HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_09_11 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
*sir PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman
May W. Aisen
Richard H. Darsky
Linda S. Harrington
C. Alan Mason
Edmund Papazian
Absent: Stephen Andrew Moser
Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel
Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer
Stephanie Hanak, Public Stenographer
Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd.
40 Eighth Street
New Rochelle, New York 10801
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:25 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Reader asked the members of the Board if they had reviewed the Minutes of the August 14, 1996
meeting and were there any changes. Ms. Reader voiced a minor change, and Mr. Trachtman also voiced
a few minor changes.
On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Reader, the Amended Minutes for August 14,
1996 were unanimously approved.
The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING/RENEWAL-SPECIAL USE PERMIT-Village Square Bagels-John Mercaldi-
1262 Boston Post Road - Block 407 Lot 192 (adjourned 8/14/96)
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.
John Mercaldi of 1262 Boston Post Road, Larchmont appeared.
Ms. Reader asked if there was anything further Mr. Mercaldi wished to present.
Mr. Mercaldi presented a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) to the Board.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 2
Ms. Reader said the C.O. has expired on January 10, 1996.
Mr. Mercaldi said he was not notified that the C.O. had expired.
Ms. Reader suggested that Mr. Mercaldi speak to the Building Department.
Mr. Mercaldi said last month he was before the Board, he had spoken to the Building Department, and was
told to bring a copy of the C.O. to the Board.
4 Ms. Reader said the Building Department wants Mr. Mercaldi to get the Special Permit renewed and then
a C.O. will be issued. Ms. Reader said in essence there have not been any changes, there is not a copy
of the original Special Use Permit, but the Board has a copy of the previous Minutes that indicate what the
conditions were. Ms. Reader asked if anyone in the audience wished to see the Minutes of the May 13,
1992 Minutes that indicate the conditions. There being no response, Ms. Reader asked if there were any
comments or questions from the members of the Board.
Mr. Davis asked if the Board had received any comments from the County of Westchester in connection
with this matter.
Ms. Reader said notice was sent, and no comments were received from the County.
Dr. Mason asked if there were any violations filed by the local people.
Ms. Reader said no notices of violations had been received. Ms. Reader said a memorandum was received
from William E. Jakubowski, the Building Inspector, dated August 7, 1996 that stated the Building
• Inspector and Town Engineer find the use as requested will not substantially intensify or modify the site,
nor will it have a substantial impact with respect to the Site Plan Review. Ms. Reader said nothing was
received from the Building Department indicating there are any violations outstanding.
On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed.
On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was
unanimously APPROVED:
WHEREAS, Village Square Bagels submitted an application for the renewal of the Special Use Permit for
use of the premises at 1262 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 192 as a restaurant for the sale, service and consumption of food; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on September 11, 1996 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;
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;
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 3
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 Village Square Bagels for
the renewal of the Special Use Permit for a restaurant for the sale, service and consumption of food subject
to the following terms and conditions:
1. The restaurant shall be permitted to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven(7)days
a week.
2. Seating capacity will be limited to nineteen (19) seats.
3. Traffic ingress and egress and traffic patterns on the site shall be as shown on the original
plans dated May 20, 1992, approved July 1, 1992.
4. Permit shall expire after two (2) years.
5. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Sections
240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30(B)of the Zoning
Code of the Town of Mamaroneck.
lir
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - New No. 1 Chinese Restaurant - Chen Qi Yong -
176 Myrtle Boulevard - Block 133 Lot 642
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.
Ms. Wendy Chan appeared, said she is the owner's daughter and that her father was not in attendance
because he does not speak English.
Mr. Davis said the owner does not need to be present in order for the case to be heard,just that the record
contain the necessary information needed.
Ms. Reader then read a memo received dated September 11, 1996 from the Board of Architectural Review.
Attached is a copy of the August 15, 1996 Board of Architectural Review Minutes relating to the New No.
1 Chinese Restaurant with the condition that the numbers 176 shall physically be removed from the sign.
Ms. Reader said apparently the numbers have physically been removed from the sign.
11
Dr. Mason asked why this was a matter of concern.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 4
Ms. Reader said she thought it had to do with conformity on the block. Ms. Reader then asked Ms. Chan
if it is a Chinese restaurant, take-out business, in the same location where a previous Chinese restaurant
existed.
Ms. Chan said previously a Japanese/Chinese restaurant existed, and New No. 1 is only a Chinese
restaurant, but is in the same location.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board.
Ms. Harrington asked what hours the business will be open.
Ms. Chan said the same hours as the other restaurant was open.
Ms. Reader said the hours of operation were from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
Ms. Chan said that was correct.
Ms. Reader said there were also conditions for the other restaurant that all garbage shall be stored in tightly
closed garbage cans which previously was an important issue,because there were complaints by neighbors
that garbage was being left out in an unsightly manner. Ms. Reader said another condition was that the
exhaust fan shall be maintained in good condition, which was also an issue. Ms. Reader asked if there
were any other comments from the Board.
Dr. Mason said it seems that this location has been before the Board many times, and seems to be a
difficult spot in which to succeed. A discussion followed.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the public audience.
On a motion was made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed.
On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, the following resolution was unanimously
APPROVED:
WHEREAS, Chen Qi Yong/New No. 1 Chinese Restaurant submitted an application for a Special Use
Permit for use of the premises at 176 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 642 as a Chinese take-out and eighteen (18) seat restaurant; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on September 11, 1996 pursuant to notice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a 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;
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;
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 5
46, 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 Chen Qi Yong/New No. 1
Chinese Restaurant for a Special Use Permit for a Chinese take-out and eighteen(18)seat restaurant subject
to the following terms and conditions:
1. The restaurant shall be permitted to operate from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
2. All garbage shall be stored in tightly closed garbage cans.
3. The exhaust fan shall be maintained in good condition.
4. The applicant shall adhere to the condition stipulated by the Board of Architectural
Review.
