HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_06_13 Planning Board Minutes •
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
JUNE 13,2001,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: Judith M.Gallent,Counsel P
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building
Antonio V.Capicotto,Consulting Engineer
OCl 19
Elizabeth Paul,Environmental Coordinator
Nancy Seligson,Liaison Ac
Denise M.Carbone,Public Stenographers
Carbone&Associates,Ltd.
111 N.Central Park Avenue
Hartsdale,NY 10530
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:14 p.m.
Ms.Reader said that she spoke to the Zoning Board legal consultant,Judy Gallent,earlier and she will be
arriving any moment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms.Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft January 10,2001 transcript. Dr.Mason
had given grammatical corrections to Ms.Roma,along with grammatical corrections made by Ms.Reader.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any further questions or additional changes they wish to make. There
being no further changes,Ms.Reader asked for a motion to approve the transcript as the record of the
meeting of January 10,2001. On a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Mr.Papazian,the transcript
as the record of the meeting of January 10,2001 was unanimously approved.
Ms. Reader said the second matter is the approval of the Minutes of the May 9,2001 Planning Board
meeting. Ms.Reader made a clerical change on the first page,another grammatical error corrected on
page 3,and asked if there are any other changes.
Ms.Harrington said on page 8,the meeting was adjourned by Ms.Harrington not Ms.Washington. There
being no other corrections or additions,on a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Mr.Cohen,the
amended Minutes of the May 9,2001 meeting 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.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 2
Ms.Reader read the application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Anthony
Coschigano III-2 Carroll Place-Block 222,Lot 390
Ms.Reader called the applicant and no one was present for this matter.
Ms.Reader read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Peter
Diamond-14 York Road-Block 228,Lot 375
Rudy Ridberg,of Ridberg Architects in Greenwich,the architect for the project appeared,along with Ben
Salanitro,the project engineer. Mr.Ridberg said they were present before the Board in mid-May with a
preliminary presentation of the property and will go through what was presented last time. He said it's
14 York Road,a property on the Sheldrake River. There was a colored map presented last time to show
the property. He said the green area is all the lawn area that's on the property,the blue area is the
Sheldrake River that runs through the site,the beige color is the existing home and the gray is the surface
driveway area. As noted at the last presentation they are building a second floor over a portion of the
house,raising the roof and adding a small addition on the rear of the property. They are present before
the Board,even though they have a net less than 100 sq.ft.of increase of area. They also went before
the conservation group last month. He went over photos and said that the addition they are proposing,the
way the slope of the property works,is on the first floor. The way the grade works on the property,
they're one floor above the ground. The new addition would be on concrete piers that would match what's
currently on the back of the house. It comes out about 8 ft.by 18 ft.long. They are putting in a dry well
which is designed to handle the less than 100 sq.ft.of additional runoff.
Mr. Ridberg said in a previous meeting with the CZMC, a question arose about the existing gutter
drainage. All the roof leaders run into existing drains that run into the ground either to dry wells or into
the Sheldrake River. That's something the group had asked about and he wasn't aware that evening that
he had that. He said their engineers went to the site,and that's the case today as well. The drainage
already exists,so the net area they're adding,100 sq.ft.,they can pipe that additional roofing into the dry
well and that will handle that problem.
Ms.Reader asked if they were changing the front of the house,too.
Mr.Ridberg said yes.
Ms.Reader said wasn't the change going to increase the pervious ground.
Mr.Ridberg said yes,that's correct. He said on the front of the photographs there's a porch that is
approximately 8 ft.by 20 ft. They're going to reduce it to half the size,to increase the pervious area on
the property.
Ms.Reader asked if they factor that in.
Mr.Ridberg said that's what gave them the net 100 sq.ft. The addition was actually 180 sq.ft.minus
the removal of the deck,so it puts them under 100 sq.ft. Mr.Ridberg asked if the Board needed to see
the photographs or the renderings of the outside of the building that was presented last time.
After Ms.Reader asked the Board,she said that wasn't necessary.
Ms.Reader noted that counsel has arrived.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 3
Ms.Reader informed Ms.Gallent that the first public hearing on the agenda,Freshwater Wetlands and
Water Courses Permit,2 Carroll Place,Anthony Coshigano III,was not present. The Board currently is
discussing 14 York Road,the second public hearing.
Mr.Ridberg said he is present,along with his engineer,to answer any questions the Board may have.
Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Ridberg received a copy of the letter given to the Board by the CZMC,dated
June 8,2001.
Mr.Ridberg said he hadn't yet seen it. Ms.Reader provided him with her copy of the letter,but informed
him that she needed it returned for the file.
Ms.Reader asked Mr. Capicotto,the engineer,if the applicant's been given a copy of the letter from
Dolph Rotfeld Engineering.
Mr.Capicotto said no,because that generally just goes to the Board.
Mr.Ridberg said the highlighted area referred to,the second paragraph in the letter where it refers to the
CZMC,requested that the proposed dry well be resized to accommodate the runoff from the leaders. He
said unfortunately that evening they didn't have the information to give to Elizabeth Paul, the
Environmental Coordinator,and her group that all the existing roofs are already drained off the property
either into dry wells or they're runoff into the river. The net increase that the engineer designed for is the
100 sq.ft. They feel that should work adequately. He said he thinks the Town Engineer has looked at
that and he doesn't think his engineer has to comment anymore to Elizabeth. He said they also recommend
that a new driveway drain be installed with a sump to capture sediment. Mr.Ridberg said that is going
in. That was already a part of their plans and is part of the contract with the contractor to replace the drain
that's there. It has a sump already built into it,to pick up the sediment. It will replace an existing drain
near there that doesn't sit properly. He said they will meet both of those comments that the CZMC has
referred them to.
Ms.Reader asked if the sump is part of the plans and asked how does that factor into it.
Ms.Gallent said it can be made a condition.
Mr.Ridberg said it can be made a condition. They would be happy to support that and they are doing that.
Mr.Capicotto asked where that drain currently goes.
Mr.Ridberg explained there is a trench drain and it's piped directly into the Sheldrake River. There's a
trench going out to the garage door.
Ms.Roma asked those speaking to speak up so their voices can be recorded clearly.
Mr.Ridberg said his engineer just reminded him that the one that is already there does meet the current
regulations,because it does have a sump in it already. It's just that it's settled and is in unreasonable
shape.
Ms.Reader said it needs to be repaired.
Mr.Ridberg said they're going to repair it,but it's easier to replace it with a new one that will meet their
requirements. They can live with that condition.
Ms.Reader asked Ms.Paul if she wanted to make any comments to the concerns that she had.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 4
Ms.Paul said she is the Environmental Coordinator for the Town of Mamaroneck. She said the Coastal
Zone Commission's concerns were with isolating that small net increase of 100 sq.ft.to that dry well.
They're concerned that that portion of the house would also drain into that dry well,that it would be
undersized,but she didn't have the information where those leaders were actually going to go.
