Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_11_14 Planning Board Minutes • 411.1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 14, 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 I 8 I Edmund Papazian Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel coy Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building _ The" "&kr Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer 1� 1 Elizabeth Paul, Environmental Coordinator �n 44 c1 NancySeligson, Liaison � �F^ C(betQ('c ` Denise M. Carbone, Public Stenographers Carbone & Associates, Ltd. r T 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of October 10 , 2001 and if there were any amendments. Ms. Harrington and Ms. Aisen had a few minor changes. On a motion made by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the October 10, 2001 Amended Planning Board Minutes were approved. Ms. Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Vesta Development LLC/Frederick F. Grippi - 29 Marbourne Drive - Block 334, Lot 25 Ms. Reader said she has been advised that this application has been withdrawn from the calendar for tonight and is scheduled for next month's meeting. Mr. Carpaneto said that's correct. Ms. Reader read the next ::,;:'Nation as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Vikram and Fally Malkani - 19 Kolbert Drive, Block 307, Lot 1 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. • Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 2 The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Ms.Reader said she just wants to make sure before you begin,have you seen a copy of the CZMC letter. Mr.Salanitro said he got a fax,thank you. Ms.Reader said she is going to ask him to address that. Benedict Salanitro of Mamaroneck,New York,addressed the Board. He said we were here a few months ago for the preliminary presentation of Mr.&Mrs.Malkani's addition and the Freshwater Wetlands Permit request. I believe everyone's had the revised plan that was submitted to the Planning Board. In essence just to recap what the proposal intends to achieve,is a side addition of 10 ft.by the depth of the house, a 430 sq.ft.proposed on-grade patio and a second floor addition to an existing roof area. The proposals include the installation of dry wells to contain runoff from the net increase of impervious surfaces,with a bonus on the addition. We did not deduct the square footage of an existing screened porch that exists out there. I'm not sure if members of the Board had an opportunity to visit the site. The current addition as shown on the plan,which is 10 ft.wide by the depth of the house,currently about three-quarters of the way there's an existing screened porch of the same dimension. Mr.Salanitro said the installation of the dry wells are inclusive of the total roof area as proposed. Mr.Salanitro said CZMC had some questions and concerns,and we have to try to answer those. Ms.Reader said you said you have the revised plans. QMr.Salanitro said when I say revised,the latest date on the plan is August 21,2001. Ms.Reader said it's received by the Building Department. Mr.Salanitro said that's correct,on my revision sheet. Ms.Reader said I don't know that we are talking about the same plans that we have in front of us. After some discussion,Ms.Reader said the last I have is 7/27/01. Mr.Salanitro said I made the copies available at the last meeting,when we talked about that there was a revision date that was subsequent to this 27th. Basically the revision,Madame Chair,includes the 100 ft. wetlands buffer line as well as the inclusion of the dry wells for the rear patio as proposed. Those are the two major points of note and we included the fact that the property is outside of the flood zone and we indicated that on the general note on the bottom of the page. Ms.Reader said I'm looking at my colleagues and they have the same plans I have. We're not working off of the same plans. Mr.Salanitro said it is the same drawing. See the bubbles,that's the only revision. We just basically show the 100 ft.setback buffer lines. We denoted that it was outside the flood zone. We incorporated a dry well to retain the water that will be running off the proposed rear patio. Ms.Reader said there is an additional dry well from the original plans for the rear patio and asked if that's correct. © Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. Mr.Cohen said last month we talked about that second dry well,but it wasn't on the plans before us and asked if that's correct. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 3 Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. I had the plan,but it wasn't on....interrupted. Mr.Cohen said it wasn't on the plan before each of us,but we said there would be a second drawing. Mr.Salanitro said that is correct. Ms.Reader said the property you're showing is outside the flood zone,but it's within the 100 ft.buffer. Mr.Salanitro said that is correct,by virtue of the fact that it's the open water course that is in front of the property. That's the buffer that I took from that point. That's the water course,the wetlands as well. Ms.Reader asked which is what,the east branch of the Sheldrake? Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. Ms.Reader asked Dr.Mason if it's the east branch? Dr.Mason said yes,the east branch. Ms.Reader said,just from my point of view,with the two dry wells how much runoff is that going to be able to take. Mr.Salanitro said for the addition the square footage is shown as 395 sq.ft.,for the patio it's estimated 430 sq.ft.,so the patio is slightly larger than the proposed addition. As I read the Local Law,it's the net increase of impervious surfaces,as I brought to the attention of the Board at the onset. There's an existing roof area that is part and parcel of the area where we proposed to put the side addition,so practically speaking I took the entire roof area and not just net increase of the new roof area. I think it was commented on at the CZMC. Dr.Mason is aware of the discussion that we had that night,as a betterment if you will. Ms.Reader said what you're saying is that the two dry wells you calculated so that it would take more than just the net increase from the construction,because you're using the entire roof as opposed to just a portion of the roof. Mr.Salanitro said that's correct. Dr.Mason said he's allowing the possibility that all the existing dry wells are not in the best shape,so he's building in a cushion. Ms. Reader said given that, the CZMC said they recommend larger dry wells be installed that will accommodate the runoff from the entire house. She asked,aren't you doing that? Mr.Salanitro said only in the area where the proposed addition is shown on the plan. The CZMC had a thought about the mitigation of the work that's within the 100 ft.buffer. I think that there was some discussion about providing dry wells for the entire house,as a mitigating factor for this work. That's how I read