5. Permit shall expire after two (2) years.
6. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Sections
240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30B of the Zoning
Code of the Town of Mamaroneck.
Dr. Mason asked Ms. Chan if there is anything she would like to ask, for her father, that would result in
succeeding in business as previous owners have not had much success in business.
Ms. Harrington said she feels there is a problem with the applicant understanding what is being said.
Dr. Mason withdrew his question.
Ms. Harrington asked if Ms. Chan understood about the garbage and the fan having to be kept clean, as
it is important for the applicant to understand to avoid receiving a fine.
Ms. Chan said she did not understand.
Ms. Aisen asked if anyone on the Board knew anyone that speaks both Chinese and English.
After some discussion, Valerie O'Keefe, the Town Board Liaison, said she will get Ms. Judith Shih who
is proficient in Mandarin Chinese, to go to the restaurant and explain the conditions.
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Ellen and
Eric Marcus - 10 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 84
41111, On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 6
The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of
this record.
Ellen Marcus of 10 Bonnie Way appeared.
Ms. Reader informed Ms. Marcus that the Board had received a letter from Gary Trachtman, the Town's
consulting engineer, and asked Mr. Trachtman to summarize the letter.
Mr. Trachtman said the application requires that a review be conducted under the Town Law 7-1986,
Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit Law which requires the Town Engineer to review the
proposed project and determine whether or not the project would qualify under the compatibility criteria
stated in the State Freshwater Wetlands Law which has been adopted by the Town. The letter describes
the criteria that has to be reviewed under the law. This type of activity is identified in Section 665.7 of
the State Code and by code this type of activity is considered usually to be incompatible with the wetland
areas. However, there is a provision for conducting an additional review under the criteria to determine
whether or not the activity not only satisfies the compatibility test, but also meets the criteria stated in the
letter. The four criteria briefly are (1) compatibility and consistency with public health and welfare, (2)
the only practicable alternative if no other activity is physically or economically feasible, (3) the economic
and social need for the proposed activity and the economic and social burden that would be imposed upon
the public such as associated services, prevention of contamination, flood or other damage as a result of
flooding, and (4) whether or not the proposed activity has the impact upon the control areas and the
adjacent area that apply to the code. Mr. Trachtman said the Board has seen many of these types of
applications since the law was adapted and feels the proposal will satisfy the criteria stated in the code.
There are other issues relating to the precautions that have to be taken during construction,to ensure there
is no adverse impact on the adjacent area which is described in the letter as well. The applicant has
• indicated where the hay bales are going to be installed during the course of construction on the plans. Mr.
Trachtman said the permit process requires the posting of a bond, so that it will be insured that any of the
disturbed areas during construction are restored to their original condition. Normally there would be a
separate bond required for a Surface Water Sediment and Erosion Control Permit, but since this activity
is really similar in either condition, the only difference being that there happens to be a wetland adjacent,
the two requirements were merged therefore posting a bond for this procedure is satisfactory. Mr.
Trachtman pointed out that this area is subject to flooding from time to time. The Town performed a
hydrologic investigation in 1991 that enabled them to come up with a precise definition of where the 100-
year flood plain is in the vicinity of this site. The map that accompanies that study indicates the 100-year
flood plain could, in fact, be right where the residence is. The nature of the construction, if it were
something other than a deck, would have to be clarified so that structure was in accordance with the
Town's Flood Damage Prevention Code. However, this is open construction, the only construction being
the pouring of the foundation for wood columns to support the deck.
Ms. Reader said there is no impervious surface.
Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman how deep the footings are on the specifications,just a standard 42 in.
Mr. Trachtman said the plan indicates the footings go down to frost depth, 31/2 ft.
Dr. Mason said there are times when the flow through that area is substantial, and the footings will take
some abuse.
Mr. Trachtman said the nature of flooding in this particular area seems to be more likely the result of the
back water condition on the Tributary of the Sheldrake rather than a velocity flow.
CP Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the Board or public.
Dr. Mason asked the size of the deck.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 7
Ms. Reader said the deck is 13 ft. x 38.6 in.
On a motion was made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed.
On a motion was made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, the following resolution was
unanimously ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Ellen and Eric Marcus have applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code
Chapter 114 for the premises located at Lot No. 10 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map
of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104 Lot 84 ; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action
and that no further review is required under SEQRA; and
WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in
writing regarding this application to the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, that
the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR §665.7;
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 having been held on
September 11, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds as follows:
1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance
of systems in a control area;
2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and
conservation of the wetland and its benefits, because (A) the proposed activity will have
only a minor impact, (B) it is the only practical alternative, and (C) it is compatible with
the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or
social burden on the community;
i
3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of
any part of the wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective
conditions imposed by this resolution;
4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of
its minor impact in the control area;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Ellen and Eric Marcus for a permit, pursuant to
4 Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other
individual, entity or combination thereof;
2. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be
in accordance with the requirements of the Town Freshwater Wetlands and Water
Courses Law.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 8
1111/ 3. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM.
4. A cash deposit or bond for$1,500.00 shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to
ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or
disturbed area.
5. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the
date of its issue whichever first occurs.
Ms. Reader informed Ms. Marcus to direct all questions to the Building Department.
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - S.A.B.
