Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_09_13 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 13, 2000, 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 C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Absent: Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Robert W. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building � 4Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer Nancy Seligson, Liaisonit 4 Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographers RECEIVED Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. OCT 1b ac, •I 40 Eighth Street I IRmCIA A.Daft New Rochelle, New York 10801 �'*� R TOWN YE t � Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary Lc411, � CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader informed those present that the review of the draft Minutes of July 12, 2000 will be held over until the next meeting, to allow Board members to review the transcript sent. 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. Chairperson Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL PERMIT - HIGH TECH CAR WASH, LLC - 2434 Boston Post Road, Block 503, Lot 326.1 Dolores Battalia, of Stein& Battalia, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont appeared to represent High Tech Car Wash, because the former owner has repurchased it. Under the Town code for Special Permits the permit does not run with the land. The new owner is required to obtain a Special Permit. Ms. Reader said they were before the Board for consideration last month. Mr. Davis said last time it had been determined to be a Type II action. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 2 Ms.Reader read the conditions on the previous certification,dated 7/14/99. Ms. Battalia said they will comply with what was granted in 1997 and confirmed in 1999. She said everything remains the same,nothing has changed. 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. Ms.Reader said this is a Type II action. There being no further discussion,Ms.Reader asked for a motion to grant the Special Use Permit for High Tech Car Wash,LLC,2434 Boston Post Road,Larchmont,Larchmont,Block 503,Lot 326.1,subject to the same conditions#1 through#11,as existed on the prior Special Use Permit granted. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Aisen,the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, HIGH TECH CAR WASH submitted an application for Special Permit on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and that,therefore,no further action is required under SEQRA;and ® WHEREAS,a Public Hearing having been held on September 13,2000 pursuant to notice;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board having considered the application for Special Permit,the plans and zoning report and environmental assessment 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 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 Permit. 3. The proposed Special 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. 4. The property subject to this Special Permit has no existing violations of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance. 5. The applicant has demonstrated that there has been no change in circumstances in the area which would require the Planning Board to deny this request. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that this Board APPROVES the application of High Tech Car Wash for a Special Permit for a car wash subject to the following terms and conditions: Planning Board • ' September 13,2000 Page 3 1. There shall be no signage placed on the existing rear canopy. 2. No gasoline shall be sold at the site. 3. The triangular planting in the rear of the premises(adjoining the residential site to the West)shall be consistent with the planting and landscaping as shown and approved by the Board of Architectural Review on April 17,1997. 4. Maximum hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.on Sunday. 5. There shall be no externally audible public address system,bullhorns or walkie-talkies on the premises. 6. All lights,except for security lighting,shall be turned off at the close of business. 7. All lights for the driveway shall be directed toward the building. The final plans submitted prior to issuance of any Building Permit shall show traffic lanes on the property for ingress and egress. 8. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions of the easement agreement relating to the buffer zone. 9. This Special Permit approval is subject to additional conditions imposed by the Zoning Q Board of Appeals including limitation of canopy height to twenty feet(20'), on the "menu"sign at the rear of the property and a requirement that the exposed source of illumination for the front canopy shall be directed to the ground only and be recessed behind the side and front of the canopy. 10. This Special Use Permit shall expire after two(2)years. 11. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-31 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC BEARING-SITE PLAN-BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO/James Gaita-1331 Boston Post Road -Block 411,Lot 119 On a motion made by Ms.Aisen,seconded by Dr.Mason,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. James Gaita,with the firm of Envirospace of Larchmont,the planners and designers for the Blockbuster Video parking lot site,appeared along with his client,Mr.Novack. He said Mr.Novack is the owner of Q the property. Mr. Gaita said he was unable to be at the meeting last month. Mr. Novack came for consideration and briefly presented the case. Comments from that meeting were given back to Envirospace and the plans have been revised to reflect some of the changes. The drawing was revised 8/25/00,per comments from both the Board and the Board of Architectural Review(BAR). Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 4 Mr.Gaita said the site is currently accessed from New Hummocks Road. Currently the entrance and exit are at the same existing area,the larger opening indicated on the drawing with a dashed line. They are proposing to make this area a one-way in,swing around the parking lot with the ability to exit through a new curb opening on the street. Currently,cars come in,get blocked up and it is dangerous with people backing up going in and out onto New Hommocks Road. The existing exit out on Hommocks Road,a one- way street,will remain unchanged. In addition to the new opening,ingress and egress,they are proposing to take out some overgrowth and brush,small trees along the perimeter line facing Hommocks School, replace the chain link fence with black vinyl coated and then have the Town of Mamaroneck agree to do some planting along this area,because it is not Blockbuster's property. They are also restriping with 70 degree angle parking to provide easier access in and easier backing up to get out. They are increasing the parking by a few spaces. Currently there are 39. They are proposing 42 spaces,including 2 handicapped designated spaces where currently there is 1. Mr.Gaita said last month the Board commented on the curb,turning around and doing some kind of a curbing as opposed to just a painted stripe. That is something that was considered, but thought with plowing the lot it would be better to put in some orange rubber barriers,4 ft.high,which will be screwed into the ground with anchors which will provide reflection,no parking and will be a safe way for cars to get in and out. The plow can also see it. They can be removed as well for plowing,if need be. Mr.Gaita said they are putting in one light pole between the ingress and egress at New Hummocks Road facing the parking lot. There will be low lighting in the parking lot area, giving a safer means for pedestrians to get in and out. They will be striping the walkway as well,which will be clearly designated as a pedestrian area. Mr.Gaita said he will answer any questions the Board may have. © Ms.Aisen asked for confirmation that Mr.Gaita is not enlarging the lot,but taking away trees and shrubs that are on the lot side of the chain link fence. Mr.Gaita said that is correct. They are not enlarging the lot at all. The square footage is the same. They are just widening it,striping it and angling it,allowing for the access out as opposed to out and in on one side,where they can get more parking in. It is the same footprint,the same site. They are not changing any of that. Dr.Mason said the changing to 70 degree striped entrance into each parking space is,he assumes,an attempt to make it easier to get in and out without cars backing into each other. Mr.Gaita said that is correct. Dr.Mason said it is making better use of the actual width of the parking lot. Mr.Gaita said they would have to expand it a couple of feet. At this point they have 20 ft.l24 ft.,he is not sure. Dr.Mason said they have a letter from the Traffic consultant. Ms.Reader checked to see if Mr.Gaita had seen the letter. Mr.Gaita said he had not seen the letter. Ms. Reader said the letter was dated September 6, 2000, from Allan Davis Associates, with recommendations. Mr.Gaita was provided with a copy for his review. Ms.Reader said the matter was referred to the CZMC. Mr.Carpaneto said it was referred to the CZMC,and they have no problem with it. He spoke to Madeline Berg,but he doesn't have anything written in the file. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 5 Mr.Gaita said he hasn't had time to review it or speak to the consultant about it. He would like to have an opportunity to do so,but it can be discussed right now. The first item, (1) Eliminate the striped pedestrian walkway and construct a sidewalk along New Hommocks Road extending the existing concrete walk from Boston Post Road. Mr.Gaita pointed out the property line and said it extends,which is Mr.Novack's property. That is where they are proposing the walkway. It is an extension of the concrete walkway, only it won't be concrete but will be asphalt and explained where it will go. Mr.Carpaneto said Steve Altieri had mentioned if Mr.Novack were to build that,the Town would take it over,to build what the consultant is asking for. Mr.Gaita said he is not sure where they want the walkway,at which time a discussion ensued. Ms.Aisen said it is the New Hommocks Road After further discussion,Mr.Capicotto said they are talking about the Town sidewalks on the Boston Post Road,to construct a sidewalk coming down New Hommocks Road. Dr.Mason said it doesn't even mention that it is near Hommocks Road. Is he talking about Hommocks Road outside the back entrance? He said the comment doesn't make any sense the way it is written. Ms.Reader said she understood it to mean continuing the road where the new ingress and egress would be. Mr.Gaita said the objective is to get pedestrian traffic from this parking lot to the store. Currently they just walk across. Ms.Reader said that is Mr.Gaita's objective. She said Allan Davis'objective is reviewing the whole traffic issue with respect to the school,the public building,the ice rink,etc. His objective is to have a safe walking area to students going to the Post Road,to the school,or to the ice rink,to the swimming pool and for people in the community. Mr.Gaita said it is a great idea. He thinks that will fall on the