Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_05_10 Planning Board Minutes • Nor MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 10, 2000, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer Nancy Seligson, Liaison Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographers " Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 40 Eighth Street r_Cy RECEIVED New Rochelle, New York 10801 _I JUL 26 2000 4u\' PATRICIA A.INCIOCCIO N4 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary TOWN CLERK MAMARONECK N.Y. CALL TO ORDER ��^� -\c-P 4 ``" The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of April 12, 2000 and if there were any amendments. After some discussion and a few amendments made, on a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the Amended Minutes April 12, 2000 were unanimously approved. Ms. Reader said the next matter on the agenda is as listed below: REFERRAL/DEMAPPING OF PAPER STREET Stephen V. Altieri,Mamaroneck Town Administrator,addressed this matter. He said the Board has before them a referral from the Mamaroneck Town Board to demap Ward Lane, which was a paper street that was mapped many years back when consideration was given for the possibility of it connecting Weaver Street to Briar Close. That has never occurred. Since that time a home was built on Briar Close that would prevent that from being built straight through from Weaver Street to Briar Close. The property that is owned by the Town of Mamaroneck has become a bit of a maintenance problem. It is surplus property, which is no longer necessary to the Town. Hence, the Town Board has worked with the neighboring properties to sell off the property to the adjoining property owners roughly in equal shares. However, since it was a previously mapped street, it is required that the Town adopt a local law formally demapping the street. That demapping requires a referral to this Planning Board. Mr. Altieri laid out in a memorandum the criteria for which the determination was made, that the property is surplus and has listed seven (7) conditions that will be placed on each of the deeds of transfer of the property, as they do want it to remain as a buffer and open space. He has enumerated a number of conditions that will prevent any type of building,no commercial activities, etc., etc. It will essentially remain in the same condition as it New is today. Mr. Altieri can answer any questions the Board may have, as Planning Board opinion would be advisory to the Town Board. They will make a decision at a future meeting pertaining to formally demapping the street. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 2 © Ms.Reader said she has no objection and asked for,Board comments. Ms.Aisen asked if this is divided equally between two neighbors,could they plant on it? Mr.Altieri said they can replant trees,but cannot remove healthy trees or shrubs. Ms.Aisen said there seems to be a footpath there,and she is not sure it is what Mr.Altieri has mapped as Ward Lane. Mr.Altieri said there is a footpath,but it eventually runs into somebody elses back yard. Ms.Aisen said if the neighbors wanted to cover the footpath with a tree,shrub or flower,would they be prevented from doing that? Mr.Altieri said right now there would be no restrictions to planting on their portion of the street. Ms.Reader said it doesn't say you can't plant. Mr.Alfieri asked if the Board has any other questions. After some discussion,Ms.Reader proposed a motion that the Board consents to the Town Board erasing this from the map. Mr.Altieri said since he has been with the Town,the Planning Board has only had something like this once © , before for a street known as Adam Street which was demapped. It is not something done very often. Ms.Reader asked counsel's advice. Mr.Davis said the Board might as well adopt a resolution. On a motion made by Ms.Reader,seconded by Ms.Aisen,the Board unanimously approved removal of the paper street from the map. On a motion made and seconded by,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing continuation be,and hereby is,declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Chairperson Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Levine- 10 Evergreen Lane,Block 309,Lot 21(adjourned6/9/99;7/14/99;8/11/99;9/8/99;10/13/99;11/10/99;12/8/99;1/12/00 to 3/8/00;4/12/00) Jeffrey Young,of the firm of Young&Rosenstrach,277 North Avenue,New Rochelle,appeared,along with Harry Nichols,of Harry Nichols Engineers,311 Clocktower Commons,Brewster,New York,and Julia Levine,34 Locust Avenue,Larchmont. OMr.Young said Julia Levine is the applicant and Harry Nichols is the engineer. Mr.Young said they have appeared before the Board before and were sent back to do more work on the plans. There has been some coordination between the Town engineer's office and the applicant's engineers as to getting closer to a plan that would be acceptable with the least impact in the area of the concerns that J v Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 3 are before this Board. He