Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_10_10 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 4111/ PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 10, 2001, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Linda S. Harrington, Acting Chairwoman May W. Aisen Robert A. Cohen C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Absent: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman , tell LR 4 Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counselp RECEIVEDRonald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer rA NOV 15 2001 Elizabeth Paul, Environmental Coordinator € ' Nancy Seligson, Liaison " �ERKCM(? ,`0J Denise M. Carbone, Public Stenographers Carbone &Associates, Ltd. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary 4111/ CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Ms. Harrington, Acting Chairwoman, at 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Harrington asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of June 13, 2001, July 11, 2001 and August 8, 2001 and if there were any amendments. After some discussion, the Minutes were approved as follows: On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the June 13, 2001 Amended Planning Board Minutes were unanimously approved. On a motion made by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Dr. Mason, the July 11, 2001 Planning Board Minutes were unanimously approved. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Cohen, the August 8, 2001 Planning Board Minutes were unanimously approved. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Ms. Harrington read the application as follows: Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING-SPECIAL PERMIT-Xando Cosi,Inc./J.Riley-1298 Boston Post Road-Block 410,Lot 463 Donald Mazin,the attorney for the applicant,of 1415 Boston Post Road,appeared to address the Board. He said since we last appeared before the Board,I had a meeting with Ronald Carpaneto. We went to look at the site together in Rye, which was a request of the Board. We submitted a traffic report and we brought with us a new folder for you to see the Cosi operation. Arnold Scher is here,and we also have Vince Ferrandino who prepared the traffic report. I understand that the traffic report is satisfactory. The visit to the restaurant by the Building Inspector indicated that it is not a fast food operation. I'm going to have Ron Sandor show you some of the graphics,the plans that he has,that shows the premises. You can ask any questions you may have..inaudible. Mr.Mazin asked Mr.Sandor to address the Board. Mr. Sandor said he brought along what has been approved by the Board of Architectural Review,the exterior rendering of the restaurant to give you an idea of what we received approval for. What it shows is that there's a canvas awning,its logos and the letters have an acrylic outer facing with a back lit presentation,channel cut individual letters. It's a very nice presentation. The lower letters are push through. It's not like a back lit sign. He also brought some photographs,which some of you may already be familiar with. It's actually the Rye store. Ms.Roma asked Mr.Sandor to place the photographs where everybody can see it,which Mr.Sandor did, and their products as well. Mr.Cohen asked what the foot of frontage was. Mr.Sandor said it's 25 ft.,half the store. (?)...inaudible Mr.Mazin said it hasn't been determined yet. The landlord has a few prospects,but he hasn't selected anyone as far as I know. Mr.Papazian asked Mr.Carpaneto what was...inaudible the restaurant in Rye. Mr.Carpaneto said he went to Rye,because the Board asked us to do an inspection to see if the restaurant was a fast food operation. Inspection revealed it is not a fast food operation. They will have some table service as well. Mr.Papazian said they submitted a survey as far as the traffic pattern was concerned,and asked if he would give the Board a brief synopsis. Mr.Mazin said we have the surveyor here,who will address that issue. Vince Ferrandino,of Ferrandino&Associates of Elmsford,New York,addressed the Board. He said essentially we only have two things with respect the restaurant. One is the degree of traffic entering and exiting from the Post Road access to the shopping center and also to look at parking generation during the peak lunch hour. My understanding is that the concern of the Board was primarily during the lunch hour when shopping takes place at the supermarket and a lot of other activity actually takes place in the shopping center itself. The report that we prepared basically indicates,given the parking survey that we undertook, that during the peak lunch hour there is more than sufficient capacity in the existing shopping center lot. ® That includes the lot basically fronting on the proposed restaurant, as well as the lot that services the supermarket. Even if Cosi is extremely successful,which we hope it will be,with the additional parking generation and traffic generation into the shopping center lot there will be more than sufficient capacity to accommodate it. The data included in the report was done by a planner and designer at my firm who actually