Ms.Reader said they have been told they do go into a dry well...inaudible.
Mr.Ridberg said all the existing roof runs into dry wells and they're piped. None of it runs on the flat
blocks or onto ground.
Ms. Paul said the reconstruction of the trench drain of the driveway will satisfy the Coastal Zone
Management Commission.
Ms.Harrington asked if that's legal to drain directly into the She!drake.
Mr.Capicotto said that's a preexisting condition. They won't do that now,today,but there are a lot of
older homes that currently drain into the Sheldrake river.
Ms.Harrington asked if,because this application is here,there is any provision that can be made to screen
that drain before it hits the Sheldrake so it's not taking sediment with it.
Mr.Capicotto said the one place where you get the most sediment would be the driveway. That's why
they recommended a sump. Anything that's heavy will rest in the gutter before it goes down. There's no
easy way of collecting any sediment that will come off the roof,unless you run it through a chamber and
put a sump in before it went out.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments or questions.
Ms.Reader asked if there is anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this application.
Judy Ringel,a neighbor,of 10 York Road appeared and addressed the Board. She said she is sure this
is fine,but she would like to see a picture of the porch/family room,so she can understand what it looks
like and where it's going.
Mr.Ridberg supplied a photograph and explained what he is proposing.
Mr.Capicotto invited anyone else who wishes to look at the photographs to come forward.
Mr.Ridberg indicated the driveway,the rear corner of the house,where they are going to build a small
8 ft.by 18 ft.addition on piers. He said that the deck will remain.
After further discussion,Ms.Reader asked if Ms.Ringel was satisfied with the explanation.
Ms.Ringel said she was satisfied.
Ms.Reader asked if anyone else has any comments. There were none.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything further from the professional staff.
Ms.Gallent said this is a Type II action under SEQRA. She said this was referred to Westchester County.
The thirty(30)day limit has passed,and nothing has been heard from the County.
Mr.Capicotto said as part of the drainage calculations,there was a question from the CZMC on that too.
Since it fell under the 100 sq.ft.impervious area, this didn't trip into the Erosion Control Laws which
would require the dry wells,calculations and a perc test. Since it was coming before the Planning Board
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 5
for a Wetlands Permit,Mr.Capicotto asked the applicant's engineer to make sure there was no net increase
in runoff. That's why,even though it was under the 100 sq.ft.of impervious area,it did have a dry well
shown there and sized for that volume.
Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Ridberg still had her letter from CZMC.
Ms.Ridberg returned the letter and was given a copy of that letter from another Board member.
•
On a motion made by Mr.Papazian,seconded by Mr.Cohen,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed.
After some discussion,on a motion made by Mr.Cohen,seconded by Dr.Mason,the following resolution
was unanimously APPROVED:
WHEREAS,Peter Diamond has applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114
for the premises located at Lot No.14 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 228,Lot 375;and
WHEREAS,this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action
and that no further review is required under SEQRA;and
WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in -
writing regarding this application to the Planning Board;and
WHEREAS,this Planning Board has determined,pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114,that
the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR§665.7;
WHEREAS,a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 having been held on June
13,2001;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that this Board makes findings as follows:
1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to affect or endanger the balance
of systems in a controlled area;
2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and
conservation of the wetland and its benefits,because(A)the proposed activity will have
only a minor impact,(B)it is the only practical alternative,and(C)it is compatible with
the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or
social burden on the community;
3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to,or loss of
any part of the wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective
conditions imposed by this resolution;
4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare,because of
its minor impact in the controlled area;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Peter Diamond for a permit, pursuant to
Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114,be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. It is consistent with the plans dated February 14,2001,A9 and A10.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 6
2. The new driveway drain be provided with a sump pump.
3. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other
individual,entity or combination thereof.
4. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be
in accordance with the requirements of the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code and
the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law.
5. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:30 a.m.and 4:30 p.m.
6. A cash deposit or bond for$1,500.00 shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to
• ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or
disturbed area.
7. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the
date of its issue whichever first occurs.
Ms.Reader wished the applicant good luck with the project.
Ms.Reader again read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Anthony
Coschigano III-2 Carroll Place-Block 222,Lot 390
There was still no one was present regarding this application.
Ms.Reader read the next application as follows:
CONSIDERATION-SITE PLAN APPROVAL-WINGED FOOT GOLF CLUB-Larry Gordon-
851 Fenimore Road-Block 347,Lot 1
Ms.Reader said she thought the Board saw this last year.
Mr.Gordon said it's been changed.
Larry Gordon,the architect for the project,addressed the Board.
Mr.Gordon said he has submitted plans for addition of housing for the staff for Winged Foot. They're
going to be using a modular system.
Ms.Reader asked if they're going to be bringing the modular system in on trucks in pieces.
Mr.Gordon said no.
Ms.Roma asked if Mr.Gordon is submitting new plans.
Mr.Gordon said not at this point.
A discussion ensued between Mr.Gordon and the Board.
Mr.Gordon said they are going to renovate the existing building and add additional housing. It is a new
one-story structure that is going to be put up.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 7
Ms.Reader asked if this is attached.
Mr.Gordon said no. The plans show that it's non-attached. There's a little patio created between the two
structures.
Mr.Cohen asked if he has 12 bedrooms,a living room and a common bathroom.
Mr.Gordon said yes.
Ms.Reader said it's a dormitory.
Mr.Gordon reiterated,it's a dormitory.
Ms.Reader said last year it was attached.
Mr.Gordon said that's correct. This year it's not attached. They're arranging to have a perc test to size
the dry wells. They have not done that yet,because they've been back and forth with what it's going to
look like.
Ms.Reader said he's not putting water traps.
Mr.Gordon said no.
Dr.Mason asked what kind of septic he's using.
Mr.Gordon said they haven't sized it yet.
Dr.Mason said it's going to be a septic system.
Mr.Gordon said it's going to be a sewer. It will be attached to the sewer system.
Mr.Capicotto asked if there's a basement.
Mr.Gordon said no.
Mr.Capicotto said the north elevation drops off on a slope. He asked if this will be on a crawl space.
Mr.Gordon said it will probably be on a slab. It's a pretty simple structure. It will be built in the back
and will be delivered to the site.
Ms.Reader asked where it will be in relation to current housing.
Mr.Gordon asked the Board to look at the site plan.
After some discussion among Board members,Ms.Reader said there's a patio between,then the new one.
She asked if the exterior will be pretty much the same.
Mr.Gordon said they're going to renovate the existing,so there's continuity between the two structures.
Mr.Cohen said he's renovating the facade of the old building.
Mr.Gordon said that's right.
Ms. Reader asked where it sits in terms of the boundaries of Winged Foot, what are the adjacent
properties.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 8
Collin Burns,the General Manager of Winged Foot,said where the existing employee housing is,it goes
directly down towards Fenimore Road. There's nothing except their property. To the left of that,Poccia
Circle comes in to the east of where that will be.
