Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_01_12 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 410' PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 12, 2000, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairperson May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason OM* 7 Edmund Papazian r. . l J'n Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel 47(111 E - Anthony C. Catalano, Consulting Engineer ,.. Fer 14 2000 y� Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographers pp�R1��Axp`DFF`?�r Terranova, Ka7i7Ps & Associates, Ltd. T, ��V' 40 Eighth Street e. ifs New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marilyn Reader at 8:11 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader said that the Minutes of the previous meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, 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. 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) Ms. Reader said this case is a continuation of a public hearing. At the last public hearing it was an application of the contract vendee, now it is Ms. Levine. Ms. Reader asked counsel if the matter can be continued as such. Ms. Gallent said it is a public hearing so that the public has an opportunity to speak and the matter can be heard. Geoffrey Young, of Young & Rosenstrach, 277 North Avenue, New Rochelle, the attorney representing Ms. Levine, appeared to address the Board, along with Ms. Levine. He said that Ms. Levine was selling the property, the contract vendee made the original application and did not follow through. He stated there has been a change of engineers and introduced Harry Nichols of Laurent Engineering Associates, 411V P.C., with offices in Brewster, New York, at 20 Milltown Road. He stated that the engineer will continue where the last application was, stating that they filed an amendment to the plan and tried to address issues raised both by the neighbors and the Board. Planning Board • January 12,2000 Page 2 4111) Ms.Reader asked if the plans he will be addressing are completely new plans. Mr.Nichols said the layout is essentially the same. The only difference is that the driveway is now located totally on parcel 21. Other features added in are not visible above ground when constructed. Mr.Nichols said they were sensitive to various comments and reports received and responded by letter from his office, dated January 3,2000,which is a part of the file;i.e.concern regarding the drainage and what happens from the existing detention facility that currently has some problems with age and leakage;questions of its stability. He stated they have incorporated some features in the plan which will be helpful and will try to address the concerns. The layout is basically the same. Drainage was eliminated going off the site from any impervious surface without first going through the existing detention facility located on lot 20. The original plan showed drainage going in three different directions;some into the detention facility,some directly to the south to the existing residences and some to the west. The runoff is now being collected from the driveway,the paved areas of the apron in front of the garage and the roof drains into an on-site system and into the existing detention facility. All the drainage will now go into a controlled facility. There is one outlet from that facility,a 12 inch corrugated pipe. To help control the seepage that might go through the existing berm,they are proposing to install a clay barrier down below virgin ground to keep water from leaking through and onto properties located to the west and explained how this will be done. The new berm will contain the flow. Mr.Catalano asked if he is proposing a slurry wall. Mr.Nichols said it will be a trench that will be excavated and backfilled with clay material as the fill goes in. Ms.Reader asked what direction the water will go. Mr.Nichols said to the west. Mr.Catalano asked about the discharge pipe,which Mr.Nichols pointed out and explained. Mr.Nichols said it doesn't get impacted. Dr.Mason asked if the corrugated pipe is in decent shape. Mr.Nichols said it will be inspected,specifically in the area where the berm is being constructed. Mr.Papazian asked what happens now,when it rains. Mr.Nichols said probably during a rainfall occurrence,as the area builds up there is evidence of seepage coming through the berm. Probably large rocks used during construction either washed out or it wasn't properly compacted or settled. He understands they did some repair work on it,put a tarp over it with a covering of topsoil,which helped. Mr.Ruppel said he visited the site and has seen the evidence on the west side,holes in the embankment like gopher holes. Mr.Catalano questioned the runoff. Mr.Nichols said the runoff will be collected and dispersed into the facility. He stated that the basin was designed for the subdivision. After some discussion about the Town requiring a zero net increase in runoff,Dr.Mason said it has not been adequate. Planning Board January 12,2000 Page 3 OMr.Nichols said they are trying to do other things that will benefit the downstream owners. Normally one would not put in such an expensive drainage system for such a lot. These are the things they are planning to build into it,in an attempt to address the concerns raised in the reports. Ms.Gallent said she understands,but the law requires that the runoff be retained on Mr.Nichols'property. After further discussion,Mr.Nichols said currently the outlet is only a 12 in.pipe. Ms.Reader said the requirements the Board is held to is that there be a zero rate of runoff from that parcel. Unless this design accomplishes that,the Board is not even at step 1,because the plans will not be approved. Ms.Gallent explained that that is a requirement of the Soil and Erosion Control Law,which this Board does not implement. It implements the Wetlands Law. Mr. Nichols said they are trying to take a fresh look at this and come up with ideas to address the concerns. Ms.Reader said she does not want the other important factors to be lost. She asked what materials