did the observations during the peak lunch hour, 11:30 a.m.to 1:30 p.m. It was done over a Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 3 period time,which is actually beyond the lunch peak. It was actually observed,and they have photos in the report and data, that there certainly is a parking problem at the present time. With the additional generation of parking for the restaurant,there will not be a problem. We also looked at patterns at other Cosi installations on a comparison basis and also took data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, .to give you as good a comparison as possible. We tried to look at different options,different aspects. Our conclusion is that there would not be any adverse impact with parking,or traffic problems caused by the restaurant. If you have any questions,we will be happy to respond. Dr.Mason said my own sense of this is that there is a slack period in that parking lot. There's a morning rush of shoppers,there's an afternoon rush,but there's actually a slack period that they could kind of mesh into. He asked,do you find that? Mr.Ferrandino said actually he was surprised by that also. I'm very familiar with the Town. My sense of that shopping center was that it was busy throughout the day. However,when we did the observation, which was on a week day,morning and afternoon,there was no particular problem. It was a nice day, it wasn't raining,it was a typical day that we would want to survey. The peak of the restaurant is very different from the peak of the supermarket and some of the other uses at the shopping center,which makes it blend very nicely. Mr.Ferrandino said during the evening when Cosi is very busy,the shopping center is not busy. Basically it ties in very nicely. From the prospective of non-traffic,non-parking prospective,in terms of a retail mix at the shopping center,there hasn't been a restaurant there in a number of years. In my opinion,the plan would compliment the shopping center,use it nicely,so that other uses would see that Cosi is a nice restaurant. One of the initial reactions I had,given my knowledge of Cosi,was that it would be a novelty Q initially. At that point,it would be a destination. As time went on,it would become less of a destination and we would have weekly trips,walking trips taking place. Someone shopping at the supermarket will hopefully walk over from the supermarket to the restaurant. They can park their car in front of the supermarket to do shopping,then go to the restaurant,leave the car there,get a bite to eat,walk back to the car and leave. Indirectly,that causes less traffic conflict and less traffic impact. If Cosi is successful, it will cause less traffic. Typically,the scenario will be shopping at the supermarket and then getting in their cars to have lunch somewhere else. Hopefully,that will not happen. There will be a lot more day trips,as time went on. Ms.Harrington said there was a question about the number of employees. Now there are four to eight employees at any given time and plenty of parking for them. She asked,that's not an issue? Mr.Ferrandino said the analysis that we had conducted included provisions for the employees. If you have any questions on the observation, Ms. Devrinozzea is here to testify as a witness, if necessary. She actually did the on-sight observation. Ms. Harrington said she didn't have any other questions and asked if anybody on the Board has any questions or comments. There were none. She asked if anybody in the audience has any questions or comments. Nancy Seligson,Town of Mamaroneck Councilwoman,addressed the Board. Ms.Seligson said she had a question,not about the parking because it seems adequate,but about the entry into the parking area and the exiting. My concern is that when you look at what happened to the McDpnalds when they back up even one car onto the Post Road,we find ourselves in a terrible traffic jam situation of one lane. I want to stress whether the observer involved has any information about whether that could possibly happen, given that's when people would be leaving around certain times,mealtime,and whether they would foresee any problem of backing up into the Post Road. Ms.Harrington said MacDonald's-that's an issue of the drive-through,isn't it? Dr.Mason said that's a parking issue. • Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 4 Ms.Seligson said they also run out of parking sometimes. There's actually people who are waiting to go through the drive-through and waiting to get in to park. Mr.Mazin said let me just respond to that in the McDonalds. The McDonalds is a very unusual situation here,because in order to get to the parking,it's split into two parts. They have a parking lot in the front as you come in and they have a parking lot around the side. The congestion,when they stay near the window,prevents people a lot of times getting to the back. That creates the congestion. We do not have that in here. In fact,there are different ways of getting into the aisles. I'll let the question be answered by the(?)