DEVELOPMENT - Andrew Saines - 28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.1
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open.
Fred Grippi of 31 Avondale Road, Harrison a partner associated with R & G Associates, architects,
appeared. Mr. Mustacato, also a partner with R&G Associates previously appeared before the Board on
this case but was unable to attend this evening. Andrew Saines of S.A.B. Development was taken ill and
will also be unable to attend this evening.
%kW Ms. Reader asked Mr. Grippi if he had received a copy of the letter from Malcolm Pirnie in reference to
28 Bonnie Way which was received by the Board this evening.
Mr. Trachtman gave Mr. Grippi a copy of the letter from Malcolm Pirnie.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if he had any additional comments to make.
Mr. Trachtman pointed out other issues relating to the review of the application, stating essentially the
compatibility criteria is identical to the previous application. As previously pointed out, Malcolm Pirnie
reviewed the project with respect to the 100-year flood plain. It is approximately at elevation 86, the
elevation of the basement is 91. There does not seem to be any problem. As far as the mitigating
measures, the precautions that can be taken during construction, the plans indicate a silt fence to be
constructed between the wetland area and the area proposed for construction. One other issue in this
particular case refers to drainage. At the time the original subdivision was approved, a plan for installing
dry wells on the property was also approved at that time. The plans indicate the dry wells will be installed
and the dry wells are identical to the ones approved at the time of the subdivision approval. There is
basically no requirement as far as flood damage prevention codes concerning construction outside the flood
plain. Bond requirements will be established and recovered.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the Board members.
Ms. Aisen said the major part of the lot is a boulder, which is attached to the adjoining house and
consequently the builder is mandated to use a chipping process rather than blasting. Ms. Aisen asked if
during the chipping process there is some disturbance to the adjoining property, what recourse is there at
that time. Ms. Aisen said what if it proves less possible than anticipated and is concerned because it is a
i` major boulder.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 9
`fl`r Mr. Trachtman said the developer or applicant will be required to take whatever measures necessary to stop
that from happening.
Mr. Davis said if the Board has a concern about the safety of the construction process, it is entitled to
satisfy itself that the chipping process as proposed won't create vibration strong enough to affect the
adjoining property, and that could be a reasonable condition, if the record justifies the concern.
Mr. Papazian asked if the construction company is mandated to carry insurance.
Mr. Davis said when blasting occurs insurance is mandated.
Dr. Mason said blasting is a strict liability, but is not sure chipping is a strict liability.
Ms. Reader asked if there are different methods of chipping.
Mr. Grippi said there are different chippers, but from past experiences he has had no problems with the
chipping process. Mr. Grippi said the stone is chipped away a little at a time, and the process used
depends on the stone.
Mr. Davis said the Board can require the contractor maintain someone on site to monitor the job.
Mr. Grippi said the proposed house is located in a spot where there will be a minimal amount of chipping.
The garage is proposed at a level of the rock.
Ms. Aisen said she had a problem understanding the blueprint submitted.
11110'` Ms. Reader said Mr. Mustacato had tried to explain the position of the proposed house with respect to the
rock outcrop at the last meeting and said if Mr. Grippi could also do that it might be helpful.
Ms. Reader asked Ms. Aisen if she is indicating the neighbors house is also on the same rock Outcrop.
Ms. Aisen said that was correct.
Mark Ladner said it was his house, 30 Bonnie Way, which is very close to the property line.
Dr. Mason asked Mr. Ladner if he was indicating that the foundation walls, side walls, rest on the rock.
Mr. Ladner said the side walls rest on the rock. The side and half of the front of the house that is facing
the property completely sits right on the boulder. The proposed house will sit up very high, but Mr.
Ladner has not seen the plans to peruse.
Ms. Harrington asked Mr. Trachtman if he has had any experience where someone has been doing this
kind of work and the rock literally splits.
Mr. Trachtman said in this particular case he does not believe the nature of the operation involved is a
problem. The work area can be limited to a small area, and only remove the rock necessary for
construction. It can be noted that the size of equipment to be used is also compatible with the nature of
the rock.
Dr. Mason said the Board is referring to the rock as a boulder, and asked if it is a free standing boulder
or is it ledge rock.
lbw
Mr. Trachtman said it is a rock outcrop, ledge rock.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 10
Ms. Reader said in the past the Board has had several concerns, Fenbrook, where the existing house was
built on the same rock formation. The Board specifically provided no blasting, because it would be
potentially more destructive, and provided that the rock be chipped which is usually a more controlled
situation.
Mr. Davis said that if the record supported concern, a condition could be placed.
Ms. Reader said the Board could ask for more information from Mr. Grippi with respect to what is the
process of the machinery or alternatives available for the chipping to assist the Board regarding setting
conditions.
Mr. Grippi said there are not that many alternatives for chipping other than the size of the machine and
the chippers. In past experience, the top comes off quickly, but further down it is more difficult and
smaller amounts are taken out. Mr. Grippi said with the proposed house, there is very little to be chipped
for the garage and there will not be a full basement in the house. Only enough room for a crawl space
is needed, and any loose rock that can be removed for a basement.
Ms. Reader asked the square footage of the area, cubic area.
Mr. Grippi said there will be approximately 4 ft. of rock in depth coining out from the top left-hand side
of the property where the outcropping is.
Dr. Mason asked what kind of rock it is.
Mr. Grippi said he did not know.
41110 Valerie O'Keeffe asked for an explanation of chipping, whether it was like a jackhammer.
Mr. Grippi said it is like a jackhammer, looks almost like a backhoe and has a hydraulic chip on it which
goes up and down.
