Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_08_14 Planning Board Minutes (2) AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 14, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington � C. Alan Mason � i Edmund Papazian 1OIL 11 Absent: May W. Aisen W 1.10 Stephen Andrew Moser Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel 1_ Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer 41901- 9 William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector Susan Delapp, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, Ltd. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board had an opportunity to review the draft of the Minutes of the July 10, 1996 meeting and asked if there were any changes. Mr. Trachtman and Ms. Harrington made a few minor changes. On a motion,made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the Amended Minutes for the July 10, 1996 were approved, 4-0 (Mr. Darsky was not present at the July 10, 1996 meeting and did not vote). The Chairwoman Reader said the first matter on the agenda is a continuation of the Public Hearing and read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL - Frank and Ann Auricchio - 5 Fifth Avenue -Block 132 Lot 609 (adjourned 7/10/96) 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. Robert Stanziale appeared representing Frank and Ann Auricchio, the applicants. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 2 Ms. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale if he had received a memorandum from Mr. Jakubowski which the Board had received regarding two outstanding violations in 1995. Mr. Stanziale said he had seen the memorandum. Ms. Reader said one violation seems to be resolved. The other violation relates to the use of an adjacent fenced parking area for an off-premise parking facility for parking for others. Ms. Reader said this relates to the area that was originally intended to be used by the Giacomo Towing Service. Mr. Gerety said the area referred to is the section used by Collins Brothers. Ms. Reader asked if that area is still going to be used by Collins Brothers. Mr. Gerety said that area is still going to be used by Collins Brothers and will still be in violation. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Gallent how the violation can be resolved. Ms. Gallent said it is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance because parking that is not accessory to a permitted use is not a principal permitted use in the Service Business Zone, the zoning district in which this property lies. In order to legally operate that use, a use variance is required. That does not affect this Board's ability to grant Site Plan approval tonight. If the Board chooses to, it may vote a Site Plan approval which simply approves the orientation and placement of the proposed uses on the site, drainage and all things considered under Site Plan Approval Law. It does not authorize the use. Ms. Reader then questioned the legality of Collins Brothers using that area at this time and in the future for parking. Mr. Gerety said that Collins Brothers is using the area now, has been using it since 1988 and has been in violation since then. There is also a question about a gas pump that is still on the premises. The gas pumps in the front of the property had been removed, but there is still a gas pump on the side of the building which has always been used as a filling pump for the taxi service. Mr. Gerety said that Mr. Auricchio said he uses the pump to fill his trucks kept on the site. It is a cloudy issue whether it is a filling station for hire or only for personal storage. Ms. Gallent said the resolution of that issue is not necessary as the Planning Board must decide on the issue before it, which is Site Plan approval. Whether it is a legal use or not, is a separate issue. The Building Department can prosecute any violations of the Zoning Ordinance. The remedies available to the landowner are those the Board is familiar with. The applicant can apply to the Zoning Board, and if there is a special permit available, the applicant can apply to the Planning Board for a special permit to legalize the use. Mr. Papazian then question if the violations come under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. Ms. Gallent said that what is before the Planning Board is a Site Plan application and those issues do not impact on building proposals. If a Special Permit is required to operate a gas pump if that were a filling station, then the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Board for a Special Permit. The Board does not have a Special Permit application before it. What the Planning Board should do this evening is simply approve or disapprove the Site Plan but not the uses as that is not an issue before the Board. Mr. Stanziale said the purpose for coming before the Board is not to deceive the Board but to remedy this issue. The applicant wants to legalize the parking lot for Collins Brothers. Admittedly, the gas tank or fuel pump was not shown on the plan. There was no intent to eliminate them, but just to keep the premises as was, a filling gas pump for Larchmont Taxi. The applicant will not be able to satisfy the whole site at this point, even if the Planning Board is able to act on the Site Plan. It is still going to be