Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_01_10 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK rlr. January 10, 1996, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Absent: Edward Gonye Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Karen Brideau, Public Stenographer Kazazes and Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue, Suite 24 Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:26 p.m. +411W APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Dr. Mason seconded by Ms. Harrington, the amended Minutes for December 13, 1995 were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING -SUBDIVISION - Coventry Court/Demetriades Developers, Inc. -1006 Fenimore Road - Block 202 Lots 30 & 110 On a motion duly made and seconded, 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. Mr.Vanoli appeared representing the applicant,and said that since the last meeting the landscape architect, Mr. Richard Horsman, who was unable to attend the hearing was working with Steve Coleman from the Coastal Zone Management Committee and prepared revised sets of landscape plans that he presented and discussed with the Board. Mr. Coleman and Mr. Horsman created a master list which would perform two functions. One was to increase the varieties of species and the second was to provide a habitat and food for wildlife. Mr. Horsman then generated a plan and continued to work with Mr. Coleman to provide a plan acceptable to the Board. Additionally,Mr. Vanoli has shown the trees that will be saved, which was much more extensive than originally proposed. Mr. Vanoli explained that the variety of plants and trees has been changed. Before there were 14 varieties of trees, now there are 19 varieties. In the plants, before there were 5 varieties, now there are 10 varieties. There are 172 existing trees, of those 40 trees are basically dead or diseased, leaving approximately 132 trees. Of those 132 trees, 41 will be saved Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 2 \r► essentially removing approximately 91 trees. Mr. Vanoli said the applicant will be planting 551 new trees, 18 ft. to 16 ft., plus 1,000 shrubs, 500, 5 ft. to 8 ft. tall and the other 500, 1 ft. to 2 ft. Mr. Vanoli stated that the final plan is a good compromise between the original proposal and what the Board had expressed. The applicant now has an area, between lots 2 and 3 and the corner of lot 3, which saves a buffer or habitat area for the wildlife. Mr. Coleman said they were creating more of a mass type planting, so that you maximize diversity of different trees and shrubs. Dr. Mason asked if Mr. Coleman had a conclusion regarding the above-referenced. Mr. Coleman said he feels the applicant has made a very good effort taking the recommendations from Coastal Zone and the Planning Board under consideration in the revised plan and feels they have accomplished the concerns for increasing diversity of species and enhancing the existing buffer. Mr. Vanoli said additionally the applicant has agreed to put in gravel driveways, with the exception of the turn-around area by the apron of the garage and the right-of-way, which by state law is 50 ft. and must have blacktop pursuant to Town regulations. Mr. Vanoli said comments that had arisen to date were satisfied, and requests that the hearing be closed and the project be given preliminary approval with conditions as deemed appropriate. Typically the application is then reviewed by staff and Health Department approval and Westchester Joint Water Works in this case. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments from the audience either representing Coastal Zone in addition to Mr. Coleman's comments, or anyone with personal comments. There being no comments, Ms. Reader said there is the issue of the language with respect to the easement relating to the drainage. Mr. Silverberg said that the Board can vote, subject to approval by the engineer and the attorney as to the language for easements and dedication of the road. Ms. Reader stated there was a recommendation that there be a condition that the plat and the recorded instruments shall state the perimeters and buffers will be planted, preserved and maintained as a natural habitat as provided in the plans of January 10, 1996. Mr. Silverberg said a notation will be put on the final plat and recorded instruments reflecting these conditions. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Vanoli if new plans had been submitted with the cul-de-sac showing gravel roads rather than blacktop. Mr. Vanoli said new plans had not been submitted showing the gravel roads, but would do so in the final plans. On a motion was made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments by members of the Board with respect to the application, and Dr. Mason said that Mr. Coleman's efforts, Coastal Zone efforts and the Board has produced a better �rr plan which will be a better subdivision ecologically for both the applicant and the Town. Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 3 Ms. Harrington said that she feels the plan is one of the best she has seen, and the cooperation from the applicant was much appreciated. On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this amended plan has no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. Ms. Reader stated, at this time, that the Board received a letter today from the Fire Department indicating that they have reviewed the plans and have found them to meet with their approval in regards to the locations of fire hydrants, the proposed road widths and circle radius and emergency vehicles. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the following Preliminary Subdivision was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Demetriades Developers, Inc., by James J. Vanoli, P.E., have submitted an application for Preliminary 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 preliminary Subdivision Approval on December 13, 1995, January 10, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that preliminary Subdivision Approval is hereby granted to Coventry Court/Demetriades Developers, Inc. - 1006 Fenimore Road-Block 202 Lots 30& 110 pursuant to their application and subject the plans as originally submitted June 29, 1995 and as amended by the (11111/ revised plans and plant list dated January 10, 1996 and to all terms and conditions set forth below: I. General Requirements 1. All pavement, including portions of driveways, within the right-of-way of the new common access road (Coventry Court) shall be blacktop. The individual property driveways shall be gravel from the right-of-way of Coventry Court up to a point near the garage, from which point blacktop will be used for the garage apron; 2. The right-of-way of Coventry Court shall be improved according to the Town standards and specifications and offered for dedication to the Town; 3. A stop sign shall be placed at the southwest corner of the intersection of Fenimore Road and Coventry Court in accordance with the Traffic Committee recommendation and the New York State Traffic Control Devices Manual, together with approval from the Town Board. The applicant shall apply to the Town Board for approval of the placement of said stop sign. 4. The subdivision plat and recorded instruments shall state that the perimeter buffers shall be planted, preserved, and maintained as a natural habitat as provided in the revised plan and plant list, dated January 10, 1996. The language of this notation shall be approved by the Town Attorney and Consulting Engineer. 5. Also noted on the plat and all recorded instruments shall be an easement, the language, location, and dimensions of which shall be approved by the Town Attorney and Consulting Engineer. Said easement shall obligate the owners of Lot 4 to maintain the stormwater detention system as shown on the plans and .1011. Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 4 that an emergency maintenance agreement shall be entered into with the Town to permit the Town to make any repairs or perform maintenance if the owners of Lot 4 are unable to do so within a reasonable period of time, and that if the Town has to make such repairs or perform such maintenance, that the Town will charge the owners of Lot 4 for such work as an assessment to Town taxes. II. Compliance with SEAR A. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations of State policy, to the maximum extent practicable from the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out or approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects, including the effects disclosed in the relevant Environmental Assessment Form; and B. All practicable means will be taken in carrying out or approving the action to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects disclosed in the relevant Environmental Assessment Forms and addendum thereto and all special requirements and modifications set forth herein. III. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Drainage 1. The applicant must comply with the Town Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Law so that the rate of runoff from the property is not increased after construction. Detailed design shall be consistent with the preliminary stormwater detention system shown on the June 29, 1995 plans and the June 20, 1995 Drainage Report prepared by James J. Vanoli, P.E. 2. The filing of the signed, final subdivision plat shall not be made until the drainage system easement and maintenance agreement with the Town, prepared subject to the approval of the Town Counsel, has been filed with the Westchester County Clerk. B. Utilities 1. The utility plans shall be coordinated with the landscaping plans to avoid interference with placement and subsequent growth of plantings and the conduct of repair and maintenance activities. C. Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Construction 1. Erosion and sedimentation control shall be in accordance with the Town Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Erosion and sediment control plans shall be approved by the Town Consulting Engineer prior to commencement of construction. A control plan shall be submitted which shall include a construction timetable and inspection schedule. D. Blasting 1. All rock removal required in conjunction with construction of the roadway, utilities, and residences shall be by mechanical means only. Blasting shall not be permitted on this site. Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 5 E. Trees 1. Compliance with the Tree Preservation Law of the Town of Mamaroneck is required before a Building Permit shall be issued. F. Required Documents and Inspections 1. The applicant shall provide one Mylar reproducible set of approved drawings to the Town and one copy to the office of the Town Consulting Engineer. 2. The applicant shall submit to the Town one Mylar reproducible set showing the "as built" conditions for utility and sewer connections prior to the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residences to be constructed in this subdivision. Ms. Reader commented that Mr. Vanoli had been extraordinarily clear to layman and not only with his cooperation with concerns with the various Town committees, but it was a pleasure listening to him present this case and wished Mr. Vanoli the best of luck. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING -SITE PLAN APPLICATION - Robert Stanziale/Frank & Antoinette Aurrichio - 633-635 Fifth Avenue-Block 132 Lot 175&643 a continuation from the December 13, 1995 meeting and stated that although there are two separate applications,one for a site plan and one for a special use permit, Block 132 Lot 175 &643 the issues that are presented for each application are similar or the same and the Public Hearing will be conducted for both items 2 and 3,PUBLIC HEARING-SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Robert Staroiale - SavATree - 635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 &643 On a motion duly made and seconded, 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. Mr. Stan7iale appeared representing SavATree and Frank&Antoinette Aurrichio. At the last meeting the matter was referred to the Board of Architectural Review(B.A.R.) for their comments and concerns which the Board had received. One item which the review board had mentioned that they would like the applicant to do regarded landscaping at the front of the property. The B.A.R. had recommended the fence be relocated behind the shrubbery. Mr. Aurrichio feels the shrubbery in that area would be useless, due to the fact that the weather conditions are not predictable and the shrubbery would be damaged by vehicular traffic after one season. Mr. Aurrichio suggested landscaping behind the fence at least 6 ft. high,allowing the landscaping to grow through the fence. Mr. Stanziale said the other item of concern was with SavATree. At the December 13, 1995 meeting Mr. Klein of SavATree had stated there would be no storage of pesticides on the property. Since that time and despite a condition that Mr. Klein said he would observe, another member of SavATree declined to abide by that condition and would like to be allowed to have pesticides stored on the property in the proper container or shed, DEC approved, on the property. However, no one from SavATree was present at the meeting to elaborate. Dr. Mason said SavATree is making a very substantial commitment in order to make the storage area. To consider this, everyone has to be present and know the circumstances. Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 6 11100 Ms. Reader said plans should be presented in advance regarding this matter. Mr. Stanziale said he would like to separate the two applications at this point, allowing Mr. Aurrichio to continue filing plans for the existing building for the office space. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Silverberg if the site plan application requires the Board to consider issues with respect to the storage of pesticides. If that is a factor, then both the applications will be adjourned. Mr. Silverberg said the site plan is for the entire site, and if approved can have a condition on it that there will be no storage of pesticides on the site. The special use permit applicant would then have to reapply with a new site plan showing the pesticide storage. Ms. Reader said the B.A.R. recommended the rear property line have a berm created approximately 8 ft. high across the rear, accomplished within reasonable time; i.e. one year, and possibly at a later date consideration be given to planting;the purpose of the berm being to provide screening in lieu of some other method. Ms. Reader said the Board has received a letter dated December 13, 1995 from Beatrice Powers and Ms. Reader assumed that this letter was referring to the berm on the property. Mr. Stanziale said the letter was in reference to the berm that does exist, and Mr. Stanziale said the applicant would agree to extend that berm. Ms. Harrington stated that the Board should approve the site plan application, if possible to allow the applicant to proceed further. Dr. Mason stated that their should be an affirmative declaration made that there will be no storage of pesticides on the property by either entity. Dr. Mason made a motion, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved to divide the Public Hearing with respect to the two