HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_04_12 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
• PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
APRIL 12, 2000, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman
May W. Aisen
Richard H. Darsky
Linda S. Harrington
C. Alan Mason
Edmund Papazian
Absent: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel
Nancy Seligson, Liaison
Also Present: Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer
Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building
Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographers
Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. �/ A
40 Eighth Street ��� � � �
New Rochelle, New York 10801 00
MAY 11 2000
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary -• PATRICIA A.DICIOCCIO
TOWN CLERK
AL4WRQVECK
CALL TO ORDER 0N.f.
4Liv
The meetingwas called to order byChairwoman MarilynReader at 8:15 p.m.
Y
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of March 8, 2000 and if there
were any modifications. After modifications made by Mr. Capicotto, on a motion made by Ms. Aisen,
seconded by Dr. Mason, the Minutes were approved.
On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, 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.
Ms. Reader said that the below listed matter requested an adjournment.
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)
Ms. Reader said the next item on the calendar is ZONING AMENDMENT - SECTION 1, CHAPTER
240-STRUCTURES. She asked Mr. Altieri, the Town Administrator,who is also present, if it is alright
to first take the public hearing for the renewal of a special permit for Trader Joe's East, Inc., with which
I ' Mr. Altieri agreed.
Chairperson Reader read the application as follows:
Planning Board
April 12,2000
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING-RENEWAL/SPECIAL PERMIT-Trader Joe's East,Inc.-1262 Boston Post
Road-Block 407,Lot 192
Ms.Reader noted for the record that a letter,dated March 15,2000,was received from the Department
of Planning,County of Westchester,indicating the action is a matter for local determination in accordance
with the community's planning and zoning policies and they have no objection.
Donald S.Mazin,of 1415 Boston Post Road,Larchmont,New York,the attorney for the applicant,Trader
Joe's East,Inc.addressed the Board. Mr.Mazin informed the Board he was present in May, 1998 to
make application for a special permit which was granted. The permit expires every two years and he will
come before the Board each time the permit expires. He believes that the applicant has lived up to the
terms and provisions of the resolution. Mr.Mazin said the applicant would like and agrees to the same
conditions that were on the previous resolution. He said they will answer any questions the Board may
have.
Ms.Reader asked Mr.Carpaneto if there were any violations.
Mr.Carpaneto said there were no violations.
Ms.Harrington asked if there was any trouble with the lights.
Mr.Carpaneto said he has not heard anything about the lights.
Mr.Mazin said the lights are not Trader Joe's lights,but the shopping center lights. He said when they
O had the last meeting Mr.Glaser was present who brought it to the attention of the Board. Mr.Mazin
brought it to the attention of the owner and the owner took care of it.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board or the audience. There being
none,on a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Ms.Harrington,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed.
On a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Ms.Harrington,consistent with the conditions that were
set when the permit, dated April 14, 1998, was granted, the following resolution was unanimously
APPROVED:
WHEREAS,Trader Joe's East,Inc.submitted an application for a Special Use Permit Renewal for use
of the premises at 1262 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 407,Lot 192 to operate a store for the sale of goods at retail;and
WHEREAS,a Public Hearing having been held on April 12,2000 pursuant to notice;and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA, see 6
N.Y.C.R.R.§§617.4 and 617.5;Town of Mamaroneck Code§§92-7(A)and(B),and the Planning Board
previously issued a Negative Declaration.
WHEREAS,the Planning Board previously granted Site Plan approval;
WHEREAS,the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Use Permit Renewal,the
plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses
O to questions by the applicant,the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having
heard interested members of the public;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows:
Planning Board
April 12,2000
Page 3
O1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with
the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to
traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining
streets.
2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit Renewal will be no more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes,vibrations,flashing of lights
or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring
a Special Use Permit Renewal.
3. The proposed Special Use Permit Renewal use will be in harmony with the general
health,safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location.
It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that this Board APPROVES the application of Trader Joe's East,Inc.
for a Special Use Permit Renewal for a high quality grocery store subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.daily.
2. Permit shall expire after two(2)years.
3. This Special Use Permit Renewal is subject to the termination requirements set forth in
Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30 of the
OZoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck.
Mr.Mazin said while he has the Board's attention and while Mr.Alfieri is also present,he has represented
a number of merchants/businessmen who have been granted special permits. They have to come before
the Board every two years,whether or not they have been issued violations or anything else has occurred.