Town of Mamaroneck to build such a concrete sidewalk to get people to the Hommocks School. Mr.Carpaneto said the Town would maintain it. After some discussion,Mr.Capicotto said what he was getting at was leaving Mr.Gaita's sidewalk,which is on his property. They might they have in mind to build another sidewalk along the right-of-way, between the curb line and demonstrated same. Mr.Gaita said currently there is an aluminum fence and a sidewalk that people use to get to Hommocks School. He said it is the Town property. He said he thinks the Town will just extend it. Mr.Novack will work that out with the Town and coordinate with them. They will do their part and Mr.Novack will do his part. Mr.Capicotto said it would require putting in 4 handicap ramps,as you traverse to the entrance and exit. QMs.Reader said and the sidewalk,with which Mr.Capicotto agreed. A discussion ensued,with Mr.Capicotto saying the sidewalk is going to traverse the two entrances. Mr.Gaita said a dropped curb can be installed to accommodate pedestrians and the handicapped to get across. He would stripe it. Planning Board • September 13,2000 Page 6 O Mr.Capicotto said perhaps they are looking at striping and having a concrete apron in that area to define the sidewalk. Ms.Reader said it was unfair that the letter was not given to Mr. Gaita in advance. He hasn't had a chance to talk to them. The Board doesn't understand the specifics of it either. It may be they are trying to coordinate the two plans, so they interface correctly. If that is the case and there is a way of cooperation,it would be helpful. It would mean another month's delay to allow these people to come in. Ms.Reader said suppose the Town does the sidewalk that goes across. She asked for Mr.Carpaneto and Mr. Gaita's assistance at the same time, toward the New Hommocks Road. Mr. Gaita is now reconstructing his driveway. She asked what would be the interface that would be required to make it a safe walkway for pedestrians,students,etc.,on the outside. Mr.Carpaneto said the specs would have to be given to the Town and reviewed by the engineer,Dolph Rotfeld,and whatever else would be required,as far as ADA regulations regarding curbing,would be incorporated in the plan. Ms.Reader said it says eliminate the striped pedestrian walkway and that's where Mr. Gaita is adding asphalt. Mr.Gaita said yes,it will be painted with diagonal stripes just to show that people are walking across. Ms.Reader asked why would they care. The reason Mr.Gaita wants that in the inside sidewalk is so that people going to Blockbuster can have a continual walk up to that middle section of cars at the very end, with which Mr.Gaita agreed. Ms.Reader said that has to be built on the outside of the fence,and asked why would he care if there is an inside wall. Mr.Carpaneto said because there is traffic that travels along through that,beyond that,to the school. Ms.Reader said they're on the outside sidewalk. Mr.Capicotto said that's right. You have parallel sidewalks. Ms.Reader said why does Allan Davis Associates want to eliminate that sidewalk. After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said the surface still remains. If someone chooses to walk on the asphalt at that point,they still can. Mr.Davis said it looks like they are trying to combine both surfaces into one. The word, "eliminate", doesn't suggest that. It appears to suggest that the interior one will no longer be a walkway,and that the applicant will construct a sidewalk on the outside. The need for a sidewalk would not appear to be a consequence of the action that the Board is being asked to consider. Ms.Reader said she is trying to understand two things from the letter;why eliminate the inside sidewalk as it has nothing to do with the outside walk. Dr.Mason said the only thing being eliminated is the striping. QMs. Reader referred to the letter itself. It says, "1. Eliminate the striped pedestrian walkway". A discussion ensued regarding this. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 7 Ms.Reader said they are constructing an asphalt walkway and constructing a sidewalk along the New Hommocks Road. She doesn't understand why they have to eliminate the interior walks and is trying to see if that can be explained. Mr.Capicotto said perhaps as the cars pull out,by having the one walkway,the cars stop in one spot. If there are two different walkways,there would be confusion about where to stop. Mr.Davis said they are going to call attention to the striping. Ms.Reader said#2 states,"provide handicap ramps and crosswalks at both drives". She asked what they mean by crosswalks. Mr.Carpaneto said they mean dropped curbs,stating there are 4 dropped curbs. Ms.Reader asked if it were possible for the sidewalks to be joined and have a fence as a divider. Mr.Carpaneto said that can't be done,because then the entrance is being blocked out. Ms.Reader said what if the sidewalks are one level,and there are ramps for the cars to go up,over the sidewalk and down. Dr.Mason said like a house driveway,rather than a road,a curb. Mr.Capicotto said formerly it was referred to as a concrete apron. It would come up and then have to drop back into the parking lot. Mr.Carpaneto said it probably will hold water,because of the pitch. Mr.Davis said that the word crosswalk is not normally used to refer to the dropped curb. It is used to refer to a striped passage. Mr.Carpaneto said they want to extend the other sidewalk across the new curb there and across the island. Ms.Aisen said the whole width and length of the parking lot. She asked if they are suggesting proposed construction for these people even though