HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_10_11 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
OCTOBER 11,2000,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Marilyn S.Reader,Chairwoman
May W.Aisen
Robert A.Cohen
Richard H.Dusky
Linda S.Harrington
C.Alan Mason
Edmund Papazian
Also Present: Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building
Robert S.Davis,Counsel
Antonio V.Capicotto,Consulting Engineer
Nancy Seligson,Liaison
4 Lt/
Barbara Terranova,Public Stenographers A
Terranova,Kazazes&Associates,Ltd.
40 Eighth Street 61Vi-V
New Rochelle,New York 10801 � ai r
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary
!F"'10't��p�yp'•
CALL TO ORDER ?
rar
The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:14 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms.Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes and recorded record of July 12,
2000 and if there were any amendments. There being none,on a motion made by Ms.Reader,seconded
by Dr.Mason,the Minutes were approved.
Ms.Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes and recorded record of August
16,2000 and if there were any amendments. Mr.Capicotto had some corrections on the recorded record
on page 140,line 7. On a motion made by Mr.Papazian,seconded by Dr.Mason,the recorded record
Minutes were approved as corrected. Ms.Harrington abstained,as she was absent.
Ms.Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes and recorded record of September
13,2000 and if there were any amendments. After some discussion and corrections noted by Ms.Aisen,
on a motion made by Mr.Cohen,seconded by Ms.Aisen,the Amended Minutes were approved. Ms.
Harrington abstained,as she was absent.
Ms.Reader said a request was received at the start of the meeting by the applicant for case#5,Michael
Moran,for a Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit,23 Fenbrook Drive,to be taken out of order
as it is his granddaughter's first birthday and he would like to be there. Ms. Reader said she has no
objection to that,nor did the other applicant.
Ms.Reader said she will call that case first,then case#3,Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit,
992 Old White Plains Road,then case#4,Consideration for Site Plan Approval,Winged Foot,then case
#2,10 Evergreen Lane,a Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit.
I '
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 2
Chairperson Reader read the application as follows:
CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Michael
Moran-23 Fenbrook Drive-Block 309,Lot 11
Michael Moran,the applicant,of 23 Fenbrook Drive,addressed the Board. He said the project involves
an addition to the rear left-hand side of his house,about a 120 sq.ft.addition. It will be a complete sun
room with all glass around it. It is located in back of the Sheldrake River,which is about 50 ft.from the
addition. He has had an engineer figure out what has to be done to be within the perimeters,so there are
no problems with the wetlands. As far as the silt fence,hay bales,etc.,the only thing they will be digging
for are 4 piers. It's not going to have a foundation. The dirt will be taken off site immediately. No trees
will be coming down. Where the drainage is concerned,it will be a small catch basin,dry well,45 ft.
from the wetlands,the Sheldrake River. Mr.Moran said it is going to be a glass enclosed porch.
Ms.Reader asked if there currently is porch there.
Mr.Moran said currently half of the space in question is a deck,and half is just open. They want to
extend the rear of their bedroom 10 ft.,take 10 ft.off the deck and make that into a room. They are
extending their bedroom 10 ft.out by 20 ft.wide.
Ms.Reader asked what the flooring will be.
Mr.Moran said the flooring is going to be 2 by 10's,with double insulation,cement board that will be
coated.
Ms.Harrington asked if the deck is now covered.
Mr.Moran said the deck is currently open.
Mr.Dorsky asked who the engineer is.
Mr.Moran said the engineer is George Mottarella.
Mr.Capicotto asked about the drawing prepared as submitted.
Mr.Moran said he left copies at the Town today.
Ms.Reader questioned the wetlands.
Mr.Moran said the silt fence will be put on the rear of the property. They will stay within the perimeters
of the building lot. The dry well will be the only thing to be dug.
Ms.Aisen asked if he is extending back any farther.
Mr.Moran said they are extending back no further than the deck that is there now. They are staying
within the size of the deck to bring a room in there.
Ms.Reader said he is using a portion of the deck to increase the size of the bedroom.
Mr.Moran agreed. He said it will be 2/3 of the deck and 1/3 of a bush currently there.
Ms.Aisen asked if there are piers there.
Mr.Moran said there are four(4)piers under the deck now; two(2)will be added for the addition.
. 7
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 3
Mr.Papazian asked what is currently under the deck.
Mr.Moran said dirt and gravel.
Mr.Papazian asked if that is what he will have after he puts on the portion of the sun room.
Mr.Moran said yes. It will be the same materials used underneath the deck,so nothing will grow above
it. He will put in gravel,so weeds don't come up.
Ms.Aisen asked what is shown on the drawing over to the right.
Mr.Moran said the existing piers that are there for the deck.
Mr.Davis said the record should reflect Mr.Moran is referring to the drawing labeled A-1,dated 9/12/00,
entitled,"Plot Plan,Floor Plan".
Mr.Darsky asked if the new addition is also going to be on the pilings.
Mr.Moran said yes. There will be no foundation,no basement.
Mr.Capicotto said the enclosed deck will be sitting on the posts.
Ms.Reader asked what will be underneath it.
Mr.Moran said underneath will be plastic and gravel.
Ms.Reader asked about the drainage.
Mr.Moran said the dry wells will be put in the rear of the addition almost in line with the rear of the
addition,probably about 10 ft.away from it.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other questions.
Mr.Papazian said Mr.Moran mentioned he has to get a zoning variance.
Mr.Moran said they have to go for a rear yard zoning variance from 50 ft.to 32 ft.
Mr.Papazian asked if the pool extends back there anyway.
Mr.Moran said the pool is way beyond that. They have a variance for that,for almost 10 ft.close to the
property line.
Ms.Reader asked how far they are from the Sheldrake River.
Mr.Moran said about 40 ft.
Ms.Reader said that is beyond the pool;Mr.Moran agreed.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any questions. There being none,it is
RESOLVED, that 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.
• Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 4
Ms.Reader said this is to be referred to the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC),and the
Westchester County Planning Board.
Ms.Reader asked Mr.Moran to speak to the secretary to find out when the CZMC meets,as it would help
if either he or his architect is present at that meeting.