Ms. Aisen said there is a property line that runs through the middle of the outcropping,and asked if some
of the abutting house's rock is removed from the adjoining house can that person sue.
Mr. Ladner said the question is, not whether he can sue, but whether he can recover.
Dr. Mason said that is why he questioned whether the rock is ledge rock or a boulder.
Mr. Grippi said he could not answer that question, but in past experiences there have been no problems.
Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman if he was aware of the nature of the rock.
Mr. Trachtman said a question under the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Review is whether or
not this is an issue that is possible to be discussed. Under this review the issue would be whether or not
the nature of the construction could cause an adverse impact on the Freshwater Wetland. The question of
whether or not the construction would cause a problem for the neighboring structure is another issue, more
appropriately addressed by the Building Department.
Ms. Reader asked counsel's advice.
• Mr. Davis said he was going to comment on the same point. The only piece of the Wetlands Permit
Statute that touches on this matter is a general finding having to do with compatibility with public health
and welfare. Mr. Davis said he is not prepared to say at this point that he knows of any authority that
states whether that subject may be introduced under this finding. There is no evidence in the record that
would suggest that it is reasonable to expect a problem. The only two comments made thus far, both by
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 11
Mr. Trachtman and the architect, is that the technique is conventional and there is no reason to expect to
a have problem. Mr. Davis does not know whether the property's neighbor intends to present information
that will suggest a problem.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Davis if problems should be directed to the Building Department unless there is a
connection with the chipping away at the rock that would have an impact on the Freshwater Wetland.
Mr. Davis said generally speaking the thrust of this permit is a protection of Wetlands. The Building
Inspector's review will determine whether the construction techniques are appropriate.
Mr. Ladner said there are other things the neighbors will talk about, but the specific issue of this proposed
house is how it affects Mr. Ladner's property. Mr. Ladner said five (5) years ago when the matter was
before the Planning Board, the issue of blasting and chipping and damage to Mr. Ladner's house arose.
The way it was dealt with by the attorneys for his neighbor, not the architect, it really wasn't the issue
because what the attorneys represented to the Board in getting the subdivision was that building a house
was "hypothetical". At that point, the Board was extremely interested in what the house was going to look
like, how it was going to be built and how that would impact both the adjoining property as well as some
of the other flooding concerns that are within the purview of the proposed permit. At that point the
proposed subdivision represented to the Board that it was hypothetical, they were not going to build.
Now, as expected five (5) years ago, the applicant is before the Board. Mr. Ladner said the Board did
not deal with this issue five(5)years ago of the possible damage, particularly to Mr. Ladner's house, from
the rock removal. Obviously blasting would have been out of the question in a residential neighborhood.
The architect is suggesting there was never a problem with this type of removal before, but Mr. Ladner
is wondering if the architect ever built and chipped 4 ft. of a rock and what affect this has on property
which is probably 10 ft. away and sitting on the same rock.
Iklamor Mr. Darsky said he was not on the Planning Board five years ago, Mr. Ladner mentioned a hypothetical
house and asked if the applicant said why the applicant wanted to subdivide. Mr. Darsky said the Board
then can assume that although the applicant at that time said hypothetical, it was understood there would
be a building.
Barry Dichter said the representation made at that time was that the subdivision was to reduce property
taxes. If the lot was subdivided and one lot was vacant, the vacant lot would be taxed and given a reduced
rate less than the residential lot. The reason given to the Board, both orally and in writing, for the
subdivision was to reduce property taxes and there would be an express statement even though it was
hypothetical. The records are very clear on the plan.
Mr. Darsky asked Mr. Dichter if the previous applicant said they would not develop the subdivision, the
word hypothetical means hypothetical.
Mr. Dichter then read from a letter dated May 24, 1990 sent to the then chairman of the Planning Board
from counsel for Mr. McCarthy the owner of the subdivision which said, "before providing with the
McCarthy response I want to remind the Board that much of the discussion that has surrounded this
subdivision has proceeded under the assumption clearly erroneous. The McCarthy's have a plan to build
another house on the property as soon as subdivision approval is obtained. That is not the case. In answer
to questions above our answers are difficult to frame, of necessity, because we are confronting wholly
hypothetical problems at this stage."
Mr. Darsky said the penalty is inconsistent with what Mr. Dichter read and what is proposed to be built
now. Mr. Darsky said Mr. Dichter talked about a current plan, at this stage. Mr. Darsky would like to
personally see, unless Mr. Dichter is saying that this subdivision was granted under false pretenses, what
was put to the Board.
Mr. Dichter proceeded to read another part of the letter to let the Board decide whether the submission was
false stating, "again there are no plans to build;accordingly the McCarthy's plan to leave the existing trees
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 12
in place. In the event of construction most of the trees will be preserved by a drywall construction as
shown on the plans. One or two trees will be removed, and it will be the responsibility of the owner at
that time to comply with the appropriate ordinances on tree removal." Mr. Dichter said he believes the
removal of trees as shown on the plan greatly exceeds one or two.
Mr. Darsky would like to go on record as saying the issue of hypothetical in Mr. Darsky's mind is
resolved as it was said at that time there were no plans to build and that later if construction was decided
so many trees would be removed. Mr. Darsky said as far as he is concerned the subdivision was granted
with what appears to be full disclosure, and Mr. Darsky feels the Board should move on to the current
issues.
Dr. Mason said that since Mr. Darsky is entering the above on the record, Dr. Mason would like to state
that he was on the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) at the time the application was
presented, and that the CZMC was clearly left with the impression that it was a paper subdivision and no
construction was intended.