will be used on the driveway and the apron. Mr.Nichols said it is required it be paved,but is not sure what materials will be used. Ms.Reader said in that area it is more prone to requiring more pervious materials;paving stones,Belgium Block and other things that may be considered in the design. Mr.Nichols said he is trying to focus on the main concerns. Mr.Catalano said it would be helpful to have the details of the permeable wall and the cross sections for a better understanding. He then referred to the January 3,2000 letter,paragraph B,page#3,Drainage Report. He said it would be helpful if they take a look at the 50 and 100 year storms,as well as part of the evaluation. Ms.Harrington asked who owns lot 20. Mr.Young said Mr.Maloney owns lot 20,and it is his responsibility to maintain it. Mr. Young said according to what he read in the subdivision,the Town has the right to first tell Mr. Maloney to repair it and add it to the tax bills. Ms.Harrington asked if they have an obligation to also discuss this with Mr.Maloney with what is being proposed regarding runoff. Mr.Young said baring the statutes,they have a right to use it. It runs with the deed. Ms.Gallent said it is the law. Mr.Young said he can see the objections and why they were raised. Q Ms.Reader said they may come up with other ways to handle this situation. Mr.Young said he is sure there are ways to meet the concerns. After further discussion,Ms.Gallent said there are no provisions for assumption. Planning Board January 12,2000 Page 4 Ms.Reader asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr.Papazian said notwithstanding the law concerning runoff,if the detention basin was working that might be the best way to do this project considering that land has problems all around it and not withstanding the proposal the previous engineer had and maybe even the engineering coming up now with putting in drainage on the property. He doesn't know how well that is going to work. He would hate to discount it,unless somebody did a little research to see if it is possible;(1)to see that the retention basin can be worked in;and(2),if it is legally possible for something like this to be done. Ms.Reader said the retention basin is still being used. Mr.Papazian said it is obviously not being used by lot#21. Whether or not it is not grandfathered in or not,is something to be determined. Ms.Gallent said she will look into it. Mr.Catalano said it is not an unreasonable approach. Ms.Reader said they are trying to build it in and accomplish zero net runoff. Ms.Harrington said it is now being used for the property/lot. The issue is once the house and driveway are put in,there will be an increase. Mr.Ruppel said it is not being used by lot#21. Seth Marcus,the attorney representing Anne Ruppel of 871 Fenimore Road,the lot adjoining immediately to the northwest and adjacent to Lot 21,addressed-the Board. He is also representing Richard Scheuer, whose daughter-in-law,Sylvia Scheuer is the owner of 875 Fenimore Road. Ms.Gallent said that the law states that the Town engineer may waive the requirement when a plan is submitted for the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Law. Mr.Catalano said if they get a formal submittal package with information as asked for,it will be looked at. Mr.Nichols asked what procedure is followed regarding getting the plan in order,whereby Ms.Gallent said they can work together and it will be submitted to the Planning Board. After further discussion,Mr.Carpaneto informed Mr.Nichols to report to his office and it will be properly handled. Ms. Reader said Mr. Nichols spoke to the consulting engineer. However, the Board may have some thoughts about it. Ms.Reader asked the secretary about submission policy. The secretary said the information gets sent to the Board one week before the meeting. Therefore,thirteen copies of additional information must be submitted at least ten days before the next Planning Board meeting date,which is February 9,2000. Ms.Reader asked if there were any other questions. Mr.Marcus addressed something that came up regarding Retention Area 1 being created for lot 21. He said he does not think it was designed to take the runoff from lot 21,because lot 21 is downhill from Retention Area 1. He explained that they will need a tremendous amount of fill. When the plans were compared to the plans of the prior project,he noticed that the house sits up 7 ft.higher,the driveway also 7/8 ft.higher. He continued his presentation commenting that the plans show an additional 8 ft. of Planning Board • January 12,2000 Page 5 additional fill and a retaining structure also against the Ruppel property. He also addressed possible erosion consequences and making the berm work as it is supposed to work either with the Town or possibly some kind of action by the owner of lot 21 or 20 to make the berm work. They are planning on putting additional water in the berm and built this other structure,leaving the current 18 in.pipe in place,which was part of the earlier bandaid that was put on the berm. They are putting more water into the existing retention area. There will be some leakage out,going up to the clay barrier. The system still isn't really functioning the way it is supposed to. The 12 in.pipe is not controlling the flow out of the berm. These are some of the initial points. There were no detailed plans on file and Mr.Marcus requests he be given an opportunity to have his own expert look at this project and give some input to have a better view of what is going to happen as to whether or not the structures are going to do what is intended. Mr.Marcus then referred to the letter of January 13,2000,page 4, items 4-5 from Mr. Campbell's summary. Frankly,simply calling it additional volume and flow coming off lot 21 is insignificant. He urged that they do their studies as well. Mr.Marcus prepared a letter that covers everything,which he submitted as exhibit#1,dated 1/12/00,and provided additional copies for the Board. Ms.Reader commented on the original subdivision as granted,at which time a discussion ensued regarding this. Mr.Marcus said if