Ms.Reader said the matter is ADJOURNED for a public hearing to be held November 8,2000.
Mr.Moran thanked the Board for its time.
On a motion made by Mr.Dusky,seconded by Ms.Aisen,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared open.
The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a'permanent part of
this record.
Chairperson Reader read the application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Frank
Nask III-992 Old White Plains Road-Block 315,Lot 171
Scott Williams,the project manager for Daniel S.Natchez and Associates in Mamaroneck,appeared. He
is representing Frank and Susan Nask who are proposing a two-story residence at 992 Old White Plains
Road. Also present is John Lentini,the architect.
Mr.Williams said since the last meeting they met with the CZMC,per the Board's recommendation. The
CZMC had no objection to the project at that point. They have also filed a revised existing site plan
through 9/27/00 that indicated several modifications,according to some of the discussion at the last meeting
as well as the fax and conversations with the Town's consulting engineer,Tony Capicotto,of Dolph
Rotfeld Engineering.Those changes were mainly to remove a manhole that was shown for the sewer line
that extends from the house to the existing Town of Mamaroneck sewer manhole. Also,to change the type
of line that was shown as an 8 in.standard PVC line and has been changed to a 4 in.diameter extra heavy
type cast iron. In addition,the dry well was changed according to the plan. They also labeled the
stabilized construction entrance which was not shown on the site plan,so that it is shown as a hatched area.
The spacing on the wood deck between the planks will be 1/8 in. Underneath the deck there is now
crushed stone. These are all according to the changes that were requested.
Mr.Davis asked that Mr.Williams identify the drawing he is referring to.
Mr.Williams said it is the existing proposed site plan dated 7/26/00,revised 9/27/00,per the Town of
Mamaroneck's request. He said they will answer any questions the Board may have.
Ms.Reader asked if the sewer system is in the same place as it was before.
Mr.Williams said that is correct. There has been no change.
Mr. Capicotto stated that the Board should have a letter dated October 6, 2000 from Dolph Rotfeld
regarding the Freshwater Wetlands permit from his office stating that it complies with the requirements.
This is a service to an individual residence,and is the only portion that's into the wetlands buffer. It is
actually exempt under the State Wetlands requirements.
Mr.Capicotto asked if there will be a clean-out on that.
Planning Board
•
October 11,2000
Page 5
Mr.Nask said yes.
Ms.Harrington said there are an awful lot of trees coming down. She asked what the reason is for taking
out the Sycamore on 36,37,38 and the 30 in.Cottonwoods.
Mr.Nask said the Cottonwood is a dead tree.
After some discussion regarding the trees in question,Mr.Nask said he has no yard area at all because
of the terrain. He just wanted to have an area for his children to play in and grass area. All the other
trees are staying.
Ms.Reader asked Mr.Carpaneto if they needed an existing tree plan.
Mr.Carpaneto said they have been through that process and it has been approved.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other questions.
Ms.Harrington asked about the letter received.
Ms.Reader mentioned there is a letter from Steven Mitsch,dated October 4,2000,which is a part of the
record,and asked if Mr.Nask has had an opportunity to read it.
Mr.Williams said he did not have an opportunity to read it and was provided a copy.
After some Board discussion,Ms.Aisen asked where the Leatherstocking Trail is located relative to the
property.
Mr.Nask said it is a good distance away and pointed it out on the plans before the Board.
Mr.Carpaneto said access is through Old White Plains Road.
After some discussion,Mr.Nask said access is through the other person's property. The Trail is a good
distance away.
Ms.Aisen asked what the distance is.
Mr.Williams said it is probably at least 1,000 ft.
Ms.Reader asked if there was an existing house or driveway.
Mr.Nask said it looks like there was a driveway. It looks like there was an access road.
Dr.Mason said the Leatherstocking Trail is a very good distance away.
Mr.Nask said the edge of his house to the property line is about 30 ft.and then it is all woods.
Ms.Aisen asked what visually separates the Trail from Mr.Nask's property.
Mr. Nask said all woods. It's all Town property. One probably won't see.a house from the
Leatherstocking Trail.
Ms.Reader asked if there are any existing decks or patios.
Mr.Nask said no,it is all woods.
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 6
Mr.Williams asked to react to some of the comments made. He is a very concerned individual and is
doing the utmost to try to maintain it with a pervious wood deck and a semi-circular driveway.
Mr.Nask said if there were a pool,it would not be seen from the Leatherstocking Trail.
Ms.Harrington asked Mr.Carpaneto to go back to the tree permit,as she is really troubled by the number
of trees that are coming down;the#24 is a 14 in.Hickory and she doesn't see that it is in the way of
anything. She asked if the tree permit was already issued.
Mr.Carpaneto said the tree permit was approved. He said that most of the trees that will be cut are either
in the footprint of the house or laid out along the road where they need to do work for the driveway. He
said that the Town gets involved also. There are dry wells. Once you put in a dry well,it will kill the
roots. There is either construction right on the tree or within very close proximity.
Ms.Aisen asked if that refers to#23 and#24,too.
Mr.Carpaneto said those are the ones for the lawn.
Ms.Harrington said those are the ones near the driveway.
After some discussion regarding the trees near the driveway,Ms.Harrington reiterated that she is troubled
by the number of trees coming out of there.
Mr.Carpaneto said he does have to replace trees,which will be about$3,500.00.
Ms.Harrington asked if there is a replacement map.
Mr.Carpaneto said no.
Ms.Harrington said usually the Board gets a plan that shows the proposed plantings in lieu of what is being
removed.
Mr.Nask said the whole side is going to be all evergreens and trees. They are waiting until the house is
built because there is so much rock,to determine where the trees will go. All the trees may not have to
come out. If he sees he can move the dry well over,that tree might stay. He will not cut them all right
away,'because he probably would like to save some of them. He doesn't want to have to come back to
the Board,because of one tree that he has to cut down. He is not one for cutting down trees,but he has
no choice.
Mr.Carpaneto said there are really not a lot of places to plant trees on that block without getting within
a very close distance to either the dry wells,the houses or whatever. He does have to replace or donate
to the tree fund.