Ms. Reader asked when the subdivision was granted for approval.
Mr. Dichter said the certification is dated April 21, 1992.
Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Dichter knew when the dates of the public hearings were held. Ms. Reader said
the Board may want the Minutes of the Public Hearing of the subdivision for the Board to peruse as they
will give the Board information as to what in fact was presented to the Board when the subdivision was
granted and the terms of its approval.
Dr. Mason asked that the Minutes of the CZMC also be presented to the Board.
7�' Ms. Reader asked if there were any objections to adjourning this application to the next month's meeting
due to the Board's need to receive more information.
Mr. Darsky said he has an objection to that.
Mr. Papazian said if it could be explained again, looking at the blueprint, how the house will sit on the
property and how it will affect the outcropping.
Mr. Grippi said starting at the driveway, the existing garage is on the right-hand side of the property, and
the garage elevation will be 90.
Ms. Aisen said the blueprint is not clear and after reading the previous month's Minutes, Dr. Mason had
asked for a clearer blueprint to be presented to the Board.
Mr. Grippi explained the garage and crawl space area to Ms. Aisen, and a discussion ensued.
Mr. Papazian asked where it relates to the next door neighbor.
Mr. Grippi explained same to the Board, stating the adjacent dwelling is to the west and sits on the rock
outcrop also.
Ms. Reader said there is an adjacent building to the east of the project and stated the outcrop does not
extend that far.
Mr. Grippi said no, it does not extend that far and demonstrated same on the blueprint before the Board.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 13
Ms. Reader said there are only two houses on the rock outcrop, the existing house which is Mr. Ladner's,
and the proposed house which would be a second house on the other end of the rock outcrop. Ms. Reader
asked Mr. Grippi to explain the proposal to the audience.
Mr. Grippi said the proposed house will be on the same outcropping as the existing house, both houses
about 10 ft. away from the property line. At the corner of the house, the outcropping now at that one point
is at 102 elevation which will be taken down, at least the first floor level, to 98 plus another 3 ft. for the
crawl space. Across from the driveway the existing elevation is approximately 89, the proposed is 90.
Just one side of the property is where minimal amounts of rock will be removed. There are retaining walls
on each side of the property and there are trees that will be taken down.
Ms. Beaulide appeared as an interested party to the proposed construction.
Eve Bocca, Environmental Coordinator for the Town appeared and said her recollection from the tree
removal permit plan said 31 trees will come down.
Mr. Grippi said at that time they were small trees, but only major trees were indicated on the plan.
Dr. Mason asked Mr. Grippi what his definition was of a major tree.
Mr. Grippi said anything over 8 in.
Ms. Bocca said a tree removal permit requires all trees of greater than 6 in. be identified.
Valerie O'Keeffe asked how many trees are there now and how many would be left.
Ms. Harrington also asked if the applicant plans to replace the trees at other parts of the property.
Mr. Grippi said there is going to be a landscape plan and eventually trees planted in the front of the house,
but did not know how many trees presently exist.
Ms. Aisen said the list the Board has states there are 31 trees, and have marked more than 20 trees for
removal.
Mr. Grippi said he does not have a landscape plan at this time.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if that is relevant to the issue of protecting the wetlands.
Mr. Trachtman said ordinarily it would be, but the discussion is about trees that are located in the rock
outcrop area. The tree removal issues are routinely addressed in conjunction with the building permit
process.
Ms. Bocca stated as part of the tree removal permit, the Tree Commission would then make a
recommendation to see how many trees would need to be replaced. Many times it is on a one for one basis
depending upon the amount of available property and a recommendation for the appropriate number of trees
to be replaced. Ms. Bocca said that Ms. Aisen corrected her on the number of trees to be removed and
it possibly was 31 in total. A discussion followed.
Mr. Papazian said then Ms. Bocca is stating that the building department will have the trees replaced.
Ms. Bocca said the Tree Commission will approve the tree permit and make recommendations on the
number and type of trees that will have to be replaced.
Ms. Reader asked if that was mandated.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 14
Ms. Bocca said it is the law of the Town of Mamaroneck.
Ms. Reader said then the applicant has to do it.
Ms. Bocca said that is correct.
Ms. Reader said if the applicant does not do it, it is a violation.
Ms. Bocca said if it is not done, the applicant will not be granted a permit.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions for the applicant by Mr. Dichter or anyone wishing
to speak for the application.
Mr. Dichter said he would like to ask some questions.
Ms. Reader informed Mr. Grippi not to answer any questions asked by Mr. Dichter until he finishes the
question, as it is difficult for the recording secretary to understand when more than one individual is
speaking.
Mr. Dichter said he is appearing before the Board this evening as someone who watched the Highway
Department drive up in front of his house, close the street in front of his house in the Spring due to
flooding.
Ms. Reader asked where Mr. Dichter's house is located.
Mr. Dichter said his house is located at 32 Bonnie Way, which is past the Ladner house and two doors
down on the same side of the street from the subject property. Mr. Dichter said there is substantial
opposition to the proposal to grant a Freshwater Wetlands Permit,as seven families are present this evening
to oppose the granting of this permit. Mr. Dichter said the site is a Class I Wetland under both the Town
Law and the State of New York Law. Mr. Dichter said the applicant has the burden of establishing the
applicable standards for Freshwater Wetlands Permits to be granted under Section 665.7D of 6NYCRR.
Mr. Dichter said if the Board is unsure, the permit has to be denied. Mr. Dichter said why does the State
and Town promulgate this law, and said it is for the benefit of the people. Mr. Dichter then proceeded
to enlighten the Board as to what the Class I Wetland provides discussing pictures presented to the Board.