Ms.Aisen said there seems to be a right angle cutout.
Mr.Gordon said there are homes that come in at that point. He said he doesn't exactly know where Poccia
Circle comes in relative to this.
A discussion ensued between Board members and Mr.Gordon.
Dr.Mason said it's down in that hollow when you come in from Fenimore Road.
Mr.Gordon said the pool house is right there.
Ms.Reader asked what's the closest corner to the boundary.
Mr.Burns said 50 yards.
After further discussion,Ms.Reader asked if there are trees and whatever on the perimeter of the property
for screening.
Mr.Gordon said woods is back there.
Dr.Mason said it's a natural little hollow.
Mr.Gordon said it drops down. Mr.Gordon said he has some photographs for the Board to look at,if
that helps. He can't leave them,as he needs them for another meeting next week.
Mr.Papazian asked Mr.Carpaneto if there are any special Town Ordinances as far as modular construction
is concerned.
Mr.Carpaneto said no.
Ms.Reader asked if this has to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review(BAR),the CZMC and
referred to the County.
Mr.Carpaneto said yes.
Ms.Gallent said this is an Unlisted Action and therefore requires a determination of significance under
SEQRA.
Ms.Reader said it is:
RESOLVED,that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining
whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment;and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED,that this is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA.
Ms.Reader asked if there were any other concerns or factors that the applicant should know,about to focus
on for the next Public Hearing to be held on July 11,2001.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 9
Mr.Capicotto said there are some requirements on the site plan,including erosion control,dry wells and
that sort of thing. He had prepared a letter the last time around itemizing all the requirements which really
hasn't changed much. He will send the same letter again,so the applicant can refer to it.
Mr.Gordon thanked Mr.Capicotto.
Ms.Reader said this matter is scheduled for a Public Hearing on July 11,2001. It is referred to CZMC,
which meets on June 26th at 8:00 p.m., the BAR, which meets on June 21,2001 at 8:00 p.m., Ed
Jacobson,Chairman,and the County.
Ms.Paul advised Mr.Gordon that the CZMC meeting takes place at the end of the hall.
Ms.Reader advised Mr.Gordon that the BAR meeting takes place in the Senior Center.
Ms.Reader said the matter will also be referred to the County for review.
Ms.Reader again asked if anyone was present for the following application:
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Anthony
Coschigano III-2 Carroll Place-Block 222,Lot 390
No one was present for this matter.
Ms.Reader read the next application as follows:
CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Roger and
Alice Weiss-162 East Brookside Drive-Block 220,Lot 115
Leonard Weinberg,the architect,and Roger Weiss,appeared before the Board.
Mr.Cohen said he received a notice at his home concerning this application because of location. He said
he will not participate.
Ms.Gallent said he is recusing himself. She said if Mr.Cohen feels he can be objective,he may remain
active in the matter.
Mr.Cohen said he just wanted to note for the record that he lived within that area.
After some discussion,Mr.Cohen said he will participate.
Ms.Reader asked Mr.Weinberg to present his application to the Board.
Mr.Weinberg said he is present before the Board,because he is within 100 ft.of the brook. What they're
planning to do is an expansion of the existing home to the rear,which is shown on the drawing. Facing
the front of the house there's an expansion to the left side,which is the expansion of the garage and a
screened-in porch. Added to it as part of that expansion,there is also a new driveway location. The
existing driveway will be abandoned. The existing screened-in portion will become an entranceway to the
house.
Ms.Reader asked if that's what's striped.
Mr.Weinberg said that's right. There are three areas that are striped. He said they have secured approval
of erosion control for the project. The next step is getting Planning Board approval.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 10
Ms.Reader said no variances are needed.
Mr.Weinberg said that was taken care of.
Ms.Gallent said there was a Zoning Board variance.
Mr.Weinberg said that screened-in porch was an area variance,because the existing porch was 6.3 ft.
from the property line. They didn't extend it,but since they were so close they had to go for a variance
and it was approved.
Ms.Harrington said it's a much bigger driveway.
Ms.Reader asked how big the current driveway is.
Mr.Weinberg said if the Board looks at the drawing,they can see where the existing driveway was. It
was perpendicular to what was a one-car garage. The expansion to the garage creates a two-car garage,
therefore the driveway will then come off the left side of the house as is shown.
Mr.Weinberg said in terms of drainage,the Board has a copy of the approved erosion control drawing.
At the base of the driveway there's a trench drain that will be tied into a dry well and will then tie into an
existing catch basin. In the expansion to the rear,there is also a dry well that is proposed to take any
additional roof water runoff.
Ms.Reader said her original question was,what is the size of the new driveway and what was the size of
( the old driveway.
Mr.Weinberg said from recollection,the size of the old driveway was probably about 400 sq.ft. The new
one will probably be somewhere around 900 to 1,000 sq.ft.
Ms.Reader asked what Mr.Weinberg is proposing the driveway material be.
Mr.Weinberg said macadam,blacktop.
Ms.Reader said the concern that the Board has in all these areas,these are branches of the Sheldrake,is
flooding. The more macadam you have,the more impervious ground you have. Often what the Board
does is set a condition,and often the applicant volunteers that they would be willing to do things such as
pavers for driveways even on driveways larger than this.
Dr.Mason said with pavers the joints will take up the water rather than run it down.
Mr.Capicotto said take up some of the water.
Ms.Reader said you still need the dry wells to deal with runoff and things like that,but it definitely helps
the absorption.
Dr.Mason asked if that's going to be a problem.
Ms.Reader said she doesn't think Mr.Weinberg knows what the Board is talking about,regarding the
pavers.
Dr.Mason said he doesn't think it's a problem. Frankly,with his experience,the cost of one or the other
there's a slight increase probably with the pavers primarily due to the labor cost.
Ms.Reader said some think they're more attractive.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 11
Dr.Mason agreed that they are more attractive.
Mr.Papazian asked if gravel is an option.
Ms.Reader said that gravel is always an option.
Dr.Mason said the problem is that it doesn't stay that way.
Mr.Papazian said he is just giving an option for the applicant.
Mr.Weinberg said the gravel situation is always a nice thing to have,except when you have to plow it in
the wintertime. Too many times what happens there,it gets lost or thrown out onto the street and clogs
up the drains.
Dr.Mason said it's paved over two years later.
Ms.Reader said she thinks the CZMC is probably going to raise this issue as well. She said it will help
move things,if he's inclined to go with the pavers,if he revises his plans so the Board gets it timely before
the next meeting. Then if everything is in order,the Board may be able to approve the permit. If at the
next meeting he first says we will do pavers and it's not in these plans,the Board will not be able to
approve the permit at that time until the Board gets new plans. These are the different things he needs to
consider.
Ms.Gallent said these plans just say the new driveway. You can always add it as a condition.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else.
