Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_08_14 Planning Board Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 14, 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, Chairman, Ellen Dunkin,Virginia Picciotto, 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: Edmund Papazian, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel,Abby Katz,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:02 PM. Motion: The minutes of July 10,2013 were approved Action:Approved Moved by Ellen Dunkin, Seconded by Ira Block. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=7-0). Yes: Elizabeth Cooney, Ellen Dunkin, George Roniger, Ira Block,John Ortiz, Stephen Marsh, Virginia Picciotto. The applications were taken out of order. Application No.2 Case No.301 16 York Road Consideration Michael Fairweather,the applicant, stated that he looked at town laws and would like to go forward to a public hearing. Ms. Hochman explained the sequence of review. Mr. Carpaneto stated an erosion control plan is required for the consulting engineer to review. 1 Mr. Ortiz asked if there has been any remediation of the violation to which Mr. Fairweather responded that it is without merit. Ms. Cooney asked the applicant if he wished to expand his explanation of the violation and Mr. Fairweather replied that he had no wish to correct the violation. Mr. Fairweather asked if the application could move forward to a public hearing. Mr. Oliveri stated his office asked for an erosion plan. Mr. Ortiz stated that the Board would like to see an erosion plan first. The matter was adjourned to September 11, 2013. Application No. 1 Case No.296 1 Durham Road Public Hearing Ms. Picciotto gave a brief recap of what had transpired since the June 12th Planning Board meeting. Elliot Senor, a consulting engineer retained by neighboring homeowners, reviewed documents prepared by Hudson Engineering,the applicant's engineer. The Planning Board is in receipt of comments prepared by Elliot Senor, as well as responses to those comments prepared by Dolph Rotfeld, the Planning Board's consulting engineer, and Hudson Engineering. Ms. Picciotto asked Mr. Oliveri to explain his comments. Mr. Oliveri summarized his memo to the Planning Board dated August 1, 2013.. Mr. Block questioned why there was a hypothetical estimate for impervious surface. Mr. Oliveri stated that deigns for the individual houses are conceptual at this point because specific designs have not yet been prepared or submitted but the subdivision proposal meets Town Code, State code and engineering practices. Mr. Oliveri further stated that to build houses on the individual lots,the applicant will be required to submit an erosion plan and do new percolation tests to prove the plan will work before the building department will issue a building permit. The Board discussed the differences between site plan applications and subdivision applications and it was explained that the current proposal is for subdivision approval. Mr. Block noted the Town Code site plan regulations and asked about a staged development and Ms. Hochman responded that such term is not defined in the Town Code. Mr. Block stated that it seems that people in the community have a sense that if the project goes forward it could impact their quality of life as there are 60 homes that use Durham Road as their only means of access. There will be traffic issues when the road is being constructed. He further asked if Fenimore Road has been considered for the new road. He also stated that he believes it would be wrong to authorize construction of a road to ultimately have no houses built there. Mr. Oliveri stated that the initial layout of the site was examined early in the review process and the Board came to a consensus on this plan. Construction staging was discussed. 2 Ms. Picciotto requested a construction phasing and staging plan showing that all equipment would be staged on the site while the road is being built. Mr. Lachenauer suggested that this be a condition of the resolution but the Board expressed a desire to see such plan at the next meeting. The location of the proposed road was discussed. Mr. Padgett of 20 Country Club Drive stated there was no attempt to market the project to make it more acceptable to the people being inconvenienced. Mr. Senor stated that the road should be reconfigured closer to Lot 1 to not go over rock, or the road should be eliminated and only 2 flag lots with a driveway proposed. Mr. Arnold stated the houses may be built larger then shown on the proposed plan. Mr. Oliveri stated that the subdivided lots would be treated like every other lot in the Town and will be reviewed by staff again when building permits are requested. He explained that single-family houses do not have to come before the Planning Board for site plan review but such proposals are reviewed by the building department and engineers. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)was discussed. Mr. Oliveri discussed Mr. Senor's comments and Hudson Engineering's responses and changes regarding drainage and the capacity of the pipe on Fenimore, and found no issue. Mr. Block asked if there is a reason to believe that there are contributions to the pipe that have not been taken into account. Mr. Lachenauer stated water runs down Fenimore Road now, the design as presented is conservative, and they have taken into account the entire tributary area based on the Town topo maps Mr. Oliveri stated he was comfortable with the original offsite analysis and is still confident there is enough capacity in the pipe. Ms. Kane of 7 York Road asked whether Mr. Lachenauer had walked on private property when doing his analysis and stated that she never had a drop of water in her home, although water runs down the driveway. She further asked what recourse she would have if she does have flooding because of the development. Mr. Arnold stated that because flooding is an issue,the Planning Board should require maximum percentage calculations for impervious surface. Mr. Lachenauer stated that the foot prints of the proposed houses are larger than the footprint of the original house on lot one. 3 Mr. Block questioned Mr. Stein of Hudson Engineering about the proposed impervious coverage percentages. Mr. Stein responded that it is not likely that people would be inclined to cover the site with more impervious surface because more test pits would be required and could impact existing trees. Mr. Stein stated that the design is above and beyond the Town requirements and further stated that if a property owner wanted more impervious surface they would be required to return with an erosion plan. Mr. Oliveri stated that he is satisfied with the drainage system for the proposed subdivision Mr. Cellis read the minimum drainage requirement recommendations from the county. Mr. Oliveri responded that the applicant has met Town code requirements. Mr. Gioffre stated that the Town Board would have to change the code before it could be required of an applicant. Ms. Hochman stated that the Planning Board has authority to request more information and impose conditions if they see a need. Mr. Oliveri agreed if there is a concern the Board can ask for more information. He further stated that the applicant has reduced rates and also volume over and above what is required by the Town Code. Mr. Clifford quoted the 1977 Army Corp of Engineers ("ACoE") report, to prove that flooding is not a new problem. He asked the Board to impose restrictions, and questioned what the neighbors' recourse would be if there is flooding after construction. He further stated that the engineers should get together and impose restrictions. Mr. Oliveri stated that he agrees with Hudson Engineering's design and respects Mr. Senor. He further stated that the Board and staff have been reviewing this application for one and a half years. Mr. Gioffre stated at this point the engineers will agree to disagree and respectfully asked the Board to close the public hearing, as the Board can request any information they deem necessary. The catch basin and the computer model was explained by Mr. Lachenauer and Mr. Oliveri stated his opinion that the original analysis worked and the new model is the worst-case scenario,which also works. Ms. Picciotto asked Board members to consider whether they were satisfied with the information presented. Mr. Block asked Mr. Senor if he had anything further and Mr. Senor stated that there are additional areas not shown on the SWPPP. Mr. Block asked why the pond couldn't be larger, Mr. Lachenauer responded that the pond and the pipe are different issues and the pond is exceeding both Town and Department of Conservation ("DEC") minimum requirements. Mr. Lachenauer further questioned why it would be beneficial to damage the area more to make the pond larger. He added that the pond holds back the 100-year storm event, although it has a lower orifice to allow smaller storm events to drain. 4 Mr. Block asked about reducing rock removal. Mr. Lachenauer explained that the horizontal and vertical curves of the proposed road must be taken into account but he might be able to move the road slightly toward Lot 1. However, he added that the industry standard is 150 feet from adjoining roads, and the proposed road is relatively short--about 300 feet. The proposed road must meet Town requirements for emergency vehicles. Ms. Pagent of 20 Country Club Drive questioned rock removal. Ms. Picciotto responded that 180 days per year is allowed by the Town Code and added that the Town Code also regulates the hours and days, with no amount of volume restriction. Mr. Carpaneto explained the Town code regulations regarding rock removal. Ms. Picciotto stated that the quantity of rock is not as critical as the days it takes to remove it. Rock removal and the required bond was discussed. Mr. Stein stated that they