said he is in receipt of a letter from the consulting engineering firm of the Town dated May 9,2000 and said Mr.Nichols will give some background as to where they currently are. Ms.Reader said she did not have the May 9,2000 letter. The last letter she has is dated April 21,2000. Mr.Young gave Ms.Reader a copy of that letter to review,along with copies for Board members to review. Mr.Young said rather than going over things the Board may be familiar with,he is looking for direction on how to start. Ms.Reader said after reading the letter she is not sure why he is present this evening,since there is a lot missing. With that much missing,it is impossible for the Town engineer to give the Board the appropriate guidance the Board needs in order to act on it. Mr.Young said it was discussed whether or not to adjourn to another night,but the Town engineer felt that the design concept could be acceptable. When Mr.Young spoke to his engineer,he felt there were a number of things he could address verbally with the Board. Mr.Young said he knows some neighbors have some concerns and thought this would be an opportunity for them to see where the applicant is at the moment and give their input,so the applicant doesn't have to keep coming back week after week. Ms.Reader said that is fine,but finds the absence of information on the plan disturbing. What she does feel is meritorious from Mr.Young's comments is that it is worthwhile. Ms.Reader thinks the engineers could have spoken to each other before this evening to discuss what is required. What she does think is Qworthwhile is to get the input from the others parties which may get incorporated. Mr.Young said they have expressed in the past that they want to be included and it is important they are included,as it is in their back yard,their neighborhood. Harry Nichols,the engineer,addressed the Board. He said although it may appear from the length of the letter they are miles apart,he doesn't think they are. There are some decisions that have to be made in the direction they should go in. The review is very good,as it points them in the right direction on a number of issues. The first paragraph talks about doing a study comparing the outflow from this rather small drainage area to the overall drainage area to which it is contributing. He said their drainage accumulates very quickly and is discharged very early during a storm. The larger area,which does go into the basin on lot 20,takes a lot of time to buildup and to reach its peak. There is such a large contributing area going to it,it would be a monumental undertaking to do an overall drainage study for that whole watershed area. It is their opinion that due to the smallness of their drainage area,the fact that it will be going out early in the storm,there will be no additional peak flows to the downstream watercourse that runs under Fenimore Road. He gave some examples of the flows he is talking about as compared to what will be discharged from the basin that is on lot 20. That will be several times larger and will occur at a later point in time. There is no way that the peaks are going to be adequate. Mr.Nichols said that Mr. Capicotto mentioned that Mr.Carpaneto may have some information on the original study for that basin,so they could compare the times which would answer that question. If Mr. Carpaneto will look through his files and provide them with that information,Mr.Capicotto and himself could draw a comparison. Mr. Nichols said the second question which talks about the inlet or the orifice to the outlet control structure,they have no problem complying with what they asked for. He explained that an orifice is just Cr) a hole in the structure,just another way of doing it. They have no problem with it. He said they will change their structure to comply with that and explained how that will be done. Mr.Nichols said as far as the clogging study,the outlet control structure,the 100-year storm will bring the flow right to the top of the structure. He explained the problem is once it reaches an inch or less Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 4 higher,the additional fall of the 100-year storm will flow into it. It will overflow into the structure,which is a drainage inlet set into the middle of the pond and explained how that will be accomplished. Above the 100-year storm and should those openings ever clog,there is a grated top which will keep debris from flowing into the structure but will allow significant flows to drop into the structure unimpeded and flow out through the discharge pump. Ms.Reader made a comparison to the drain in her garage,stating leaves clog that. Mr.Nichols said their's is a much bigger grate,a roadway grate like those along Mamaroneck Avenue, that will take the flow that exceeds the 100-year or in case the 2 inch orifice clogs up. Ms.Reader commented that those get clogged too. Mr.Nichols said small area drains do. If capacity flows at various elevations over the top are required, they will provide those. Mr.Nichols said he talks