applications, #2 and #3, the Site Plan application and the Special Use Permit of 635 Fifth Avenue, Block 132 Lot 175 and 643, and to adjourn the Public Hearing to February 14, 1996 for SavATree Special Use Permit, 635 Fifth Avenue, Block 132 Lot 175 and 643, since representatives from SavATree are not present this evening. The Public Hearing then continued on the site plan application of Frank and Antoinette Aurrichio,635 Fifth Avenue, Block 132 Lot 175 and 643. Ms. Reader said the B.A.R.'s first recommendation was the changing of the position of the chain link fence. Dr. Mason said it would be desirable but clearly because of the contour of the road a real problem, and the plantings are not likely to survive. All the other conditions of the B.A.R., Mr. Aurrichio agreed to comply with. Mr. Trachtman said with respect to the construction of the berm it is important that there is no adverse impact on the Thruway property. Mr. Aurrichio explained there was a fence and a road with some trees. Mr. Aurrichio said the distance is 6 ft. from the fence. Mr. Aurrichio said the trees are on his property, and the slope of the berm will be at the same elevation as the ground in back of the barrier. Mr. Trachtman said he was concerned there should be no runoff from the slope of the berm onto the Thruway and would like to see a detailed draft of the site plan showing the berm. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following was unanimously ADOPTED: Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 7 WHEREAS, Robert Stanziale, architect, and Frank and Antoinette Aurrichio has submitted an application for Site Plan Approval located at 633-635 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 175 and 643; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has been designated lead agency and has conducted and completed proceedings pursuant to SEQR; 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 Hearings have been held pursuant to notice on December 13, 1995 and January 10, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that Site Plan Approval is hereby granted for the application submitted by Robert Stanziale, architect, and Frank and Antoinette Aurrichio as follows: I. General Requirements All site work, landscaping, storm water drainage and treatment systems shall be in accordance with the plans submitted, as follows: 1. Subject to the conditions, 1 through 7, as listed in a letter dated January 9, 1996 from the Board of Architectural Review except as modified below; 2. Revised plans detailing the berm as required in item 6 of the Board of Architectural Review letter dated January 9, 1996 be presented and approved by the Town engineer; 3. There will be no storage of pesticides or herbicides on the site or any equipment stored on the site by Mr. Aurrichio or any other tenant; 4. Modify condition #1 of the January 9, 1996 Board of Architectural Review letter, that the chain link fence will not have to be moved, but that there will be new additional plantings as required by the Board of Architectural Review behind the chain link fence; 5. That the plantings shall be allowed to grow through the fencing, so as to create a screen of the entire fencing. II. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Drainage 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. Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 8 Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION - Winged Foot Golf Club - 851 Fenimore Road - Block 347 Lot 1 The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Mr. Alonzi, the Golf Course Superintendent, appeared representing Winged Foot Golf Club. Mr. Alonzi stated at the last meeting the proposal was reviewed. The pesticide safety building that Winged Foot wants to install is a voluntary means of storing pesticides. Dr. Mason said that Judge Pelton represented Winged Foot at the last meeting and there were a couple of questions open. Ms. Reader stated there was concern of the total capacity of storage. Mr. Alonzi said storage would be 80 drums at 55 gallon capacity per drum, a total of 4,400 gallons. The recovery rate 1,460 gallons, approximately 33% Dr. Mason said the specifications that the DEC was referring to was a much higher percentage of the spill that had to be able to be handled, unless there was some indication that spillage could not happen at this rate. Mr. Trachtman said he believed the percentage that the DEC cited in the regulations was 110%, which is NOW much higher than 33%, the New York State Codes of Rules and Regulations, part 595-599, promulgated by the Department of Environmental Conservation in August of 1994. In one of those parts of the regulations he refers to a total containment capacity required equivalent to 110% of the volume of storage that is being provided. The normal connotation of that would be for the above facility where all of the material is stored in one container. What Winged Foot is doing is taking up to 80 individual drums and putting them inside a holding area. This containment area can hold up to 1,360 gallons. Mr. Alonzi said the unit itself will be the containment. In the event of a small