing out a flagman is required. Ms. Cooney stated that the applicant must comply with the OSHA requirements. Mr. Hudson stated that it is specified on the plans. Mr. Block stated that the resolution should specify that the applicant is required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements. Rock removal and the requirements codified in Town Code Chapter 106 relating to rock removal were discussed. The Drainage infrastructure was discussed. Mr. Block stated that he is trying to establish with clarity what is represented by the design. Mr. Oliveri addressed Mr. Block's question and stated that the plans will be reviewed again after construction, which should be certified by a professional engineer, so that the liability is not on the Town or its engineers. Mr. Block suggested language that the system should be proven to work during a hundred year storm event. Ms. Dunkin stated that according to that language,the applicant would have to wait to receive a permit to construct the houses until such storm event occurs. Mr. Block stated that this answer doesn't give comfort to the neighbors and Mr. Oliveri responded that the design was reviewed and advised that if the Board is not satisfied they shouldn't approve the application. Ms. Hochman stated there is a performance bond for 3 years,which is reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. Mr. Block continued by asking:what if the road is built and a house might be under construction and then a storm comes and the system doesn't work—how would that be addressed? Mr. Gioffre responded that the Building Department could issue a stop work order. Mr. Padgett of 20 County Club asked what is the difference between maintenance and design. Ms. Cooney responded it is actually a performance bond not maintenance. Mr. Block stated it should be proven that the system works for a 100-year storm event and Mr. Oliveri responded that the problem is how to quantify a rainfall event. A rain gauge would be needed at the site as rain events vary. Mr. Oliveri added that, this is not the first time this drainage methodology has been used--it is a tried and true practice in design. Mr. Gioffre stated that all similarly situated applicants should be treated the same. 2 Mr. Block stated the Board is constrained by what may or may not have been done on prior applications. Julie Kane stated that the engineers have previously provided inaccurate information. Mr. Block raised the issue of global warming and added that the weather system is changing and the applicant's engineers have supplied wrong information. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Block if his point is that the system is not going to work and Mr. Block responded why take the risk. Ms. Hochman stated that if the Board wants a design change it would have to submitted and reviewed. Ms. Cooney stated that the Town's consulting engineer has advised the Board that the system will handle the 100 Year storm. Mr. Block stated that is subjective. Mr. Oliveri responded that puts the Town in a tough position and asked how it could be proven that the drainage system is or isn't functioning as designed. Mrs. Kane stated that the applicant's attorney has had the opportunity to speak but the Board is not listening to the neighbors and mentioned an Article 78. Ms. Hochman stated if threatened with litigation the Board must go into executive session. Mrs. Kane stated that she did not intend to threaten litigation. Reports regarding the maintenance of the drainage system were discussed. Mr. Block asked what certification entails and, Mr. Oliveri responded that the silt has been removed,the system inspected, maintenance and any needed repair done and that the system was actually constructed as designed. Mr. Lachenauer stated that the system is designed to the NYSDEC SWPPP standard. The Board discussed the language of the SWPPP regarding inspections and reports. Mr. Oliveri stated the inspections are dictated by the applicable standard and,there are a lot of other requirements such as record keeping and certification. Mr. Oliveri stated the Town is obligated to enforce the SWPPP regulations and if not satisfied can withhold a Building Permit. He also stated that the road and infrastructure must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector before a building permit for the structures will be given. David Poneman of 7 Durham stated that the complaint has been how much rock and trees are to be removed. The neighbors gave suggestions for remediation, moving the road therefore allowing for less rock removal and trucks entering and existing the property. 3 Ms. Dunkin responded that the Board must look at the proposal before them and added that they have listened to the neighbors and the attorney for the neighbors, allowing all present a turn to speak. Ms. Dunked added that although the specialists have spent many hours reviewing the proposed calculations, no one will know the exact amount of rock to be removed until construction is underway. The Board has been fair and has listened to all.There has been no submission from neighbors stating that there would be devaluation of the neighboring home. Mr. Poneman asked why the Board will not state that there should be a design change. Mr. Papazian stated this is the proposal before the Board and the Board can't speculate on something that is not before them. Mr. Block stated he inquired two times about adjusting the road. Mr. Oliveri stated that he found a reference in the Code as to the placement of the road and the applicant doesn't wish to move road. Jane Paget asked why it has to be a road and not a driveway. Ms. Dunkin answered that the property must be built to Town standards. Mr. Gioffre stated that a variance would be required for a shared driveway as there would not be street frontage for the individual houses. Mr. Poneman asked why the Board wouldn't recommend zoning. Mr. Paget stated that this a balancing act,what is best for the applicant and the community and further stated that the neighbors have not felt a sense of balance. Ms. Paget asked who is responsible for the drainage system and Ms. Dunkin responded the property owners are responsible but, pursuant to the proposed easement the Town will inspect if there is a maintenance failure. Mr. Oliveri stated that under DEC regulations the municipalities are required to inspect. Ms. Hochman added that there will also be performance Bond. Hours of construction were discussed. Mr. Papazian suggested there should be no construction on Sunday and lesser hours on Saturday. Mr. Carpaneto stated the problem with restricting hours is that other neighbors can work at any time during the times allowed in the Town Code. Mr. Gioffre stated the applicant would consent to eliminating certain construction work on Sunday but not Saturday. He further stated that eliminating traffic for three hours Monday-Friday would drastically impact the cost and length of construction time. He offered that a flag man could keep the area safe during the hours under discussion. Noise during construction was discussed and Mr. Oliveri stated that the road construction noise is less then framing noise. 4 Traffic was discussed, and whether to prohibit trucks with three axels or more three hours a day. Mr. Gioffre stated that the applicant agrees to provide on site personal to direct traffic rather than eliminating trucks for three hours as that would extend the construction time by 50%and cost will increase as people will be sitting around during those hours unable to work. Ms. Kane stated the applicant should eliminate the hazard and concede to the restricted hours for the safety of children. Mr. Oliveri stated if the applicant offers someone there to direct traffic it would be the best option. Mr. Oliveri stated that whenever a 3 axel truck enters or leaves the site a person would direct traffic, as determined by the MUTCD manual. The wording of the easement was discussed and Ms. Hochman asked if the Board was in agreement that it should be imposed on all the lots rather than just one. Mr. Block stated it should be joint and several liability and to take out the reference to pro rata. Ms. Hochman stated that she must discuss the wording with Mr. Maker. There was no objection from the Board imposing the easement on all four lots. Ms. Hochman reminded everyone that the next meeting is actually 63 days and asked again if the applicant agrees to an extension of the deadline. Mr. Gioffre consented to a one day extension. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the matter to the regularly scheduled Board meeting on November 23, 2013. Action:Approved Moved by Edmund Papazian, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney. Meeting adjourned at 10:24P.M. Minutes prepare by Francine M. Brill Planning Board Secretary 5