Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_10_11 Planning Board Minutes (2) 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 timpr 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. I41, 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. I ' If it potentially does, then you must look into practicable alternatives which might have less of an impact. d 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. `r 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. 721 Marguerite R a,Recording Secretary