about a 116 ft.contour. He said a contour is a line of equal elevation. The drawing is rather busy,but he can show him where the 116 ft.elevation ties back into the existing elevation along the property line on lot 20. Ms.Reader asked if he is saying there is no wall. Mr.Nichols said there is no wall. OMr.Capicotto said he now sees what Mr.Nichols is referring to. Mr.Nichols said the last paragraph on the first page,complete erosion control details,they have shown silt fence but will provide the details that show how the silt fence is installed. As for the hay bale detail, these are standards contained in the Soil Conservation Service Manual,will also be put on. Mr.Nichols said in talking about the clay barrier and clay berm,he would like to take Mr.Capicotto's suggestion that they do not put the clay barrier in the driveway as proposed but line the pond they are proposing on their property,on the bottom and on the sides,and extend it a certain distance beyond the new basin in order to control any seepage that might take place in the basin on lot 21. Ms.Reader said what Mr.Nichols is saying is that he will line the basin on his property,the one that is going to be constructed,with clay bottom and side,and extend it a certain distance beyond that,with which Mr.Nichols agreed. Mr.Nichols said they do have a swale coming along the side of the driveway. They will take the clay barrier up to the high elevation of the 100-year storm that will prevent any seepage to the underlying soils from the Levine property from the 100-year storm. Mr.Nichols then demonstrated where the proposed basin will be on the plans before the Board. Ms.Reader asked how high up the walls are going. Mr.Nichols said the bed of the stream at that location is around elevation 110. The top of the wall at the driveway is 122. Where the stream is defined,it will be approximately 12 ft.high. Then moved 4 ft.or 5 ft.to either side of it,it very quickly shallows up to approximately 8 ft.in height. They are looking at O decorative Unilock Blocks,done in many decors and can be very attractive. They don't want to create a plain concrete wall that the neighbors will have to look at. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Capicotto if the materials to be used have to be reviewed. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 5 Mr.Capicotto said the materials to be used have to be reviewed as far as the construction of the wall,so they can see if there is space on the wall,how far it is going into the wetlands area and how much disturbance it will cause. Ms.Reader said it also has the same impermeability as clay. Mr.Capicotto said the wall would be permeable,because if not it would become a dam and collapse. A discussion ensued regarding the materials to be used and reviewed. Mr.Carpaneto said a variance will also be required from the Building Department for the retaining wall in excess of 5 ft.in grade through the Zoning Board. Mr.Young asked if the Board wants a diagram of the wall on the back. Mr.Capicotto said yes,that was requested in the letter. Ms. Reader said Mr. Nichols needs to review the wall in terms of its structure, and make sure that whatever materials are used,per Mr.Capicotto's advice,serves the same purpose that clay would serve; more damming because it is less permeable or the opposite and cause erosion because it is more permeable. Mr.Capicotto said the wall is not taking the place of the clay barrier. The retaining wall is separate from the clay barrier they are proposing that was going to be a barrier to prevent seepage from their basin and to help prevent seepage that comes from the basin on lot 20. Ms.Reader said she needs clarification,because she thought Mr.Nichols had said they were going to forego doing clay barriers. Mr.Nichols said the clay barrier is shown running down the driveway. Ms.Reader said she thought they were not going to do that. Instead they were going to line the basin and the walls with clay. Mr.Nichols said the wall is a separate item. The wall is on the other side of the driveway where the grade drops off to the adjoining properties. Dr.Mason asked the height of the wall. Mr.Nichols said for a short stretch it is 12 ft.high. At the most,about 10 ft.of the wall will be seen right at the pipe where it comes out. It will then step up very rapidly,because the grade does rise on either side. It will not be a very long wall. Dr.Mason asked where there is the 10 ft.wall will it be tied back into the soil somewhere? Mr.Nichols said the wall itself has to be structurally capable of expanding and holding the flow behind it. Dr.Mason asked what the base width will be. Mr.Nichols said the base width will probably be 18 in.to 2 ft. It steps back as it comes up. Mr.Capicotto said some of the interlocking walls,when a height of over 8 ft.or so is reached,they do require some tieback into the soil to give it more stability. It depends on the manufacturer's recommendation. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 6 Dr.Mason said as long as it is not slipping through the cracks. Mr.Nichols said they are going to eliminate the clay barrier and go with the clay lining. They are proposing two(2)dry wells under the patio in order to contain the runoff from the impervious areas and gave examples of same regarding using the Westchester County Best Management Practices as recommended by Mr.Capicotto. He said they were taking the most conservative approach when they were sized,but will resize them if necessary. Mr.Capicotto said the reason for that is that when they do erosion control for the Town they go by the same rule and gave an example. He said that is why a perc test at the site is always required. Ms.Reader said the calculations indicate they will be putting in a smaller dry well. Mr.Capicotto said the smaller dry well will take into account the fact that the water is going to pert out of it. However,the dry well that was designed was designed without taking into account soil permeability and gave an example. Mr.Papazian asked how many feet the wall was before the new plan. Mr.Nichols said the wall was higher by another 3 ft. Mr.Papazian asked Mr.Nichols to show him where the neighbors location is in relation to the wall,which Mr.Nichols proceeded to do. © Mr.Papazian asked about the elevation on the boundary of the neighbor's property. Mr.Nichols said at the lowest point it is 110. Currently at the driveway it is 122,but it does drop down. Mr.Papazian asked if there is currently a landscaping plan. Mr.Nichols said there isn't a current landscaping plan,but there defmitely will be landscape drawings. Ms.Aisen asked what will confront the neighbor as he looks to this property,a looming driveway? Mr.Capicotto gave an example of where the wall will be from map drawings. Ms.Reader said it is drawn in red ink on her plan where the wall is along the driveway opposite the existing detention basin on lot 20. A discussion ensued,with Mr.Nichols showing where the wall will be constructed,saying the wall is about 150 ft.away from the nearest house. The wall will be decorative, there will be plantings which will visually soften the affect for the neighbor and screen the wall. Mr.Reader asks what is currently there now. Mr.Nichols said there is a steep incline that erodes away from normal rainfall. Ms.Reader asked if there is any natural vegetation there. Mr.Nichols said there is nothing of significance. There are some tall tress,but with a canopy overhead there is very little foliage down low. There is mainly ground cover on the slopes. With the installation of the trees,it will make it very attractive. Ms.Harrington said if trees are planted for screening,will they need to be anchored so they don't end up being washed away? • Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 7 Mr.Capicotto said it is not really in a flooded area. Ms.Harrington questioned the pitch. Mr.Capicotto said it isn't that steep. At the base of the wall,they are going with what is existing now. A discussion ensued. Mr.Nichols said there is not alot of growth there. It is all scrubby growth and ground cover,mainly because of the canopy of the trees above. Mr.Capicotto said some of that area was cleared when the development took place and the berm created. Ms.Harrington asked with this construction does the canopy go away. Mr.Capicotto said no,not necessarily. There is insufficient light for a tree to grow. Mr.Nichols said these types of trees would grow even under the canopy. Mr.Nichols said the last item raised was in order to provide the detention in the basin that is totally on lot 21,part of the drainage area that flows towards the basin comes from lot 20 a detention basin lot. The strip that comes down alongside the driveway that flows in the direction into the basin. The elevation of the impoundment is elevation 1171/2 ft.high. There will be a small area,where the flow coming down through lot 20 from lot 20,will be detained for a short period of time on lot 20 before it is allowed to go © out through the control structure located on lot 21. The volume at the time of the 100-year peak storm, submitted on a report,is approximately 600 cu.ft. The total volume coming from this off-sight property, lot 20,is about 6,000 cu.ft.,only 10%of the total volume running off of lot 20,which will be detained for a short period of time on lot 20 before it is allowed to go out in order not to exceed the peak allowable discharge rate from a 100-year storm. In smaller storms,the elevation of the storage in the pond will drop in accordance with the year storm. It is only the 100-year storm that has any significant volume that will be held back on lot 20. Mr.Papazian asked counsel if he feels that is legal,and asked if he has looked at that aspect. Mr.Young said he has been looking at the subdivision plans,etc.,and lot 20 was designed a retention area. In the earlier application,the Board said the applicant is not going to do that. Ms.Reader said that is because he had zero net increase in flow that it could not be done,with which Mr. Young agreed. Ms.Reader said she is reading the letter and is possibly misunderstanding something in the letter. Mr.Young said the point is that since the basin was going to be partially on someone else's property,there would be flood water detained on that property. Ms.Reader asked if it is on someone elses property,as drawn on the picture before the Board. Mr.Young said yes,when it hits the 100-year storm it is on the lot 20 property. Mr.Capicotto said it is currently a natural waterway. Now an impoundment is being put in and it will detain some of the water on that property. After further discussion,Ms.Reader said if at a maximum storm his basin is encroaching on somebody elses property,he will need an easement to permit that. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 8 Mr.Capicotto said from the calculations,the applicant shows that portion of the water that's impounded onto the adjacent property is actually the portion that is running off of that adjacent property. Ms.Reader asked how does the Board know? Mr.Nichols said they did a volume calculation and explained how it was done. He said it is only 10% of the total runoff coining from lot 20,which is being slowed up and held back on lot 20. It is not runoff on lot 21. Ms.Reader reiterated how does the Board know. Mr.Nichols explained. Mr.Capicotto said he sees Mr.Nichols point,looked at the calculations and it does make sense. However, if that water was originally running off the person's property and now it is being detained onto the property,that may be a cause for future litigation. Mr.Davis asked if the water is being detained on lot 21 to assist in slowing down the water running off lot 20. Mr.Nichols said lot 20 and lot 21 water is coming into the same low point. A discussion ensued. Ms. Reader said Mr. Davis is asking without that basin they would not get zero net runoff,unless something else is done to detain the water somewhere else on the property. Mr.Nichols said the alternative would be to take the water from that off-sight property,pick it up at a point above the pond and have a direct discharge. Mr.Capicotto said if they did discharge it before it reached the pond,the net flow into that stream due to the development would be greater than it was before. Mr.Nichols said nothing is being detained there now. They would have to reduce the flow coming out of the pond,in order for the net difference to match the pre-development numbers which can be done. After further discussion,Ms.Reader said some of the water flows from lot 20 over lot 21,has a natural flow and goes to the west. The applicant has to keep a zero net increase,which means that the water flowing on this property has to remain,with development,no greater than it is now. In order for that to be accomplished,with these plans as presented,the applicant has developed or designed this detention basin which captures some of the water from lot 20 which is currently flowing over his property,as well as the water that now will be accumulated because of more impervious surface. Therefore,this detention basin is for the benefit of this project,and the applicant should get an easement for that portion of the basin on lot 20. Mr. Davis said the applicant is proposing to satisfy a requirement of the Wetlands Law by making permanent use of the adjacent piece of property. Mr.Nichols said that wasn't the intent. A portion of the water that comes off of this adjacent property will be detained for a short period of time. It is not storing any of the increased runoff from lot 21. OMs.Aisen asked if Mr.Nichols is saying it is the water of lot 20 that he will be holding. Mr.Nichols said he will be slowing it down. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 9 Mr.Davis said it is necessary because of the development of lot 21 and the requirements of the law. Mr.Nichols said he is not taking water from lot 21 and putting in on lot 20. Mr.Davis said he is detaining the water from lot 20 to make possible the development of lot 21,in order to be consistent with the law. Mr.Darsky said there are alternatives. Mr.Davis reiterated,the applicant is detaining the water from lot 20 to make it possible to develop lot 21 according to the law. Mr.Nichols said if he opens up the valve or discharge from the structure,all the water from lot 20 goes out without detaining any of it. Ms.Reader said in violation of the statute,with which Mr.Nichols agreed. Mr.Davis said Mr.Capicotto is right that in the absence of relying on some alternative to this proposal, so that this Board can be satisfied that the requirements are met, an easement is necessary. If some alternative can be proposed that is satisfactory to the Board that doesn't require the use of the property and is effectuated,then no easement is needed. Ms.Reader asked if it is a problem to obtain an easement. Mr.Young said it was discussed many times,before he was involved as counsel,but it is not a negotiable item. Dr.Mason asked about Mr.Maloney. Ms.Levine said it goes back to twelve years when she bought,and she knows things