the letter,and that is what was discussed at the meeting. I am prepared to discuss that. Ms.Reader said will you please. Q Mr.Salanitro said I can give you my opinion on that. After that meeting it was suggested that I should go back out there and revisit the site,to see if there were any outlets that were going into the water course. None were visible to me. I did do a water test,by having the hose run for a period of time in the downspouts which are going below grade. I didn't witness any water coming out in the water course. CZMC indicated that the dry wells are probably at capacity,in terms of its useful life. I tend to disagree with that. The Malkanis have not had any water problems in the basement. There are no signs of any kind Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 4 of moisture problems in and around the house and no sign of erosion that would indicate that the dry wells have either collapsed or become convective. I think it's a mitigating factor if there were outlets into the stream. I would propose that as well,because I think it's a good idea to capture the water. But on this particular condition,I didn't find any reason to go to that extreme. That's my proposal,that the existing system does function. We can only assume how long they've in the ground,and I don't want to do that. Dr.Mason said absent any showing that the dry wells were not functioning,it's inappropriate to assume they're not functioning. Ms.Reader said I agree,quite frankly. I am a little concerned about the first sentence of the CZMC letter. They seem to be saying as a rule anything that's in the buffer zone is inconsistent with the policies of LWRP,regardless of whether the mitigating factors accommodate the purposes of the policy. Dr.Mason said I think that's why CZMC is an advisory board and we make the decisions here. Mr.Salanitro said the only one pipe I did see was the catch basin in the road leading into the stream. Mr.Reader said the only what? Mr.Salanitro said the one pipe I did see in the stream was leading from the street water that drains into that. Ms.Reader said the Town's pipe. Mr. Salanitro said that's standard. It's part of the drainage system,so it's understandable. It's not a private drain. Ms.Reader thanked Mr.Salanitro and asked if there was anything else. Mr.Harrington said on the patio,have they decided what material they're going to make the patio? Mr.Salanitro said at the time that we went to the CZMC,Mr.Malkani did not have a preferred type of surface. We assume a totally impervious surface and I do note that CZMC recommended some type of a sand base. It's a double-edged question. Does that mean if we put a sand base,we don't need the dry wells? Are they assuming that? I don't think so. I don't understand,if we're capturing the water,I think it's commented, to increase permeability and to reduce runoff from the site; the patio is going to be impervious and captured via a dry well. The intent of that is to not have any runoff from the site,so I answered that with a question because I'm not sure. Is there any bonus for us to do it in a sand base? I don't think that's a preference. Ms.Harrington asked,isn't it a question of the rate of runoff? Ms.Reader said the net increase. Mr.Capicotto said either way. If the sand is absorbing it,it's going into the ground. If the dry well is absorbing it,it's going into the ground. Mr.Cohen said you're of the opinion chat the two dry wells with the impervious surface will have no ...inaudible. Mr.Salanitro said actually it's more expensive to do it as shown with the installation of a catchment basin and then a dry well for the impervious surfaces. A couple of things inherently that are problematic with a sand base and one is that there is movement with that,so you're constantly dealing potentially with a maintenance headache as well as reasonable growing in those joints. Second to that,once the ground is frozen below 4 inches there is no permeability to that anyway. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 5 Mr.Capicotto said a heavier storm is not going to soak through the joints. It will collect a slight storm. That's why we normally require that the dry well be there even when we have the people put in pavers, because even the pavers over time become clogged. Vikram Malkani,the property owner,addressed the Board. Mr.Malkani said we haven't made a decision as to the material with which we'd like to build a patio. The purpose of putting it on the plans was to try and get approval to do it in a material which we choose later. We'd like that flexibility to do it in either of the two ways. He said that Mr.Salanitro has stated that we sized the dry wells,so there wouldn't be any increase in runoff. We were hoping that that would enable us to maintain that flexibility. Ms.Reader thanked Mr.Malkani and asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Capicotto pointed out that in a situation like this,the benefit of the pavers is not as great as in a project where,for an example on Evergreen Lane,we had a motor court and the runoff was going to go into a holding basin but then eventually go into the waterway. If anything we could absorb before it went into that basin would have kept it out of the stream,so it would have been a bigger benefit there to use pavers,because we would be removing flow from the stream. Here we are going into a dry well or we're seeping through the sand into the same earth. It's not as big of a'benefit as using pavers. Ms.Reader said basically you're saying a dry well is the same kind of sponge as the sand would be. Mr.Capicotto said more effectively. ® Ms.Reader thanked Mr.Capicotto and asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Ms.Gallent said she just wanted to comment on the finding of inconsistency. The Board has two or three options. It can accept the finding of inconsistency and deny the permit, it can accept the findings of inconsistency but vote to grant the permit anyway for the reasons stated in the law which are no reasonable alternatives exist that would permit the construction of the proposed addition in a way that would avoid the inconsistency and that the application as the proposed will minimize all adverse affect on the wetland buffer,the adjacent buffer and other natural features that the LWRP has defined in the past,or it can set aside the finding of inconsistency,because it disagrees with it and then go on to do whatever you want. We just have to deal with one of those. Ms.Reader said if we set aside the finding of inconsistency,then I have to give a letter that I sign. Ms.Gallent said in any event,we have to give a letter. Ms.Reader said in any event,so it doesn't matter. Ms.Gallent said maybe not if you accept it. In accepting it,you,can deny the permit....inaudible. Dr.Mason said let's close the public hearing. Ms.Reader said before I close the hearing,I always like to ask do I have any further questions? There were none. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this matter? There was no comment. Do I have any further comments from our professional staff? There were none. Ms.Reader asked,do I have a motion to close the public hearing? On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Harrington,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be.and hereby is,declared closed. • Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 6 Ms.Reader asked if there were any comments about the CZMC letter and what will be our requirements? She asked if there is anyone in favor of adopting the determination of inconsistency and denying the permit on that basis? Mr.Cohen said no. Ms.Reader said let's perhaps discuss how we want to then respond. Dr.Mason said let's take the second option that counsel presented to us is probably the most appropriate. Ms.Reader said I have a little problem with the second option,because I think with the second we are concurring with what I think is a blind rule that anything within the buffer zone is automatically inconsistent. They don't articulate reasons why it's inconsistent with LWRP when there are mitigating factors that might be consistent even though it's within the 100 ft.buffer zone. Then I think that we should reject the finding of inconsistency and articulate our reasons. I know we've done it before,because it's an accommodation. You're trying to cooperate with each other,but I'm not sure that that's appropriate in a case such as this. My first inclination would be to do what Dr. Mason said. I think then we're abdicating a little bit. Dr.Mason said I think that the inconsistency is kind of cut and dry,but I think that that's why it was set up the way it is,the way this whole process is setup. There are times when those inconsistencies could be overridden. Mr.Papazian said I think it should be enumerated to be totally correct. For us to go along with it,it should be enumerated in a letter what those inconsistencies are.' Dr.Mason said I agree with that. Mr.Papazian said not knowing what they are,but guessing what they are,is not good enough for me. Ms.Reader said I agree with that. She said my recommendation would be, in this case, to reject the fmding of inconsistency and tell them why. First,it's outside the flood zone,there are two dry wells that have been put into the plan,the dry wells contain even more than what the project increases in terms of runoff from the project itself,and that there is no net increase in the rate of runoff as a result of the project. Ms.Harrington asked who has the complete plans that show that. Mr.Carpaneto said he does. Mr.Capicotto said my letter to the Board was based on the revised plan. Mr.Carpaneto said he has a copy of the plans. Ms.Reader asked the date of that is August what? Mr.Capicotto said the date on the drawings is August 21,2001;revision. Ms.Reader said received 9/5/01? Mr.Capicotto said that was this one. Ms.Reader said she just needs a revision date. Ms.Gallent asked are you also setting aside the finding of inconsistency. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 7 Ms.Reader said and also that the reasons for it are not stated. Ms.Reader said Ms.Gallent writes a letter and sends it out to everyone. A discussion ensued regarding the use of e-mail addresses for that purpose. Ms. Reader said we have that determination. We didn't need to do Type II,so we don't have to do anything further with SEQRA. On a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS,Vikram and Fally Malkani have applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 for the extension of an existing kitchen and dining room and two additional second floor bedrooms on the premises located at Lot No. 19 Kolbert Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 307,Lot 1;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 November 14,2001; WHEREAS, the Coastal Zone Management Commission determined that the proposed action is inconsistent with the policies of the LWRP,as set forth in its letter dated November 1,2001;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board rejects the CZMC'S determination of inconsistency because the CZMC did not state its reasons for so determining,the property is outside the flood zone,the 2 drywells proposed have a combined capacity greater than is required for the propose&action and will result in no net increase in the rate of runoff from the site; WHEREAS,the Planning Board has set forth its reasoning for rejecting the CZMC's determination of inconsistency in a letter to the CZMC dated November 19,2001; 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; • Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 8 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 Vikram and Fally Malkani for a permit,pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114,be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: • 1. Construction shall conform to the revised plans dated August 21,2001. 2. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual,entity or combination thereof; 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the Q date of its issue whichever first occurs., On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Mr.&Mrs. John Healy-43 Mohegan Road-Block 205,Lot 1 • Arnold Wile,the architect for the project,appeared to address the Board. Mr.Wile said what we propose to do is build an addition: The addition is completely built on existing paved area. However,what we're proposing to do is expand the driveway. That's the reason we're here. Mr.Cohen asked what the existing paved area is now. Mr.Wile said it's macadam. Mr.Cohen asked what it's used for. Mr.Wile said it's a driveway. The existing garage is under the house,but we're proposing to build an additional two-car garage with a room above it. We propose to build that over part of the existing driveway. That would necessitate making the existing driveway slightly wider in front of the doors of the Qproposed garage. Mr.Cohen asked what's happening to the existing garage? Mr.Wile said the existing garage is just going to be used as a storage space. It's really too small for cars. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 9 O Mr.Reader said I had trouble when I was looking at the plans,understanding what was happening here. I think I still am having trouble understanding. It sounds like you're building a whole new garage. The driveway is going to be on a different side of the house. Mr.Wile said no,the driveway is going to be the same driveway. We're not changing the location of the driveway or the curb cut or anything. All we're proposing to do is widen the existing driveway,to give us a turnaround to get into the new garage. Dr.Mason said you'll have to walk us through this,which Mr.Wile proceeded to do. Dr.Mason asked how would you get into the old garage. Mr.Wile said same way and explained how. He said all of that is presently macadam. After some discussion,Mr.Cohen said hypothetically if we said no to this,you still would be able to go into the garage. Mr.Wile said the problem is that this is only about 10 ft.or 12 ft. It's a very difficult turn. Ms.Reader said so the entrance to the garage is different then now,and demonstrated where the new entrance is. Mr.Wile demonstrated where the entrance will be. A discussion ensued as to where the entrance to the garage now is and where it will be. Ms.Reader said there's a 90 degree change into the garage. Ms.Reader asked,what if we said pavers here. Would that work? Mr.Wile said yes. Mr.Cohen said you said you prefer gravel...inaudible. Mr.Wile said if we weren't allowed to pave it. The best thing is to pave it,because there's a little bit of a slope down here. In order for them to get out of the garage in the winter,they are going to have to have it plowed out. Pavers and gravel,those things really don't work well,that's why we wanted the pavers. It's really not much of an area. Mr.Papazian asked how much of an area and how much...inaudible. Mr.Wile said we just propose to go about 10 ft.by 20 ft.,plus a little turnaround. ...(?)said about 300 sq.ft./250 sq.ft. Mr.Wile said 250 sq.ft. Dr.Mason asked where is me stream. QSORRY,EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AT ONCE! Mr.Wile said there's a stream somewhere over here. SORRY,EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AT ONCE AGAIN! • Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 10 Ms.Aisen asked how do you get into your garage now? Mr.Wile explained that you go down this driveway,make a U-turn,go underneath...inaudible. All this area will be paved. After further discussion,Ms.Reader asked Mr.Carpaneto,I thought pavers,which are still permeable, were O.K.for plowing and shoveling. Mr.Carpaneto said they are. If one gets dry lifted or frost...inaudible Ms.Harrington said I'd like to know the slope going down from the back toward the street,is it going down,is it going up,where is that going? Ms.Reader said the slope is coming from the front to the back. Ms.Harrington asked where the stream is. Mr.Carpaneto said it slopes down. Ms.Reader said that actually should be on the plans,shouldn't it? Mr.Capicotto said yes. The plans we're looking at are not the erosion control plans,which usually have a little more detail on them. This is a copy of it here that Mr.Carpaneto has in the file. This one shows © the contours. Mr.Carpaneto said Linda,to answer your question,Ms.Paul just told me that behind the house,I haven't been to the site myself,there's a berm that would help retain any runoff down toward the stream. Ms.Reader asked how big a berm,how high. Ms.Paul said it's a few feet,the elevation. It's just a bump basically,like a little hill that goes behind the existing driveway between that and where the Leatherstocking area is,where there's a intermittent stream. Right now it's dry. Ms.Reader asked there's an intermittent stream back there? Ms.Paul said yes,but it's dry right now. I was there today. We haven't had any rain. SORRY,EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AT ONCE! Ms.Reader asked,this isn't part of the east branch of the Sheldrake? Dr.Mason said it's probably part of the east branch. Mohegan would be part of the east branch. It would be a tributary to the east branch. Mr.Papazian said if our concern is we're concerned about increasing runoff,should we deal with the way we....it's such a small plot of land. Can we deal with it like we did the last case..inaudible for dry well system. Will that alleviate the problem? Q Mr.Capicotto said the way this one was done in the erosion control process was they put an addition on the area which was a driveway,added a new driveway and then put in a dry well. Rather than collect the runoff from the new driveway,they collected the runoff from the roof of the addition. They're collecting the runoff from the roof of the addition. There is no net,but this new paved area will not be collected or runoff in place of the driveway that used to run off. In a situation like this,an impervious driveway would be an improvement,because you further reduce the runoff. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 11 Ms.Reader said so we actually have more runoff here than what is being accounted for with the roof. Mr.Capicotto said you're balancing out. Rather than picking up the runoff from this driveway which is a little more difficult,it's easier to pick up a roof leader. So I picked up the roof leader and put that into a dry well. Ms.Reader said that goes into an existing dry well. Mr.Capicotto said no,it goes into a new dry well. Mr.Carpaneto said it's the roof to the dry well,and this little area...left hanging Mr. Capicotto said will just run off in place of the dry well that used to run off which is now being covered. Ms.Harrington said is there in affect a net decrease in runoff? Mr.Capicotto said I'd have to look at the square footage. I think there might be a little bit of it. They picked up 625 sq.ft.of roof and the new parking area is 525 sq.ft. So,we're picking up an extra 100 sq.ft.of runoff from the roof,so there's a slight decrease. Dr.Mason asked how does that berm calculate in here? Is that berm just to take care of the runoff coming down the driveway? Q Ms. Paul said it will prevent probably anything that's happening with the construction. It will keep everything from going back towards the wetland area. It's a couple of feet high. It also will prevent any runoff from going back in that direction,but it won't prevent runoff from going the other way up the driveway because the driveway slopes. Mr.Wile said the driveway goes from the street down. Ms.Paul asked,do you have a drain or something at the bottom there? Mr.Wile said I believe there is a drain. They have land,the rest of that lot,so there's no water problem there as of right now. They don't have any water accumulation or anything like that. Dr.Mason said I was just thinking if that berm would in effect trap a rapid runoff from the driveway, given an opportunity to soak in,if it's in effect a natural dry well. Ms.Reader said that's what Ms.Paul was saying earlier. Ms.Paul said it's like a bank behind the driveway. There's no way water can get from the driveway back to the stream. Dr.Mason said that's what I was looking for. Is there a way for water to get from that driveway back to the stream,without soaking through the berm. Ms.Paul said that's why I was wondering if there was a drain or something at the bottom of the driveway, because where would the water go? Mr.Wile said it goes on to the adjacent property. They have a big,big property there,the whole corner where the two streets meet. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 12 Ms.Reader said this is a consideration,so it's helpful for you if we thrash out what our concerns might be. That obviously is an issue of concern,whether or not its pavers or something more pervious than asphalt and macadam. Dr.Mason said I'd like to see the contours,the grade from where it shows it right in the front of the house right down to the level area in the front of the driveway,but then right down to the stream to see what those contours look like. Mr.Capicotto said they need to show the 100 ft.setback to the street,plus SORRY, EVERYONE ON THE BOARD IS SPEAKING BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND AT ONCE! Ms.Reader asked what's the distance back here from this point here? How much is it,30 ft.or less? Mr.Wile said....inaudible! Dr.Mason said there's no question it goes down hill. I'm not questioning the grade. I am questioning what it looks like about 6 ft...inaudible. Ms.Reader said one of the things that I talked to Mr.Capicotto about is to make some recommendation or requirements to indicate the things that should be on the plans that aren't on the plans at the moment. One of the things that I would like to know is something that Ms.'Paul has raised. Is there some kind of drain right where the new garage doors will be. Ms.Paul said that's right,or the existing. Ms.Reader said at that end of the driveway,the back end of the driveway,is there an existing drain? Mr.Wile said I don't know of any drain there. I've walked around. I wasn't specifically looking for it, but I've walked around there a lot,because I was measuring. Ms.Reader said if you don't know if it might be or might not be,let's get a definite answer on that for the public hearing and preferably indicate that to CZMC,because this matter will be referred to CZMC. We will do that for all matters. Dr.Mason said what I had talked to you about is showing that contour,showing the berm and showing the...inaudible stream. Mr.Wile said if we do this in gravel and therefore not create any additional impervious surface;..left hanging. Ms.Reader said if you do it in gravel that would satisfy. Mr.Papazian said you have to come back for a public hearing and you have to go before the CZMC ...inaudible. Mr. Wile said, to straighten me out, it's the creation impervious surface that requires me ...left hanging/interrupted. © Ms.Gallent said doing any work,any disturbance. Mr.Wile said our preference is to pave it,so it's easily...interrupted. Ms.Gallent said it's not the paving that's a condition,it's the disturbance. Planning Board November 14,2001 • Page 13 C Mr.Wile said,because it's within a certain distance? Dr.Mason said the more detail you could present on the contours and drainage,the easier it is for you to defend the position before the CZMC and here. Mr.Wile asked what the CZMC is. Ms.Reader said the CZMC is the Coastal Zone Management Commission. They are an advisory Board to us and to other boards as well. What they focus on is the potential detriment or non-detriment or non- harm that a project may have to the water courses and wetlands. Mr.Wile said I was told in a month from now I'm supposed to come back. Ms.Reader said not here. We're the Planning Board. We meet the second Wednesday of every month. You're coming back here for a public hearing,but before you come back here you are going to meet with the CZMC. Ms.Reader said the CZMC meets on Tuesday,November 27,2001. Mr.Wile asked if he's scheduled. Ms.Reader said you are going to find out where they're going to meet. You can speak to Ms. Paul afterwards and can find out where the meeting is. We're advising you now,it's on November 27,2001. You should be at that meeting. Dr.Mason is trying to give you some help in terms of preparation for what you should have at that meeting. QMr.Wile said we'll prepare the plans according to your direction. He asked,do we give them back to the Building Department here? Mr.Carpaneto said yes. Ms.Aisen asked how do you deal with CZMC. Ms.Reader said give them as much detail as possible. Dr.Mason said you've got just under two weeks,less than two weeks to get that together. The package goes out to the CZMC about the fourth,so you really only have about a week. Ms.Reader said since you're going to be doing revised plans,include what Mr.Capicotto is going to tell you now. Mr. Capicotto said that includes the 100 ft.buffer line from the wetlands to be shown as a dashed line across the property where that 100 ft.lands. Also,the 100-year flood elevation should be indicated on the plan. I will send a note tomorrow with the details. Ms.Reader said Dr.Mason would like the contours and the elevations. Mr.Capicotto said right. Dr.Mason said from....inaudible the property right down to the stream. Hopefully it will show that berm that Ms.Paul was talking about. That would certainly be a mitigating factor...inaudible and would be a ® big plus if indeed it does show it as a natural area for that water to accumulate,not bother anybody. It's O.K. Mr.Capicotto asked for Mr.Wile's fax number,which was provided. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 14 Mr.Wile said in the normal course of things,I'll go to the CZMC on the 27th and then come back here in a month. Ms.Aisen said and they will have sent us a letter,with their comments. Mr.Wile asked if you look at it favorably,then you will approve it? Ms.Reader said most likely unless there is some opposition,but I don't think so. Mr.Wile thanked the Board. Ms.Reader said before you go,our next meeting will be December 12,2001. This is a Type II Action under SEQRA,so we don't have to have any further action that way. I refer this to the CZMC and Westchester County. Ms.Reader said this matter is adjourned for a Public Hearing to December 12,2001 at 8:15 P.M. Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Rick Bernstein-24 Winged Foot Drive-Block 204,Lot 310 Rick Bernstein,of 24 Winged Foot Drive,addressed the Board. Mr.Bernstein said he is planning to make a modest addition to'our kitchen,adding on a family room. It's one story,255 sq.ft. I received a variance on October 24,2001,because 58 ft.of the addition extended beyond the required 40 ft.setback. Ms.Reader said you got the variance. Mr.Bernstein said,yes I did. Mr.Bernstein said he has his engineer present,Benny Salanitro,if there are any questions. Dr Mason said a modest addition,that's 50 ft. I thought that's one hell of a modest addition. It's 50 sq. ft. Mr.Bernstein said 50 sq.ft.is the portion that extended beyond the 40 ft.setback,which is what we seek a variance for. Dr.Mason said if you go 50 ft.beyond the 40 ft.setback,you've got problems. Mr.Bernstein I'd be on the Trail. Mr.Reader said you won't be. We know that you had to set back your wall because of....interrupted. Mr.Bernstein said correct. Mr.Cohen said you're opening up the back wall of your kitchen and you're adding a room behind it. You have the existing deck already? Mr.Bernstein said the deck is being replaced. Mr.Cohen asked what's there now and what are you replacing it with? Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 15 Mr.Bernstein said there's a deck there now made of wood. It will be a wood replacement with brick piers. The deck will extend out actually 1 ft.beyond how far it presently does. Ms.Reader asked what's...inaudible. Mr.Bernstein said it's above ground. Ms.Reader said gravel underneath? Mr.Bernstein said yes. Ms.Reader said gravel/dirt. Ms.Reader said maybe Mr.Salanitro can take us through and tell us what's new and what's old. Mr.Salanitro said Mr.Bernstein pretty much described the project. I just submitted a plan for erosion control measures,which is pretty standard. I kept it relatively simple with respect to the addition of a dry well. Mr.Salanitro asked if Mr.Carpaneto got this plan? Mr.Carpaneto said yes. Mr.Salanitro said I haven't revised it yet. After some discussion,Mr.Salanitro said it's dated October ® 6,2001. After some discussion among Board members and Mr.Salanitro,the Board said they had that plan. Ms.Reader asked if that's the one Mr.Salanitro wants to work of off. Mr.Salanitro said yes. Mr.Salanitro said the Leatherstocking Trail is behind the property. A few years back Mr.Bernstein came for an application. We filled the back yard. We're installing a dry well in one of the areas where the fill is,so we captured pretty good percolation there. The addition is 205 sq.ft.,a relatively small addition. I don't have anything else to add. Ms.Aisen said sorry,it's not clear to me. The existing deck and the proposed deck look...inaudible. Mr.Salanitro approached the Board and explained it. He said the existing deck is actually within the envelope of the old addition. The new deck will be somewhat shorter and little bit deeper. SORRY,THE BOARD IS TALKING AMONG THEMSELVES ON THE DIAS. Ms.Reader said by adding it close to the deck,it will just keep a straight line from where the extension will go. Mr.Salanitro said I believe the architect intended that to be just uniform...inaudible for purposes. QMs.Aisen asked what the existing deck is made of. Mr.Salanitro said it's an above-ground open wood deck. Ms.Aisen said and it stands on stilts? Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 16 Mr.Salanitro said there will be some piers. Currently there are piers,and we're replacing the piers. Ms.Reader said and...inaudible with brick. Mr.Salanitro said yes,concrete. Ms.Reader asked,for aesthetic reasons? Mr.Bernstein said the brick piers,yes,because the addition will be a brick facade to compliment the look of the house. To tie it in,we're doing the brick piers. Ms.Aisen asked,and the addition goes from the ground? Mr.Bernstein said yes it does. Mr.Capicotto asked if the addition goes below grade and will there be a basement. Mr.Bernstein said no,there won't be any basement underneath the addition. Ms.Aisen said so you're adding impervious area. Ms.Reader said it's about 255 sq.ft.,with which Mr.Malkani agreed. (I;) Ms.Reader said,and you're putting in a dry well? Mr.Bernstein said yes. Mr.Papazian said if it stands on piers,how tall are the piers. Is it flush to the ground and it's just on the piers or is it...interrupted. Mr.Salanitro said the elevation of the deck is about 21/2 ft.to 3 ft.for the deck,the piers. Mr.Bernstein said the relation to the deck itself is above ground at least by 2 ft. Ms.Aisen said you can't stand under it. Mr.Bernstein said the deck is probably 3 ft.above grade. Mr.Papazian said and underneath the deck is....left hanging. Mr.Salanitro said graveled area. Ms.Reader asked,when do the piers have to go under ground,into the ground for it. Mr.Salanitro said they go 31/2 ft. (Mr.Papazian spoke...I just wanted to see if it was Set in the air what was underneath.... hut it is inaudible). © Ms.Reader asked if there was anything else. Dr.Mason asked if Mr.Carpaneto had drawings of the...inaudible Mr.Carpaneto said no,we have construction drawings. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 17 O Ms.Aisen asked if we have drawings showing the wetlands,the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr.Salanitro said it's the Leatherstocking Trail. SORRY,EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AT ONCE! Mr.Salanitro said he attached it to the permit application. Mr.Capicotto said it should be on the back of the application. Mr. Bernstein said if this helps, this is something I just'used for the Zoning Board that shows the Leatherstocking Trail and proceeded to explain the particulars...inaudible. Elizabeth Paul asked where is the retaining wall behind the house located on this plan? Is it exactly on the property line? After some discussion among Board members,Mr.Salanitro said it's about 2 ft.from the property line and then we have the fence about 2 ft.more in. Mr.Bernstein said the fence is pretty much up against the wall,but we moved the wall in 2 ft.to plant the Euonymus plants on the side of the wall facing the Trail. Ms.Reader asked if they survived. Mr.Bernstein said all thirty-five of them survived. Ms.Reader asked what's the wall made out of. Mr.Bernstein said railroad ties. Ms.Paul said....inaudible where there will be an encroachment. Ms.Paul said your staircase that goes behind the property,I wasn't sure if that was an encroachment or not into the conservation area. That's why I was asking you about the location of the wall. Mr.Bernstein said I don't know. I have never measured the depth of the staircase,but it's about 2 ft. Ms.Reader asked,whose staircase? Mr.Bernstein said I just have a staircase on the back side of the wall,to allow us to get back there to get balls,etc. Ms.Reader asked if that's preexisting from your ownership? Mr.Bernstein said no. I put the steps in,when we built the wall. It's not a permanent structure perse. They can easily be taken off. Ms.Gallent said that's not before us. Ms.Reader said as I remember that was a part of the plan and it was before us,but it's not before us now. QUnless she raises it,that's a different issue. Mr.Papazian said I don't have any more questions. Ms.Harrington said I don't either. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 18 © Ms.Reader asked if anyone else had any questions. Mr.Capicotto said the usual comment; 100-year flood elevation and 100 foot wetlands buffer should be shown on the plans. Mr. Salanitro asked is the buffer the property line, because the Leatherstocking Trail is that whole property. He asked,where does it start? Do I take the property line as 100 ft.,because at least it will be consistent. Ms.Reader said the 100 ft.buffer from the wetlands. Mr.Capicotto said from the wetlands,but it's a whole trail away. Mr.Carpaneto said no,it goes out more toward the back area. Ms.Reader said wherever the wetland is? Mr.Carpaneto said it's on the other side of the trail. Mr.Capicotto said that the trail itself is dry and that's right next to the wall. Ms.Aisen asked,are we protecting the trail now? Ms.Reader said no,the wetland. If you find where the wetland is. The Leatherstocking Trail is not the wetland. Mr.Salanitro said that's what I'm trying to do. Ms.Reader said the Leatherstocking Trail is not