HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_10_11 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
OCTOBER 11, 1995, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman
Edward Gonye
C. Alan Mason
Richard H. Darsky
Absent: Linda S. Harrington
Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel
Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:16 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• On a motion made by Dr. Mason and seconded by Mr. Gonye, the Minutes for
September 13, 1995 were unanimously approved.
Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows:
CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES
PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Barry Weisfeld- 109 Griffin Avenue- Block 305 Lot 903.1
Mr. Kevin McKenna appeared representing Mr. & Mrs. Weisfeld. He stated the maps
presently before the Board showed the circular driveway Mr. Weisfeld would like in the
area within 100 ft. setback from the wetlands through the pool, previously shown in error
on nine permits received on the lot. A discussion followed with Mr. McKenna detailing
the current map. The applicant is asking for approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of blacktop and
will still have 1,000 sq. ft. less impervious surface which was calculated and shown on
permit #12950.
Ms. Reader asked that with the addition of 1,000 sq. ft. of blacktop as proposed, the
applicant would still be 1,000 sq. ft. less than what was originally part of the subdivision
approval on April 24, 1995. Mr. McKenna concurred.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman to explain the plan. He stated it was the preliminary
submittal to the Building Department for modification to the house and the adjacent area
for a proposed driveway, the tennis court in the back was the subject of a separate review
for an Erosion and Sedimentation Control permit.
Planning Board
October 11, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Trachtman asked Mr. McKenna to explain why the driveway could not be
constructed as proposed on the plan. Mr. McKenna stated the 100 ft. comes another 12
ft. closer to the house. Mr. Trachtman asked why the circular driveway is being
proposed rather than what was shown on the original plan. Mr. McKenna stated that
originally the front door was in the back of the house, and the front door has been
relocated.
Dr. Mason stated that the area proposed is not in the buffer zone, so the primary change
in the additional blacktop is in the buffer zone.
Ms. Reader stated that something existing is being turned into grass, and asked for an
explanation whereby Mr. McKenna pointed the area out on the plan. A discussion
ensued.
Mr. Darsky asked about risks in adding the blacktop.
Mr. Trachtman stated the only question is the pitch of the driveway.
Mr. McKenna stated the footing and roof drains will be put into the catch basins, and
would like to put a catch basin in the neighbors property.
Mr. Darsky questioned the risks to the neighbors downstream. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Darsky would like a statement of that risk and a statement of how the applicant will
meet that risk with the complex drawing. A discussion followed.
Ms. Reader asked why a turn-around was not feasible.
Mr. McKenna stated it was shown incorrectly on previous plans.
Dr. Mason asked if alternative surfacing had been considered. Mr. Weisfeld stated he
had not, but by containing additional water with dry wells an alternative was not
considered.
Mr. Darsky would like a statement as to why this will not redound to the detriment of
the downstream neighbors, wherever they may be. If that is adequate, an alternative
surface would not be necessary if this surface wouldn't do any harm downstream and
cause a negative impact.
Ms. Reader said that under SEQRA the Board is obligated to determine what the most
practicable way is to minimize the negative impact from various alternatives.
Mr. Silverberg stated the question is whether or not this plan creates any adverse impact.
If it potentially does, then you must look into practicable alternatives which might have
less of an impact.
Planning Board
October 11, 1995
Page 3
Ms. Reader said the fact that this is within the 100 ft. buffer zone prompts a heightened
scrutiny and it is a Type I action and has to be referred to CZMC for review.
Mr. Trachtman, during the next month, will do a review under the Fresh Water Wetlands
Law, and this case will be on the Agenda for the next Coastal Zoning Commission
meeting at the end of the month.
Mr. McKenna asked when the Public Hearing notification to neighbors is processed.
Mr. Silverberg stated ten days.
Mr. Gonye made a motion, seconded by Dr. Mason and unanimously approved as
follows:
RESOLVED, this Planning Board is Lead Agency for purposes of SEQRA and finds that
the proposed action is a Type I action.
Dr. Mason made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gonye and unanimously approved as
follows:
RESOLVED, the proposed action is referred to CZMC.
Mr. Silverberg stated that Mr. McKenna should be present at the CZMC meeting.
Eve Bocca will arrange to make sure the case is on the agenda.
Dr. Mason suggested that the information that will be presented to the Planning Board
at the next meeting be available to CZMC.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 8, 1995 at 8:15 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made by Mr. Darsky and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned
at 8:40 p.m.
Marguerite R ,Recording Secretary