change. Ms.Reader said if it can't be done,just let the Board know. Ms.Levine said that whole area was set aside for water retention for all the lots in there. Mr.Young said it brings them back to the whole matter of maintenance for the berm,keeping the water on its own property,etc. Ms.Reader asked if all of lot 20 is preserved for retention. Mr.Young said a very large portion is. Ms.Reader said just the basin,not the part where the applicant is building his basin. Dr.Mason said in the days when Mr.Maloney proposed the whole subdivision,that portion of lot 20 was to be a common detention area. Dr.Mason is a little surprised to find now that that is not available,in that it was part of the sales pitch that was given in January. Ms.Reader said the 100 ft.wetland control area is part of lot 20,which was confirmed. QMr.Capicotto said yes,a portion of it,and demonstrated on the plans before the Board. Ms.Reader said it is up to the square that is marked, "existing outlet control structure." • Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 10 OMr.Capicotto said that is the basin itself. That is not a part of the detention,but is part of lot 20. He is not sure how the detention basin was accounted for. After further discussion,Ms.Reader asked if there is any language from the subdivision that indicates how much of lot 20 is for the benefit of the wetlands control for the whole subdivision. There may be an easement. Mr.Davis asked if the deed Mr.Young's clients accepted for the property provide her with these rights? Dr.Mason said the whole subdivision plan anticipated that use. Mr.Young said there is no language in the file that refers to that,but the file map has a notation on it as an etched area. Ms.Reader suggested a copy of that be made for counsel to review. Mr. Darsky suggested that counsel to the applicant makes an affirmative statement that either the subdivision does create the easement or doesn't, and then let Board counsel look at that affirmative statement. Ms.Reader agrees with Mr.Darsky. Ms.Reader would like to take a look at the lot 20 subdivision and the language that applies to it. That may resolve some of the problems. Ms.Levine said the Town of Mamaroneck has right to go down her driveway to service the berm area if O Mr.Maloney's estate doesn't take care of it. She bought a lot that was ready to build a house. Coming from Mr.Maloney's land to her driveway is a pipe coming down her driveway with water flowing. She doesn't think it is legal. It has been there for 12 years. Mr.Maloney,before he died,said she could have any land she wanted. She knew she didn't want to get into any kind of estate situation. She thinks the Town has the right,because the Town controls the water retention area and controls the use of her driveway,to do that to say that this is what should happen. Ms.Reader said Ms.Levine is wrong. Ms.Levine asked who has that right? She is paying taxes on something that isn't what she thought it was. Ms.Reader said apparently there are easements that exist. An easement for that pipe to go through,so water can get to the other side. Ms.Levine said she is not talking about the culvert pipe under her driveway. She is talking about water runoff from the Maloney land coming down her driveway. Mr.Davis said to broaden Ms.Levine's suggestion to Mr.Young to provide the Board with whatever she thinks the basis is for the conclusion that the right to use the property runs with that land now,whether it is the subdivision,the deed,a combination,or something else entirely. Mr.Darsky said,or in the alternative,refute the assertion of counsel that says that an easement is required. Dr.Mason said he believes he is the only one here now that was present when that presentation was made. Ms.Reader said what is most important is the language that exists. Mr.Davis said perhaps they can get the Minutes of that meeting of the Planning Board. Dr. Mason said it wasn't a Planning Board meeting, but a work session in Conference Room A. Permission was granted on the basis of those assurances. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 11 Ms.Reader said it should be reflected in the subdivision. Mr.Darsky said it is for the applicant to say this controls and becomes part and parcel of the document. That is not for this Board to make those arguments. These arguments should be made by our counsel,who should then give the Board his recommendation from the argument. Ms.Reader said the Board has got to see things in writing. Mr.Darsky or it can be said they do not need to be in writing,because there was such and such a meeting. That is not up to this Board to decide,because they are not the court. Mr.Davis said he would read or listen to anything with an open mind. His initial disposition is that if the Board is going to rely on the existence of a right,there has to be some evidence. Mr.Young said this is premature. Mr.Darsky said the Board should give him the charge of what he needs to come in with. Ms.Reader said she thinks Mr.Young knows what the issues are,with which Mr.Young agreed. Mr.Nichols said they basically covered every basic issue in the letter. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Capicotto. Mr.Capicotto said that was one of the main issues he wanted the Board to discuss this evening,before getting to a point where approval was imminent and then find out that changes have to be made. Ms.Reader said they need plans that incorporate the changes or additions. She asked if Mr.Capicotto had anything else that he wants to add to be focused on. Mr.Capicotto said Mr.Nichols touched on everything in the letter.The other topic was the existing basin discharge,the proposed basin discharge and that net should also not exceed the current net. If the original calculations.for the existing basin can be found,that answer will be there. If they can't be found,Mr. Capicotto doesn't think Mr.Nichols should have to perform a drainage study for the whole development, but a simple consultation calculation,which may take about an hour. Looking at a topo map of the area should be able to resolve the question. Mr.Capicotto asked if Mr.Nichols agreed with that. Mr.Nichols said he thinks it is more than an hour task. Mr.Capicotto said he will see if he has the calculations. Ms. Harrington asked if the Board can also see a landscaping plan for the wall and wherever it is appropriate and needed. Ms.Reader said she has no objection to that. She asked Mr.Nichols if that is alright,with which he agreed. She asked if there is anything else from the Board. There being no further comments,she asked if there were any comments from the public. O Seth Marcus of 10,East 40th Street,Suite 1710,New York,New York 10016,addressed the Board. Mr. Marcus said he is present this evening representing Anne Ruppel who is a resident at 871 Fenimore Road, the property immediately to the west and Richard Scheuer,and acting on behalf of Phyllis Scheuer,who is the owner of 875 Fenimore Road,which is immediately to the west of 871 Fenimore. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 12 Mr.Marcus began by saying it is his understanding that insofar as this application is not complete,there is going to have to be some kind of future hearing and a complete application submitted,so that the public can make comments on that. He would like to confirm that is correct. Ms.Reader said the public hearing will be continued,and Mr.Marcus will have an opportunity to make comments. She said he has been coming each month. Ms.Reader said Mr.Nichols and Mr.Young are not required to make a direct transmittal to Mr.Marcus, but it might be nice to do so. Mr.Young said he is on their mailing list and all the sets that have come in have gone straight to him, which Mr.Marcus verified. Mr.Marcus said in addition he would also like to make explicit that the verbal representations that Mr. Nichols has made this evening will be contained in the revised application,so that his expert will have the opportunity to review precisely what he is proposing and to the extent that verbal representations are not as precise as what appears in writing and they know exactly what is proposed by seeing it written down. Mr.Marcus wants to make sure that everything said this date will also be incorporated in those plans. Ms.Reader said they can't guarantee that. Maybe as they sit down and draw the plans,variations may be made. Mr.Marcus said just as long as the plans they get are what's considered the application. Q Ms.Reader said whatever variations might occur,that the applicant discuss it with Mr.Capicotto which will help move this application along. Mr. Marcus said although the Board does not have the complete application before it,there are some comments he would like to offer in the interest of moving it along. There is a fundamental concept contained in these proposed plans that they have serious reservations about which is the amount of fill that is being put on this property and the fact that it is effectively being raised up 10 ft. He read and quoted from two statutes,the Erosion and Sediment Control Law,Section 95-9A2A(2)(a)and Section 95-8A(3) Approval of Surface Water Control Permit. Mr.Marcus said in looking at the plans submitted,they obliterate the existing topography and redirect the natural drainage. The redirecting of the natural drainage is the very essence of these plans. That may answer the last issue that was being discussed that provides the easement and whether or not the basin on lot 20 was designed to the advantage of lot 21. Mr.Marcus said he does not think it was,as lot 21 is naturally downhill from lot 20. It wouldn't make sense for them to propose a basin to collect water that naturally would never flow in that direction to begin with. What they have effectively done is by raising the site 10 ft.from aesthetic prospective,the house they are proposing is going to have a towering affect, not only on the Ruppel's property,but there is a house immediately behind where they are proposing and their back yard is effectively going to look at the structure