Picture#1, which was taken in May of this year, looks up Bonnie Way towards Leatherstocking Trail and
is the source of the flood. Mr. Dichter asked the Board to notice the velocity and the volume of water
coming down the street. The outflow of water cannot be dealt with by drywells. Diagram#7 is essentially
the layout of Bonnie Way. Picture#2 shows on the right side the subject property looking up Bonnie Way.
The street has been closed by the Highway Department due to flooding. On the right side of that picture,
it shows the water flow over the subject property curve, where the flood breaks on the street and the
recession in the foreground which is directly opposite the subject property. Mr. Dichter said as perusing
the picture to keep in mind that the architect has talked about raising the elevation of the lot for drains.
Picture #3 shows the subject property and the water flowing over the curb in the front of the subject
property, and the amount of water volume which is drained through that property. Mr. Dichter made
reference to the trees in the picture and asked Mr. Grippi which trees would be remaining after the
proposed construction.
Mr. Grippi said none of the trees would be remaining. A discussion ensued regarding the number of trees
and type.
Ms. Reader asked how the list of trees the Board members have regarding the subject property was
formulated.
Ms. Bocca said the list was formulated by Anthony Acocella, the landscape architect.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 15
Mr. Dichter then showed the Board picture #4, which was taken from the subject property which looks
diagonally across to 23 Bonnie way and is directly across from 21 Bonnie Way which cannot be seen. Mr.
Dichter called the Board's attention to the enormous volume of water, the velocity of the water and the
whitecaps jumping as it runs down the subject property.
Ms. Reader asked the applicant, looking at the photograph,if he could identify the trees. Ms. Reader said
that Mr. Grippi indicated by his review of the photograph he identifies the trees as 1, 2, 3 and 4. A
detailed discussion ensued regarding the trees in the picture being discussed.
At this time Ms. Reader informed Mr. Dichter that this hearing is not a trial, and the applicant need not
subject himself to cross examination which will not be allowed. If Mr. Grippi wishes to answer a general
question, he may do that. Ms. Reader said there is a question about the removal of trees and pooling of
water on the property.
Mr. Trachtman said the area that is designated as the wetlands is adjacent to the stream at the rear of the
property. Mr. Trachtman said there seems to be some confusion. The line of the 100-year flood plain
would be at elevation 86 which is located at the rear of the property essentially at the base of the rear of
the rock outcrop. The other limit is the 100 ft. adjacent area measured to the Sheldrake River. The
distance to the Sheidrake River to the front of the property is in excess of 100 ft. and adjacent area goes
probably at about the front of the house.
Mr. Reader asked Mr. Grippi how far the house is from the curb.
Mr. Grippi said the front of the house is about 52 ft. from the curb, and discussed the plan for filling the
area.
41110, A member of the audience asked if there was going to be a culvert or drain, as the original subdivision
required more than that.
Mr. Dichter said picture#5 is of the subject property and the rock outcropping is pictured on the left side
of the picture, the pooling of water in the back and questioned which trees would remain. A discussion
followed.
Ms. Reader said the members of the Board are troubled with the use of the pictures and descriptions given.
Dr. Mason said what Mr. Dichter is trying to demonstrate is that the property serves as a safety valve and
drainage path off the street and asked Mr. Dichter to simply state that fact.
Mr. Dichter said picture #6 was taken standing on the subject property facing down Bonnie Way toward
Weaver Street and stated the property is what prevented the water from traveling down Weaver Street.
Dr. Mason said if the water goes down Weaver Street rather than being safety valved off, it then joins the
Tributary where Bonnie Briar meets Weaver Street and goes into the same culvert that goes under and into
Bonnie Briar Country Club which means the water is being rerouted. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Dichter to
address himself to the harm or the benefit of the water being routed that way.
Mr. Dichter again referred to the Class I Wetland development on the property.
Ms. Reader informed Mr. Dichter in his reference to a Class I Wetland, the Board is being told that the
property itself is not a Class I Wetland but is adjacent to the Sheldrake Wetlands. The Board has been told
by its experts that the proposed building is not a wetlands.
Mr. Davis said the Town Code defines the term wetland first in terms of a designated area consisting of
one-quarter of an acre or more, and any area within 100 ft. of the boundary of said map wetlands. While
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 16
there is confusion, it is not incorrect technically to refer to the adjacent area as wetlands within that 100
ft.
Ms. Reader said the Board needs it to be appropriately specified.
Mr. Davis said there is an area within the 100 ft. of the boundary of the Tributary which is protected as
if it were a wetland.
10 Mr. Trachtman indicated what the local law defines as control areas which includes the Class I Wetlands
referred to.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman, with respect to the property from the point beyond the 100 ft. map,
whether or not it falls under the control area by the Hydrologic Maps.
Mr. Trachtman said it would be safe to say the property is properly included under the Freshwater
Wetlands and Water Courses Review. Part of it is within the adjacent area of the class I wetland, part of
it is within what would be defined as rainfall drainage systems. The essence is what is the cause of the
problem, and if the Board looks at the record at the time of the subdivision approval there was extensive
discussion of the cause. It is obvious from the photographs the Board has seen this evening, it is acting
as a relief but cannot tell whether, from photograph#6, some of the flow is continuing up the street toward
Weaver Street or coming off of Weaver Street and entering the area. At the time it was noted there had
been an ongoing maintenance problem with the inlet to the piping system. What is not evident from the
photographs is whether or not this is resulting from a backwater condition associated with the difficulties
along the Sheldrake by itself or in combination with the buildup of sediment to the piping system which
requires ongoing maintenance.