Ms.Reader asked about the tree fund,to replace all that.
Mr.Carpaneto said not there,but someplace else in the Town. He said in reference to the large tree on
the bottom,nothing can grow there because there is a heavy canopy.
Mr.Williams said you have an adjacent property that is entirely wooded. It is Town property. They are
doing their best to minimize the number of trees they take out. From a practical standpoint of constructing
the house,as well as disturbing the trees during construction,it is going to be difficult to save some of the
trees. If you take it just by the trees being removed,versus the net difference by what is being planted
on the other side,there is not a great deal of difference.
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 7
Ms.Harrington said it is not the same thing. She understands that he has to take these trees down for the
construction and he wants to build a house there,but can he give on the Sycamores so there is not that
much open space. She is really troubled by the trees coming down.
Mr.Nask said his only problem is that is the only flat area on the whole property for any kind of play area
or yard.
Ms.Aisen said he wants an area for his children to play ball,as there are trees throughout the back yard.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments.
Ms.Harrington reiterated that she is not happy with the number of trees being taken down.
Mr.Davis noted that the Westchester County Department of Planning was notified about this project,and
there was no response.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments. There being none,she asked if there any other
comments from the specialists. There were none. Ms.Reader then asked if there were any comments
from the public on this project. There being none,on a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.
Aisen,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed.
On a motion made by Mr.Papazian,seconded by Mr.Cohen,the following resolution was unanimously
APPROVED:
WHEREAS,Frank Nask III has applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114
for the premises located at Lot No.992 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map
of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 315,Lot 171;and
WHEREAS,this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action
and that no further review is required under SEQRA;and
WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in
writing regarding this application to the Planning Board;and
WHEREAS,this Planning Board has determined,pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114,that
the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR§665.7;and
WHEREAS,a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 having been held on
10/11/00;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that this Board finds as follows:
1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance
• of systems in a controlled area;
2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and
conservation of the wetland and its benefits,because(A)the proposed activity will have
only a minor impact,(B)it is the only practical alternative,and(C)it is compatible with
the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or
social burden on the community;
Planning Board
•
October 11,2000
Page 8
3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to,or loss of
any part of the wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective
conditions imposed by this resolution;
4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare,because of
its minor impact in the controlled area;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Frank Nask III for a permit, pursuant to
Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114,be approved and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms
and conditions:
1. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other
individual,entity or combination thereof;
2. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be
in accordance with the requirements of the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code and
the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law.
3. A completed plan be submitted to the Building Department showing the temporary point
of access to this property from the adjacent property granted by its owners, revised
September 27,2000. Said plan shall show the exact point of access and the extent of this
access to this applicant's lot;and the plan shall show details of erosion control damage
prevention for the access. The plan must be approved by the Building Inspector before
a Building Permit shall be issued.
4. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:30 a.m.and 4:30 p.m.
5. A cash deposit or bond for$1,500.00 shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to
ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected'or
disturbed area.
6. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the
date of its issue whichever first occurs.
Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows:
CONSIDERATION-SITE PLAN APPROVAL-Winged Foot Golf Club-Fenimore Road-Block
347,Lot 1
Larry Gordon,the architect for the project,and Steve Sullivan,the project manager for Winged Foot Golf
Club,appeared.
Mr. Sullivan said they are about to renovate the existing staff housing. They are proposing to add an
addition to the renovation.
Mr.Cohen asked how many employees live there.
Mr.Sullivan said currently 11 employees live in the employee housing. With the addition,it will provide
for another 14 to the existing 11,for a total of 25 in housing. They do not currently have that number,
but want future space in case the need increases.
Ms.Reader asked if these people are there permanently.
Planning Board
•
October 11,2000
Page 9
•
Mr.Sullivan said they are there from April through November. Many of them return to their homes in
the winter.
Ms.Aisen asked if there are apartments there.
Mr.Sullivan said there are bedrooms.
Mr.Gordon proceeded to explain the addition.
Mr.Davis asked Mr.Gordon to identify the drawing he is referring to.
Mr.Gordon said it is drawing A-1,revision date 11/10/99.
Mr.Capicotto asked if Mr.Gordon received a letter form their firm,Dolph Rotfeld Engineering,P.C.,
regarding the site plan,dated October 6,2000.
Mr.Gordon had not received a copy and was provided with one.
Mr.Capicotto said the site plan review didn't show drainage,grading,what is being done with rain water,
dry wells and the other requirement for a complete review.
Mr.Sullivan said he was not aware those documents were needed at this initial stage.
Mr.Sullivan said that the addition will not take place until at least one year from now,and can possibly
be done two years from now. It has already been approved at the Board of Architectural Review(BAR).
Ms.Reader asked what was been presented to the BAR.
Mr.Sullivan said the first stage.
Ms.Reader said this is a renovation in the existing footprint,with which Mr.Sullivan agreed.
Dr.Mason said he noticed there are no bathrooms in the new addition.
Mr.Sullivan said that is correct.
Mr.Gordon said there are bathrooms on both floors of the existing building that will service that.
Dr.Mason asked what the rationale is behind that,as it is a long way to go in the middle of the night.
He asked if Mr.Gordon is implying this is something that can be shut down in the winter time during that
period and not heated.
Mr.Gordon that is correct. Actually,the whole building will be shut down in time.
After some discussion regarding the rooms in the building,Mr.Sullivan said ground-keepers,kitchen staff
and porters will use the building.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else.
Mr.Capicotto said there is nothing to review until the other documents are submitted.
Ms. Reader said the documents are needed before the Public Hearing,to give sufficient time for Mr.
Capicotto and Mr.Carpaneto to review.
Ms.Reader asked if they are requesting a Public Hearing next month.
•
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 10
•.
Mr.Sullivan said no.
Mr.Papazian said he doesn't have a feel of how this looks in the neighborhood,but will wait for further
submission.
Mr.Sullivan said they do have a site plan. Mr.Sullivan submitted the boundary line survey,marked
exhibit#1,which is a part of the record. He then pointed out the area in question.
Ms.Reader asked what the whited out circle is.