it is not their property? Mr.Carpaneto said if Mr.Novack builds it,the Town will take it over. Ms.Reader said if Mr.Novack builds it,he may not want the Town to take it over. Mr.Gaita asked if the students currently walk across the pathway at the current entrance and exit? Ms.Reader said yes. Mr.Gaita said around the corner there's a painted,striped area that gets individuals to Hommocks School. So,it is not at that dangerous bend. He will incorporate a ramp that gets handicapped,wheelchair access completely across. Mr.Gaita said that Mr.Novack pointed out there is a large storm drain at that point. Mr.Novack said a sidewalk cannot be put there. After some discussion,Mr.Gaits said they will accommodate whatever the Town requests. Ms.Reader said with children walking on both sides of the street,the Board wants to make it safe for those children. Ms.Reader's question is whether to put this off for a month for further communication. • Planning Board • September 13,2000 Page 8 Dr.Mason said he thinks it should be acted on. Mr.Davis said it appears to be a request and it doesn't appear to be suggesting that there is an impact caused by this action. Ms.Reader said it also asked about revising the parking to 90 degree spaces instead of angle parking to maximize the area available for a sidewalk and asked for an explanation. Mr. Carpaneto said one other suggestion told to him late in the day today is that the 18 ft.should be reduced to 15 ft.where the openings are which would hinder the attempt of passing two cars in an 18 ft. wide area. Ms.Reader asked who made that suggestion. Mr.Carpaneto said the Allan Davis'people spoke to Mr.Altieri late today,because it will eliminate the potential to pass two vehicles in a single opening. After some discussion,Mr.Cohen said wouldn't the angle prevent one from going out the in driveway. Mr.Carpaneto said it would. Mr.Gaita said it is a good suggestion. It is simple and helps accommodate the parking. Dr. Mason said that is just the entrance way. By squaring the angle on the spaces, it provides less maneuvering in the isles. Ms. Reader said she doesn't understand the reasoning, as it states it will increase the space for the sidewalk. She asked how big the asphalt walk will be. Mr.Gaits said it will be 5 ft. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Carpaneto how wide sidewalks are. Mr.Carpaneto said that depends. Mr.Capicotto said it depends,sometimes 5 ft.or narrower. Ms.Reader asked if 5 ft.is within normal range,which Mr.Capicotto verified. Ms.Reader asked if signage will be provided to define the one-way operation. Mr.Gaits said absolutely. They are planning to do that. Ms.Reader asked about item#4,"install a stop bar at the exit drive". Mr.Carpaneto said that is a painted white stripe. Ms.Reader asked about item#5,"continue the aluminum fence across the grassed area between drives to better define it as a pedestrian refuge". He said he is doing that anyway. Mr.Gaits said there actually are two aluminum fences. There is one that is deteriorated,which they are taking out. The new aluminum fence that the Town put up,will be shortened to this point. Sections of it will be removed. Ms.Reader said he is not planning to put another one up between the two drives. Planning Board • September 13,2000 Page 9 Mr.Gaita said no. Mr.Carpaneto said the fencing is probably the inside edge. Ms.Reader said his idea is it is better defined as a pedestrian refuge. Ms.Reader asked what will be between the two driveways. Ms.Gaits said it is curbed grass,well defined. Putting a fence could cause interference with vision site coming in and out. It is better to be clear. Mr.Carpaneto said he agrees with Mr.Gaita. Mr.Gaits and Mr.Novack said they will coordinate with the Town. Mr.Capicotto said either way,that is off the site and doesn't fall under the purview anyway. Ms.Reader asked if there were any comments from the public. Alkam Oral,of 5 Hommocks Road,addressed the Board. Mr.Oral said he has brought up issues on this several years ago. He said narrowing the entrance to 15 ft.may be a good idea. Everything seems right. He wishes some concentration be made for the Old Hommocks Road as the pavement is not being maintained. He discussed the traffic problems in that area. He said he has no problem with the parking. Mr.Gaits said there is an existing concrete block wall and that will not be extended. Mr.Oral talked about the traffic and said he does not know if that is under this Board's jurisdiction. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Carpaneto if that was a concern for the Building Department or Highway Department. Mr.Carpaneto said that was the Highway Department matter. He will give that message to them. Ms.Reader suggested Mr.Oral contact the Town supervisor by letter and tell her it's a problem. She said the department head will also bring it to the attention of the Highway Department. Mr.Oral said he thinks there is a proposal for the parking lot. Mr.Gaits commented that it might improve Mr.Oral's situation with the exit going out,because many people don't want to come back around. It is easier for them to get out this way. They are pulled in a direction to all go out that way. It will minimize the problem,with the people exiting by the new layout. Ms.Reader thanked Mr.Oral. Ms. Reader asked if there was anything further from the professional staff. There being no further comments,on a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Aisen,it was unanimously Z1 RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. Mr.Davis discussed proposed changes made to the draft Negative Declaration,that have to do with the Allan Davis report. He hasn't discussed the changes with Mr.Capicotto,although it was reviewed. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 10 O Mr.Papazian asked why are they there at all. Mr.Davis said it is the Board's obligation to take a hard look at areas of potential impact. The only one here worthy of notice is traffic. By acknowledging that the Board has read and considered the report before reaching the conclusion that there is no impact,the Board articulates the basis of its conclusion. Ms.Reader asked Board members if they all have a copy of the Negative Declaration to be reviewed. She asked if they wanted it read aloud or would they prefer to read it themselves. The Board decided to read it themselves. Ms.Reader said that Mr.Cohen just indicated to her he has a professional business relationship with Mr. Gaita,which he would like on the record. Mr.Cohen said he has a professional business relationship with Mr.Gaits and accordingly on advice of counsel,will be recusing himself from this matter. Mr.Davis said he does not think there is a formal conflict,but said nevertheless,Mr.Cohen's decision is appropriate. Mr.Davis said,just to be clear,that Mr.Cohen had informed him prior to the beginning of the hearing that he was not going to participate either in the discussion or the vote. Acknowledging it now is a formality. The decision was made before. Ms.Reader said Mr.Cohen had discussed it with her as well. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms. Aisen,the Negative Declaration,as proposed with modifications,is APPROVED,4-1. Mr.Cohen recused himself: The Blockbuster Video,located at 1331 Boston Post Road(the"Property"),has submitted an application, dated July 17,2000 to the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board for site plan approval of parking lot alterations(the"Proposed Action"). The Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R.§§617.4 and 617.5;Town of Mamaroneck Code§§92-7(A)and 92-7(B). The EAF submitted by the applicant reveals that there are no potential impacts. The proposed alterations will result in an increase in available parking spaces and a safer flow into,through,and out of the parking lot. The Town's Consulting Engineer,Dolph Rotfeld Engineering,P.C.,has reviewed the application,and has visited the Property. Based on this review and visit,Dolph Rotfeld Engineering has indicated that(1)no unsafe conditions were observed either on the Property or at the relevant two intersections that could result in a significant impact if the Proposed Action were implemented;and(2)the Proposed Action will result in an improved traffic flow into and out of the site. Based on its review, Dolph Rotfeld Engineering further concludes that the traffic changes proposed are minor and will result in no significant traffic impacts. Moreover,the Town's Traffic Consultant,Allan Davis Associates,reviewed the Proposed Action to assess whether or not the proposed changes will have any effect on Hommocks Road vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The traffic consultant did not identify any such impacts, but nevertheless, recommended the following changes to the plan: 1. Eliminate the striped pedestrian walkway and construct a sidewalk along New Hommocks road extending the existing concrete walk from Boston Post Road. Revising the parking to ninety- • Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 11 degree spaces instead of angle parking may be preferred to maximize the area available for a sidewalk. 2. Provide handicap ramps and crosswalks at both drives. 3. Provide signage to define the one-way operation of the drives including Do Not Enter signs for the exit drive. 4. Install a painted stop bar at the exit drive. 5. Continue the aluminum fence across the grassed area between drives to better define it as a pedestrian refuge. However,the proposed changes represent suggested improvements and,to the extent they are desirable, are not required to mitigate impacts of the proposed action. Accordingly, the Planning Board finds that the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on environmental conditions in the area. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, to grant the Site Plan, as presented is APPROVED,4-1. Mr.Cohen recused himself: WHEREAS,BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO/James Gaita has submitted an application for Site Plan Approval Q for the premises located at 1331 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411,Lot 119;and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has been designated lead agency and has conducted and completed proceedings pursuant to SEQRA;and WHEREAS,the Planning Board has reviewed all of the submissions by,and on behalf of the applicant, all correspondence from Town officials,the Consulting Engineer to the Town,the Board of Architectural Review and the Coastal Zone Management Commission and members of the public,and Public Hearing have been held pursuant to notice on September 13,2000; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that Site Plan Approval is hereby granted for the application submitted by BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO/James Gaita,subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein: I. General Requirements All site work, landscaping, storm water drainage and treatment systems shall be in accordance with the plans submitted,as follows: a. The entrance way on New Hommocks Road be made with a 15 ft.opening as opposed to 18 ft.opening as shown on the plan revised August 25,2000. b. Provide handicap ramps and crosswalks at both drives on the New Hommocks Road side,ingress and egress. c. That signage define a one-way operation on the drives. 