additional studies are going to be required,they would like the opportunity to be to be involved. They would like to see the details of the additional structures that are going to be built to the extent that any additional studies are received before. Ms.Reader advised Mr.Marcus to speak to the applicant. At the same time information is submitted to Qthe Board,it can also be sent to Mr.Marcus. Dr.Mason referred to page 2 of Mr.Nichols'letter,paragraph#4, "there will be no on-site detention basins and control structures to require maintenance"and asked why is it not desirable to have on-site structures that could eliminate some of the runoff into the catch basin in Retention Area 1. Mr.Nichols said it was intended as a response to that numbered comment in the report. Mr.Nichols said there was an issued raised as to who was going to maintain this and everyone accepts the premise that if there is nothing to maintain,that is better than to have to maintain something if it's not needed. Dr.Mason said there is a problem with the runoff and a problem downstream. It is something that was worried about at Bonnie Briar and other places. Then somebody comes in to build and one of the first things they want to do is dewater the site where they're building. It is something that has to be addressed. After further discussion regarding detention on site and small basins,it was shown that by having a central basin it is much easier to control the volume going out of that basin;the one facility to control. Dr.Mason said that this subdivision is built. It was built in a period when the Board was aware of these problems. Some of the problems were addressed and some were not addressed very well. This is one of the last lots,primarily because of the problems. There were several lots that were difficult lots to control the runoff and difficult lots to build on. Dr.Mason said Mr.Nichols is going to have to present a case that it is better to detain that off-site in the detention area on 21 than to detain it on site or come up with a plan that meets the law as it is. He said that Mr.Nichols is going to have to present something that convinces the Board it will not make the problem worse. Ms.Reader said in reference to the detention pool on lot 20,it is not working as it was designed,and asked someone to describe the specific deficiencies with the existing basin. Mr.Ruppel said that the berm has holes in it. There are holes in the pavement where the water seeps under the berm and explained the process that occurs. Planning Board January 12,2000 Page 6 Ms.Reader said it is her understanding Mr.Nichols is planning to build a second berm. She asked if Mr. Maloney has the responsibility of the first berm. Mr.Ruppel said the deed to lot#20,states that the owner of that property has the responsibility to maintain the berm. If he does not,the Town has the right to go in and maintain it and whatever expense is incurred is added to the tax bill of the lot. Ms.Reader said because of the weakness of the berm there has been flooding west of the detention pool west of lot 21 and west and asked if the berm is fixed,it is expected that there will be no flooding. Mr.Carpaneto said it is malfunctioning. Ms.Reader does not understand why nothing is being done to reinforce that weakness. She does not feel it is the obligation of lot 21,despite what Mr.Marcus said. If they want to build there,there is no reason why they have to go to Mr.Maloney to get it. If anything,anyone west of the berm should bring an action in Supreme Court and the Town should be doing something to correct that. Mr.Ruppel said why bring an action. Ms.Aisen said that is what the law says. Ms.Reader said if the project is approved and the applicant is willing to,can that berm be repaired during construction of this project because it is not their obligation. Q A discussion ensued regarding where the berm is,with Mr.Nichols stating the berm extends across and comes up to the property. Ms.Reader said to disregard what she just said. The Town should just do it. Mr.Darsky said to talk to Maloney first. Mr.Young said there has been a fair amount of correspondence back and forth with Mr.Maloney. Mr.Darsky said the Town is the enforcement officer. The Town needs to write the letters. Mr.Ruppel said they were requested,but counsel for Maloney said he would not do it. Mr.Darsky said add it to the tax bill. Ms.Reader said at some point action must be taken. She said Mr.Nichols now knows who he needs to speak to and what needs to be thought through. She asked if there was anything else. Mr.Young asked if they can get the Town involved again with Mr.Maloney. Ms.Reader said that is not an issue before this Board. Mr.Darsky said not to waste a lot of time on that,until Mr.Young can provide satisfactory proof of the fact that if the berm was properly constructed and operating 100%properly would he get his waiver. If the answer to that is no,pushing the Town against Maloney isn't his problem. Ms.Reader said the Board's experts are able to make the distinction between what is his runoff. Mr.Catalano said there will still be requirements. Planning Board • January 12,2000 Page 7 Ms.Reader doesn't know if a waiver can be obtained under any circumstances. That is up to the Building Department. Julia Levine,the property owner,addressed the Board. She said to clarify a few things,this is not one of the last lots to be built on because of the problems. She was not aware of the problems when she purchased it. She purchased it to build a house and move from Locust Avenue in the Manor. Her husband chose to stay there,they built an addition and have been at that location 22 years. She tried to market this land about five years ago. When you get into building a house,it is complicated. She has lost a couple of buyers. When she lost the last buyer over the summer,it became clear to her that because of the length of the application process,she had to proceed with building a house that she never intended to build. As this is being built and a driveway is being formed,there is enough of a driveway with a right-of-way and Maloney has a