Mr.Sullivan said it was a circle that was drawn to indicate dimensions for another purpose. He said he
whited it out because he made smaller photocopies which he submitted with the plan and didn't want a
circle in the middle of the drawing. Mr.Sullivan then explained the various points of interest on the plan.
Ms.Aisen asked if these buildings are visible from the road.
Mr.Sullivan said no. The proposed addition would be over 150 ft.from the property line,the nearest
point to the property line. Currently,there is over 200 ft.to the property line. The area between the
proposed addition and the next piece of property is heavily wooded.
Dr.Mason asked if this is down in a little valley.
Mr.Sullivan said yes.
Mr.Gordon said it was cart storage area.
Mr.Papazian asked the square footage of it.
Mr.Sullivan said the addition will be about 2,600 sq.ft.,one floor,with a slab under it,tied into existing
sewage.
Mr.Davis asked if the 2,600 sq.ft.he is referring to is the same. On the site plan approval application
there is a request for,a description of sited areas. He asked if the 2,211 ft.is that the same piece of
information.
Mr.Sullivan said speaking from memory,figures on the application were calculated off of the scale on the
drawing.
Mr.Sullivan said it is between 2,100 to 2,200 sq.ft.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else.
Mr.Davis said this is an Unlisted Action.
Ms.Reader said the Planning Board has been designated lead agency under SEQRA.
Dr.Mason asked if it is all male housing.
Mr.Gordon said at the moment.
• Ms.Reader said this matter is referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and the CZMC.
On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 11
RESOLVED,that a Public Hearing be,and hereby is,scheduled for the December 13,2000
meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Chairperson Reader read the application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Levine-
10 Evergreen Lane,Block 309,Lot 21(adjourned 6/9/99;7/14/99;8/11/99;9/8/99;10/13/99;11/10/99;12/8/99;
1/12/00 to 3/8/00;4/12/00;5/10/00;7/12/00;8/16/00)
Geoffrey Young,of Young&Rosenstrach in New Rochelle,appeared to represent the applicant,Julia
Levine,who is also present,along with the engineer,Harry Nichols.
Mr.Young said they have been before the Board a few times. He said his client purchased the property
in May, 1988,for$200,000.00 for consideration and paid annual taxes on it since then. In the year
purchased the taxes were$4,350.04. This past year,between the Town and school,the taxes assessed and
paid were$8,400.78. They did go up and just about doubled in twelve years. He said his client entered
into a contract to sell this property on December 23,1998. The purchase price under that contract was
$440,000.00. The purpose of that contract was to develop it. That is the original applicant that was before
the Board,contingent upon Board approval or he had the right to rescind the contract. He rescinded the
contract,any payments made were return by his client and Ms.Levine is continuing the application for lot
21.
Mr.Young said that lot 21 is an approved lot on a subdivision approved by the Town and filed January
10,1986,map#22175. As the Board will recall when the Board looked at the plans at past meetings,this
is a flag lot. That means it is a long driveway,normally referred to as a staff. The only access available
is from Evergreen down this vast portion of the driveway. At the last meeting a few months ago,we
discussed different means of crossing an area on that staff that was going to be the driveway for this lot.
Mr.Young said that this lot was approved in the subdivision previously mentioned. It has not changed
since that date,there has been no change in the boundary lines and there has been no granting of parcels
to or from that property. It remains as it was originally designed.
Mr.Young said they have had many issues come before the Board over the numerous meetings. The
Board has been very helpful to them,provided suggestions and asked for information. Mr.Young said
they have attempted to address various issues that have been raised by the Board and tried to provide
• additional information as requested in specifics, etc.; water flow, runoff, etc. He said he is again
addressing this evening the request that was made at the last meeting in August to reduce the size of the
house,meeting zoning issues and no longer requests a variance,because the side of the house was brought
back from the side line and he reduced the amount of fill and excavation that was originally proposed. The
retaining wall built in the area of the staff flag driveway has been redesigned and landscaped per
suggestions of this Board. He said they had hoped at one time to use the retention basin on lot 20,but will
redesign the plans to provide on-site retention with a clay barrier. The plans are designed to absorb
leakage from the lot 20 detention basin. Neighbors have raised issues on some of these items,and they
have tried to address them. The grading along the property by the Ruppel property is not being altered
and the storm runoff will be maintained. They have reduced the flow to the south,redirected the retention
facility and have taken no credit for discharge from this drainage channel. They have established flow
rates.
Mr.Young said there was a letter received from the CZMC,dated July 25,2000. They submitted a new
set of plans,dated 9/22/00,for the purpose of incorporating the concerns that were raised by the CZMC.
Ms.Reader said perhaps Mr.Nichols can address those.
Planning Board
• October 11,2000
Page 12
Mr.Young said there are various issues of flooding in other areas down Fenimore Road and to discuss the
retention basin is beyond their obligation to address. He said with net zero runoff as per code requirement,
he asked Harry Nichols to discuss or answer any questions raised by CZMC.
Mr.Nichols said the items Mr.Young mentioned that CZMC had raised in their letter of 7/27/00,they
have responded with the last submission dated 9/22/00.
1. The applicant agrees to a covenant,being placed in the recorded deed,requiring the
owner of Lot#21 to maintain the detention basin and to grant the Town of Mamaroneck
the right to enter the property to maintain or repair the detention basin in the event the
owner fails to do so.
2. Recent test holes performed by this office have reconfirmed that there is 3 ft. 6 in.
minimum soil depth in the area of the proposed dry wells in the patio area. There is
another addition to the drainage management systems that prevents any direct runoff to
the south from the impervious area of the patio.
Ms.Reader asked Mr.Capicotto to comment on that.
Mr.Capicotto said he doesn't see a problem with the dry well design in that area. It is not a large area,
just an open patio area. He thinks there is sufficient fill there now,plus fill will be brought in to push
from the other end to level the lot. It should be sufficient.
Mr.Nichols said note#8.e.,under the General Sequence on Construction of Drawing SP-1,'Amended
Site Plan,'requires mulch and anchored geotextile fabric on all disturbed slopes over 2:1. This is an issue
raised by the CZMC. They are concerned about the steep slopes.