He understands with a special permit the reason they have to come back every two years is because if
something goes wrong the Board has the option to place additional conditions on the special permit. He
said that some of these people are very limited in their finances,and it is a hardship to come back to the
Board every two years,especially if no violations were issued. If they were issued a violation,then a
provision can be put in the permit that they have to come back before the Board. Mr.Mazin thinks the
Board should extend the time,as it takes up a lot of Board time,there is a lot of paperwork because one
has to comply with the standards,bring in surveys,etc. It is costly and time-consuming for them. Mr.
Mazin would like the Board,Mr.Altieri and the Building Department to reconsider that aspect of it and
thanked the Board for their time.
Dr.Mason said that is something the Town Board has to deal with. It is something they have talked about.
Ms.Reader said Mr.Mazin's comments have merit. She said the Board has seen businesses that have had
no formal violations issued against them,but the neighbors have very specific and concrete comments to
particular businesses. One of the issues of a special use permit is lack of nuisance and how well a business
fits in with the community around it. There is good reasoning to what Mr.Mazin is saying,and she is
not rejecting it.
Mr.Mazin said if the neighbors haven't written to the Building Department or to the Town Board and there
are no violations issued,it's a hardship.
O Ms.Reader said people that may be present and may not have written have a right to be heard and the
Board often makes modifications/conditions and listens to them. It is a hardship to the neighbors if they
are not given the opportunity to express themselves,so there can be a modification as to how a business
is nun.
{
Planning Board
April 12,2000
Page 4
Co) Mr.Mazin said that two years is quite expensive for some businesses.
A discussion ensued regarding requirements necessary for permit renewals.
Chairperson Reader read the next matter as follows:
ZONING AMENDMENT-SECTION 1,CHAPTER 240-STRUCTURES
Mr.Altieri handed out the proper paperwork to be discussed. He stated that the Town Board has been,
over the last year,dealing with the issue of air conditioning units being installed on properties and the
problems. Although it has fallen on the zoning board's lap, it appears to be more suited to a noise
enforcement than it does a zoning enforcement. Based on the current definition of structure,which can
be seen from the reading is quite broad,the zoning board felt compelled,after advice of counsel,to define
the air conditioning condensing unit as a structure because they were erected on a platform. The Town
Board,at this point,as can be seen by the ordinance the Board received in Board packets,is considering
an amendment to the noise ordinance that would establish a decibel level threshold for air conditioning and
other air handling equipment. The matter referred to this evening by the Town Board is the amendment
to the zoning board rules that would remove from the definition of structure air conditioners and air
handling units.
Ms.Reader said she is having trouble with the language of it. ..."except this definition shall not apply to
air-conditioning or air-handling units."
A discussion ensued.
Mr.Altieri said they ended up with the decision that they had to interpret the air conditioner as structure.
He said that the Board is not ignoring the issue,they are just saying it is better in a different arena.
Mr.Reader asked if he is saying...is an exception to this definition,with which Mr.Altieri agreed.
Ms.Reader asked why they can't say that.
Mr.Altieri said he is not the attorney that drafted this. If there is wording the Board prefers,he can take
that back to the Town Attorney. The intent is to exclude air-handling equipment and air conditioning units.
Mr.Alfieri said,as a point of information,the zoning board and the town board met jointly approximately
three weeks ago and heard a presentation from a noise expert. The Town Board is going to again meet
with that expert on April 26,2000 for the purpose of understanding how the Town would establish a
decibel threshold,what should be the distance and how will Mr.Carpaneto enforce it.
Dr.Mason said Mr.Alfieri is really looking at the noise level off the premises,and the impact on the
neighbors,with which Mr.Altieri agreed.
Dr.Mason asked if the Town will grandfather in the older units.
Mr.Altieri said that issue has been raised,because there are a fair number of older units. The newer
technology appears to be within the decibel levels set,especially at a distance of 10 or 20 ft. It is not clear
what the Town is going to do with the old units. It is not an insignificant issue,but that decision hasn't
been made.
Dr.Mason said many,many units do not comply now and they are not really a problem.
Mr.Altieri said an idea suggested is that the Town would,either on their own or using a sound consultant
the Town has been talking to from Iarchmont,go out and test the noise at some of these older units and
see whether or not at some distance they don't fall within the decibel levels established. It may be that the
Planning Board
April 12,2000
Page 5
Town does not have the problem they think they do,because of the issue of ambient noise and at that
distance the unit producing 76 decibels in a sound studio at 20 ft.is only producing 55 decibels.
Dr.Mason recalled several homes where there are three zones of air conditioning. If all three are put
together on a hot night,the noise level may be non-compliant. He asked if the Town is treating a group
of three air conditioners as an air conditioning plant to be measured all in one piece,or are these units to
be measured individually?
Mr.Altieri said that is a good question,and he can't give him an answer.
Mr.Papazian said these are not room air conditioners.
Mr.Capicotto said they are talking about three condensers together.
Mr.Altieri said it would be any air conditioning unit. It could be a window air conditioner. If there are
three together,the noise of three together would have to be considered.
Ms.Reader asked if a window air conditioner is a structure.
Mr.Altieri said no,but for the purpose of a noise ordinance. It does not have to formally come before
the Planning Board. Now that the Board has seen it,if there are any comments don't hesitate to speak.
The discussion continued along these lines including possible jail time on the decibel law and expost facto
(the criminal statute).
Ms.Reader advised Mr.Altieri to discuss this matter with Charlene Indelicato,the Town Attorney. She
asked if there were any other comments.
Mr.Altieri said it is just for the Board's comments.
Ms.Reader thinks the language is very awkward.
Dr.Mason said the concept is good. Getting the air conditioners out of the realm of structures is the only
reasonable approach for the Zoning Board's rather obscure definition.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments.
Mr.Capicotto asked if there is currently a setback for air conditioners.
Mr. Carpaneto said currently it is a zoning setback,the principal setback. It can be put right on the
property line.
Mr.Capicotto commented on the latest correspondence to the design engineer on 10 Evergreen Lane. The
applicant proposed a gravel driveway and put it in his calculations as gravel and not as an impervious
surface. It is a 300 ft.long driveway,if the applicant sells the property and the next owner decides to pave
it,there will be over 3,000 sq.ft.which is the footprint of a house of additional impervious surface which
will drain into their detention basin. Mr.Capicotto isn't sure how the Board would want to handle that,
but he is going to recommend the applicant include that area,even if it is gravel,as an impervious surface
in case it is paved in the future or thoroughly compacted to the point that it becomes no more impervious.
A discussion ensued.
Ms.Reader said procedurally Ms.Gallent isn't present and Ms.Reader hadn't known this issue was going
to be raised. This is a matter that is in the middle of an adjourned public hearing and the applicant is not
present to speak on this issue. She said in an effort for the Board to get an insight,she shares what Dr.
Planning Board
April 12,2000
Page 6
Mason has said from the point of view that since the Board can't set any limitations that goes with the land
for a Freshwater Wetlands permit,it makes sense that it be viewed as an impervious area an calculated as
such. The proper procedure probably will be that the concept be addressed by the applicant next month.
The Board shouldn't be firm in what is said,until the applicant has an opportunity to speak.
Dr.Mason said the Board is not violating any rules by discussing this,as it is on the agenda for a public
meeting.
Ms.Harrington asked if Ms.Reader,as chair,can send the applicant a letter stating that this has been
discussed,so they can come in with their calculations and this matter doesn't go on indefinitely.
Mr.Capicotto said he can send them a letter.
Ms.Reader said the Board needs to make their decision based upon what people tell the Board not just
what the applicant says.
Mr.Papazian said the bottom line is that the Board is not making any decision.
Ms.Reader said the Board is just giving guidance.
Mr.Papazian said it is not only guidance,but it helps the Board to make a decision.
Mr.Capicotto said he was actually looking at it is an impervious surface. In case it gets paved in the
future,he should account for it.
After further discussion,Dr.Mason said in this particular situation the driveway actually acts as a berm,
and the Board is talking about a clay packing or clay basin under it. Nothing is being built that will soak
up the water. It is going to be solid and paved. Dr.Mason is concerned about setting a precedent,such
as where does the Board draw the line between gravel driveways,etc.
Ms.Reader said each matter is taken case by case.
After further discussion,Ms.Aisen said it is something the Board should consider. In the mean time,the
Board should let the applicant know that this is under the discussion period and should come prepared to
address the concerns of the Board.
Ms. Reader said the applicant has been notified of that. She said that Mr. Capicotto can indicate the
Board's concerns to the applicant. She said that counsel will give guidance to the Board.
Mr.Capicotto said after driving over this area in a year or two,the gravel gets impacted down.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 10,2000.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
O 4-16
Marguerite ma,Recording Secretary