1111-0) d. Put a Do Not Enter sign on the exit drive at that place. e. The applicant install a painted stop bar at the exit drive. Planning Board • September 13,2000 Page 12 II. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Drainage This approval is subject to final approval of drainage plans by the Town's Consulting Engineer. B. Erosion and Sediment Control-(During Construction) 1. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be based on the standards presented in the Town of Mamaroneck Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Law. 2. The control plan shall include a construction timetable and an inspection schedule. Ms.Reader advised Mr.Gaita to speak with Mr.Carpaneto regarding the traffic project. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Davis if it is necessary for the court reporter to be present for the demapping issue. Mr.Davis said it is not a public hearing,and he thinks not,as long as there are accurate Minutes. Last time he was present at the Board for a demapping,it was believed to be unnecessary. © Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Frank Nask III-992 Old White Plains Road-Block 315,Lot 171 Scott Williams,the project manager,with Daniel S.Natchez and Associates,located at 916 East Boston Post Road,Mamaroneck,appeared. He said he is before the Board representing Frank and Susan Nask. Also present is John Mancini,the architect. He said the Nask's are proposing a 2-story residence at 992 Old White Plains Road. What is before the Board for consideration is an attachment to an existing sewer manhole that needs to be extended through the wetlands 100 ft. buffer. The 2-story residence is in accordance with all the zoning regulations. The work is also being conducted according to Westchester Best Management Practices. The only work within the 100 ft.wetlands buffer area,is the removal of some debris that remains there from a previous sewer line that involves some concrete and a piece of pipe. The connection of the sewer line from the proposed residence would have to extend approximately 25 ft.to 30 ft. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Williams to show how the sewer lines run,which he proceeded to do. Ms.Reader asked what is the wetlands. Mr.Carpaneto said the pond. Ms.Reader asked where the pond is. Mr.Williams pointed out the pond,the dotted line. He said the rest of the wall was disturbed when the sewer line was done. There is also a water main that runs underneath the pond on Country Road. Mr.Nask pointed out the location of the existing sewer manhole. He said they are proposing a sewer line that would extend a gravity fed line extending from the southwest corner of the proposed residence down to a manhole and then gravity fed to the existing sewer manhole. Mr.Papazian said Mr.Mancini said there was excavation there before. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 13 Mr.Nask said there was an old pipe there and portions of it had been removed. He said there are a few more houses up that way. It is a 6 in.line that comes out of the manhole. Down along this section is a 4 in.line that is a service line from one of the other houses to the manhole. When work was done to install the manhole a lot of debris was dumped,most of it from the pond;huge pieces of slate and a couple piles of soil dumped. Mr.Papazian asked if it was an active line. Mr.Nask said yes,the 4 in.line is an active line. There is a 6 in.main that runs under the pond that comes up alongside to Old White Plains Road. Mr.Capicotto asked if it was just a service line. Mr.Nask said yes. The line from the house is a 4 in.cast iron line. Ms.Reader pointed out that it says an 8 in.PVC. Mr.Nask said that is a typo. It is a 4 in.cast iron service line. Ms.Reader asked if that needs to be changed,because if approved,it has to be reflected in the plan. Mr.Mancini(?)asked if it is a requirement that it be cast iron. © Mr.Carpaneto said yes,it is the Town Code. PVC can be used above ground in the house. Mr.Papazian said next to the manhole cover,how will he run the line. Mr.Mancini said there is no other way to go. Mr.Williams said the other alternative is,there is a line up in the street which would require installing a pumping system and a significant amount of rock excavation. It is a very time-consuming,expensive approach. Ms.Reader said then the plans need to be revised showing a 4 in.cast iron,not PVC,pipe. Mr.Nask said where the line comes through,it sank after all the work that was done. It has to be graded off. He is not going to raise it. Mr.Carpaneto asked if it was at the edge of the pond,back 30 ft./40 ft. Mr.Nask said yes. He pointed out the section that has sunk the most. He would like to have a back yard that his children can play in. Mr.Capicotto asked if the proposed wood deck will have spaces. Mr.Nask said it will be a cedar deck,free standing. Mr.Davis said for SEQRA purposes,it is a Type II action. There is no SEQRA review of the project. © Ms.Reader said as chairman of Freshwater Wetlands,if there is draining on the pipe,the Board has to look at drainage,runoff,etc. Mr. Williams said they already obtained approval from the Erosion Control Board of the Town of Mamaroneck. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 14 Ms.Reader said the Board is reviewing an old plan,because of this. Because he got an erosion control permit from the Town,doesn't necessarily mean that the Board automatically finds it passes the Freshwater Wetlands issues. Mr.Carpaneto said that is a separate application. Mr.Capicotto said it can be done together with Freshwater Wetlands or separately. Ms.Reader said because of that connection,the whole project is in front of the Board which may lead to other questions and may lead to some other recommended modifications. Mr. Carpaneto said that Dolf Rotfeld's approval on that permit is stating that what was submitted and proposed to do for the surface water erosion control law will work for them as far as the engineering facet. Mr.Williams said in other words what the Board is considering is not only the connection to the manhole itself,but the connection from the house. Ms.Reader said not only the connection, but the whole thing; the deck, the house, the change from pervious to impervious land covering,grass. Mr.Davis said there is nothing else to say. Mr.Nask's reading of the code is correct,because it refers to"projects"being submitted,rather than portions of projects. After further discussion,Mr.Davis said the presentation at the public hearing doesn't have to get into levels of detail of all calculations. He said © that Mr.Nask does have to be prepared to explain the calculations,if questions arise. Mr.Nask said most of it is stone. Ms.Reader said he is going from a natural setting to pouring cement. Mr.Nask said there were calculations for all the drainage,etc. Ms.Reader said that is going to have to be presented and it will have to be referred to the CZMC. Mr.Davis said it has to be referred to the CZMC and the Westchester County Planning Board. After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said that the Town owns the property,but as Old White Plains Road is a county road,it has to be referred. He said he normally sends the entire agenda package. Ms.Reader asked why the referrals are necessary. Mr.Davis said because the Town Law and the County Law have different standards when a referral is required. About a year ago,it was concluded it is easier to refer everything on the agenda and have them state they have no interest,then it is to figure out what has to be referred and what doesn't. Mr.Nask asked if they got a copy of this. Ms.Reader said not yet. It will be referred tonight. Ms.Aisen asked what the Erosion Control committee does. © Mr.Capicotto said it is his firm. They review the plans to make sure that the planned work complies with Chapter 95 of the Town Code,which is the Erosion,Sediment Control Law. That is done for any addition that is over 100 sq. ft. Then they check for silt fence entrance,construction entrance,calculations for drywell,etc. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 15 Mr.Cohen asked the square footage of the house. Mr.Nask said he believes it's approximately 4,500 sq.ft. Mr.Papazian said they have done work already,as far as the runoff is concerned. A lot of the figures are the same. He said they just haven't given the presentation as far as whether it is a negative runoff. Mr.Williams said if it pleases the commission,they can walk through some of the drainage issues that the Board may have and explain how they intend to handle this. He said Mr.Capicotto has reviewed this as well. Mr.Papazian said Mr.Nask should be prepared at the Public Hearing. Ms.Reader said,before the Public Hearing,it should be discussed with Mr.Capicotto and the CZMC. Mr.Nask said it was reviewed by Mr. Capicotto's office,because there were some changes that were required when they did review it. Mr.Nask said the changes were made. Ms.Reader asked if this is a Type II action,which Mr.Davis verified. She said it is being referred to the CZMC and the Westchester County Planning Board,which Mr.Davis verified. QMr.Papazian asked if the driveway could be asphalt. Mr.Nask said it may be asphalt or pavers. He said it was figured as blacktop. Pavers and blacktop have the same runoff and a little more drainage,but not much. Ms.Reader asked if Mr.Nask is an engineer. Mr.Nask said he is not an engineer. He is in the septic tank business in Mamaroneck. Mr.Carpaneto said once there is an available sewer line,he connect to it. Ms.Reader asked if there were any other questions. She informed Mr.Nask that it was referred to the CZMC,which meets the 4th Tuesday of the month. She advised Mr.Nask to speak to Marguerite,in the Building Department,for specifics. Mr.Nask said when he makes the revision on the sewer line,how many copies will be needed. Mr.Carpaneto said 12 copies will be needed. Mr.Carpaneto informed Mr.Nask to come into the office to make the corrections on the current plan. Mr.Davis said if there are further changes from the CZMC, it may be worth discussing them before making copies. Mr.Carpaneto advised Mr.Nask to hold off revising the plan,until after the CZMC meeting. Ms. Reader advised Mr. Nask, after the CZMC meeting if anything is recommended, to talk to Mr. © Carpaneto and Mr.Capicotto to see if they are recommending anything else. He may want to incorporate those. Ms.Reader asked when submission is due. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 16 Mr.Roma said at least two weeks before the meeting,as packets are sent to Board member one week before the meeting for review. On a motion made and,seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the October 11,2000 Planning Board meeting at 8:15 p.m. Mr.Nask asked if the CZMC is a one meeting deal. Dr. Mason said it can be, if the calculations are correct and all the information is included in the submission as a complete application. After some discussion,Ms.Reader informed Mr.Nask that the CZMC acts as an advisor to the Planning Board. Dr.Mason said the CZMC findings will be sent by letter to the Planning Board. The CZMC will be meeting on September 26,2000 at 8:00 p.m. Mr.Capicotto said if he has any questions to call the Building Department. Chairperson Reader read the next matter as follows: © DEMAPPING OF VINE STREET Mr.Carpaneto informed the Board that Mr.Altieri,the Town Administrator,asked him late in the day to speak about this matter as he had a Town Board meeting this evening and could not attend the Planning Board meeting. He said he found a couple of problems with the memo. Mr.Carpaneto said the map the Board received is not the part of Vine Street that is being demapped. The part of Vine Street being demapped is this stretch of land where the parking meters are,as opposed to where the gas station is. That street cannot be demapped,because that gas station needs frontage. On the tax map,the yellow area is not being demapped and pointed out the area involved. A discussion ensued. Mr.Carpaneto said there is currently parallel parking to the curb. After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said with the demapping that the Town will be doubling the amount of parking spaces. Dr.Mason asked why it has to be demapped. Mr.Carpaneto said because everybody thinks it's a street,or it's being used as a street. They want the Planning Board to know that this is happening. They are not going to call it a street anymore. It is now going to become a parking lot. Mr.Papazian asked how they will get out. Q Mr.Carpaneto said they will still do the same exact thing. They will still go out past the cleaners and the automobile shop. Mr.Papazian asked how the meters will be placed. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 17 Mr.Carpaneto said the meters will be placed diagonally. Mr.Cohen said the width of the street doesn't change. Mr.Carpaneto said no,it doesn't change. Mr.Cohen said the real change is the physical location of the spots. Mr. Carpaneto said nothing happens to the park. The only thing they are doing is taking out parallel parking. Mr.Papazian asked if there is enough width to do all this. Mr.Carpaneto said there is enough width. Dr.Mason asked if that changes the priority for the street getting plowed. Mr.Cohen asked if anyone had to be notified about this. Mr.Davis said certainly not from the Planning Board action. Whether the Town Board has to,he does not know. All that the Planning Board is doing is commenting on the proposal they are considering. Ms.Reader said the Planning Board is not demapping it. The Planning Board is just seen as an advisory to the Town. Mr.Carpaneto said they are adding 25 spaces. A discussion ensued regarding obtaining a permit parking spot and the cost of same. Mr.Carpaneto said it is nice wide thoroughfare at that point. Mr.Papazian said as long as it's wide enough,he doesn't see any problem. Mr.Cohen said that people park here to pick up passengers. Will it appear like a closed off area or look like a through street. Mr.Capicotto said the parking lane is going to get narrower,once diagonal spaces are put in. After further discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said that the cleaner has a couple of spaces in front of his store on the opposite side of the street. Ms.Reader said she has no problem with it. The other Board members also have no problem with it. Mr.Carpaneto said he will report back. Mr.Davis said Mr.Carpaneto should write a letter. Mr.Carpaneto said he will pull the file on Ward Lane to see how that was handled. Ms.Reader said after doing so,Mr.Carpaneto can sign her name. Planning Board September 13,2000 Page 18 OTHER BUSINESS Ms.Reader said she received a letter in the mail from the City of New Rochelle,directed to her as a chairperson,which said"Enclosed please find a copy of a site plan application made to the Planning Board to merge two lots and alter/expand a one-story commercial building on.34 of an acre in an OB zone. The property is located at 6 East Main Street(Boston Post Road),Block 1 Lot 29." A discussion ensued regarding where this is located. Ms.Reader continued reading the letter. "The property is within 500 feet of the Town of Mamaroneck. In order for the Planning Board to take Lead Agency at its meeting on September 26,2000,and make a decision on this application without waiting another 30 day period,we would appreciate receiving a letter indicating that your agency has no object to the Planning Board being designated Lead Agency." Ms.Reader said she has no objection and asked if any Board members have any objection. There was none. After some discussion,Mr.Davis said this letter is required to be sent to all involved agencies. They want to conduct a coordinated review,so that their Negative Declaration will bind all agencies. They have to give notice to everybody else who has a decision making role, an opportunity to claim the role for themselves. He doesn't know why the Town of Mamaroneck is an involved agency in that approval. A discussion ensued. Mr.Davis said an involved agency is an agency which has a discretionary action to take,such as issuing a permit or granting funding. Ms.Reader said the Town has nothing. Mr.Davis said there is certainly no reason not to accommodate them. Ms. Reader asked if the letter should say that the Planning Board has determined that they have no objection to City of New Rochelle Planning Board or the City of New Rochelle declaring themselves Lead Agency. She asked if it has to be signed by her or Mr.Carpaneto. Mr.Davis said Mr.Carpaneto can say that the Board has instructed him to handle this matter. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 11,2000. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Marguerite oma,Recording Secretary