Mr. Capicotto said the site plan,or better the soil erosion control plan,should show the 100 ft.buffer
setback from the wetlands. He said he can send a memo to Mr.Weinberg with that to show the setback
from the wetland and also where on the site the 100-year flood elevation would be if...inaudible.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else. She said this is a Type II action under SEQRA,requiring
no further action and that it's referred to the CZMC.
Mr.Capicotto said he has a question. On the garage plan,it shows that extension,one-story,but there's
nothing...interrupted by Weinberg.
Mr.Weinberg said it's below grade.
Mr.Capicotto asked if that's going to be covered over. He said there's a small bump-out in the garage
for a one-story ...inaudible that's just below grade.
Ms.Reader asked what he means by covered over...inaudible.
Mr.Weinberg said it will be below grade.
Ms.Reader said if it will be in the ground,like a wine cellar.
Mr.Weinberg said that's right.
Ms.Reader said this matter is adjourned to a public hearing on July 11,2001 at 8:15 p.m.
Mr.Weinberg thanked the Board.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 12
Ms.Reader said that the CZMC meeting is June 26,2001 at 8:00 p.m.and informed Mr.Weinberg that
he should be present at that meeting.
Ms.Reader read the application as follows:
CONSIDERATION-SITE PLAN MODIFICATION-Stop&Shop Supermarket Company- 1326
Boston Post Road-Block 410,Lot 463
Donald S.Mazin,the attorney for Stop&Shop,was present to address the Board.
Dr.Mason asked Mr.Mazin if he would like to modify the plans as submitted.
Mr.Mazin said he is present this evening to review with the Board what they're proposing. This is a
modification of the site plan,in connection with the parking lot facilities. He said he will have Ronald
Fuerst,of Langan Engineering and Environmental Services,go over this the plan with the Board and tell
them why they are doing it and what they would like to do.
Ronald Fuerst,a Senior Associate with Langan Engineering Environmental Services,addressed the Board.
He said he just wanted to go through with the Board what Stop&Shop would like to do as part of some
of the improvements outside the parking lot area. He said that Stop&Shop is looking to do the internal
parts of the store in an updated type of fashion and are currently in the process of doing that. One of the
things that came to light is that to do this in a quick and effective manner,the store renovation will be done
by basically shutting the store down for a very short period of time,about a 2 to 2'h week window.
During that time,Stop&Shop evaluated and looked at the front parking area. Because of that opportunity,
they felt there are things currently going on that have been there that are operational issues and some safety
concerns they would like to address which they'll do as improvements during that period. Everything
they're showing today and presenting as part of this application,are improvements they want to do within
that time period.
Mr.Fuerst said,as most of the Board may know,when you go out there now there's quite a dip in the
current parking lot. One of the safety concerns is to really maintain a flat parking lot. They really want
to keep those carriages from moving down,not just from going in with the baby inside the carriage itself
with packages,but going into other cars and denting those cars. What they would like to do is keep the
basic perimeter of the parking lot exactly the same and not affect any of the traffic pattern. In doing that
what they will need to do is build a small retaining wall that will be on both sides of the parking lot within
the property lines to the north,basically right at the edge of the property line and demonstrated where that
is. He said they will keep all that vegetation that's currently there,the existing evergreens to screen this
area,and replace a guardrail on top of that. They would still have a 2 ft.overhang between there and the
curbs. They will redo the curbing itself around the parking lot allowing that space to be filled up and will
keep the drainage pattern that's out there the way it is. As the Board can see on the plan that's included
in their package,this is the grading and drainage plan they've proposed for the site. There are existing
inlets. They would maintain those and reuse the existing water,oil/water separators that are currently in
place,that were on the previous approval and would simply just be raising those grades to the new grades.
The fill will be approximately 2 to 3 ft.in the main lower spot,but for the most part fill from here all the
way to the front. He said when they do that they would also fix the pavement problem,which is one of
the major reasons they're also trying to get out there. There's got to be some issues on some of the
pavement that was laid a few years ago. They want to take that all away and redo that.
Mr.Fuerst said when they do this,they also want to slightly modify the landscaping islands that are there.
The angled ones and the ones that are actually right when you come into the right area ate very small.
They don't have any landscaping capacity as they are right now. It's dangerous. When you drive into that
area,if someone is there and you make a sharp turn,you go right into it. You can see all the marks on
the pavement. He said they would like to change that.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 13
Mr. Fuerst said some of the things from the site plan the Board will notice in the package that was
submitted was to basically redo those islands much larger. If the Board will notice the way it is right now,
there's kind of a one-way that comes out of this side and a two-way here. That's a little bit awkward and
doesn't allow enough dispersion of traffic when it's needed. It's not wide enough. What they want to do
is pull that back and redo this island,so it's basically a stall(?)size to go from the small ones that are
currently in the middle. The signs are about 4 ft.just for overhang,and would make these about 8/9 ft.
in width and allow them to get landscaping in here. He said they would maintain the right out only and
would look to modify that even further if there are some issues of concern about trying to prevent that left
turn,which was the intent of that,with the signage to help that even more. Obviously by taking it all off,
they can do that at that time quite easily. He said they are proposing to take out the center islands that are
on the spines right now. The reason being,in any kind of shopping center in general,they do become
much more of a hazard than helpful.
Mr.Fuerst said they appreciate the landscaping that they do bring to the parking lot,but it's not a very
large parking lot. It's quite small,in sense of retail. He said they think the trees and landscaping that you
would have are better served by putting them at the perimeter where they serve as screening as more of
a visual type appearance and aesthetic. He said they've eliminated them in the proposal and they've also
provided more proper handicap spaces that are more equal in space and size and basically more uniform
across. He said they have basically lost a few spaces in this proposed design in doing that. It doesn't
affect the overall operation,but they'd like to do that. He said they do run into a little bit of an issue with
the fact that they may have to lose a few more spaces here and have to go back to zoning.
Mr.Fuerst said they are trying to target this for August. Paul Zorn,who is also present from Stop&
Shop,can talk a little bit about the specifics,why this is the right time to do this renovation internally,why
Stop&Shop has chosen that and what they're trying to meet.
Mr.Zom said they would modify the two islands with the landscaping up at the front of the store and make
sure that the asphalt walkway that comes from the school is basically enhanced. They have a little more
room,can make it a little bit wider,and a little easier to get through.
Mr.Fuerst said the other proposal,based on some existing light levels they did out there measuring on the
ground,they wanted to take a look at the lighting. He said they're very sensitive to the issues with lighting
here. Stop&Shop always strives to make sure that in its neighborhood,the neighbors are all looked at
as being very sensitive. He said when they out here,it is still relatively dark. The average now in existing
lights when measured is about 1.3 through the whole Stop&Shop deal. In a footcandle level that's just
a general light level,but on a dark road or something,you have about a 1 to 2 perimeters of 1.5,in this
case. In any kind of retail,you're usually in the 5 to 6 range when you get into target and those types of
very high-end types of facilities. He said they're not trying to do that here. They actually want to just
match what's out there. The existing poles that are there right now are basically 1,2 and 3, There are
duals on each one and there's another set of them here again and a little bit slightly in the background.