will submit the quantity of rock and material removal. Ms. Picciotto asked if flagmen are required during construction and Mr. Carpaneto stated that they are not required. Blasting vs. chipping was discussed and Mr. Saines stated that he is planning blasting although some chipping may be involved. Ms. Kane asked if the Board can limit the time for blasting or chipping. Ms. Hochman asked the Board to consider whether it has sufficient information to make a rational decision. Mr. Block asked why the Board can't ask for an estimate regarding the amount of rock removal, and the length of time rock will be removed. Mr. Lachenauer stated that exact figures are not possible because flexibility is needed. He further stated he would develop a plan for construction staging and rock removal. Mr. Arnold questioned Mr. Oliveri's letter regarding discharge separation of 3 feet vs. 2 feet as shown on the plan and Ms. Picciotto stated that it was changed to 3 feet so there is no problem. The Environmental Assessment Plan (EAF)was discussed. Mr. Arnold stated that he felt the EAF was not adequate and Ms. Paul responded that the purpose of the EAF is to allow the Board to make a determination of environmental significance to dictate whether or not an environmental impact statement would be required. She further stated that the Board adopted a Negative Declaration at the April Board meeting. Mr. Arnold requested that the Negative Declaration be reconsidered for its significant impact especially regarding the number of trees that will be removed. 5 Ms. Paul explained that,for example, parking 1,000 cars would be a significant impact, 3 houses are not considered significant. When each parcel comes to the building department for a permit to construct a house,tree removal will be looked at again. Mr. Arnold stated conditions should be imposed and he further stated that he would like to see a long list of restrictions. Ty Schofman of 4 Durham Road, stated that this project will have a long term impact on neighbors and that's why they are spending money on consultants as the neighbors are going to end up with a project for years. He further stated that Mr. Saines is a professional developer and there are possibly unsafe conditions that haven't been explored. He concluded by requesting the Board to look at the overall impacts of the project. Mr. Roniger affirmed that the Planning Board is here to look at all of the impacts of the project. Mr. Arnold stated that Mr. Schofman would have a house with 3 front yards as a result of the proposed road. Mr. Gioffre stated in response to the Board's request that the applicant would supply the Board with an estimate of rock and fill removal and a construction staging plan. Ms. Picciotto asked the Board to consider whether there is enough information in the record to close the public hearing. The Board discussed the 62 day time frame and whether written comments can be accepted after the close of the public hearing in order to determine whether or not to keep the public hearing open. Mr. Clifford asked to keep the public hearing open until next month. The Board discussed keeping the public hearing open but limiting comments to those related to rock removal and construction staging. Mr. Block stated he wants to see calculations for 35% lot coverage but Mr. Lachenauer asserted that test holes for 35%would be cost prohibitive and would disturb the site needlessly Mr. Marsh stated that the proposed houses are large for a R-30 Zone district and therefore stated that he did not feel it was necessary to ask the applicant to increase the proposed lot coverage percentages. Other Board members stated that they agreed that the proposed lot coverage calculations were adequate. Blasting was discussed. Mr. Block referred to Section 106-58-1 of the Town Code which states that only one rock removal permit for subject property shall be issued in any calendar year. Motion:To close the public hearing Moved by Elizabeth Cooney, None seconded. Motion Denied. 6 The public hearing will remain open. The next meeting is scheduled for September 11, 2013. NEW BUSINESS Abby Katz briefly noted the matters before the Town Board and stated that the Planning Board should expect a referral from the Town Board regarding affordable housing. Ms. Katz also stated that the Town Board is considering changes to the Town Code regarding ethics requirements for land use board members as well as a change to the mailing notice requirements. Ms. Picciotto stated that she was stepping down from the Planning Board as she has accepted a new job. Ms. Katz stated that Ms. Cooney will be asked to be a permanent member and a new alternate and a new Vice Chair will be appointed. ADJOURNED Motion:To close the public hearing at 11:48P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Ellen Dunkin, Seconded by Virginia Picciotto. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Planning Board Secretary 7