....inaudible. Mr.Mazin said he also wants to remind the Board that before we had Tung Hoy Restaurant,which brought in a lot more people at that point as it was a bigger restaurant,and we had no problems with traffic at that time. Ms. Devrinozzea said from my observation and the projection techniques that we used, Cosi will ...inaudible generate approximately 30 to 35 vehicles. McDonalds is a much more intense use. I didn't see any problems like backups during the exits or entrance on the Post Road. Usually,the people who visit the shopping center, Stop&Shop,use Weaver Street as both exit and entrance. I don't believe there would be a problem on the Post Road. Mr.Ferrandino said if you look at the report itself on the traffic generation,the hour that we considered the peak study was 11:00 a.m.to 2:00 p.m. For this we basically used ITE data,the similar type upscale sit-down restaurant. The ITE projected 30 to 35 vehicle trips during the weekday lunch hour from 11:00 a.m.to 2:00 p.m. That really is a small amount of cars entering and exiting. Based upon that,we don't feel there will be a queueing problem. © Ms.Harrington asked if there were any other comments from the audience. There were none. Ms.Harrington said the Board will do a Negative Declaration. Ms.Gallent said that the Board has before it a proposed Negative Declaration to review and can make a motion to adopt it. She just has one correction on the narrative portion,the fifth paragraph,the second line where it says, "Ferrandino & Associates, Inc. conducted a traffic analysis, etc., it was dated September 12,2001 which should be added. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Mr.Papazian and the Board unanimously approved the Negative Declaration. Ms.Harrington informed those present that this was referred to the CZMC. No comment,objection or input was received back from them. Ms.Harrington said this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board. They replied that it was a matter for local determination. We will now set conditions for a Special Permit. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Aisen,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. A discussion ensued regarding conditions of approval,the limits of hours of operation and impact on the community. © Dr.Mason asked Mr.Carpaneto if there is any history of problems with them. Mr.Carpaneto said there is no history of any problems and there are no violations. Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 5 O Ms.Harrington said we have no other conditions to be set and asked for a motion to approve this Special Permit to operate Xando Cosi. Mr.Mazin said it's Cosi alone now. On a motion made by Mr. Cohen,seconded by Ms. Aisen, the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS,Cosi,Inc./J.Riley submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for use of the premises at 1298 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410,Lot 463 as a restaurant;and WHEREAS,this is an unlisted action under SEQRA;and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has adopted a Negative Declaration, dated October 10, 2001, in connection with this application;and WHEREAS,a Public Hearing having been held on October, 10,2001 pursuant to notice;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Use Permit,the plans and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses to questions by the applicant, the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes,vibrations,flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit; 3. The proposed Special Use Permit use will be in harmony with the general health,safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that this Board approves the application of Xando Cosi,Inc./J.Riley for a Special Use Permit for a restaurant subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m.until midnight,seven(7)days a week. 2. This permit shall expire two(2)years from the date hereof. 3. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-31B(8)of the Zoning QCode of the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr.Mazin thanked the Board and said we hope we see you there. Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 6 Ms.Harrington read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL-Sether/Bowes-7 Durham Road-Block 227,Lot 138 On a motion made by Mr.Cohen,seconded by Ms.Aisen,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared open. Mr.Carpaneto said the application is for a subdivision,actually right now in the final stages. On July 18, 2001,the Board saw the application. It was a single lot that was split in two. The function was to make the second parcel dedicated to open space. I believe what the Planning Board had asked for was to see that on the plat and also to get a zoning variance,which at this point is a moot point because it didn't need a variance. That doesn't change anything. Everything is here on the map that was asked for,dedicated open space. This map was just updated on the 8th,to show sewer and water to the existing house,a zoning requirement by the Health Department. Ms. Gallent said as a point of edification,the final subdivision is not exactly a discretionary approval, because if the final subdivision plat as proposed is consistent with the conditions placed on the preliminary