leak or leakage the sump is capable of recovering 33% of a leak, but the whole unit itself obviously would never be filled to capacity. Mr. Trachtman said that if DEC were to furnish a letter stating that the containment capacity, whether it be a sump or another method, is acceptable and meets the intent of those regulations, that would be what the Board is looking for. The DEC is looking for a containment of a spill an extra 10% over and above what the storage facility will hold. Mr. Alonzi said Winged Foot is willing to clarify whatever the DEC regulation is,but he has not been able to get plans from the DEC. Nationally the EPA is only asking for 25% recovery on the spillage. Mr. Alonzi asked if a letter from the DEC of New York would be a satisfactory clarification. Dr. Mason said the manufacturer should be able to help in this matter. A detailed discussion followed regarding the design of the facility meeting the requirements of the DEC, and various Board members felt that until the Board received a clearer understanding regarding storage, spillage and recovery, the matter should be adjourned until the February meeting. Mr. Alonzi said the process was started sometime in September of 1995, and Winged Foot would like to have the system in place before the Spring. Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Reader said that if applicant received a letter from the DEC indicating that the proposed storage meets the DEC requirements and if approved by Mr. Trachtman, the Town engineer, Ms. Reader would be willing to give approval of the site plan. Mr. Silverberg said there are two aspects to it. If there is something in the letter that would raise an issue that the Board would want to address, then the Board needs to see the letter. If it is purely a question that the DEC is saying this structure complies with regulations, then certainly Mr. Trachtman and Mr. Jakubowski can look at that letter and make a determination that is adequate to cover that issue. You can indicate that the condition is that the Board has to receive an unequivocable letter from the DEC that this structure meets their requirements. Ms. Harrington said to clarify the issue, the DEC would tell us the percentage requirement or the capacity that this facility has to have as opposed to the DEC sending a letter specify other requirements. Mr. Trachtman stated that the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses review process which uses the state regulations for guidance specifically states that pesticide storage can be considered within the controlled area. In the letter prepared for the review of the permit application, it was stated that the pesticide drums would be stored in the storage facility in accordance with the requirements of part 595 to 599. On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was approved 4-1 as follows: RESOLVED, that this amended plan has no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA on the project as proposed under item 4, FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION -Winged Foot Golf Club-851 Fenimore Road- Block 347 Lot 1 for the construction of the new storage facilities for the pesticide storage and the equipment washdown area. Mr. Darsky was not in favor and voted nay. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Alonzi that in order to proceed the Board would have to receive a letter from the DEC showing that this project is in compliance with regulations, and adjourn the Public Hearing until that time, possibly next month. Mr. Alonzi said he will contact the DEC and get an explanation and clarification on the storage and exactly what the DEC means by recovery percentage. Dr. Cruciani appeared, who lives at 847 Fenimore Road, and would like to know how close the facility is to his property. Mr. Alonzi stated that Dr. Cruciani is at the farthest part of the golf course, and the proposed facility (a prefabricated sealed unit) is closer to Mamaroneck Road by the water tower abutting the existing facility presently on the property. Dr. Cruciani then questioned the percentage recovery system, and Mr. Alonzi said that the objective of Winged Foot would be to do whatever is best. Mr. Alonzi said the spillage hopefully would never be more than what the system is designed to recover, and all that is required is to have a 4 in. concrete berm around the facility to keep whatever spillage there is contained. Mr. Frank Pia appeared and stated the he and the neighbors met with Mr. Alonzi on the previous Saturday due to their concern about the storage of pesticides, and Mr. Alonzi explained the existing facilities and the improvements planned. Mr. Alonzi allayed many of their concerns. Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 10 Dr. Mason made a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing to February 14, 1996, seconded by Ms. Harrington and was unanimously approved. Mr. Alonzi said he would be unable to attend that meeting, but that Judge Pelton would represent Winged Foot. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to February 14, 1996. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tracarico - 771 Forest Avenue - Block 210 Lot 35 Ms. Rosa Tricarico appeared stating that her architect was snowbound and her husband was enroute from Manhattan, however the Board does have the plans and she would proceed. The application is for erecting a new kitchen and a swimming pool. Mr. Trachtman said that the application the Planning Board was responsible for was for the construction of a swimming pool. The Building Department will handle the matter concerning the kitchen as applicant is not expanding a footprint regarding the kitchen. Ms. Tricarico said the property boundary is on the Sheldrake River, and has to approved by the Freshwater Wetlands. Ms. Reader said that she tried to view the property, but was unable to do. Ms. Tricarico stated that the Badger Sports Club and parking lot is behind her home. Mr. Trachtman said that due to the proximity of the proposed construction to the Sheldrake River, the Board needs to have specific elevation information. The applicant needs to have the engineer provide the Board with elevations consistent with the datum used to define the topography as shown on the Town's topographic maps. The Board will try to identify whether or not the construction, including the slopes surrounding the pool, is going to be within the 100 year flood plain. The Board needs to know precisely the proposed grading changes and elevations, as it has to be in the same datum as the elevations shown on the topographic maps. The engineer did not specify what the interval is. Mr. Widulski, P.E., has to specify the National Geodetic Datum. On a motion made by Dr. Mason,seconded by Ms. Harrington the Board unanimously declared as follows: WHEREAS, this Planning Board determines that the proposed action is a Type I action and that this Board is the appropriate Lead Agency with respect to Environmental Quality Review; and Mr. Silverberg said a referral should be made the CZMC. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved this matter is adjourned for a Public Hearing on February 14, 1996. Ms. Reader informed Ms. Tricarico that if the engineer has any questions, he should contact Mr. Trachtman or Mr. Jakubowski. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: Planning Board January 10, 1996 Page 11 APPLICATION FOR EXTENDING FILING FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT - Paul McCarthy - 26 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52 Mr. William M. Spelman appeared representing the applicant stating that the applicant got approval August 9, 1995 but will not be able to file within the six (6) months required. After some discussion, Mr. Silverberg said that the Board can grant up to two additional ninety (90)day extension periods. Dr. Mason made a motion, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved that the applicant be granted a 90-day extension. Mr. Silverberg said there was an add-on to the agenda, the fence law which is a referral from the Town Board under the Town Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance has to be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation. Mr. Silverberg said that the Zoning Board has been inundated with various applications for fences over the last few years, and in addition the Town has had a fair amount of litigation on the meaning of some of the terms relating to fences and walls. He referred to a draft amendment which provides definitions and sets limits for side and rear yard fences to a height of 5 ft. in residential areas. Various applications have come before the Zoning Board seeking more than 4 ft., particularly on side and rear yards and the Zoning Board fairly regularly grants variances for 5 ft. A recommendation is needed from the Planning Board to determine whether or not the Planning Board feels this is an appropriate amendment. Mr. Silverberg said the other explanatory requirement deals with gates, posts, capitals and pillars. The • Town is presently engaged in litigation as to whether or not gates, posts, and pillars are actually part of the fence and are therefore subject to the height limitation and also provide for decorative aspects exceeding the height of the fence up to 12 in. in gates, posts, capitals and pillars. Dr. Mason asked if there is a percentage of the fence that can exceed the height. Mr. Silverberg said basically gates, posts, capitals and pillars can exceed the height by that amount, 12 in. After some discussion, Mr. Silverberg will make a recommendation to the Town that no more than 10% of the total length of the fence or wall including gates, posts, capitals, pillars may have such ornamental or decorative features which exceed the height limitations. A motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington and was unanimously approved to recommend the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment on Walls and Fences with the modifications as proposed. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 14, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Dr. Mason and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:35 p.m. p.m. 1110 ki.j) Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary