Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_12_12 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 12,2001,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S.Reader,Chairwoman May W.Aisen Robert A.Cohen Linda S.Harrington C.Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Also Present: Kevin Healy,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building Antonio V.Capicotto,Consulting Engineer Elizabeth Paul;Environmental Coordinator Nancy Seligson,Liaison Denise M.Carbone,Public Stenographers Carbone&Associates,Ltd. 111 N.Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms.Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of November 14,2001 and if there were any amendments. After a few minor changes were noted,on a motion made by Mr.Papazian, seconded by Ms.Aisen,the November 14,2001 Minutes were unanimously approved. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,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. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TAPES USED FOR RECORDING THE MINUTES WERE DEFECTIVE,THE COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT IS ATTACHED HERETO FOR THE PUBLIC BEARING PORTION OF THIS MEETING. Ms.Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Vesta Development LLC/Frederick F.Grippi-29 Marboume Drive-Block 334,Lot 25(adjourned 11/14/01) Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Mr.& Mrs.John Healy-43 Mohegan Road-Block 205,Lot 1 Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 2 Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Rick Bernstein-24 Winged Foot Drive-Block 204,Lot 310 On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. After some discussion,Ms.Reader took the next matter out of turn and read the next matter as follows: AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE-FOOD RELATED RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS Ms.Reader asked if everyone received a copy of the proposed modification of the Town Board Minutes and asked if they had a chance to review it. After some discussion among Board members,Ms.Reader said she is still trying to understand what the purpose of this is. The only....inaudible that I remember was grandfathered in,because it's on there. They're open later than midnight. Mr.Carpaneto said in the current code book there's a footnote that I believe is going to be exempt with the new law. That footnote,basically the way it reads,it grandfathers all the uses that were in place at the time of adoption of that particular code. Mr.Healy said that the existing provision will be repealed and be replaced by a grandfather clause that allows stores that had operating hours extending beyond midnight to continue to operate during those hours. Ms.Reader said there is only one that I can think of and that's the diner. Dr.Mason said there's Dunkin Donuts. Mr.Carpaneto said there's Dunkin Donuts. Ms.Reader said if they for some reason stop operation,then they can't just renew it. That's what this focuses on. Ms.Harrington asked,isn't it for a year. Mr.Carpaneto said it's either six months or a year. Mr.Cohen asked if this is a material change or are we just codifying that which is in the footnote into a provision of the code. Mr.Healy said I think what it does is narrow the exception. Instead of any store in existence,it's any store in existence with late hours that would now be excepted from the restriction. So,it narrows that exception. Ms.Harrington said,so it's people that were operating in those hours before. Mr.Healy said that's correct. Dr.Mason asked if it locks them into their present hours or if we have a store that is operating beyond midnight now but not past 3:00 a.m.,could they then go to 4:00 am? Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 3 Mr.Healy said my recollection is that it does not. Mr.Healy said let me take a quick look. It says in 240-30E--Any food-related retail use which regularly conducted such business prior to April 14,1998, shall not be required to limit its hours of operation to the hours between 6:00 a.m.and midnight,but can continue to operate such business during the hours that it was conducting such business as of April 13, 1998. Dr.Mason said,so it does limit them. Mr.Healy said so it's limited to what it had regularly operated as,prior to April 13,1998. Ms.Reader said and what they're doing is amending 240-30E,basically to say the same thing except that they're adding provided,however,if such food-related retail use ceases to be a food-related retail use for a period of one(1) or more years, the hours of operation of any food-related retail use which may commence operation at that site thereafter shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m.and midnight, unless federal or state law control. Ms.Reader said so they lose the grandfather. Dr.Mason said how about change of ownership,same operation. Ms.Reader said it sounds like changes of ownership. Same operation,is not affected. Mr.Healy said it would not cause the grandfather clause to be non-transferrable. Ms.Reader said they can still keep the extended hours. After further discussion,Mr.Healy said changes in ownership should not extinguish the exemption. Dr.Mason said,we do require a change of ownership to come in for a special permit. Ms.Reader said we do require a change of ownership to come in for a special use permit. The special use permit would still be before us and the hours of operation would be under consideration,if there is any pubic outcry. Ms.Harrington said I don't have a problem with that. Ms.Reader said it's not really repealing it,it's modifying it. Mr.Healy said it's a modification. The net affect of it is modification. Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none. Ms.Reader said I have no objection to it. I think it's fine. Mr.Papazian said he goes along with the vote. Ms.Reader said we don't vote on this. We have a consensus basically saying to the Town Board you did a good job,I go along with it. Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-David and Joy DeSanto-450 Weaver Street-Block 221,Lot 154 Scott Perry,the designer,of Village Craftsmen,Inc.,addressed the Board. He said what we're asking to do is remove a wood deck that's roughly 8 ft.by 22 ft.on the back of this residence and put in a two- • Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 4 story addition,with the second story extending the kitchen and dining room. It's roughly 10 ft.by 22 ft. It puts us 2 ft.closer to the back of the property line. Right now I think the property line is closer than the required 100 ft.from the runoff culvert in the back. We're asking for permission there to build the addition. Ms.Aisen asked for Mr.Perry to repeat the square footage. She said you're to i.g away a deck of how large? Mr.Perry said it's 8 ft.by 22 ft.and we're adding 10 ft.by 22 ft. Mr.Cohen asked Ron if there are plans on this. Ms.Reader said I don't have plans. Mr.Carpaneto said you should have gotten plans. After some discussion,Mr.Cohen asked if this is coming down completely. Mr.Perry said yes,we're taking the wood deck off completely. Ms.Reader said you're not going to build a deck on this side. Mr.Perry said no. Ms.Aisen asked if it is now off the ground. Mr.Perry said,yes it is. Ms.Aisen asked if this is going to be on the ground. Mr.Perry said we're going to put a foundation in for the second story. The first floor foundation is going to be unfinished. It's storage. Above that we're going to bring the kitchen,living room and dining room out into the...left hanging. Ms.Aisen said you're adding an impervious area. Mr. Perry said an extra 2 ft. Right now under the deck is impervious now. If you look at the photographs,it's impervious right now. There's a sidewalk under there. Ms.Reader asked if that's concrete underneath. Mr.Perry said,yes it is. Mr.Carpaneto said you don't see an erosion control application specifically for the dry wells,because there's no net increase in the impervious surface or if there is,it's very,very little. The plan was to just incorporate a silt fence as part of the building,because if you look at the property in the back there's a big wall there that comes up. You wouldn't be able to get anything down to the stream. Dry wells are not required,just the fact that the disturbance is within 100 ft.of the wetlands. Ms.Reader said you're calling the kitchen/dining room the new family room. Mr.Perry said it's going to connect them into a horseshoe type of approach,where the kids watch TV and make the kitchen a little larger. Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 5 Mr.Perry passed three pictures around for the Board to review,marked exhibit I. Ms.Harrington said on the plans where it says,right above the family room...inaudible. MR.PERRY IS SPEAKING BUT IT'S INAUDIBLE. Ms.Aisen said,but you're not adding any more impervious area,more than 2 ft. Mr.Perry said roughly 2 ft. Ms.Reader asked if the deck now is where the dashed line is? Mr.Perry explained where the deck will be and where the top floor/second floor is. (THIS DISCUSSION WAS AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS) Ms.Reader asked,is there anything else Mr.Capicotto? Mr.Capicotto said we'll just need the usual information shown on the site plan,which would be a 100 ft. setback line to the wetland,the 100-year flood elevation and for the benefit of the Board,showing the silt fence line proposed. I can get those comments in writing to you. Also,you may want to consider,since even though it's impervious area, to replace it with more impervious area. You will have downspouts, which will now runoff onto the lawn. You may want to consider putting in dry wells,although it doesn't fall under a requirement because it's...inaudible. Mr.Perry said there's a dry well there now. Mr.Capicotto said you can put a note on it to the effect that it will be tied into an existing dry well. Dr.Mason said,but if you're increasing the roof area,you're not increasing the impervious area,but you are increasing the roof area. Mr.Perry said yes. Mr.Capicotto said you would fill the dry well quicker,but in a smaller storm you would still remove that flow from the amount of runoff from the side. In a larger storm,the dry well would fill quicker,then overflow so you'd equate...inaudible. Mr.Papazian asked how old the house is. Mr.Perry said probably 1929. The back yard is a little depressed,so whatever you're catching is not going to go into the....tape beeped-inaudible! Mr.Capicotto said,in that case you may just want to have splash blocks. Ms.Aisen asked what he said. Mr.Capicotto said splash blocks at the bottom of the down spout,so that it is not rutting out the lawn. It will distribute the water and it will seep into the lawn. Ms.Reader asked if that's what Mr.Capicotto is recommending. Mr.Capicotto said yes. Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 6 Ms.Aisen asked if the stairs are going to sit on the lawn. Mr.Perry said no,there will be a concrete patio. We really need to put it on something solid. Ms.Aisen said you're adding 2 ft.by 10 ft.impervious area for the addition. Mr.Perry said roughly. It's a little less,but yes. Ms.Aisen said plus this concrete pad,which is impervious for the stairs. Ms.Reader said and more roof. Mr.Perry said you're just catching it a little higher in the air,instead of catching it on the grade. Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments. She said basically these comments are done to help you address issues that could be concerns,so that when you come back for the public hearing they might not be issues if you address them. Between now and the next meeting you are also going to the Coastal Zoning Management Commission(CZMC). I am referring the matter to the CZMC. This is a Type II action,it's a residential home,so there is no further action under SEQRA that's necessary,but you do have to meet with the CZMC. They are an advisory board to us,when it comes to wetlands issues. Mr.Perry said do I contact them or do they contact me. Ms.Reader said right next to you is Ms.Paul. She's going to tell you when and where they're meeting is this month. Ms.Paul said actually we don't have a December meeting. The next meeting will be on January 22,2002. Ms.Reader said then we can't put this matter on until February,2002,because we have to hear from the CZMC. Dr.Mason said for information purposes,the drainage and handling of the runoff,dry well,etc.,will be issues for the CZMC. Dr.Mason suggests you have your calculations before you go. It will save time. Ms.Reader said Dr.Mason might be suggesting that you might consider putting in dry wells and bring that forward to the CZMC,when you meet with them. Mr.Cohen said you're going to meet with the CZMC in January and you'll be back to us in February. After some discussion,Ms.Reader said the meeting date in February will be February 13,2002. Ms.Reader said she schedules this matter for a public hearing on February 13,2002,at 8:15 p.m. In the meantime,on January 22,2002,you will go to the CZMC. Ms.Paul will tell you where they meet. Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL-Bonnie Briar Country Club-808 Weaver Street-Block 225,Lot 1.1,Block 201,Lot 19 Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Negrin is participating in this. Mr.Negrin said I will be. I'm visiting. Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 7 Ms.Reader said our esteemed former member,we miss you dearly. She said we'd love to get you back. It's a great substitute,but we still have an opening for you. Paul Kalos,of 44 Colonial Avenue,Larchmont,addressed the Board. Mr.Kalos said he is a 30-year resident of the Town. I'm here to introduce the applicant,which is our first appearance as a member- owned country club,after all these years. We are not the developer. We have bought the club. This is our first appearance, before any Town-body politics. What we're doing basically is renovating and beautifying the golf course,which is the subject matter before us. There are several members of the club here and several professionals. I'll introduce them and then sit down. Mr.Kalos introduced Mr.Negrin,a member of the club. Another long-term Town resident,Todd Zorn, is the manager of the club,probably known to many of you,David Fenton is a member of the club and Dr.Herbert Rubin is a member of the board. Both live in neighboring communities. At this point, because I know when to stop and I'm not appearing as a lawyer either,I'll introduce Steve Grogg of TRC, Raymond Keyes Associates. He will be making the presentation and introducing the other professionals who are here and who will be involved in this. Thank you. Ms.Reader thanked Mr.Kalos. Steven Grogg,of TRC Raymond Keyes Associates,addressed the Board. Mr.Grogg positioned an aerial view of the club used in his presentation. He said as presented,Bonnie Briar is looking to really upgrade the golf course. What is being proposed as part of this application are four components of that work. This is an aerial photograph of the golf course. The black line is the property line of the 150 acre site. At the bottom,to orient you,is Weaver Street,to the upper left-hand corner is Fenimore,Cornell is at the lower left-hand corner and in the upper right-hand corner you have Bonnie Briar Lane. Mr.Grogg said the club house is at the bottom of this between this whole plain and 18. What.I've shown on here in the circles are the greens around the course to orient you,if any of you are familiar with the property and also the little square boxes are the tees. Mr.Grogg said to walk around the project and really tell you what we're doing,I said there are four components. There's rebuilding or extension of two of the tees at hole 4 and hole 14. The purpose is just to lengthen the hole,raise existing tees,just to improve the play of golf. The third thing is a regrading of the maintenance staging area and the fourth is a regrading of the existing driving range. Mr.Grogg said starting with hole 4,hole 4 is along the property line. Country Club Lane is just off the sheet. Fenimore is here. Hole 4 tee is situated,actually tucked,between a little knoll where the car track is and the tree line on the upper side and the hole continues along the property line. Mr.Grogg said what is proposed is to extend that green by approximately 30 yards. The extension will be elevated slightly above the existing tee,so that you get some height from the back of the new tee. Mr.Grogg said also as part of that work,there is a reconstruction or minor reconstruction of the cart path. Mr.Grogg said this is the area where we have applied and are slated for a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. The reasoning is that in order to bring the material in to construct this green,it will be necessary to install just a temporary crossing across the stream. It will be short-term. There is no fill within the stream corridor,the 100-ft.control area. It's just a temporary crossing. Everything will be restabilized and put back to existing conditions,as soon as the work is completed. Mr.Grogg said it is anticipated that access to that area will be off of Fenimore. Currently right adjacent to the second green,there is a small road. Some access comes in. No trees have to be taken out. There are a couple of shrub bushes in that area that may have to be taken out,just to get the trucks in. It's possible to come in,some temporary crossing the stream and then this work can be done. That's the reason why we applied for that permit. No other work on this project is within the flood plain or within the 100 ft.buffer area of your stream control. • Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 8 Mr.Grogg said the second tee is the 14th tee,which is clown close to Weaver Street just between the 13th and the 16th green. It is proposed to construct again,an extension of that tee behind the 14th. It will be elevated. If you are at all familiar,there is a row of pines that sits between the 16th green and the 17th tee. They are to remain. The work is really between the pines and the existing tee. Mr.Grogg said the third area is the maintenance staging area. Right now this is an open area. It's gravel, dirt. What is being proposed is to really level it off,so that they're able to store or use it as a staging area. This is where they keep or have bins for their stockpile of sand,greens mix and topsoil that they use in the maintenance of the golf course on a year-round basis. This is an open area. It's gravel now. The purpose is just to level it off, to make it much more useable for the club and staging of their maintenance operations. Mr.Grogg said the fourth area is the driving range. Actually for each of these,the plans that you have before you are at a larger scale. I just thought the aerial photograph helps orient people much better to what's happening. Just briefly,this is the 14th tee. Weaver Street is just to the bottom of the drawing. As you can see, there's an extension. This is a row of existing pines that will remain. This is the maintenance staging area,which again is a brief grading of an approximate acre of area that is now open; gravel,dirt and to stabilize it,actually it's not going to be stabilized,it's going to remain a gravel area for their staging. Ms.Reader said that's where the maintenance trucks are,etc. She asked what happens in the staging area. Mr.Grogg said that one of the golf people,David Fenton,can probably address that more. Mr.Fenton said a staging maintenance area is used where the greens superintendent and his crews will be able to have good ingress and egress into materials that will be used for the course,if they can get in there and have accessibility to it. Right now the club doesn't have any accessibility to those areas. It's very difficult for him to do his job and to keep an adequate supply of sand or topsoil or greens mix,whatever he needs,to properly maintain the golf course. Ms.Reader said because trucks can't get through there? Mr.Fenton said they can't get through there. The elevation changes so much in there that you can't bring in 10-wheelers or trailer trucks safely to be able to steady his gate and to be able to disperse the material out there. Ms.Aisen asked where is the garage for all of these trucks. Mr. Fenton said right now they have an existing maintenance building which is right there. That maintenance building is not part of anything. It's going to stay there. The future hope,whether it's three, four or five years,is that eventually they would want to put a butler building up in this area. That way their maintenance building can be within one of the confines. Ms.Reader asked,do you have live-in staff? Staff who lives on the golf course? Mr.Fenton said no,not that I know of. Ms.Reader said Winged Foot does,but you don't. Ms.Harrington asked,are you going to be having pesticides in that? Mr.Fenton said in this area here,no. It's an open air,vent container used,3 ft.by 6 ft.,formed concrete block. It's neatly stacked where you can put sand and topsoil. Ms.Harrington reiterated,so you're not going to have any pesticides,nothing to make the course green? Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 9 Mr. Fenton said no, you can't keep that outside. That's kept down in the maintenance area now. Eventually the club really needs an 8,500/10,000 sq.ft.butler building,but that's not within the plans at the club at this moment. Really what this is for is that right now they're having to stockpile bits and pieces everywhere and you lose it in runoff,because it's not contained so there's a lot of dirt and sand that's lost. It's primarily to give them a base operation to be able to keep the golf course functional and make it more efficient. Ms. Harrington said she has one other question about where you want to put in a temporary bridge. What's the closest residence to that? How many houses are in that area? Mr.Grogg said the only house that is really close to the proposed construction or even around,is this one house off of Winding Brook Drive. It's access is off of Fenimore. There's a small bridge. It comes across. There's a question of whether his driveway is on our property or exactly where it's at,but there is one house. That's the closest house. Where they would access off of Fenimore,there are no houses on the opposite side of the street in that area. Mr.Cohen asked how long will that access be in use,in anticipation. Mr.Fenton said use of the temporary bridge,at the most a week. Mr. Grogg said because of the amount of dirt,probably what will happen was anticipated is that the material will be delivered probably a week maximum and maybe stockpiled here and then placed here. We applied for the wetlands permit,because your ordinance does discuss even whether it's temporary or permanent and over stream control you need a permit. So,whether this Board feels we're still within that jurisdiction is really what the determination is for. We wanted to be up front,tell you everything we're doing as part of our application. Dr.Mason asked,how do you anticipate bridging that stream? Mr.Grogg said actually Gary Parker from the contractor can come up and discuss that and asked if he just wanted to discuss that briefly. Mr.Parker said we're actually just going to install concrete block,3 ft.by 6 ft.,in the bridge inflated with steel plates. It's at most 6 ft.wide,where we need to cross. That would support the trucking we need to go over it and it's quick,no mess. Ms.Aisen said the blocks would be sitting in the stream. Mr.Parker said they would be sitting on the edge of the stream,next to the walls of the stream. Ms.Reader asked in the stream or beyond the stream? Mr.Parker said steel plates inside the stream bed. Ms.Aisen said you're not obstructing the flow any more than that. Mr.Parker said no. Ms.Reader asked if that's O.K.to be inside the stream. Dr.Mason said the reason I asked the question was the stream profile over there along Fenimore is fairly flat and we do get flooding and we do get ripping(?)out of Fenimore Road by flooding. If we get a heavy storm while that stream is partially blocked,we're going to divert water up onto Fenimore Road and cause further erosion of that road. I would almost rather see,you say not more than 6 ft.wide,I'd rather see something considerably wider,so that does not become a choke point. Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 10 Ms.Reader said a bridge that's longer,so that the supports are off the wall? Dr.Mason said or more of them,two sets of blocks. Mr.Parker said in the stream bed,on each side if you have 2 ft.over it,it depends on what time of year you're going to do this. Dr.Mason said it doesn't make any difference. We've had floods in every month of the year. Don't even go there. Mr.Fenton said the actual temporary bridge can be taken down and put back in twenty minutes. Dr.Mason said are you going to have somebody there at 4:00 a.m.,just to take that out? Ms.Reader said she thinks what Mr.Fenton is saying is,if it's a bad storm or a storm is predicted they can take it out late in the evening before they retire. Ms.Aisen said they can take out the planks,but not the concrete block. Mr.Fenton said they come out. They have hooks in them and they just come right out. Ms.Aisen asked,do we want to rely on that? Dr.Mason said I presume that this is going to be referred to CZMC. Ms.Reader said it will be referred to the CZMC. Dr.Mason said when you go to CZMC,I would suggest very strongly that you have a stream profile showing the pitch and grade of the stream and the width of the stream above and below the point that you intend to put this,so that an evaluation can be made whether or not this is a potential choke point. Mr.Healy said he should also add that this is not a Type II action under SEQRA. I think it's an unlisted action. I have to ask a question though. What's the total amount of the acreage that you would be altering. Mr.Parker said basically 8.2 acres. Mr. Healy said so it's not a Type I action which would be an alteration of 10 or more acres, so it's unlisted. Ms.Reader said so I would expect the Planning Board will act as Lead Agency. Mr.Healy asked whether this property is within the Coastal Zone. Dr.Mason replied yes. Mr.Healy said there's a requirement,as I understand it,in the Coastal Zone for a full environmental assessment form. Ms.Reader said it's referred to the CZMC. Mr.Healy said but beyond that there's a requirement for a full environmental assessment form,I think. Right now the application has a short form. We have to get the full environmental assessment form. What I would suggest,the reason for that environmental assessment form,is to provide the Lead Agency with the information it needs in order to figure out whether there will not or may be significant environmental • Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 11 impacts from the project. I would suggest that you fill out the long form and that in addition,you describe the project at at least the level of detail that you're describing tonight,so they can have the information that they need in order to draw conclusions about aesthetic impacts,about flooding,about drainage,and various other potential areas of concern,such as traffic. What you've got to do is you've got to provide these folks with the information they need as to each of those areas to draw conclusions that there will or won't be environmental impacts that have to be considered in the proposal. Ms.Aisen said maybe you should have a plan"B"for this bridge with placing the block outside of the stream. Mr.Healy said the issue there would be flooding. As you describe the project you ought to think through whether there would be potential flooding issues you would have to contend with via some other course of action or whether the course of action your proposing does not raise a flooding issue. Mr.Capicotto said placing anything in the stream bed is going to be a potential for restriction,but then possibly a steel beam placed across the stream bed and a steel plate on top with a little buildup of soil on either end,so you can build a ramp. Mr.Grogg said I think there is existing golf cart crossings along and most of them are fairly low profiled. They're probably 12 to 15 inches profiled,which is really the construction. Dr.Mason said,but when the water comes up,it's simply overwhelming. Mr.Grogg said I agree,but what Mr.Capicotto is saying is that the concern and what I'm hearing from the Board is placing anything within the stream bed that if the temporary abutments,if that's what you want to call it,are outside the stream bed and the profile then,the temporary bridge is similar to the profile of the existing golf course bridges,then there should really be no concern over additional flooding. Ms.Harrington said if they place the concrete up on the bank as opposed to being in and you crushed or compacted those,they would have to build them back up,right? Ms.Aisen said they said they would return it to the original..interrupted/inaudible. Mr. Grogg said the intent is that everything will be really restored to existing conditions after it's completed. Ms.Reader said Mr.Cutter has recommended an alternative to using the cement in the stream bed which I think they may consider,so that that may not.... Ms.Harrington said the only thing is the banks,too,not just the bed. When you bring the trucks in they'll be covered,there will be no leakage of dirt,there won't be anything that gets into that stream near the road as well. Mr.Grogg said yes. Mr.Capicotto asked if any thought has been given to the rest of the path that you'll be taking. Is there a material that will be put down or will they...inaudible/tape finished. Mr. Grogg said in answer to the question of the access route in what material will be put down,that actually will depend somewhat on the time of year. It's the hope that part of this work can be done over the winter months and the ground is frozen. There's not that much material. This tee is only taking around 1200 cubic yards. It's not a lot of material being brought in there. It's the intent to,especially being brought in over the winter,the ground will be frozen so you wouldn't have...inaudible. If it ends • Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 12 up being wet and soft,yes you may have to put some gravel down to keep from sinking in. The intent is to do as little damage to the golf course and have as little restoration as possible. Ms.Reader asked if there are any other questions. Mr.Papazian said it's your interpretation that we have jurisdiction over the site. Ms.Reader said as opposed to the fact that they wouldn't have to come before us? In other words,do they have to appear before us for the temporary bridge? Mr.Grogg said the question is even these of minor grading. The grading is the question that...we just want to be sure that it is an action that requires approval,etc. Mr.Healy said be suspects it does. The only exception I'm aware of is where there's a change to an existing structure that's considered by the Building Inspector and the engineer to be insignificant. I'm not sure. It's not my call. The only exception to the site plan requirement is that one. Mr.Healy said it's is really up to the chief engineer and building inspector. Ms.Reader said you can discuss this in the next couple of days with Ms.Gallent,too to see what her views are on this. You certainly have exercised that discretion...inaudible with some restaurant recently within the last two years or whatever. Mr.Healy said if it was a small tiny addition that didn't require any...inaudible. Ms.Reader said the fact that this is by Fenimore and it's a stream and the other grading probably may not lead them towards the insignificant,but it's a good question. Mr. Grogg said I appreciate that and I realized and discussed that with members of the country club, especially with this hole 4 which dealt with the stream crossing. Someone puts that in a separate category, just because the way your...interrupted. Ms.Reader said it raises a red flag. Mr.Grogg said I guess what I would question or ask the Board is,as I described the components of the project as four components,are there any of them that could be segregated from this application which they could proceed and start working on based on that interpretation or that discussion. Mr.Healy said there's a regulatory problem with that. When you have an action that is subject to SEQRA, there's a provision in the DEC regs,the Environmental Review regs,that prohibits any site alteration that would be connected with the action,so I think there would be a problem with doing that. Ms.Reader said,so the answer is no. Mr.Healy said,so the answer is no. Mr.Grogg said we sort of got interrupted,when I was talking. I talked about the three components being hole number 4,hole number 14,just so we talk about access hole number 14,it's intended to come right off of Weaver Street, and it's about the same size,it's small. The maintenance area access is by the existing maintenance road that comes in,so it's off of Weaver Street. There's an existing road that comes in now to the maintenance building. Ms.Reader said that's not the main entrance though,is it? • Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 13 Mr.Grogg said no. Mr.Grogg pointed out the main entrance. He said down here there's a small road that comes into the maintenance building,so trucks can access from there. There is no street crossing in that case. Dr.Mason said you've got the east branch of the Sheldrake. It goes under Weaver Street and goes through your property,just below that road where that road comes through. Ms.Harrington asked,how many trucks do you think are going to go in there during the course of the day? Mr.Grogg said during the course of a day,it's anticipated that between 1,000 to 1,500 cubic yards would be delivered a day,which is probably 30 to 50 trucks. Over a nine hour day,that's only 3 to 5 trucks an hour. Ms.Harrington said that's a lot...inaudible. Mr.Healy said from what period of time,what's the construction period? Mr.Grogg said for all of these projects,about three months. Mr.Papazian said if we have jurisdiction over this,then one of the questions that popped into my mind to follow up on is what affect this is going to have on traffic and what affect it's going to have on the neighbors. Mr.Healy said all of that information ought to be in the SEQRA submittal,in the long form. Just listening to you,the issues that I heard were tree removal issues, drainage issues,aesthetic and visual impacts, pesticides,noise and traffic. Mr.Grogg said can you go through that once more? Mr.Healy said it's in the long form. The ones that jump out are tree removal issues,drainage issues, flooding issues,aesthetic and visual impacts and pesticides. Mr.Grogg said just to interrupt there,I think there is no pesticides. Mr.Healy said I was just saying,I would just address that there is no change in pesticide and address noise and traffic. Mr.Grogg said on the noise issues,just note that there's one house that's farther...inaudible. Dr.Mason said don't forget a stream profile,when you come before Coastal Zone. Mr.Grogg said that's important,I agree. Probably what's more important is the stream cross section,to show the existing stream channel and how the stream crossing fits into the stream crossing. Dr.Mason said there are some areas there where the stream is quite flat and there are others where it flows quite rapidly. We'd like to see where it takes that path. That's why I'm asking for the profile. Mr.Healy said you asked a good question concerning the jurisdiction. I gave a pretty off-the-cuff answer. I think that it would be a good idea to consult with Ms.Gallent,counsel for the Board,on the question of whether this is something before the Board for approval. Mr.Grogg said the forth component is the driving range. The existing driving range which is located on the Cornell side of the property,I'm not sure if the podium is blocking the view,here's the existing Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 14 parking lot,tennis courts are located here and then the tees for the driving range are just behind the tennis courts and the driving range continues in this part of the property that projects out. Mr.Grogg said currently the driving range tees are here,this end of the driving range really isn't visible, the people hit a golf ball and it really disappears down under the hill. What is intended is to just upgrade the existing tees here and there and improve them. Down the boards the tennis court is,possibly raise them up so they have a better line of sight,because the....inaudible balls,about 14 ft.from one end to the other. Mr.Grogg said it's proposed to raise the far end of the site where it drops off. The grade along the existing property line for the Cornell Street residents will not be changed,because we don't want to change any drainage patterns. Currently water generally runs from Cornell down through the site all the way through the golf course. There is a little,very subtle,small swale area,which is out to here. Again,that elevation is what we have to meet and then just gently grade it down. Also,at the end of the driving range it's shown to put a berm,so any balls that get hit really far or even start to roll off here keeps them from (1)going on the golf course,and(2)also going to roll them down the hill. Mr.Grogg said the central part,which is shaded sort of a light brown,is the existing area. It will just be reshaped,there are a couple of little high spots in there,just to level it off,so again a line of sight it really makes the driving range much more functional. Mr.Grogg said again,we're not really changing the drainage patterns. There are a few trees at this far end that will be removed. There are two trees in here that are being removed. One of them actually is in pretty bad shape. It's already distressed and diseased. Ms.Reader said those are subject to tree permits,I assume. Mr.Grogg said we have shown there are several trees to each location which we're removing,which are shown on our plans. I think now that I've gotten to know the site,you don't realize until you see this aerial photograph,how much of that central part of the site is actually beautiful wooded area there. Dr.Mason said that's where your deer live. Mr.Grogg said that is the description of the project. I'd be glad,and other people are here,to answer any other questions or concerns this Board,your consultants or building inspector has. Mr.Capicotto said there are preliminary comments on that engineering wise. I already mentioned what I had on the wetlands. On the maintenance area,I just noted that on the outer edge of the maintenance area it shows a pretty deep slope,from what I calculated 70%. We'd want to see how you plan on treating that slope to prevent erosion. On the driving range,the same thing on the back end. You're raising that berm that's going to be 30 ft. high, and that's going to have about a 67% slope. You should do a stipulating analysis of some sort and a section to show how you're going to keep that from running out. Ms.Reader said from eroding. Mr.Capicotto said from eroding or failing. You mentioned about drainage,there should be an affect on drainage. You just need to put that in writing and also point out that the back of that driving range is right on the Coventry Court development. I know when we reviewed that site plan,they had some runoff from the golf course that they accounted for in their calculations which they pick up and put into their galleries. Mr. Grogg said what's interesting,it doesn't show on the topo map an analysis of brush instead(?). Yesterday I was out there and I don't know when it was constructed,but right along this property line there's an existing berm on our side,up 2 ft.off the fence,a section of 3 ft.high berm which looks like somebody either constructed to keep water from going there or vice versa. We've already discussed that Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 15 that gives us an ideal situation where we can hold that existing berm,bring our slope down and let that tow where the two meet act as a little drainage ditch,so that any water off of the slope gets diverted out into the golf course. We're not changing the condition on the people on Coventry Court. Mr.Capicotto said that berm was part of the Coventry Court design,if I'm not mistaken. Mr.Grogg said I was surprised. It looked like it probably was,but it was on the golf course property. Mr.Capicotto said I'm not positive. Mr.Grogg said it's definitely manmade,whatever is there. Mr.Capicotto said that was before me. Again,with this site access road you mentioned,if it's done in the wintertime you'd expect frozen ground. If it's not done in the wintertime,how would you address it. Will there be any concentrated flow after construction,based on the openings you have in the berm. You should take a look at that,where your topsoil stockpile locations will be. Was there any consideration to more of a cut and fill rather than just a fill? It's just a question to throw out to minimize the effects of it, to cut down a little on one side, so you wouldn't have to build up as much on the other side. That's something you may be able to consider. That's all I have. The other is,when you mentioned the 8.2 acres,I don't know if you initiated the storm water permit or how....left hanging. Mr.Grogg said if it's more than five we'll have to just have a notice of an alive file,Notice of Intent. Mr.Capicotto said I'm not sure if that triggers the whole....interrupted. Mr.Grogg said no it doesn't. As long as we don't need any other DEC permits,which we would not, we don't have to get a water quality certification from them. So,you only have to file a Notice of Intent with DEC for construction activity. The DEC has a general permit for construction activities if you're on ...inaudible. Some of that is changing. I'm not sure if it's the first of this year or coming up,but if your construction activity is less than five acres,you really don't have to do anything. If it's over five acres, you have to notify them,a form is filled out by the contractor,the owner,and you really have to abide by DEC guidelines,which in this case since there's really no drainage issues,we just have to have a sediment and erosion control. You're supposed to have what's called a storm water pollution prevention plan where you have a development that has storm water management and water quality issues. That's all part of the FDTP. Here the only part of the FTP you have is your sediment and erosion control plan. Mr.Healy asked whether the stream where the temporary bridge is going to be, is a DEC classified stream. Ms.Reader said she was going to ask that,too. After some discussion,she said we had that situation with the Ben-Simon property. Mr.Carpaneto said it was the Ben-Simon property,the one-family dwelling and a bridge. Mr.Grogg said I can check that,but also there's like a 50 ft.,...let me check. As long your disturbance is less than a certain length,you don't need a DEC permit. Mr.Capicotto said the one other item was during construction how you plan on handling runoff. There's a temporary sedimentation basin or something,but the other areas are small. Here you'd have to have a temporary basin to provide sedimentation for runoff,if they're going to strip that whole five acres at once. Mr.Grogg said actually you're not going to strip the whole five acres at once. You're going to fill this area and then really regrade this area,so that your areas of disturbance will probably be two to three acres Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 16 at one time. The degree is five acres. What helps us here is,because most of the water is sheathing down the existing drainage,if you look at the silt fence it should be able to handle most of that. Mr.Carpaneto said would you supply an elevation plan? Mr.Grogg said he will do so. Mr.Capicotto said I will get my comments to you in a letter. Mr.Grogg thanked Mr.Capicotto. Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else. There was nothing else. She said I have already declared us to be the Lead Agency under SEQRA. I refer the matter to CZMC. I understand the meeting is January 22,2002. Ms.Paul can tell you where the meeting is and the time. It's in this building,but in another room. It's a good idea to have whatever Mr. Capicotto tells you you will need to have at that meeting,if not even before that. Mr.Healy said he also needs a long form EAF. Mr.Grogg said I agree,the long form EAF and what I will do is limit the impact area for the...inaudible there. The project is not a 150 acre golf course. The project is the 8 acres that are being disturbed. When I talk about existing slopes and those issues, we're not really analyzing. We're doing a slope analysis of the whole site,the 8 acres. Ms.Reader said should he submit 4 forms,because it's an...inaudible area? Mr.Carpaneto said no. Mr.Grogg said it may be easier even for me. I might have a little table which breaks them down. I'll see how it works. I've got to calculate them separately,so how I calculate them for you it may be better for all of us to break them out. Mr. Carpaneto asked, up in the storage area, are those bins right on the ground or are they on the concrete? Mr.Grogg said they're intended to be right on the ground. All that David was explaining was that they would come in....because on a golf course the storage areas you want is sort of a containment that's sturdy enough so the front-end loader can come in and push against it without it moving it. That's why they would use some block. Mr.Fenton said the plan submitted was granted with the tee on the 4th hole. I understand there's a water area,a stream that we've got to cross,so I could understand the Board going through the proper channels on that. Obviously,there are some changes up here that are significant,but when it comes to the tee on 14 and the staging area that's here now. If you were up there and you saw the staging area when you were up there,there's no functionality to it. The idea was for us to be able to get most of this completed really before the start of the golf season next year,and doing it also at a time when it was not going to be used and shut down. The ability to get things performed without having the members there. What percent of the hearings,the meeting is in February,is there any procedural steps that we could do to help this and could we look at these two areas here. Do they have to go through that same motion,even though there is clearly not anything that involves wetlands? It's well within the confines of the property. The same thing with the 14th tee,which were basically just renovated. We're not doing anything...inaudible. Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 17 Ms.Reader said from my understanding from what we've been told in the past...inaudible a dry well. So for a new house that's being constructed within the wetlands buffer zone,the whole project will have to be approved by us in terms of its impact. Mr.Healy said there are two separate principles to consider. I understand your problem,because you want to be finished before the season. There are two principles that are problematic. One is that there's a principle that you're not supposed to segment the environmental review of an action, so what you're suggesting is exactly what you're not supposed to do under SEQRA. There are some exceptions to that, but I don't know whether I ought to get into them now because there's another principle,and this is in black and white,that says you're not supposed to,you may not,and this is in the general rules section under SEQRA if you're interested. You're not supposed to begin any site alterations until SEQRA has been complied with. As I sit here now,I don't see any way around it under SEQRA. I think the thing to do is to get the information for the Lead Agency and get a determination of significance as soon as you can. I think that's the way to go. Mr.Grogg said I think,Mr.Healy,that is the way...I understand what you're saying,because we're talking about the same section that I'm aware of and that is that you can't issue any permit or do any work