1 ‘P Dr. Mason said there seems to be a combination, some plugging and getting a hydraulic head at the lower
end of the drainage system and it backs up resisting the outward flow. Dr. Mason said he feels the pipe
generally is inadequate in size. The question remains if the problem can be remediated. Dr. Mason said
Mr. Dichter made his point that it provides a safety valve and asked Mr. Dichter what the next point is.
Mr. Dichter said the next point is looking at the real standards for granting the type of permit being
requested. Mr. Dichter said there is now activity proposed for what the Town Law classifies as a Class
I Wetland and also classifies it as a rainfall drainage system. Mr. Dichter then proceeded to read the
definition of Class I Wetlands from a prepared script.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Dichter what section he was referring to.
Mr. Dichter said 6NYCRR Section 665.5E, and pointed out that with respect to construction on the house,
not only does the property serve as a Class I Wetlands to be protected, but the structure of the house would
increase the problems and referred to Section 665.7E between paragraphs 41 and 42, regarding the
standards in the State regulations.
Ms. Reader said the Board has part of Section 665.7, which refers to different standards than Mr. Dichter
is referring to.
Mr. Trachtman said the correct reference is 665.7E, and from the State law which is referenced by the
Town law, there are a presentation of definitions of different classes of wetlands and the standards for
permit issuance:
II Mr. Dichter said he will supply a copy of the law he is referring to.
Ms. Reader suggested Mr. Dichter supply a copy to Mr. Davis.
gg PP
Mr. Dichter continued his presentation referring to the State findings.
.. 0
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 17
Ms. Reader said one of the Board members has to leave and has a request, as it appears this matter will
have to be adjourned due to more information needed from previous meetings regarding the subdivision.
Ms. Harrington had a request that an overlay of photographs be made, marking the photos and marking
where they would be relevant to the pieces of property.
Mr. Dichter said he would suggest, in relation to reviewing information from previous meetings regarding
the subdivision, looking at the letter dated May 24, 1991 from Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. representing
Mr. McCarthy page 2, which states "in the event of construction most of the trees will be preserved by
a drywall construction as shown on the plans. One or two trees will be removed." That was the
representation made in conjunction with granting the subdivision approval.
Ms. Reader asked if that was made a condition of the subdivision approval.
Mr. Dichter said he did not recall if that was made a condition of the subdivision approval.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Dichter to explain why he believes it is a Class I Wetland, and if it turns out not to
be a Class I Wetland, what the outcome should be.
Mr. Dichter said it is a Class I Wetland, because it is the Town Law that classifies all wetlands within the
jurisdiction and adjacent within 100 ft. to a wetland.
Mr. Davis said that the request of Mr. Dichter with respect to photographs technically is not too easy to
do accurately, and wondered whether there is another way the applicant can attempt to respond to questions
placed on the record this evening. Mr. Davis suggested if the photographer and the applicant could agree
• on an accurate depiction of the picture, stating when and where the picture was taken and the vantage point
for which they were taken would be helpful.
Bob Lindsey, 23 Bonnie Way, said he will take the blueprint and identify in each location where the picture
was taken and the direction, will then meet with the applicant and come to an agreement.
Dr. Mason said Mr. Dichter never mentioned how much rain fell that day.
Mr. Dichter said the rainfall was not measured.
11
Dr. Mason said the rainfall that day was 3.79 in.
Mr. Trachtman suggested as a basic reference the Town would be willing to make available the Freshwater
Wetlands map and other maps that would have sufficient area surrounding the site to include all the
locations from where the photographs will be taken, as the present drawing before the Board does not have
sufficient surface area.
Ms. Reader said the subject property will have to be superimposed.
Mr.Trachtman said the subject property will show on the Town maps,and suggested using the topographic
map that accompanied the Hydrologic Study that was done for the Town. There is a possibility that even
a portion of that area might extend beyond the map that Mr. Trachtman has.
Mr. Dichter said as noted on the application the soil is described as 94%well-drained soil and 6% medium-
drained soil, and wondered whether the consulting engineer confirms.
cp, Mr. Trachtman said as a practical matter the concept of well-draining means that there is a rock outcrop
and whatever falls on that rock will drain off quickly and that the other soils are actual soils not a rock.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 18
A member of the audience asked if the wetlands is measured 100 ft., is that from the Tributary of the
Sheldrake River measured horizontally and is that shown on the map.
Mr. Trachtman said that was correct, it is measured from the boundaries and it is shown on the applicant's
drawing.
Mr. Trachtman said the area he has seen represented on the photographs is essentially referring to the
swale that crosses diagonally from the front of the property on the street side of the rock outcrop and
flowing northeasterly to the Tributary of the Sheldrake River. The Tributary to the Sheldrake River
crosses the westerly property line 77 ft. from the rear of the property line and again by approximation
because there is an overall distance of an east property line of 215 ft., that would roughly indicate that at
the west property line the stream is about 140 ft. from the front property line. The Tributary extends a
little bit closer to the rear property line then turns back and crosses the easterly property line at roughly
the same distance. On the average the location of the Tributary is about 140 to 160 ft. from the front
property line. The body of wetland that is going to be identified as a Class I Wetland on the Town's
Freshwater Wetland Map is that Tributary. The banks of that Tributary are defined on the site plan in
front of the Board. Essentially, the adjacent area is being measured from the banks of the Tributary.