After further discussion,Ms.Reader asked Mr. Carpaneto and Mr.Capicotto if that would address the
concerns of the CZMC.
Mr.Capicotto said yes.
Mr.Nichols continued saying#4.Note added to this Drawing AP-1 requiring pavers set in sand for the
driveway and the court yard arm. He said the concern was to keep the imperviousness as low as possible,
to minimize the amount of runoff. However,in the calculations they assumed that the driveway and the
court yard area would be paved,completely impervious. This is just another deduction in the actual rates
of runoff that they will be dealing with.
Mr.Nichols said a note was added to the planting schedule for substitution of native plantings at the request
of the Planning Board. Mr.Nichols said they will leave this open for the Board,so if they have some
preferences,other than what is being recommended on the plan,it can be addressed.
Mr.Nichols said that basically answered the issues raised by the CZMC.
Mr.Nichols said there was another issue discussed with Mr.Capicotto regarding drainage. He said they
have designed it to meet the requirements of the Town,which is not to exceed at the development the rates
that are being approved prior to development. They all recognize the fact that there will be an increase
in volume,because you can't put down one square inch of imperviousness on this lot without increasing
that volume. The whole principal behind the management aspect of the retention basin is to control the
rate,meter it out at a slower rate so it does not exceed the peak rate that existed prior to development.
Mr.Nichols believes they have satisfied that requirement. He said the question Mr.Capicotto had was
you give us some visual impression of what the volumetric increase might be and what impact that might
have,due to the fact that there is flooding down on Fenimore Road.
• ,
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 13
Mr.Nichols said they have not gone into a very extensive hydraulic modeling. They have done a quick
analysis on this putting together a report analyzing the area of Fenimore Road,essentially the topo plan
they have presented as one of the exhibits of the overall area. They have estimated that the net change in
the water elevation during the peak activity flooding period will be approximately 200ths of an inch,the
flood elevation on Fenimore Road due to the increase in volume. He said they are satisfying the rate,but
based on the increase in volume the change in the elevation is actually computed due to the increased
volume because of the flow as it is being held back,there is a constriction essentially at Winding Brook
Drive. It is not adequate to let the water through,it builds up to a higher level,floods out onto Fenimore
Road,runs down Fenimore Road and goes back into the channel. Mr.Nichols said it is 200ths of an inch,
equal to five pieces of paper,a theoretical guesstimate of what the increase in the elevation could be.
Ms.Reader asked if the statement about the 200th of an inch is based upon currently existing hydrology
from the previous reports.
Mr.Nichols said no. That was based on the change in the flow rates. Under existing conditions the flow
goes up,reaches a peak, then drops off because there is no detention. They are slowing it down and
holding it back. By holding it back it is extending the length of time during which you are maintaining a
constant flow and made reference to hydrograph and the 100-year storm which shows the before
hydrograph and the after discharge hydrograph. The peak on the existing hydrograph goes to a higher
level,approximately 2.06 cu.ft.per second(cfs). The hydrograph for the development uses a pond and
has a peak of only 1.68 cfs. There is a net reduction of.3 cfs at peak flow. However,the extra volume
is being metered out and will extend over a longer period of time. It takes longer for the larger overall
area to develop flood flows. He said they are holding back some of their flows to keep the peak down.
By the fact they are not letting it out immediately at the beginning of the storm,there will be some water
from this discharge basin pooling in the downstream flooded area before it can pass through the
constriction. Their estimate is that it is about 200th of an inch.
Mr.Darsky asked what the meaning of the term 200th of an inch is.
Mr.Nichols said it is the estimate of their flow. He then explained that the uncontrolled hydrograph goes
up an instantaneous peak then drops off very quickly. When there are flood conditions,the water doesn't
just come and go that quickly. You have to do it before development conditions,before the site is
developed and explained the conditions involved. He said in their analysis, they took a period of
approximately 2'h hours of when it starts to become of some significance. He said the numbers are small.
Mr.Davis asked when what becomes significant,the flow from this property.
Mr.Nichols said yes,the flow from this property and what the net impact is down at that flooding area
on Fenimore Road. Ile said what happens is that the water coming down through doesn't pass through
as quickly. It is held back. It slowly builds up and the higher it builds up,the faster it runs off.
Mr.Davis asked if there is a time when the flow from this property will produce a change in elevation
greater than the one shown.
Mr.Nichols said no. They took the worst condition;100-year storm,compared it in volumetric flow on
the site for that period of time and compared it to the increase;what happens before you build and after
you build.
Ms.Reader asked if this was the one.
Mr.Nichols said yes. It is the hydrograph before development on the property. It has the peak at 2 cu.
ft.per second,at which time he explained the process used to arrive at that conclusion.
Mr.Capicotto said they went through Mr.Nichols letter. He understands his explanation,but since there
were some statements rather than thought process in a letter,which would have made it quite long,they
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 14
had a little trouble following how Mr.Nichols got from point"A"to point"B Probably the best test
would be to give calculations and present them,so we can concur.
Ms.Reader said not now.
Mr.Nichols said he was trying to keep it simple.
Ms. Reader said in order for them to validate Mr. Nichol's conclusion, the Board needs to do the
calculations also.
After some discussion,Mr.Nichols said he tried not to be too technical.
Ms.Reader said all the Board needs to know is that Mr.Capicotto can tell them what they need to know,
then the Board can ask for an explanation.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else.
Mr.Nichols said he thinks he responded to Mr.Marcus'letter.
Ms.Reader said she is not going to ask his response to#1,because it is not subject to him. They made
comments about the Morganroth Report and asked if Mr.Nichols is using that.
Mr.Nichols said the Morganroth Report,whether it is right or wrong,is what's being experienced out
there now,what's happening. What he's demonstrating is what would happen on top of what is already
out there. He is not trying to validate the Morganroth Report.
Mr.Nichols said that has nothing to do with the Morganroth Report. It is a net increase due to this
development.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else.
Mr.Papazian asked Mr.Capicotto if he has enough facts or information that Mr.Nichols supplied to give
him an answer that we have no net increase in the rate of runoff as opposed to the volume of the runoff.