right-of-way for going through. You can get in there now. Ms.Reader said that whatever corrections have been made,should be made. They should talk to Mr. Maloney and start focusing on resolving this issue. This is similar with what happened on Bonnie Way. This needs to be attended to. Mr.Young asked if there were any other questions. Mr.Marcus said as the last few lots are being developed,there are more and more problems. Ms.Reader said there are projects that have been approved,subject to the new regulations,zero net runoff, making it more difficult because they have been on the ledge. The engineers are able to do a lot. Q Ms.Harrington said if they don't come to the Board with plans for zero net runoff,maybe they should be first going to the Building Department. Ms.Gallent said all the processes occur simultaneously. The applicant needs to speak with the Town's engineer,if she is going to be applying for a waiver. After further discussion regarding the waiver,Ms.Gallent said the Board is applying the Wetlands Law and the Town's engineer applies the Soil and Erosion Law. Ms.Harrington asked if thirty days gives the applicant enough time. After further discussion,on a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that a Public Hearing be,and hereby is,scheduled for the March 8,2000 Planning Board meeting. Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-RENEWAL/SPECIAL PERMIT-SAVATREE-633-635 Fifth Avenue-Block 132,Lot 175 and Lot 643 May Aisen recused herself from this application. Matthew Mosher,the Branch Manager for Savatree,appeared and addressed the Board. © Dr.Mason asked if there were any violations or any problems with operation. Mr.Carpaneto said no. Dr.Mason asked if there were any changes being made. Planning Board January 12,2000 Page 8 O Mr.Mosher said no. Ms.Reader asked if they have reviewed the conditions as listed on the original permit. Mr.Mosher said the conditions were reviewed. Ms.Reader asked if there were any changes,and she was told no. Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments from the professional staff or the Board. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was unanimously approved with the same conditions as was in the previous permit dated two years ago and sworn to on October 16,1996: WHEREAS, SAVATREE submitted an application for a renewal of a Special Permit for use of the premises at 633-635 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lots 175 and 643 to operate a plant health care business with pesticide storage;and WHEREAS,a Public Hearing having been held on January 12,2000 pursuant to notice;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board having considered the application for a renewal of a Special Permit,the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses to questions by the applicant,the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public;and Q WHEREAS, 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. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that this Board approves the application of SAVATREE for a renewal of a Special Permit,with the same conditions in the previous permit dated October 16,1996, to operate a plant health care business with pesticide storage subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant will continue to utilize a self-contained wash down system,consisting of a Plia-Pad liquid containment system. The trucks will drive into the center of the Plia- Pad,where the wash down will occur. The waste wash water will be contained within the pad,which is similar to a pool. The waste wash water will then be recycled back into the truck tanks. The Plia-Pad will remain on top of sand,which will provide an additional safeguard without adversely affecting the integrity of the Plia-Pad pool. 2. Any spills of pesticides within the garage will be contained by a double berm containment system. A 6"berm will be constructed at the garage door entrance. The trucks will be required to drive over the berm and into the garage to load the pesticides into their tanks. The 8"berm that has been insta:led directly in front of the pesticide storage area to create a containment system that is larger than the maximum volume of liquid that will be permitted to be stored in the garage,will be maintained. 3. The Plia-Pad liquid containment system will be stored in the garage during the off- season. 4. The walls and floors of the garage will continue to be epoxied to a height of 8"to create an impervious seal. SAVATREE will periodically inspect,maintain and repair the epoxy Q coating to insure that it will remain in an impermeable condition. 5. The applicant will not be permitted to store in the garage any pesticides that persist in the environment. Planning Board • January 12,2000 Page 9 O 6. There will be no storage of pesticides in quantities greater than 445 gallons at any time. 7. A plan of emergency response in case of spillage must be submitted to and accepted by the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department,Town of Mamaroneck Building Department, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New Rochelle Medical Center. The Fire Department must be notified annually regarding the types and quantities of pesticides stored. 8. The pesticides to be stored on site will be limited to those listed on Plan 2,dated June 28,1996,and as listed in the letter from Dr.Richard Porcelli to Donald C.Becker dated July 24,1996. "Miscellaneous"chemicals referred to in the June 28,1996 plan shall be limited to Earth Friendly Fruit Spray and Guardian. 9. Permit shall expire after two(2)years. 10. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-31 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Ms.Mosher informed Mr.Mosher that he will receive a copy of the resolution. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Harrington,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. 0 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 9,2000. ADJOURNMENT • On a motion made by Ms.Harrington and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 999:20 p.m. Margu ,Recording Secretary