Ms. Reader said Mr. Trachtman's calculations explain what Mr. Grippi said that 100 ft. from the Sheldrake
River takes the control area to approximately the front of the house. The house is 42 ft. back from the
property line and 10 ft. further from the curb. Ms. Reader then mentioned the control areas and dips of
certain dimensions, and stated the Board does not know if those dips are beyond that 100 ft. from the
Sheldrake River going south. The Board does not know whether that is in the area 42 ft. from the front
of the property line or 52 ft. that Mr. Dichter has defined for the Board as being part of the control area.
It is unclear if the 52 ft. from the front of the house to the curb is within the control area within the
II Co Freshwater Wetlands Ordinance. If it is, they exist as well in the control area and therefore the trees that
may be in the front may be relevant in how the water forms. In describing the swale, Mr. Dichter seems
to be going from the south corner of the plans along Bonnie Way and sweeping in front of the depiction
of the house.
Dr. Mason said when he spoke to Mr. Dichter earlier it was stated that this was being presented as part
of the drainage and depression providing the safety guide and asked what the other point was that Mr.
Dichter wanted to make.
Mr. Dichter said the other point is a statutory point.
Ms. Reader said the Board requests clarification because presented to the Board is a different standard
under the exact same statute Mr. Dichter is referring to, 665.7 E-G.
Mr. Dichter said the rainfall drainage system includes the areas described, but can be greater than the areas
depending on the water flow.
Mr. Darsky asked Mr. Dichter to supply copies to the Board of whatever is being discussed and presented
to the Board.
Mr. Dichter said that will be done, and said there are a number of people present that have not received
notice of the meeting and requested they be notified in the future.
Ms. Reader said there is no obligation to notify people, other than the ones previously notified and said
the meeting will be held on October 9, 1996.
4
Mr. Davis made mention that the applicant has the opportunity to respond to the legal issues as well.
Mr. Davis said he would like to see the particular version of regulation that Mr. Dichter was using this
evening.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 19
Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Dichter can provide a copy of the regulation to Mr. Davis this evening.
Mr. Dichter did so.
Ms. Aisen said in the Minutes of the last month's meeting that Dr. Mason requested a better footprint of
the house.
Dr. Mason said he hopes to receive same.
Ms. Reader said Mr. Mustacato had indicated he would provide same.
Dr. Mason said if there are any additional points, Mr. Dichter should raise them at this time.
Ms. Bocca asked if it would be helpful to show the trees that will be removed and which will remain on
the plan also.
Ms. Reader said the Board has a scheme of trees, but does not have information as to which trees in the
picture relate to the list.
Mr. Dichter said the only other issue he would raise is that there have been several experiences where raw
sewage has backed up during heavy rains and floods and would like the applicant to address the impact.
Dr. Mason said the Town does not have a storm sewer system,just storm drains and the streams are used.
There is also fairly high land behind the proposed area and a main sewer line, a County trunk, that comes
down through the Leatherstocking Trail and sits in the middle of the stream bed. The system becomes
CW surcharged and there is no way that this has any impact on the surcharging of that sewer up the line. It
will be a surcharged system that is supposed to be a gravity system.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Davis whether it is relevant to an application for Freshwater Wetlands with respect
to backwash because of an overflow on the drainage system which is not the responsibility of the applicant.
Mr. Trachtman said he wants to seek a clarification and questioned whether the raw sewage is coming from
the County trunk sewer or whether it might be coming from some illegal connections between sewer
systems and storm drain systems and does not want to ignore a potential health issue that needs to be
corrected. If there are illegal connections between house sewer systems and storm drains and the sewer
system backs up because the storm drain backs up, they should be completely separate.
Ms. Aisen said what Mr. Trachtman is saying is that this issue should not be ignored, but should be taken
to the proper agency.
Mr. Davis said the question for the permit is the effect of the proposed action. Mr. Davis said Mr. Dichter
should submit information in advance of the hearing, not only for members of the Board but also for the
applicant so that he may address the issues and makes the same request of the applicant.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any other requests for further information that might be wanted for the
continuation to next month's meeting in addition to the Minutes from the 1991 meetings, when the Public
Hearings were held and resolution made approving the subdivision, and the CZMC Minutes with respect
to this project. Ms. Reader also asked for an improved blueprint that would be easier to read.
Mr. Davis said with the chairwoman's permission he would like to state his provisional views on the
relevance of the resolution and the Minutes of the CZMC proceedings and subdivision proceedings, and
%No would like to give Mr. Dichter the opportunity to respond. It was important to see whether there were any
conditions attached to the approval of the subdivision and what they were.
Planning Board
September 11, 1996
Page 20
Mr. Dichter said he agrees with Mr. Davis in that respect, although the legal issues with the Board were
somewhat divorced from the subdivision approval because subdivision approval did not constitute a
Freshwater Wetlands Permit. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Davis said the previous proceedings were not Freshwater Wetlands proceedings, but these are.
Ms. Reader said the Board would like clarification as to what standards are applicable.
Mr. Davis said he will look into the standards and notify the Board.
Mr. Dichter said there is a test that can be done.
Mr. Darsky said if Mr. Dichter decides to read a legal test into the record, that Mr. Dichter provide a copy
to the Board.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Dichter to provide him with a copy of what he read this evening, and the applicant
also.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from the public or the Board.
Mr. Papazian said there is quite a bit of information to be generated and would like to receive this
information ahead of time.
Ms. Reader informed Mr. Dichter that the information should be received by the secretary by September
24, 1996.
On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously approve to adjourn this
matter for a Public Hearing next month, October 9, 1996.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 9, 1996
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at
11:00 p.m.
Marguerite R�a, Recording Secretary