He said what they would like to do is basically change the fixture to a more effective fixture.It's still a
shoe box type fixture,so it's still the same kind of recessed light that the Board sees.It's just the reflector
that's inside is much more affective getting light down on the ground.
Ms.Reader asked if it goes down,but it doesn't'spray out.
Ms.Fuerst agreed that it goes down,doesn't spray out but allows out. He said in addition they would still
add shields to the lights that are apparently shielded as they are right now,with the additional panel that
comes down to help some of the ambient glare that isn't measurable that you see from a distance. By
doing that,they will be able to get the light down on the ground. They believe the intersection is still dark.
Because it is being used as a 24-hour store,they still think there is some need here. They would zone
these off. They would come off at a particular time,9, 10, 11. Whatever would be appropriate and
consistent with what's being done today. It would help to be able to see this area much more. They're
looking to basically put two singles, not doubles,at these locations here. They are not putting any
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 14
perimeters over here, so they don't shine anymore into this area. They're also looking to put one
additional single one here. There's a double right behind it,but this is really where the main entrance is.
There's not too much in this direction. He said they still maintain basically the same light levels that they
have today at the property line. They get more light within the parking facility here and also in here.
Ms.Reader asked what's on the other side.
Mr.Fuerst said this area is an empty lot that's vegetated and there's a single residence up on top of the
hill slightly. This time of the year,you can't see anything through there.
Ms.Harrington asked if he can put those lights on a low monument left hanging.
Mr.Fuerst asked if she meant a bollard type light. It basically prevents a car from going into an area that
is really for pedestrians and sometimes they can add a light to them. They're very good for pedestrian type
settings,but they only spread light for a couple of feet in each direction effectively. With a main parking
field,it's just an ineffective way to deal with light.
Ms.Harrington said that she thought the goal was really to define that entrance from Weaver Street,as
there are houses directly across the street from that and some of them are tall houses. A tall light there
....left hanging.
Mr.Fuerst said he doesn't disagree. That's definitely a possibility. He thinks the bollard light is probably
a little bit more inappropriate for that. It's kind of like a monument or a sign light.
Ms.Reader said she doesn't think Ms.Harrington necessarily means that,but asked if there's something
on that idea.
Mr.Fuerst said there's definitely something on that. First,if using a box,they could use something even
similar to the gas lights used along Route 1. There's a possibility you could use something like that. He
personally doesn't think that's appropriate,because of the ambience you get from the top of the light. You
could do something on that,bring the scale down instead of 20 ft.bring it down to maybe 10 ft.or 12 ft.
and just put one on each side which would help define that area. It's not as bright as they would like to
see,but it most certainly is better than it is today. That's something they can most certainly provide for
the Board as a different alternative.
Mr.Papazian asked what the lighting is on the street,not Mr.Fuerst's lighting,but street lighting.
Mr.Fuerst said the street lighting in here when they measure it there isn't any as far as the measurement.
He believes there's one street light as you go further up and one light just before the intersection.
Mr.Papazian said there's nothing there.
Mr.Fuerst reiterated that there's really nothing after that.
Ms.Harrington said there's that one on that corner across the street.
Mr.Fuerst said if there was,it's not lit. He's not 100%sure on that. He said that would basically be the
light changes. In essence,mey would maintain the same wattage in bulbs,400 watts. They will still be
metal halide,which is what's out there today. They're changing it,but they're really not changing it that
much. They're hoping the:they get consideration from the Board that it would be an improvement overall
and make it look very consistent with the type of things Stop&Shop would be use to giving its customers.
Mr.Cohen asked if he's cutting off the ability to walk from the GAP to the store.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 15
Mr.Fuerst said yes,technically he's doing that by putting the wall there.
After some discussion,Mr.Fuerst said there is a path. You can walk here and up to the front of the door,
cross at the area,which is where you should.
Ms.Aisen asked if there was any reason you couldn't have a small stairway there.
Ms.Harrington said at the Hommocks the traffic is horrendous. A lot of the kids cross at the guard,come
through the GAP parking lot,go up there and their parents will do grocery shopping and wait in the lot
for them.
Ms.Reader said putting a walkway might get them more business.
Mr.Fuerst said he certainly thinks they can add a stairwell here. What they're proposing is for this to be
one of those types of block walls,a keystone type block. He has photographs of one.
Ms.Aisen asked who owns the grassy area.
Mr.Mazin said the landlord.
Mr.Fuerst reiterated that the landlord owns this property. They do have room to do that.
Mr.Mazin said Pepe,10 Grand.
Ms.Harrington said the other question she has,is the GAP parking lot tends to flood and get huge puddles
in it. She asked if this will increase the flooding.
Mr.Fuerst said no. All the drainage on this site is contained and goes into those inlets that are on two
sides. Because of the curb,everything goes there. There's no back flooding that goes on. There's a small
inlet there now. They're going to increase the size of it....inaudible. Mr.Fuerst said that photograph
shows the stair type of solution.
Ms.Harrington said that's a very good....inaudible. She said otherwise the kids are going to scramble
over that wall and they're going to get hurt. She said she has one other question. Now Stop&Shop
utilizes the parking lot in the front across from the entrance to display plants. During the various seasons
there might be hay bales,evergreens,etc.,and said that's really dangerous. You're kind of dodging cars,
trying to look at flowers,there are carts out in the middle of the path and asked if there is any way that
they have provisions for the greenhouse or gardening area maybe against the other side closer to the store.
Mr.Fuerst said he doesn't know if he can answer all of that,not knowing what the store manager and how
Stop&Shop in that particular store is. He said that Mr.Zom may know. He's not sure if he knows too
much of the specifics on this....inaudible. He said what may be possible,and he would have to explore
it,there is a canopy area that's here and he questioned why some of it wasn't being used for that as well,
but it is a possibility.
Paul Zorn,of Stop&Shop,asked what was the location of the greenhouse.
Ms.Harrington said it is across from the entrance at the end of the parking lot where they have those two
green circles now. That would be the end of the island dividers. Across both of them on each side,he
has big,long displays of plants that go actually around the corner of the parking.
Mr.Zorn asked,so it's difficult to get around.
Ms.Harrington said not only that,but it's dangerous.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 16
Dr.Mason said now you're talking about putting some trees in there too,to make it even more dangerous.
Mr.Zorn said there are trees there now.
Ms.Harrington said then there's the problem of a grocery truck trying to come out,someone trying to turn
in there and there she is trying to put her Impatience in the cart. It's really dangerous.
Mr.Zorn said they can take a look at that and make sure that's something that's addressed in terms of
claiming another spot for it and demonstrated different areas on the drawings before the Board.
Mr.Fuerst said one of the problems they've had which would help,would be to expand the islands. But
to be quite honest,having the display there is probably the right place for it.