approval,in this case the variance has become a necessary....inaudible for further investigation as to the size of the parcel. The other was that the final plat have a notation that the second parcel will remain as open space. If those conditions are satisfied,you have to...inaudible. There is no compliance with SEQRA,because it's considered....inaudible. Dr.Mason asked why Mr.Carpaneto is presenting this case. Mr.Carpaneto said he is presenting this case,because Mr.Alfieri is out of town. Ms.Harrington asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. Nancy Seligson said I was very interested in this parcel, because they originally contacted me and I presented it to the Zoning Board, but I didn't know that the zoning variance was determined to be unrequired. Mr.Carpaneto said we had some old documentation and we figured that the lot was less than 20,000 sq. ft. In fact,it's 22,000 sq.ft.,so it makes that a moot point. It doesn't change anything. It's still open space,bigger than we thought. Ms.Harrington asked if anyone has any comments. There were none. She asked if the Board has any comments. There were none. Ms.Harrington said we received a letter from the Westchester County Planning Board. They said it was a matter for local determination. On a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Mr.Papazian,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. QMr.Capicotto asked Mr.Carpaneto about the Health Department. Mr.Carpaneto said he had gone down there to find out exactly what they wanted. He said she basically said that she wanted...inaudible. Now we have to have signatures. We need to get a letter from the Tax Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 7 Department,a letter from the title company,Health Department signature,owner's signature and then it can be filed. Ms.Gallent said a copy of the approval also has to be filed with the Town Clerk. On a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Mr.Papazian the Final Subdivision of 7 Durham Road was unanimously approved,as follows: WHEREAS,Hallie Sether and Jo Ann Sether Bowes,7 Durham Road,Block 227,Lot 138,by Stephen V.Altieri,Town Administrator,submitted an application for Final Subdivision Approval in proper form and complying with all requirements of the Town, other municipal agencies, the comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and this Planning Board;and WHEREAS, this Board held a Public Hearing on the application for Final Subdivision Approval on October 10,2001; WHEREAS,this Board granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval on July 11,2001; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that Final Subdivision Approval is hereby granted for 7 Durham Road,Block 227,Lot 138,pursuant to the application and subject to all terms and conditions set forth below: 1. The subdivision of the lot shall be as reflected on the Subdivision Map,dated October 4,2001 and revised on October 8,2001 with the application to this Board,and shall ® create dedicated"open space lot"and a developed lot,on which currently sits a single- family home. Ms.Harrington read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL-Citipark Service Station,Inc. -613 Fifth Avenue/2 Valley Place-Block 131,Lot 1 On a motion made by Mr.Cohen,seconded by Dr.Mason,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared open. Thomas Gubin appeared,representing Citipark Service Station,Inc.,613 Fifth Avenue/2 Valley Place, Larchmont. He said we're applying for the renewal of our Special Use Permit. The existing building shall be used as the existing facility for private uses for repair of corporate service vehicles. No additional changes or modifications for its use shall be made. Ms.Gallent said the existing Special Permit is to Citipark Service Center. Mr.Gubin mid it should be Citipark Service Station,Inc.,which was so noted. Ms. Harrington asked if Mr. Gubin wanted the same hours of operation and the same conditions as previously granted. Ms.Gallent asked if Mr.Gubin was familiar with the conditions of the previous Special Permit. Mr.Gubin said he was familiar with those conditions. Ms.Harrington asked if there were any comments from the Board. Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 8 © Dr.Mason asked Mr.Carpaneto if he has had any complaints. Mr.Carpaneto said no,not at this time. Mr.Papazian asked if he knew the hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday,and asked if those hours are O.K. Mr.Gubin said yes. Ms.Harrington asked if anyone from the audience has any comments. There were none. Ms.Gallent said because they are accepting the same conditions. It is a Type II Action under SEQRA. On a motion made by Ms.Harrington,seconded by Dr.Mason,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. On a motion made by Mr.Papazian,seconded by Mr.Cohen,the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS,Thomas Gubin,Citipark Service Station,Inc.,submitted an application for the renewal of the Special Use Permit for use of the premises at 613 Fifth Avenue/2 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131,Lot 1 as a private auto garage;and Q WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required;and WHEREAS,a Public Hearing having been held on October 10,2001 pursuant to notice;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board having considered the application for renewal of the Special Use Permit, the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses to questions by the applicant,the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public;and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes,vibrations,flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit; 3. The proposed Special Use Permit use will be in harmony with the general health,safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. Q BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that this Board APPROVES the application of Thomas Gubin,Citipark Service Station,Inc.for the RENEWAL of the SPECIAL USE PERMIT for a private auto garage subject to the following conditions: Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 9 1. The hours of operation of the garage shall be 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday,and 8:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m.on Saturdays. 2. Petroleum waste shall be removed from the premises by a properly licensed disposer of such material. 3. The operation shall be limited to servicing corporate vehicles;it shall not be open to the general public. 4. There shall be no parking or storage of any vehicle on the 4 ft.wide area along the lengths of the Fifth Avenue boundary and the Valley Place boundary;these areas shall be striped: the words"No Parking"shall be painted on both sides of the Fifth Avenue side and Valley Place side. 5. There shall be no parking of any vehicles belonging to either employees or vehicles being serviced on Fifth Avenue,where the local law provides no parking. 6. No car parts or metal shall be stored outside the building except in the properly enclosed refuse containers. 7. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30B of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. © 8. This Special Use Permit shall be valid for two years from the date hereof. Ms.Harrington read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION -FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT -Vesta Development LLC/Frederick F.Grippi-29 Marboume Drive-Block 334,Lot 25 Al Ragazzino,with RMG Associates,is representing the Vesta Development Corp. He said I will be doing the construction management for the proposed residential zoning. Dr.Mason asked Mr.Ragazzino to take a minute and tell us what you're doing. Mr.Ragazzino asked if everyone has their site plan,to which the Board replied yes. Mr.Ragazzino said the site plan is the thing that really tells what's going on over here. In this one it shows a little bit more detail,if you want to pass it around,where the 100 ft.setback conflicts with the proposed house. What you can see in these site plans is this area was developed on the original subdivision. I think it was done in the'80's. You can see it's within the 100 ft.restriction. There's quite a bit of work that was previously done. There's a large stone wall that's built that drops off the way the actual wetlands are,with drainage area and there's a sanitary sewer. This is a huge retention system for Marboume Drive. Mr.Carpaneto said that Marboume Drive is off of Old White Plains Road and explained how to get there. Mr.Capicotto said there's a drainage easement shown on the site plan and asked if Mr.Carpaneto has any information on that,what it was there for,etc. Mr.Papazian said the retention system was part of the drainage. Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 10 Mr.Grippi said it was picking up drainage all over the area. I don't know exactly...inaudible. On this property here,there are three existing manholes. Mr.Capicotto asked if those are the drainage manholes. Mr.Grippi said they come out into the stream. Dr.Mason said this was an area that was actually set aside as a detention facility for Marboume Road. Mr.Carpaneto said the drainage easement satisfied was set aside,but the area itself...inaudible. Dr.Mason said not on Fenbrook..inaudible. Mr.Carpaneto said these lots were filled to that elevation. Mr.Grippi said that may be,because there's a dotted line on there. You can see the lots are still basically to where that line is. There's nothing different here than there is in the neighborhood. On both sides of the property there are residences. They basically developed the whole property. They have a lawn all the way back to the stream. Dr.Mason said when this was done...inaudible. This development triggered many of the changes in the law. It was not well received. Mr.Grippi said we're really not going to do the darker green area. We're going to leave that pretty much ...inaudible what's there. Mr.Papazian said..inaudible as far as the neighborhood on Marboume Drive area is concerned,on the Drive itself is there any flooding or do they have any history of water problems in the area. Are the neighbors going to have a concern as far as the water is concerned with you building on this lot? Mr.Grippi said I don't believe so,only because of the storm drainage