Mr.Capicotto said yes.
Mr.Papazian said the conclusion is that the rate has not increased.
Mr.Capicotto said yes.
Mr.Papazian asked why the Board needs this additional information regarding the volume to analyze this
claim.
Ms.Reader asked counsel to answer that.
Mr.Davis said that one of the findings is pursuant to the public health and welfare. The issue of increased
volume having been made, the Board has the discretion to consider that increase in volume within that
framework.
Mr.Darsky said he is saying it doesn't increase the rate/volume,it doesn't make a difference.
Mr.Davis said he is only saying that the framework,once the issue was raised,is within the finding that
has to do with the public health and welfare. The Board has to make of the presentation what it will.
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 15
Mr.Papazian said he understands that. What conclusion he is drawing at this particular point is that this
is an additional matter the Board can take as a consideration. An argument can be made that it is not a
necessity to come to some type of decision on the Board's part. Each person can draw his own conclusion.
Mr.Davis said that he agrees with that.
Ms.Reader said as stated for no net increase in rate of runoff applies to the Surface Water,Erosion and
Sediment Control Act. The Board takes that into consideration, but that is actually the Building
Department's determination. The Board tends to take that standard also into consideration for the
Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit.
Ms.Aisen said they also had comments from the public at the last meeting about the degree of flooding,
the volume rather than rate.
After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto informed the Board that the Town is looking at the piping to put
under Fenimore. They are doing some work out there as far as cleaning at the bottom of Mr.Scheuer's
driveway. There are one or two pipes that are partially clogged and one that is totally clogged.
Mr.Darsky said he thinks these folks would be very interested to hear that and asked what kind of
information can be given to them.
Mr.Carpaneto said to tell them he talked to Steve Altieri and Tony Capicotto about their findings.
Mr.Darsky asked what has to be done for this to happen,should they call Mr.Alfieri?
Mr.Carpaneto said they are going to start to do some work on the actual stream,as there is sediment that
has built up over the years.
Ms.Aisen said that is a Town project.
Ms.Reader said the other concern is the culvert.
After some discussion,Mr.Capicotto said that is what they are talking about.
Mr.Carpaneto said there are three pipes in there. One is open,two are clogged. One partially clogged
and the other totally clogged.
Ms.Reader asked if there is anything else. There being no comments made,she asked if there were any
comments from the public.
Mr. Scheuer said if that house is being flooded with only one of the three pipes open,if all three are
opened isn't he going to have much more extreme peaks downstream.
Mr.Carpaneto said he doesn't know,at which time a discussion ensued.
Seth Marcus,appeared,representing Ann Ruppel,who resides at 871 Fenimore Road,and Mr.Scheuer,
who is acting on behalf of his son-in-law,who is the owner of 875 Fenimore Road. He said that he has
some brief comments and will then turn it over to Michael Campbell,his engineer,who will address the
technical issues that have been raised,specifically the questions on volume.
Mr.Marcus said at the time the Fenbrook Subdivision was originally approved,the Board suggested an
in-depth study of storm water drainage in this area. A significant portion of that information,specifically
the Morganroth Report,seems to have underestimated the volume and flow of storm water the development
of this subdivision eventually created. The Board, at that time, set specific conditions on how the
subdivision was to be built. One of those conditions is that no construction is to be done within the channel
within 20 ft.of the bank's mainstream. The Board further provided,so that all subsequent owners could
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 16
have notice of the restriction,that it be recorded in the Deeds of affected properties. Thereby it would
appear in the chain of title for each one of these properties. Demonstrating that the property here at issue
is an affected property, as described in the Board's conditions which were the preliminary approval
conditions of 12/31/85,the applicable restriction appears almost verbatim in the chain of title; the deed
from the Beringers to Mr.Maloney provides that the purchaser take"subject to the restrictions that no
construction may be done within the channel and no structure may be built within 20 ft.of the top of the
bank of any stream on any premises affected." Furthermore,the Town was given the power to enforce
this restriction prior to neighboring property holders.Nonetheless,the permit application now pending asks
this Board to approve a plan which specifies construction within that channel. In short,the applicant wants
the Board to step across their lines they previously took pains to assure would not be crossed and after
protracted dual process in 1985 this Board said clearly in developing this subdivision,there would be no
construction in the channel. Furthermore,the construction that is in the channel,the second reason why
it presents a problem,simply stated,the applicant wishes to build in the channel would actually be outside
the legal rights as does the county deed. The applicant's change of title sets forth the limitations of the
estate or rights to buying the property and because the deed specifically excludes the right to build in the
channel,she can't legally do so. Therefore,she proposed a plan of construction which supports that she
really has no right to effectuate. Based upon the foregoing and previous submissions to the Board,we
respectfully ask that the application be denied. Having said that,he stated that Michael Campbell is present
to address the engineering issues that Mr.Nichols spoke to the Board about.
Mr.Campbell said many of the items talked about were taken care of and he is satisfied with that. He said
the one issue that he is not satisfied with is a problem that is going to occur and that is already now a
problem,the flooding on Fenimore. He was asked and he was brought in to look at the drainage to see
what was going on and to make sure that it didn't affect the Ruppels or the neighbors with the flooding and
also didn't increase the problems of flooding on Fenimore. The questions the Board had asked at one time
was will there be an increase in volume? Mr.Campbell said he went back to Mr.Nichols'report that he
had provided to the Board. There is a volume that is underneath the hydrograph. The volume of water
you have is a modeling going down from the lot in the area underneath the hydrograph. That is the volume
of water. It's easy enough to look at this after they develop it,to determine what the difference in volume
is going to be.
After some discussion regarding the hydrograph,Mr.Campbell said it is provided,an acre a piece. It is
given to them. He didn't create it. This is on the report. What is comes down to is to get the before and
after there is a 61,000 gallon difference in water.
Mr.Darsky asked the percentage terms of the additional 61,000 gallons.
Mr.Campbell said before development there is.16 acre ft.of water comes off the top. After development,
there is.35 acre ft. That is the difference,and that difference is 61,000 gallons.