the wetland. Mr.Salanitro said I just wanted to make sure,because then the property line...interrupted. Ms.Reader said by definition,it's not the wetland. There is a wetland. In some places it may be on the Trail. In other places,it may be beyond the Trail. Mr.Salanitro said he tried to decipher that from the Town Wetland Map,but there was little...inaudible. Ms.Reader said that maybe Mr.Carpaneto might be able to help you. Mr.Bernstein said will the additional wetland show the buffer line,because I couldn't determine how the Trail and the wetland were contiguous? Ms.Paul said the wetland area is on either side of the Trail itself. Ms.Reader asked,do we have a map that Mr.Salanitro can use and pinpoint where his property is? After some discussion,Ms.Reader asked if there is a better map than that? Mr.Carpaneto said we have some other maps. © Mr.Salanitro said I will work with the Town to get that information and I'll amend the drawings to show it at the CZMC meeting. I'll get the aerial and will work that out. Mr.Salanitro asked if that's for the CZMC on the 27th. Ms.Paul said yes. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 19 Ms.Reader said so you'll work with Ms.Paul on that. Mr.Salanitro said I will get that information on the plan. Ms.Reader said it's the buffer and the flood zone. You're actually going to get a letter. Ms.Reader said the CZMC is meeting November 27,2001. Our next meeting is December 12,2001. This is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. Ms.Reader said I refer this matter to the CZMC,the Westchester County Planning and also schedule this matter for a public hearing to be held on December 12,2001 at 8:15 p.m. Ms.Reader read the next matter as follows: AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE/CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING UNITS Mr.Carpaneto said that the Planning Board received in their package an amendment to the Zoning Board, which is standard procedure that the Planning Board review and comment on any zoning changes. They have to do it for central air conditioning units. Basically the Town...inaudible decided to grandfather_ in place September 1,2001. Those units..interrupted Ms.Gallent...inaudible QMr.Carpaneto said they figured that somehow it took so long,that they would just pick a point and start ...inaudible. The existing units can be replaced. Units that are new would require permits after September,2001. Ms.Aisen said existing units can be replaced? Mr. Carpaneto said existing units can be replaced in kind, as long as you don't change the slab ...inaudible. Ms.Reader said how do you know it's a preexisting unit? Ms.Gallent said that didn't require a permit originally,so you have no record. Mr.Cohen said he has a...inaudible unit inside my house and I'm going to make it a little bigger. The pad is going to be the same,but the unit is going to be a little bigger. I'm not grandfathered? Mr.Carpaneto said no. Mr.Cohen said who's going to know. Mr.Carpaneto said at that point we're just hoping that people will be as honest as they have been and just come forward and say this is what I'm doing. We really just want to try to regulate the placement of the units. That's really what the Ordinance is basically interested in doing. Mr.Papazian asked Ron,to regulate the unit or regulate the noise. Mr.Carpaneto said no,just regulate the placement of it. Actually,we decided that air conditioning units these days are built quieter than they ever have been before and they're getting quieter. They're getting more efficient, have different fan speeds for different level of heating and cooling that's....inaudible temperatures. The fan might not run at 1,000 RPM's on a 90 degree day,where they want it 550 as the temperature rises and it just increases every day. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 20 Ms.Aisen said so you're getting more liberal. I'm afraid I didn't read the letter. Mr.Carpaneto said no,we're not getting liberal with it. We're just trying to regulate it. Ms.Gallent said central air conditioning condensing units were never regulated,except that they were not determined to be structures in the Building Department. Therefore,if it fell under the code,that was the Building Department's interpretation. That was once challenged by a neighbor,who did not like his neighbor's air conditioning unit. The Zoning Board found that it did fall within the boundaries of a structure which created a huge issue...inaudible,because people who didn't like each other were reporting each other as having these violating air conditioning units. That's my own impression. Ms.Harrington asked if the Town is going to notice all the residents? Mr.Carpaneto said no. Ms.Gallent said of the change in the law? Mr.Carpaneto said it's a public notice. Doesn't it work through the Town Board as far as doing a public hearing. Ms.Reader said there's an agenda. Ms.Harrington said can't you see how this is pointless? How many residents go to meetings and even ® watch it on TV. Ms.Gallent said there's also a Town newsletter. Mr.Carpaneto said we actually put the information in a newsletter,probably a year ago or so. Dr.Mason said there is a procedure for giving notice,and the people are responsible for having following the law. All laws. Mr.Reader said the question that Mr.Cohen raises is still a I'm not sure how you enforce this statute. Mr.Carpaneto said if somebody wants to put a central air conditioning unit in today and they need a permit ....left hanging. Ms.Reader said if somebody has a preexisting unit and they have a slab there,can somebody do it without a slab too? Mr.Carpaneto said chances are that if there is an existing unit that's 3 tons of coolant,36,000 BTU's,if it's ten or fifteen years old,it's going to be this big when that same unit today,it's probably this big. Chances are it's going to become smaller anyway. As far as that type of regulation,it's really....left hanging. Ms.Aisen said you're just asking people who put in new units where there is none to get a permit? SORRY,EVERYONE ON THE DIAS IS SPEAKING AMONG THEMSELVES! Q Mr.Carpaneto said and then I also review that as a structure. Some of them may need variances and some of them will be put in as-of-right. Mr.Harrington said do you know the contractors? A guy comes from Putnam County to put it in. How does he know that. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 21 Mr.Carpaneto said we're in a couple of associations. One is them is the Sheet Metal Workers Association and they ask us every year if anything has changed. We'll say yes,you need a permit to do an oil tank, you need a permit now to do central air conditioning. That's on their list,so if any contractors that were affiliated with that group,automatically...inaudible. Mr.Carpaneto said most contractors call. Mr.Capicotto said someone could come in on the weekend and send spend their...inaudible in the same way. Mr.Carpaneto said the enforcement part of it winds up getting better. Ms.Harrington said these two things were never regulated before and all of a sudden you're putting in regulations. I just think people ought to able to know that now they're doing something that has to be ...interrupted. Mr.Carpaneto said through a public hearing with the Town Board and we put something in the newsletter about a year ago,but we could also put something on a web site. That's just an example. Ms. Harrington said that might be a good idea. It's a big change, regulating something you never regulated. A discussion ensued regarding the e-mail used;TownofMamaroneck.org. Ms.Reader said what's the purpose then. If the units are smaller and quieter,why do we care. Mr.Carpaneto said because you still want to be able to get a permit and monitor...inaudible. After further discussion,Ms.Gallent said the Zoning Board should develop..inaudible instructions,so if you're..inaudible literal interpretation and...inaudible;everyone on dias is speaking to each other. The definition of a structure in the code isn't quite...inaudible. Ms.Reader said given the explanation we have,given the proposed ordinance,we are being asked as the Town Planning Board to act as an advisory board in essence,to give any input that we may have to this ordinance. Ms.Reader asked if there are any modifications,changes,clarifications,anything that anybody here wants to recommend. Mr.Papazian said I think its unenforceable and therefore another regulation that we'd put forward. If it's unenforceable,I'd rather not have it on the books. That's my opinion,that we shouldn't go forward with it. Ms.Reader said that Ms.Gallent was actually trying to give an explanation to me earlier. Let's give her a minute to read it. Mr. Carpaneto said it becomes unenforceable if somebody does anything like Mr. Capicotto just said. Somebody can do an addition on their deck on a Saturday,but if somebody calls us up,we go out and take a look at what they've done. Ms.Gallent said but the problem is that because of the Zoning Board's interpretation today without this law as planned,every single air conditioning condenser unit that they put in needs a permit and has to comply with setbacks if it doesn't need a variance. If you want to replace what you had, it would be Q ..inaudible. It's not regulating them. It's actually minimizing the regulation by creating an exemption for existing air conditioner s. Mr.Papazian said I withdraw my comment. Planning Board November 14,2001 Page 22 After further discussion,Ms.Harrington said how does one prove that you're air conditioning unit was put in prior to September whatever. Mr.Carpaneto said there are ways to look at serial numbers on units that...inaudible. Ms.Gallent said you might have old pictures,photographs of your house. Mr. Cohen said what's the penalty if the...inaudible comes on the weekend and puts in a bigger unit without a permit. He reiterated,what's the penalty? Mr.Carpaneto said he's got to legalize it and pay twice the fee of what it would normally be. Ms.Gallent said I think actually...inaudible as well,so I've seen all these cases come up. I think this is a great improvement over what the situation is today. Where people are getting unwillingly caught in what may be an unfortunate required interpretation. Dr.Mason said I think the change is an improvement. I think a bigger improvement would repeal the whole thing. Ms.Gallent said you'd have to change the definition of structure. Dr.Mason said I think that would be the more appropriate thing to do. © Ms.Aisen said that's not for us to say. Ms.Reader said it's out of our jurisdiction. Ms.Reader said it sounds like we have read this ordinance and we make no comment on it. Ms.Seligson said she wants to comment on two things. One is that we struggled with that air conditioning law for months and months and months,because we had several residents who were very severely impacted by new air conditioners in their neighbors yards. It really was,more of a sound issue,but the way to get to the sound which is a very,very difficult issue to regulate,was to try and define it as a structure. It was all with good intentions,but as we went on and on and on,it just kept going more and more in a circle. It became clear that it was almost impossible to regulate sound in this way,and that we had overburdened ourselves and the residents. Ms.Seligson I also wanted to make a comment on the wetlands map. Our wetlands map is very,very basic. It's as if you took a kid's drawing book and drew a wetland area on it. It's not meant to be a precise location of where all wetlands are in this community,but it is to give an indication that you might be within a buffer,you might be in a wetland,you might be near one. To really get an accurate picture of where an exact boundary is of a wetland,you would have to go into the field to do it. Dr.Mason said in the past,as I'm sure you'll remember,we used consultants on big projects. Ms.Seligson said right,where it was really required and where it was really needed. We obviously ...inaudible it's not so needed. I just wanted to remind everyone though please not to rely on it as sort of the gospel truth of wetland boundaries,but really an indication,a helpful hint,and a start. Ms.Reader said that was less of a problem for us than it was in this particular case for Mr.Salanitro in trying to figure out where the buffer starts. Ms.Seligson said and so he might want to hire a consultant to help him with that. Ms.Gallent said nobody ever does that. Planning Board November 14, 2001 Page 23 S Dr. Mason said it had an affect in big projects. Ms. Gallent said in big projects. Dr. Mason said I think if Mr. Salanitro goes in there with a sharp stick and pokes around and finds where the ground is soft and sees the vegetation, he can become pretty close and give us an idea of where the wetlands begin. Ms. Seligson said if he's trained and knowledgeable, you certainly could do that. Ms. Paul said there's a channel out there. You just walk out behind the property and just look. There's a channel ...inaudible, sorry, everyone on the dias is speaking! Ms. Reader said you go with them, right? Ms. Paul said if you wanted me to, I could. Ms. Reader said I think it might be helpful in this case. He seems confused. Ms. Seligson said she just wanted to remind everyone that it's not a perfect map. That's one of the things we'd like to improve and hopefully will increase GIS services, the Geographic Information System and Mapping, we'll be able to have a much better idea of...inaudible boundaries. • Ms. Reader asked if we're getting that. Ms. Seligson said we're working on it. Mr. Carpaneto said you have a few maps actually that would be helpful. Ms. Seligson said we can get it. We will get it. It's just a question of when. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Harrington and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Marguerite R a, Recording Secretary