on the street and on the property. You might be able to build a few houses. Mr.Ragazzino said I've built on Marboume Drive,44 Marboume Drive,53 Marboume Drive,which is east of this location. In these particular areas,as far as affecting adjoining properties,this is probably the best scenario because everything goes back towards Saxon Woods. The street elevation drops off considerably to the rear of the property and would not impact the side house. Mr.Papazian said as far as the area is concerned,is there any rock on the property? Mr.Ragazzino said I don't think so. He said like Mr.Carpaneto had mentioned what it appears to be, originally this property was at a much lower elevation and has been raised during that original subdivision. Mr.Papazian said,and you don't foresee any problem as far as blasting or chipping? Mr.Ragazzino said not at this time. If anything,it will be the reverse;concerned about reaching depth, a hardpan in a normal depth,because it does..inaudible quite a bit. Ms.Harrington said isn't the driveway you're proposing to be macadam? QMr.Ragazzino said it's an asphalt driveway,with a drainage retention system. Ms.Harrington asked,would you consider pavers? Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 11 Mr.Ragazzino said if that was a requirement from the Board,we're certainly not...left haneint:. Mr.Ragazzino asked if gravel would be acceptable. Dr.Mason said gravel is very difficult to plow...inaudible. A discussion ensued regarding the use of pavers. Ms.Aisen said water is absorbed. Mr.Ragazzino said with respect to the Board,hopefully I'm not going to continue to develop the work in Mamaroneck,as I have in the past. I'm a Premium Point resident. Mr.Papazian said as far as clearing,what are you proposing to clear? Mr.Ragazzino said because of the past development of this area,a lot of the mature trees and stuff has been removed quite some time ago. The stuff that's on the lot currently is just like sumac and other trees of that nature. I don't remember exactly the amount of trees on here,but there's very little amount of tree removal of mature trees. Ms.Harrington said that's five. Mr.Ragazzino said yes,five. Dr.Mason said in the Marbourne Manor development..inaudible. Mr.Papazian asked,is part of your proposal for..inaudible landscape also,or..inaudible. Mr.Ragazzino said yes,there will be landscaping. Mr.Papazian asked if Mr.Ragazzino proposes to bring in a copy of the landscaping plan? Mr.Ragazzino said if necessary. Normally what I've done in the past is after the Tree Committee has reviewed the tree removal and they've given me a list of requirements of trees as far as replacement,we've done it on the site with the Tree Committee as far as what their preference was and what worked with the site as far as location. That's how we've done it previously. If you'd like something different,I'm not here to object. I'm here to work with everyone. Ms.Harrington said,in this case we'd like to see some. Mr.Ragazzino said O.K. Dr.Mason said a test boring for a perc test. Mr.Ragazzino said we've done those already. There's a runoff calculation that's been completed. Mr.Capicotto said they reviewed that. Ms.Harrington asked if there were any other comments or questions. Mr.Capicotto said he'll put his comments in a letter about the 100 ft.setback from the stream on the site plan and also the 100-year flood elevation on the drawings. If it's a...inaudible,just put the number down. Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 12 Ms.Harrington asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Ms.Harrington said this will be referred to the CZMC meeting,October 23,2001,and the Westchester County Planning Board. On a motion made by Mr.Cohen,seconded by Dr.Mason,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that this matter be,and hereby is,adjourned to a Public Hearing at the November 14,2001 Planning Board meeting. Ms.Harrington informed the applicant that two weeks before the meeting updated plans and landscaping plans should be submitted to the Building Department,so they can be distributed to the Board for review. Ms.Harrington said if anybody wants to go to the site to walk through,should we contact you? Mr.Ragazzino said he is available,can give you information and will be glad to meet anybody at any time to walk the site. He said if anybody has any suggestions as to what they would like to see us do as far as landscaping,I would welcome hearing from them. Ms.Harrington said that the CZMC will direct you on that. Dr.Mason said the more information you have at the CZMC meeting,the better off you are. They're the ones...inaudible. QMs.Harrington said they'll steer you toward..inaudible. Dr.Mason said the CZMC likes to see a detailed plan...inaudible,flooding..inaudible. Mr.Ragazzino said that stuff we have. What we'll do then is make our initial proposal to them. If they have any changes and stuff,we'll do them and present the final draft..inaudible. Ms.Harrington said..inaudible if you would consider the pavers. Mr.Ragazzino said he has no objection to the pavers. Mr.Grippi said he will have to talk to the owners. Mr.Capicotto said if you do go with pavers,we still want the drainage...inaudible. Ms.Harrington said that Ms.Roma will give instructions as to whom you have to notify. Ms.Roma said The Town does notification to the neighbors by certified mail for Freshwater Wetlands' matters. The applicant does not have to worry about that. A discussion ensued regarding the time frame for submission of paperwork,as the paperwork is sent to the Board one week before the meeting. Mr.Ragazzino thanked everybody. QMs.Harrington read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Vikram and Fally Malkani-19 Kolbert Drive,Block 307,Lot 1 Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 13 Larry Gordon, the architect, appeared to address the Board. He said the engineer is also present, to answer any questions pertaining to this matter. Mr.Gordon said what we are proposing is a renovation and addition to the existing house. We plan to add approximately 385 sq. ft. to the side of the house. We want to increase the dining room and the kitchen area. Mr.Gordon said he has pictures of the area. Dr.Mason asked if that's square footage on one floor? Mr.Gordon said it's on one floor. We are adding a piece to the second floor,but there is already a first floor which we're building on top off. He said 385 sq. ft.is the total one floor addition that we're proposing. Dr.Mason asked the original date of construction of the house. ...(?)said the early'60's. A discussion ensued regarding directions to the house. Mr.Cohen said that the bedrooms are not creating any more impervious surface. Mr.Gordon said that's correct. Ms.Harrington asked what the patio is constructed of. Mr.Gordon said we haven't really designed it yet,but it will probably be of some brick or some masonry © units. Ms.Risen asked what did you say about the proposal for an addition that doesn't reach the ground. Mr.Cohen said the bedroom is also being built on the existing garage. Mr.Gordon said that's proposed on an already first floor. Ms.Risen asked what is the proposed one-story addition. Mr.Gordon said that's an extension of the exiting kitchen area,which is going to become a breakfast area and a dining room. We're enlarging the existing dining room,10 ft.by 38'h ft. Dr.Mason said and then you're going back to the proposed patio on the side. Ms.Risen asked if there's going to be basement under that. Mr.Gordon said there's going to be crawl space under that deck. Ms.Risen said that's more impervious area. Dr.Mason said the stream is rift/raft(?1 at that point,isn't it? Mr.Salanitro said it is...inaudible and there are stones there as well. Dr.Mason said and the driveway has culverts underneath. My recollection is some of those culverts are Q not adequate. In heavy storms,the water backs up and goes right out onto the street. Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 14 Mr.Salanitro said it's possible. We're not in a flood zone. The property itself is in a Zone"X",which is outside of the 100-year flood zone. It may well do that. He said that Mr.Malkani is here. He's lived there for fifteen months. I don't know if he's had any experience with flooding. Mr.Salanitro said it's possible. There's quite a bit of road runoff that goes into'this open channel. Ms.Harrington asked what's the net increase in impervious surface? Mr.Salanitro said we have two areas of concern. We have the addition which 395 sq.ft.,385 sq.ft.is the actual. Then we have the proposed patio in back,430 sq.ft.,so I have proposed dry wells to handle both of those new impervious surfaces. Dr.Mason said it sits down into the east branch. Mr.Salanitro said this is the east branch of the Sheldrake River. Mr.Cohen asked if he said two dry wells. Mr.Salanitro said one to handle the rear patio and one for the addition on the right-hand side. Mr.Cohen said I don't see the second dry well. Mr.Salanitro said I think Mr.Cohen is right. I think there was some notes from the engineer that they revised those and gave them to the engineer. So,you may not have the revised drawing which stated [ ...left hanging. Ms.Harrington asked if there were any comments from the engineer. Mr.Capicotto said no. The erosion control plan that was approved showed the flood zone. Ms.Harrington asked if there are any more questions or comments. Mr.Cohen asked what material will be used for the patio. Mr.Gordon said we haven't designed it yet. We were thinking in terms of some masonry unit,flagstone, brick or paving stones. Mr.Capicotto said the patio is on grade,with steps from the kitchen leading down to the patio. Mr.Gordon said yes. Ms.Gallent said this is to be referred to the CZMC and the Westchester County Planning Board. Ms.Harrington said Ms.Roma will send out the notices for public hearing. On a motion made by Mr.Cohen,seconded by Ms.Aisen,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that this matter be,and hereby is,adjourned to a Public Hearing at the November 14,2001 Planning Board meeting. © NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 14,2001. Planning Board October 10,2001 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Dr.Mason and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9;10 p.m. t,t1. Marguerite oma,Recording Secretary