Mr.Darsky said it is more than double,is what Mr.Campbell is saying.
Mr.Campbell said yes.
Ms.Aisen said over a period of time.
Mr.Campbell said the period being provided is 10 hours.
Mr.Davis asked if Mr.Campbell can explain how that increase in volume will be experienced.
Mr.Campbell said as soon as it happens. It is provided because they have reduced the flow and the flow
doesn't remove the volume. The volume will be there anyway. What they have done,is they have put
it into a basin. Under normal circumstances when downstream is flowing downstream,it is not a concern.
When a piece of property is developed,this is problem of design when the water is going to continue
downstream. What changes is the flooding on Fenimore. The flooding on Fenimore changes
mathematically. It goes from having a peak,to being a flooding condition. The peaks are gone,flattened
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 17
out. The flood is coming in and is building up under the water that is there already. It is not flowing out.
He said he does not understand the analysis supplied,realizes it was a quick analysis,and concurs that he
would like to see it more detailed.
Mr.Davis said to take one step at a time. The first question that Mr.Nichols asked himself is what
change in elevation of the existing flooding will occur after development. Mr.Davis asked if he agrees
that is the question asked,and second,does he agree that is the right question to ask.
Mr.Campbell said there is actually a third question to ask. What effect will it have on the flood on the
place and how much will it increase the flood.
Mr.Davis said Mr.Nichols'answer to that was approximately 200ths of an inch at the worst time.
Mr.Campbell said if he reads the letter,there are no calculations.
Mr.Davis said he has new sets of his numbers for'the purpose of telling what the difference in volume
will be. He said he then asked Mr.Campbell what the difference in experience would be in flooding as
a result. He said Mr.Nichols answer is next to none,because it is only a difference in elevation of 200ths
of an inch at the worst time. Mr.Davis said perhaps Mr.Campbell can express how that difference can
be experienced.
Mr.Campbell said absolutely not. He has not done the research required to do so.
Mr.Darsky said the Board has his answer,Mr.Campbell doesn't know.
Mr.Campbell said the question was asked,what the extra volume was.
Ms.Reader said there was a question about what difference it will make to the flooding. She said she
specifically asked a question,isn't there a formula that works into both,the time it occurs,which talks
about the rate of time,and the change,not just specific,I had a cup half full and had a cup completely
filled. Over a four hour period as that cup is being drained out,what is the practical change to the
flooding circumstances that have an effect.
Mr.Campbell reiterated that he does not have an answer for that. He does not know what the elevation
of the flooding will be. He only knows the amount of flooding that will occur,the increase in volume that
will occur.
•
Mr.Dorsky said that doesn't mean there will be an increase in flooding. Just because there's an increase
in volume doesn't mean that there's going to be an increase in flooding. There is this frightening fact that
the volume will be double,but that doesn't tell us that the situation will be any worse.
Mr.Campbell said it doesn't tell us it won't be any worse.
Mr.Dorsky said that's correct. Mr.Dorsky said he doesn't feel good about someone saying the volume
is going to be doubled,but standing alone that is basically irrelevant. Mr.Darsky said it is a situation that
is now bad that will become worse.
Mr.Campbell said the answer wasn't provided by the applicant or by him. The applicant didn't provide
the details that will allow him to follow what he did,which created the answer that he had. That was Mr.
Campbell's problem. He could not and did not and he wasn't going after it,only that he could not provide
the same answer based on what he was given.
Ms.Reader asked Mr.Capicotto if it was the same material he asked for.
Mr.Capicotto said yes.
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 18
Mr.Darsky asked if this could be boiled down to real issues,rather than continuing month by month by
month,by month dancing around the same thing.
Mr.Campbell said he understands there are two issues;one that was raised with respect to the restriction
in the deed and the other with respect to whether or not the flooding is going to get worse. He asked if
those are the two issues and can they resolve them at this meeting?
Mr.Davis said that Mr.Marcus raised a third issue about the subdivision approval that resulted in the
restriction in the deed.
Ms.Reader said the Board has already made a determination that they can bring a civil action or file a
restriction. Ms.Reader said they are talking in terms of the subdivision matter.
Mr.Darsky said with respect to what Mr.Marcus raised,the second issue with respect to whether it is
getting any worse is something that she can help them with. This has been going on long enough for both
sides.
Ms.Reader said legal counsel has given the Board an extensive review,along with Mr.Capicotto. The
Board had been given the definition that the Board can use in making a determination.
Mr.Papazian said as far as the issue Mr.Marcus has raised,it is basically coming to the point where it
is very ambiguous at this particular point,what was indeed in those documents and what they were
referring to. Each individual Board member is going to have to make that decision on his or her own.
Mr.Dorsky said he agrees with that,but thinks the Board can get some guidance individually from counsel,
so a decision can be made without hearing it every month.
Mr.Davis said he has a suggestion on how to proceed that would bring this to a head one way or the
other,that was not discussed with the chairman nor anybody else. He said it would involve closing the
public hearing tonight,keeping the record open to receive simultaneous submissions from Mr.Campbell
and Mr.Nichols with respect to calculations having to do with the effect of the increase in volume,until
the Board has an opportunity to review Mr.Nichols numbers,Mr.Nichols has an opportunity to review
Campbell's numbers and Mr.Capicotto has an opportunity to review everybody's numbers. By the next
hearing date,the Board will have a letter from Mr.Capicotto setting forth his views with respect to the
compatibility with the usual letter in favor or against at which point the Board could discuss the issues in
a public meeting,which is not a continuation of the public hearing,at the conclusion of which the chair
could canvas the Board to get preliminary views to give counsel some guidance on the nature of the
resolution that could be drafted for the following meeting. That schedule would have the matter ended by
the end of the year.
Ms.Reader asked about the decision to closing the public hearing and set a deadline to close submission
and close the record at that point.
Mr.Davis said anyone that wants to submit,can submit by the same date.
Mr.Cohen asked about guidance from counsel.
Ms.Reader said that Ms.Gallent and Mr.Capicotto previously gave that information to the Board.