until SEQRA is completed and I agree with that. I think the only thing you have said,which may be to address what David asked, is that you asked that they consult Ms. Gallent, to verify if any of these components do not need site plan approval. • Ms.Reader said I think the question actually...inaudible the whole project is to be deemed insignificant ...inaudible at all,not any part of it. I'm know what Ms.Gallent has said before in similar situations and I anticipate it is similar to what Mr.Healy has just said,if any one part of it,with this whole four,falls within it,I can't speak for her and she will speak for herself. My expectation is that she will then say that it's not insignificant,it will have to be reviewed by us,the whole thing has to be reviewed and you can't begin any part of your construction until we have finished the review process and granted a permit. However,I have one question,because I don't know how that staging area...inaudible. Suppose they eliminated doing alterations on hole 4. Apparently hole 4 is an important change for you and I'm not a golfer so I don't appreciate why making it a yard longer or whatever is meaningful,but if they eliminated hole 4 as part of the alteration, would they have to be before us? Apparently the staging area is ...inaudible site review,but I'm not sure. Dr.Mason said to keep in mind that we do have the west branch of the Sheldrake,and there will be no addressing exactly what the proximity of the staging area is to that pond and the...inaudible. Mr.Grogg said I'm sorry,Dr.Mason,if I didn't answer your question and pointed out that this is the west branch of the Sheldrake and we showed on that plan the work on hole tee 14 is over 100 ft. from ...interrupted. It is,so this is probably 500 ft. Dr.Mason said there's a little pond in there,too. Mr.Grogg explained this is a 1 inch equals 100 scale,so the closest pond is again down here. One inch would take you...left hanging. I can show a blue line on here,next time if you want. Ms.Reader said I'm assuming in my question that no other piece of this project is within 100 ft.of the buffer zone. Assuming that,my question then is do they have to be before us...inaudible. Mr. Healy said I think there's the site plan review, then it goes back to a question of whether the alterations are significant or not and whether they alter the structure. Mr.Grogg said there is no structure. Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 18 Ms.Reader said there is no structure. We have cement slabs that have been deemed to be structures. We're not the board that did that. Mr.Healy said the other thought I had is that you're familiar with the SEQRA regs so you're familiar with the provision that allows for segmentation under certain specified conditions. As you prepare your environmental submittal,I think that maybe you ought to think through if there are any pieces of the project that have independent utility so they could maybe be segmented out as an allowable segmentation of the action. Take a look at those provisions and just see,as you present the project for your submittal whether they are applicable. Ms.Reader said it's at the discretion of the Board to determine whether segmentation is allowable and that they're stuck anyway until February. THERE IS CONVERSATION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS THAT CANNOT BE HEARD CLEARLY. Joel Negrin said he just wanted to raise a question. Supplemental to the discussion that Mr.Healy was just having,before you reach the question of whether this is a project that has elements that may be segmented,I think it's appropriate to ask a question as to whether this is one project altogether. The club may have looked at it as one project for its purposes for scheduling, budgetary issues, retaining a contractor,retaining of Mr.Gronsfer(?),but that doesn't necessarily mean that this is a project under your rules under site plan review for SEQRA. If it's not one project,if it's more than one project,then we don't even need to look at the rules on segmentation of a project. We may be looking at multiple projects each of which projects can proceed on its own in an appropriate way. Dr.Mason said you're still stuck with February and you're biting off your own nose to spite your face by putting it out when in fact you probably...inaudible. Mr.Healy said I think that's a non-starter. If you look at the SEQRA regs,the definition of actions that have to be reviewed,require consideration of related actions together as one action. One of the elements for a related action is that it's part of the same overall plan. When I first looked at the plans,there's this golf course and these elements. It sounded to me like it's an overall plan,therefore why don't we consider it as one action. Unless the permissible segmentation provisions can be invoked. That's my gut reaction. Ms.Reader said the other thing to consider is that you submitted it as a plan. We have to treat it as a plan. Perhaps if you submitted it in three different stages...inaudible,we could review it differently. Quite frankly,if you really wanted to do it over the winter,you should have had it to us two months ago. After further discussion,Mr.Grogg said he appreciates the dialogue. Ms.Reader said we are the Lead Agency. I refer this matter to the CZMC. You know that you meet on January 22,2002 with them. As a result of this conversation,we will check with Ms.Gallent to determine whether there is a reason to believe that this application doesn't have to be before us. I don't know if that would affect the review for the Freshwater Wetlands Permit in any event,as long as you are doing hole 4. If for some reason the site plan is deemed insignificant,then we don't have that part,but you're still here for Freshwater Wetlands it sound like,under all circumstances for hole 4 unless you want to give up hole 4. Ms.Reader said see you in two months,February 13,2002,at 8:15 p.m. Mr.Grogg asked if that will be a public hearing. Ms.Reader said it will be a public hearing. Planning Board December 12,2001 Page 19 Mr.Grogg said I think your comments are helpful,because what I can do now is attach a description to the long form EAF. After was some discussion as to notification of the meeting,Ms.Roma said for a Freshwater Wetlands matter,the Building Department notices the neighbors fifteen days before the meeting by certified mail. Ms.Reader said on a site plan,too? Ms.Roma said the Building Department notices a 300 ft.radius for the site plan. Mr.Grogg thanked the Board for their help. On a motion made by Ms.Aisen and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that this matter is adjourned to the January 9,2002 Planning Board meeting. Ms.Reader wished everyone a happy holiday. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 9,2002. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:10 p.m. )11 Marguerite Ro Recording