that is going to be much higher than one would ordinarily expect looking at the natural topography of the land. Mr.Marcus would suggest that a fair question for the Board to ask is if you require 10 ft.of fill to build the proposed house,are they really proposing the correct house for the site. Mr.Marcus thinks it is unfair to the neighbors to have this thing raised up at this point to the level they are proposing. When you consider that natural drainage flow would be downhill and they are raising up,it is difficult to describe without seeing a cross-sectional map. What they are doing is water that would ordinarily flow down toward lot 20 is now being collected and pushed back up toward their detention pond. It appears from their plans that if there is a failure in their detention Q pond,if the proposal doesn't work exactly as expected,there is a good chance that that redirected flow is going to end up on Mr.Ruppel's property where it was never intended to begin with. Mr.Marcus would anticipate they would have more extensive comments and he is sure his engineer is going to want the opportunity to react to a lot of the verbal exchanges that have come up today. Nonetheless,these are the largest issues. Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 13 © Ms.Reader asked if anyone else had any comments. Mr. Young stated for the record he may end up going back to the plans, may alter some of the representations made and will be in coordination with the engineers office. He is not saying he is agreeing to do those things,but will be working toward those overall possibilities in good faith. Mr.Darsky added that he thinks,from Mr.Young's perspective,to the extent that he highlight any such changes to the others that are present and commenting,it will speed up the process on his behalf rather than coming before the Board and then they have to go back to their experts. If he gives them advance notice,they can have their experts deal with it and when they come to the meeting those issues that remain open can be dealt with. Mr.Young said they will certainly continue furnishing the plans,and will get them to them as soon as possible. Mr.Darsky said not only mailed,but just for his benefit,state the changes,with which Mr.Young agreed. In order to speed this along,the more information and the more notice given,the better it will be for him. Mr.Young said he is doing more than required now,but will continue to do that. Ms.Reader suggested doing revisions with redline and strikeout,so the other persons can quickly see what the changes are. Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else. QLilli Andrews,a member of the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC),said she assumes this matter will be coming back to the CZMC again. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Davis if the revised plan will be going back to the CZMC. Ms.Reader then asked Ms.Andrews if they have been getting the revisions. Ms.Andrews said since last spring. Ms.Reader asked when the next CZMC meeting will be held. Ms.Andrews said it will be held May 23,2000. Ms.Reader asked the applicant if the revisions will be done,so that it can be discussed with the CZMC. Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Capicotto will be able to have time for input. Mr.Capicotto said that is possible. He said they can forward them to the CZMC and send them to him at the same time. Ms.Reader asked if the applicant needs to be at the meeting of the CZMC. Ms.Andrews said no,but they will make a formal presentation at some point. Ms.Reader said they have already formally been to the CZMC,and these are modifications. The Board Q keeps getting new plans as the original applicant was a contract vendee,he backed out of the contract and now the owner of the property is in it. ` Planning Board May 10,2000 Page 14 Mr.Marcus said the plans that were at the CZMC a month ago are nothing like the current plans but are completely different. The only thing that is the same is it is the same shaped house,but otherwise it is a completely different concept. Ms.Reader said she doesn't feel compelled every time there are changes to refer the project back to the CZMC. Mr.Davis said he doesn't feel compelled in that direction either,but would like to review the statutes. Ms.Reader said if it needs to be done,and counsel advises it,they will do it. She is suggesting that these plans be sent to the CZMC for review. Mr.Davis asked if the CZMC had submitted a recommendation. Ms.Andrews said they did so months ago. The Board could supply the current set of plans to Madeline Berg for the next meeting. Ms.Reader asked if there were any other comments. There were none. On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,adjourned to the June 14,2000 Planning Board meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on June 14,2000. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms.Aisen and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:40 p.m. 711 Q/I e t Marguerite Rg;!sta,Recording Secretary