Mr.Davis said he will be prepared to discuss the subject at the next meeting and validate it,if the Board
believes it has received in sufficient time,sufficient information that has been requested providing that
everybody has had an opportunity to review it.
Ms.Aisen asked about the definition.
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 19
Mr.Davis said they can discuss it and what guidance there is on that subject and what judgments the Board
is free to make. He is just suggesting that the Board get to a point where they can start focusing on that.
Dr.Mason said he would like to make some comments on the record,before the public hearing is closed.
Mr.Marcus said he would like to make some comments on the suggestions. In terms of the simultaneous
submissions,he thinks it would be appropriate for Mr. Nichols to make a submission and then Mr.
Campbell to have a period of time to review it and comment on it. They have no burdens here. It is their
burden to demonstrate they are not going to make any problems worse. He said Mr.Campbell's review
on their behalf has been simply to check up on them. Mr.Marcus said Mr. Campbell's review really
would be limited today to whether or not the numbers that are presented are correct.
Mr.Dorsky said that is true,but Mr.Campbell has had a lot of time to demonstrate somehow that this
situation will become worse on what's going to happen. He said he sat at many meetings and what's been
discussed every time is,is it going to be worse. They can talk about burden or non-burden. Bottom line,
the Board has been asking for months,is it going to be any worse,is it going to be any worse.
Mr.Ruppel said he should know whose burden it is going to be.
Ms.Reader said that is inappropriate.
•
Mr.Darsky said he doesn't know whose burden it is,but he is asking Mr.Marcus if it going to get any
worse.
Mr.Marcus said they don't know.
Mr.Davis said the question is not whether you think or whether they think to satisfy the burden,the
question is whether the Board thinks in the end that it has sufficient information to make a decision
rationally. The purpose for which Mr.Campbell was retained is irrelevant. You may have retained him
only to comment on what you have seen from Mr.Nichols,but in fact the question before the Board is
does this matter? If you've chosen not to ask Mr. Campbell that question,that is your choice. Mr.
Campbell will have the same amount of time that Mr.Nichols has to furnish additional information,on Mr.
Davis'suggestion that the Board can see the results or not. Mr.Campbell will have the same amount of
time to furnish additional information on that based on the same information and volume for Mr.Nichols
that was already accepted. Then the Board will have to decide whether there is sufficient information on
record to grant the permit or deny it.
Mr.Marcus said he will simply leave it as an objection for the reason previously stated,as he doesn't think
it is appropriate.
Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Nichols wants the matter on the agenda next month or in two months.
After some discussion,Mr.Nichols said he can provide Mr. Capicotto with backup to demonstrate his
conclusions and reasoning.
Mr.Davis said anything else he wants to do in that time period is fine. Everything should be submitted
sufficiently in advance,so that Mr.Capicotto will have time to review it.
Ms.Reader said there has to be two cutoff dates. There has to be a cutoff date for submission by the
applicant and then a week later for the opposition to review it. Ms.Reader said if Mr.Marcus chooses
to enlarge Mr.Campbell's responsibility and Mr.Campbell does his own calculations,then Mr.Nichols
has the opportunity to respond to that.
Mr.Davis said Mr.Capicotto will be reviewing everybody's calculations and suggested they submit all the
calculations at the same time.
Planning Board
October 11,2000
Page 20
Dr.Mason said he disagrees. He said Mr. Campbell really should have an opportunity to review the
numbers,as they have never been presented.
On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed.
Ms.Reader said he should provide his comments or numbers or whatever he wishes to submit to Mr.
Capicotto and also to Mr.Marcus within two(2)weeks from today and they have two(2)weeks from that.
Then Mr.Capicotto will review everything.
Mr.Nichols asked if he has one(1)week to respond,which Ms.Reader verified.
Dr.Mason said in which case the Board keeps the record of the public hearing open,because Mr.Nichols
will then have an opportunity to comment on the submissions.
Mr.Nichols said he would prefer to get those comments on the record that is being transcribed.
Mr.Davis said he agrees with that. -
Ms.Reader said he can direct that it be transcribed.
Mr.Nichols said then he would not object,on a parliamentary basis,to Mr.Davis'suggestion. '
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments,as it is still on the record as a public hearing.
Mr.Scheuer said there is an incongruity here between what is being written on pieces of paper and what
is happening on the ground which we've been able to see,have had pictures of with basements full of
water. Ten years ago there wasn't any flooding on Fenimore Road. As this subdivisionhas gradually been
built,the flooding has gotten more and more serious. It seems obvious to Mr.Scheuer that each time
another house is put in the stream bay,it is substantially reducing the ability of the ground to absorb water
and increasing the amount of flooding. Without reference to whether in the past the engineers have been
able to describe what is happening or they haven't,we have all seen not that a 100-year storm produces
the flood,but that an ordinary summer rain,if it goes on for fifteen(15)or twenty(20)hours,produces
a situation where Fenimore Road is under water and any number of houses are swimming. Mr.Scheuer
doesn't see how this Board,as the citizens responsible for guiding the planning of the Town,can vote to
exacerbate such a situation regardless of what is circulating on pieces of paper. The actual facts on.the
ground show that an ordinary summer storm,produces a situation where basements are flooding,the road
is submerged,fire trucks can't get through when the road is closed,and ambulances couldn't go through.
We're exacerbating in a thoroughly unsound way,a situation that has been forced in a steady deterioration.
It's the responsibility of a Planning Board to look at what's really happening and to act in accordance with
the facts,not necessarily what is being circulated on one piece of paper or another. We have to look at
what's really happening on the ground.
Dr.Mason said the argument Mr.Scheuer is making is the argument that he has heard a hundred times
from various homeowners on the west branch of the Sheldrake. That seems to be a so-called diminimis
argument. Each project that's developed,each house that's built,has a minuscule effect,but yet in the
long run we have a mess on our hands. That's what's happened here. The Board is being asked to
approve a 200th's of an inch rise.
After further discussion,Ms.Reader said this is not a forum to argue the case.
Dr.Mason said he is not having an argument. He said Mr.Darsky did a fine job focusing on Mr.Young
and his findings. Dr.Mason thinks it's important that the argument Mr.Scheuer is making is equally