Ms.Harrington said he doesn't have trucks coming in and out all the time down by the loading area,if
you're looking at the store to the left of the entrance. She asked what if you put something on wheels.
Mr.Zorn said it's possible. They can most certainly explore it,if there's a Board concern.
Mr.Carpaneto said there's a fire lane there.
Mr.Zorn said there's a fire lane there on the one side. He doesn't know exactly where,on the building
side or both sides. He believes it's both sides.
Ms.Harrington said she always thought that that was a very dangerous condition.
Mr.Zorn said they then can definitely address it. He said one of the reasons they're in the process of
using the existing building is that now they're under a remodel and before they get into the main parts of
the building with shelving,refrigerated cases,etc.which is planned for the shutdown in August,actually
August 5th,it's going to be for about 2'h weeks,plus or minus. During that time,their hope was to go
through with it and deal with the parking lot issues at the same time.
Ms.Harrington said even if they front it,put it across the part of the store that faces the Post Road,they
have to have a relatively wide enough sidewalk. If they put them along that wall facing the cleaners,at
least they're out of the path of cars.
Mr.Zorn said they can surely address that.
Ms. Aisen said from Mr. Zom's point of view, you're not going to be able to see it. He said it's
something they have to address. One of the safety issues of doing this and raising it up is so folks that are
loading their car with groceries with a baby in the carriage that they don't pick up a load of groceries,put
it in the back of the car or trunk whatever and there goes the carriage down with your baby. It's one of
the issues of trying to raise the grade. To do this type of work in a normal process when the store is open
is just not feasible.
Dr.Mason asked what kind of pitch can they tolerate without having the carts roll away and still be able
to have control of their drainage.
Mr.Fuerst said in the parking lot you want a minimum of 1%of slope to get positive drainage,but you
don't want to be much more than about 2 to 2'h%...inaudible,which would be primarily in this section
of the site. We're going to be closer to that 1 to I''/a%in front of the store,which is a really nice flat area
to even push the cart. These are the guidelines which they strive for in the design.
Dr.Mason said if you take out the dividers it better be flatter or they're going to take off and they're going
to go a long way.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 17
Mr.Zom said most of you folks have seen their store in New Rochelle on Palmer Avenue. That parking
lot is very flat. That's typical of the type of parking lot they're trying to achieve. They're going to get
pretty close to that here.
Mr.Fuerst said one of the other things they talked was the specifics in the timing. Doing it in August
makes sense in operational standpoint,because of the lesser amount of traffic that is being used by the
school at that time. It's before the school opens,before kids are going back and forth in this area,and the
least amount of traffic going through here. It makes the most sense. It's obviously an issue right now to
get these things approved and do all the site plan. They appreciate getting on the agenda for consideration
of this. It does affect some of the other things they're doing right now. When you start getting into
September,October and remodel as scheduled,it does become much more problematic in Stop&Shop's
opinion. This is the right time to do it.
Mr.Zorn said they also have the walkway that does go over to the school over here. That is something
that obviously is another reason to do it now versus later.
Dr.Mason said when they close this off,will they then cut off the access to the photography store.
Mr.Fuerst said no. What will happen is during construction just for that 21/2 week period,basically this(?)
will get closed off and this(?)will get closed off. Access to the two main driveways off of main street will
obviously still be in play. There is a consideration of doing resurfacing just as a general resurfacing issue
for this,either then or at a later date,probably at a later date to make it work,but that hasn't been decided
upon yet. That will be a simple resurfacing issue.
Ms.Harrington said there are big holes in that parking lot.
Mr.Zom said that will be addressed as well.
Mr.Fuerst said as far as redoing it,tearing up and really putting in new fill,this is obviously a much more
constructive and active type of operation.
Ms.Reader asked if this is a redesign.
Mr.Zorn said no. This will match exactly what's out there today.
Ms.Aisen said assuming they will give serious consideration to maintaining some access between Stop&
Shop and GAP,she asked what other parties have to be involved. She would say it's the landlord. It's
neither the responsibility of Stop&Shop nor the GAP and asked if that's correct.
Mr.Zom said the landlord will be involved.
Mr.Fuerst said Ten Grand is the same landlord. They have allowed them to come forth with this and at
this point he doesn't see them...left hanging. He thinks they will be a help.
Ms.Aisen said if Mr.Fuerst is willing to do it,does he think he will go along.
Mr.Zom said to be quite honest,even from the observations he's seen and what they've heard tonight,
he said they like to discourage certain units. He doesn't expect someone to jump a 3 ft.wall,but maybe
does expect some young kids to want to do that. From that standpoint,because they're going to have a
guardrail here or a stairway,his big offense would be more appropriate to deal with that liability and
concern of anything.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 18
Mr.Cohen said it was said that it's very difficult to drive into the Hommocks School from the other side
of the Boston Post Road to pickup kids. Parents wait in the GAP lot. While these parents are waiting,
they will stop and shop at Stop&Shop.
Ms.Reader said it sounds like Mr.Zorn is in favor. Actually the center island is very attractive.
Mr.Mazin said they happen to have a very nice landlord,Mr.Pepe. He works with everybody. He said
that Mr.Pepe is very considerate of the properties and the people around it. He doesn't think that they'll
have too much of a concern.
Ms.Aisen said the landscaping will be protected,because now it's one-way and there are several paths
' going through the grass there.
Ms.Gallent asked how many parking spaces will be lost.
Mr. Fuerst said if they were to do this plan as they have internally proposed,they will lose seven(7)
spaces overall.
Ms.Reader asked how many are required.
Mr.Fuerst said right now they have 295/280 spaces for the entire center.
Ms.Reader asked how many are required.
Mr.Carpaneto said 311 spaces are required.
Mr.Fuerst said there seems to be a little back and forth. It depends on how each of the spaces and uses
were recalculated. Because they are just reusing it,they thought it was closer to 320. Then they saw some
old plans that were approved that are closer to 310.
Mr.Carpaneto said if they stay with that plan,a variance is required.
Mr.Fuerst said that's why they have this issue.
Ms.Reader said that's out of the Planning Board's hands.
Mr.Fuerst said they understand that. Obviously because of the,speed and the time of doing this,and they
need this addressed,there is a possibility they may come back in. To be in that window,they may just
not do the physical improvements.
Ms.Reader asked if they can go before zoning next month too.
Mr.Carpaneto said yes. They can go in July.
Mr.Fuerst said they are going to attempt to do that. It's just a matter of getting on the Board.
Ms.Gallent said that the reason she is asking,if someone characterizes this as a Type II action under
SEQRA,she assumes that it's because it's almost assuming it's a replacement in kind. ...inaudible to
know whether when you're reducing the number of spaces if you are, whether you can view it as a
replacement in kind,becau..e that reduction may have impact.
Mr.Mazin said when that parking lot was approved,they had Tung Hoy and some other tenants in there.
The use has been reduced quite substantially from what it was originally in there for a number of spaces.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 19
He said they're currently taking that up with the Building Inspector. A determination will be made with
respect to the parking.
Ms.Gallent said we need to characterize this as something under SEQRA. She just doesn't know,if they
are reducing the number of spaces at least we have to look at the case law and what is replacement in kind.
It doesn't have to be stick for stick replacement to fit within the category Type II,but a lot of the cases
we saw weren't parking lot cases,but bridges where the land...inaudible.
Mr.Mazin said a lot of it has to do with the structures. Basically this is not a structure situation,just a
parking lot situation. He doesn't think it would fall under those cases.
Ms.Gallent said if you want to fall under those cases.
Dr.Mason said Mr.Mazin is not saying that. What he's saying is that in the cases that we have named
structures,then you may have a different type of situation. He said he will discuss that with Ms.Gallent.
Ms.Gallent asked who put this together.
Mr.Fuerst said that they submitted the EAF.
Ms.Gallent asked if it was a replacement in kind.
Mr.Fuerst said they believe it's a replacement in kind. Their interpretation was that it didn't affect the
operational issue. He said if she feels that that is something different...left hanging.
Ms. Gallent said she doesn't know that it matters. It's a positive declaration,just to have everything
correct legally.
Mr.Fuerst said the point is,they are still coming in the same spot,whether it's a technicality on the space
law.
Ms.Gallent asked when they are going to decide about this case law,because if they're not going to use
this space it's Type II.
Mr.Fuerst said they're going to try to go through with the zoning and the interpretation with the Building
Inspector right now. Obviously,things are coming together quickly,so we need to get....left hanging.
Ms.Gallent said so we should assume you are having this reduction in space.
Mr.Fuerst said at this point,this application calls for that and they're going to do everything they can to
...left hanging.
Ms.Reader said does she understand from the conversation,there is a possibility that 288 spaces might
need zoning.
Mr.Carpaneto said he thinks the calculations were done for full retail which the use is right now and it
came to 311. He doesn't believe there were ever 311 out there. He has to research that and see. If there
was a variance granted somewhere along the line,then that's fine. He said if they're going to go lower
than what's out there now,it would still require a variance.
(,. i Mr. Reader said Mr. Fuerst may want to cover himself. She advised him to speak to the Building
Department tomorrow to get on the zoning calendar and advised him that he can always withdraw his
application.
•
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 20
Ms.Gallent said that the zoning calendar for June is closed already.
Mr.Fuerst said they were hoping to do this simultaneously with zoning. That is part of the reason why
they are present this evening. If they can get on to that,they can do it simultaneously.
Ms.Reader said that July is very doable,she th'.k.. She can't assure him that he get his approval at one
meeting.
Ms.Gallent said they're on first for consideration and then will go on to a public hearing.
Mr.Capicotto said Mr.Fuerst mentioned existing oil/water separators.
Mr. Fuerst said yes. On the previous approved plans from 1991 for the site, there was a series of
oil/water separators that are shown.
Dr.Mason said that he believes those drains go right into the Hommocks marsh. He thinks that's why,
at that time,there was never an insistence about the oil/water separators.
Mr.Fuerst said there are manholes out there that you can actually see. There's one located here(?)and
one located here. These drains bypass and go directly into the line that goes underneath the river.He
doesn't see it pulled out.
Mr.Fuerst said it's not. That was something they discovered late,so the topographical survey that they
show,except for the manholes,doesn't show it out altogether. So we can write a letter of response that
they were all a part of it,because they're not increasing impervious area. Even at that point,it seems
that's an effective way and there hasn't been any reports of any problems.
Dr.Mason said they were an item of some contention,at that time.
Mr.Capicotto asked if the catch basins have sumps in them to collect sediment.
Mr.Fuerst said they have sumps in them,but with the oil/water separator the sediment change is somewhat
redundant. He said yes there are. If there are bad condition,they will replace them with a manhole and
refine them. If they're not,they're just going to raise them up.
Mr.Capicotto asked how much fill is he looking to import to the site.
Mr.Fuerst said that they would need to bring it up on average,about 2 ft.on average,3 ft.at the side of
the steps,about 2700 yards total.
Mr.Capicotto asked,about 120 truck loads?
Mr.Fuerst said yes. He said they would come in first,rip out the pavement that's there and then bring
in the fill. At the same time,with the block wall constriction,because of the way it comes from the
bottom up,they would basically build the wall. At that point they would put in the pavement itself on the
first layer, put in concrete curbing around the perimeters and then put in a top course, reshrub and
landscape.
Mr.Zorn said they may want to start the wall sooner.
Mr.Capicotto asked if the existing pavement will be hauled off site.
•
Mr.Fuerst said it will be hauled off site. They don't want to mix that in with...inaudible.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 21
Ms.Harrington said because they're under a time constraint,they're not going to be doing anything at
night are they?
Mr.Zorn said they will be working long days.
Mr.Fuerst said they probably will start at 7:00 a.m.and work till 8:00 p.m.
After some discussion,Mr.Fuerst said they will start at 8:00 a.m.till whatever the time constraints are,
six days a week. Mr.Fuerst said it will be an intense effort,no doubt.
Mr.Zorn said the only other way,they wouldn't be able to do this without closing the store from a safety
prospective. What was planned for before,was just go in on a phase type operation and probably on
Mondays and Tuesdays,four weeks in a row,and just do different phases in different pieces,all of the
parking lot and just repave it until it's in somewhat of a phase type scenario. It's very difficult.
Mr. Fuerst said with the dirt and everything else with the food industry, it's not something ....left
hanging.
•
Mr.Zorn said they would just repave it and it would stay in its present graded situation.
Mr.Papazian asked Mr.Zorn to tell him about what they're going to do with the Weaver Street entrance.
He asked it.
Mr.Fuerst said they are basically going to leave it as is. They're going to still maintain the no left turn
movement. What was discussed briefly with staff was to possibly modify this island even larger. Right
now,it's about a 2 ft.little strip that turns right. There used to be striping proposed around it to allow
someone to do it. They would look to modify that, so the whole thing becomes concrete. They've
proposed steps...inaudible.
Mr.Papazian said that island is more dangerous the way it's sitting right now. They talk about safety,but
the way it sits now it's dangerous. It either has to eliminated or modified.
Mr.Fuerst said they can most certainly modify that. He said the other issue too is the sight line. It's quite
difficult to make a left turn on the island,because of the shrubs that are in the way and the elevation. Even
getting out of the entrance here is difficult. They would agree if the Board proposes something like that.
Mr. Papazian said that the island gets snowbound in the wintertime,so that's a concern. The other
question he has as far as aesthetics is concerned,they're talking about putting a 3 ft.or 4 ft.wall around
this parking lot. He asked if they've done that at any other site and what it looks like.
Mr.Fuerst said in what concern.
Mr.Papazian said he sees a 3 ft.or 4 ft.wall sticking up on top of that wall. That's what he has in his
mind right now,.
Mr.Fuerst said this wall here is about 2' ft.high. It's going to face this way. That's all vegetated. No
one sits there,so there's nothing to see.
Mr.Papazian asked how it is going to be landscaped.
Mr.Fuerst said they're going to have the wall right at the property line,then there's the asphalt that's
there. All the existing vegetation that's right behind it will be maintained. You're going to see all that
same vegetation. They would look to keep what landscaping they have,redo and retransplant what's there
now,in addition to what they're proposing.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 22
Mr.Papazian said all he sees is a naked wall out there and that looks terrible aesthetically. He asked if
there's any possibility of landscaping that area.
Mr.Fuerst said they don't have a lot of room where the asphalt is,only about 2 ft. That's where they're
asking to put the wall. They could look at accenting the edges. He said what he didn't show is some of
the vegetation that's around the backside.
Mr.Mazin said this area over here is a vacant lot. The lot,however,is in a residential section. There
would be a possibility,if the landlord would agree, to open it up and put in more parking but then you
have a commercial situation going into a residential area. That's why they're working it...inaudible.
Dr.Mason said that's not a very rigid line.
Mr.Mazin said if you go there now,it's all filled in,it does block the view and hides the shopping center.
Ms.Reader said she thinks Mr.Papazian is asking if that's someone elses responsibility,it can always
come down. The question is if Stop&Shop can do some kind of landscaping to make it softer and
attractive.
Mr.Papazian said he's not only talking about that. He said that Ms.Reader is absolutely right. He's not
only talking about that back wall area. He's concerned about the front wall area even more. Originally
he was concerned about the neighbors as far as GAP is concerned, but he's not concerned about that
anymore. He is concerned about the aesthetic value of having a high wall sitting there. It's on the Post
Road,he knows that,but asked what can you do to soften it?
Ms.Aisen said why can't they have the kind of barrier they have now,for example,which is relatively
pleasing.
Dr.Mason said you have to retain the dirt.
Ms.Reader said they can put bushes in front of the wall.
Mr.Fuerst said just so they understand the context,the wall that is shown is not a massive 5 ft.wall the
whole length. The deepest part of the wall is going to be in this area right here. As it graduates,because
of the fill,it's going to be about 1 ft.to 2 ft.on the other edge. The only reason they're putting a wall
up is because of the existing trees that are next to the house and also in here help maintain those roots.
They don't have to do that. They're going to do as minimal a wall as they can. If the slope allows them
to get a little bit more room,they'll make the wall even shorter. They most certainly are not going to
make it taller than it's shown. They can make that attempt. He can probably detail that a little bit more,
even on the plans. That would help with that. If they should involve some other kind of
...interrupted/left hanging.
Ms.Harrington asked what about planting some ivy or honey suckle vine,similar to what they've done
along the highway where you actually start it on the other side of the wall and it will climb right over.
Instead of seeing the wall,you will see a green hedge.
Dr.Mason said he doesn't think you'll see that wall,because you have Home Fair and the house right in
front of you.
Mr.Fuerst said he doesn't think you'll see that in this area. You could grow a vine. One'of the reasons
they picked this type of wall is because it has an architectural value. It's quite attractive. It has some
depth and texture to it,which actually,in itself,is pretty attractive.
Ms.Harrington said it nicer than a residential wall.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 23
Mr.Fuerst said if they do end up adding a stairwell,it's going to break this wall up nicely.
Ms.Reader said they may want to landscape....inaudible.
After some discussion among Board members,Mr.Papazian said he knows they're limited by the amount
they can do over there,but the wall isn't going to be 3 ft.or 4 ft.all the way along,but it is a concern.
If he can address that in some way if possible,it would be helpful.
After further discussion among Board members,Mr.Mazin pointed out the area that they're talking about
for the wall,for the record. He said you have this home with a yard,you have Home Fair,you've got
the dumpsters in the back,so you really won't see that wall from the Boston Post Road.
After more discussion,Ms.Reader said followed by the stairway that Mr.Fuerst is going to do,install
a lighting bollard so people can see when they're walking. It gets dark in the winter.
Mr.Fuerst said he doesn't want it to become a skate board ramp.
Mr.Cohen said that's a problem. All steps become a skating board attraction.
Ms.Harrington asked if the steps raise a handicap issue.
Mr.Carpaneto said no,because you can get around the parking lot by some other access.
Mr.Mazin said as long as you can get access.
Dr.Mason said if you put a ramp in,you definitely have skate boards.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else.
Mr.Papazian asked if CVS is moving out of that shopping center.
Mr.Mazin said from what he understands,CVS is not moving out,Re:Chatsworth Property. He said that
the Post Office bought that building and they're looking for another supermarket type operation. They're
just going to take a piece in the back for their drugs.
Ms.Reader asked who bought the building.
Ms.Cohen said Grand Union bought the property. There was a rumor that CVS was coming there,but
then he heard...inaudible. He asked what's coming where the video store was.
Mr.Mazin said right now MOOVIES is out. They haven't signed any leases yet,but their tenant is asking
to split it in half. This is not public record,but this is like a Starbuck type operation with sit down seats
and things like that.
A discussion ensued regarding possible stores in that area.
Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else. There being no other comments,Ms.Reader said this is
referred to the CZMC,which meets in Conference Room A on June 26,2001,referred to the County and
referred to the BAR,which meets on June 21,2001.
Mr.Mazin said he believes they're on the BAR agenda for June 21,2001. He asked when the Zoning
Board meets.
Mr.Carpaneto said the Zoning Board usually meets the fourth Wednesday of every month.
Planning Board
June 13,2001
Page 24
Ms.Reader said this is a Type II action. They're going to defer a statement on that. She said they're on
for a public hearing to be held on July 11,2001 at 8:15 p.m.
Mr.Mazin thanked the Board for listening to him.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms.Reader said she had a conversation with Steve Altieri,the Town Administrator,today. She said that
next month the Board will be given a project for the redesign of the garages for the sanitation facility.
Actually,the question was that in the past the Board has waived consideration and gone directly to a Public
Hearing.
Ms.Gallent said that consideration is not required by any law. The fact that something is a public hearing
doesn't mean you have to vote that night.
Ms.Reader said there is one wrinkle in all os this. Dolph Rotfeld are the designers,so Mr.Capicotto is
not going to be able to represent the Board for this application. She asked if Dolph Rotfeld will retain
another firm to be the Board consultant for this project. She said she doesn't have any objection to letting
him come on....inaudible.
Mr.Papazian said as long as they come in with a complete set of plans.
After further discussion among Board members and counsel,Ms.Reader said she discussed this with the
Board and the Board waived consideration of this matter. It will go directly to a public hearing. If they
get their act together and they do very well,maybe the Planning Board can do it in one meeting.
Ms.Reader asked Ms.Roma to advise Mr.Altieri that the Board waived consideration and the matter will
be put on for a public hearing.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on July 11,2001.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Marguerite ,Recording Secretary