a two application approval, but Mr. Stanziale is somewhat concerned that the Collins Brothers issue is just surfacing. A Planning Board • August 14, 1996 Page 3 © zoning analysis was done on the initial Site Plan, which supposedly was reviewed. If there were any corrections that had to be made, it should have been noticed some time ago. Ms. Reader said the notice states April 21, 1995, so Mr. Auricchio certainly was on notice that it was an illegal activity. The applicant has had notice of a continuing illegal activity since April, 1995. Mr. Stanziale said the applicant has already been before the Zoning Board for another matter, and this could have been resolved months ago. Since the last hearing, the applicant has been to the Architectural Review Board (BAR)as requested by the Planning Board, and the BAR had recommended some approvals which were incorporated on the revised plans; i.e. evergreen screening at the rear of the property and container for garbage in the area that was to be used by the proposed Towing Service storage. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale the date of the revised plans. Mr. Stanziale said the revised plan is dated July 31, 1996. Other improvements made included replacing a fence, adding some landscaping, maintaining existing planting beds that are on site, adding deciduous trees or Pin Oak to each one of the planting beds that have been proposed at the front of the site. The applicant is not proposing signage on the building at this time, because at that time the BAR would need to give approval. In addition, unfortunately Mr. Stanziale did not bring any copies with him, a recent change has been made as there is now a tenant for a space. The two spaces originally designated as space 1 and 2, Lesco Incorporated, a wholesale storage business, is interested in occupying. Lesco stores and sells equipment related to golf courses, green maintenance and things of that nature. Dolores Battalia,Mr. Auricchio's attorney, had reviewed same with Mr. Jakubowski, the Building Inspector, confirming it is a permitted use. There is ample parking for this business. Mr. Stanziale said that Mr. Gerety, the Assistant Building Inspector, had mentioned that there may have been some other changes that were proposed by the BAR that Ms. Williams of the BAR had recommended. Mr. Gerety said some recommendations were penciled in on the plans. Ms. Reader said on the left-hand corner of the plans, it states keep existing trees, benches and plantings, replace wood fence with new fence, which were the additional recommendations of the Building Department. Mr. Stanziale said the fence was incorporated on the plans, if Ms. Reader is referring to the fence along the property line which is noticed on the plan. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments or questions from members of the Board and the audience as this is a public hearing. Ms. Harrington asked what exactly is Lesco proposing to store that would keep a golf course nice? Mr. Stanziale said Lesco would be storing equipment related to golf; i.e. certain lawn cutters and machinery. Ms. Harrington asked if there will be any chemicals. Mr. Stanziale said there will be no chemicals,just machinery. Dr. Mason said it is the first he has heard about an existing pump. Ms. Reader said it is the first the Board has heard about the existing pump, because it has not been on the plans. On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 4 RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Harrington said she would like clarification on how the Board would approve the Site Plan as it is mapped out, if part of it is not a legal use. Ms. Gallent said there is case law that states the Planning Board has to hear the case. She explained that she is aware of a case in which a use was not a permitted use and the Planning Board declined to act on the Site Plan and the court held that to be in error. Ms. Gallent said the question before the Board is not whether the use is legal. Ms. Reader said it is her understanding that the Town Building Department can prosecute if there is an illegal use. If it can be cured through an application to the Zoning Board, then the applicant should do that. Ms. Reader said it is her understanding that the Planning Board is not giving its approval for use activities according to counsel's advise. Based upon counsel's advise, Ms. Reader is ready to go forward with Site Plan approval. If other members of the Board have a different opinion it can be discussed. Ms. Harrington said she just wanted clarification. Ms. Reader said it does disturb her that there has been a violation since April of 1995 without resolution by the applicant. Ms. Reader asked for a motion to find that the project as described in the revised plans dated July 31, 1996 the Auricchio Site Plan on 5 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 609 will not have a significant impact on the environment. Ms. Harrington made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Papazian and was approved 4-1. Dr. Mason was in opposition. Ms. Reader said there is a requirement for a $2,000.00 bond for the removal of the fuel tanks, and a condition should be set on the approval. Ms. Reader asked if a condition is needed to state what type of enterprise will be allowed, so that a Towing Company like the one that was withdrawn will not be a likely candidate in the future. Dr. Mason said the letter from the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) requested that terminology. Ms. Gallent then read from the August 5, 1996 letter of the CZMC as follows: "As the Site Plan has been revised to omit use of the parking area in questions as an auto towing storage yard, the CZMC has determined that installation of a sediment trap or a separator is no longer required for consistency with the LWRP. However, should the adjacent gravel parking area be paved, installation of a sediment trap or a separator serving the entire parking area at the site will be necessary to assure consistency with the LWRP policies." Ms. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale if the adjacent parking area is still remaining gravel. Mr. Stanziale said that was correct. Ms. Reader asked if the Board has the authority to set a condition regarding same. Ms. Harrington said that would be a separate issue. Dr. Mason said the reason that condition was removed was because of the assurance that it would not be that type of operation. If the Board is anticipating the applicant to return, in view of what is going on with the Collins Brothers, it might be better if it were spelled out. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Gallent said the Board could condition the certification, but it probably is not necessary because if changes were going to be made to the site it would be an amendment to the Site Plan which would require the applicant to return. A discussion ensued. Mr. Papazian said he is not comfortable with the outstanding violations and gas pumps. Ms. Reader said the entire Board shares the same concern with the outstanding violations, and stated the Building Department should be more aggressive with the prosecution of same. Ms. Reader asked for a motion to approve the Site Plan as described in the plans dated July 31, 1996 with the additional condition that a $2,000.00 bond be posted for removal of the buried fuel tanks and the removal of the fuel tanks. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale if the plans stated the fuel tanks will be removed. Mr. Stanziale said the plans state the fuel tanks will be removed, but does not know whether that is a Building Department requirement or not. Ms. Gallent said there are other provision of law that require violations to be removed. Ms. Reader said she is perfectly happy to include the violation removal as a condition. Mr. Papazian said basically the Board does not have the jurisdiction to do so. Mr. Papazian made a motion to approve the Site Plan as described in the plans dated July 31, 1996 with the additional condition that a $2,000.00 bond be posted for removal of the buried fuel tanks and the removal of the fuel tanks, seconded by Ms. Reader, and approved 4-1, Dr. Mason was in opposition. A discussion followed, and Ms. Reader said the Board works by consensus and consensus is the outstanding violations be included in the certification. Ms. Reader said the vote has been reopened, the resolution has been amended to include a third condition and asked for a motion for those three condition. Upon a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following certification was unanimously approved: WHEREAS, Frank and Ann Auricchio have submitted an application for Site Plan Approval for the premises located at 5 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 609 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has declared itself to be lead agency and has determined the application to be unlisted pursuant to SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has found that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment and has issued a negative declaration of environmental significance; 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 June 12, 1996, July 10, 1996, and August 14, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Site Plan Approval is hereby granted for the application submitted by Frank and Ann Auricchio, subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein: I. General Requirements Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 6 All site work, landscaping, storm water drainage and treatment systems shall be in accordance with the plans submitted, as follows: a. The project will be as described in the revised plans before the Board dated July 31, 1996. b. The buried fuel tanks shall be removed. c. A $2,000.00 bond shall be posted for the removal of the buried fuel tanks. d. The outstanding zoning violations, dated April 3, 1995, involving Zoning Ordinance Sections 89-65A 89-28.1B(2), shall be cured. II. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Drainage This approval is subject to final approval of drainage plans by the Town's Consulting Engineer. B. Erosion and Sediment Control - (During Construction) 1. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be based on the standards presented in the Town of Mamaroneck Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Law. 2. The control plan shall include a construction timetable and an inspection schedule. Mr. Stanziale said with respect to the last condition, this process was to remedy the violations. Mr. Stanziale said the applicant is before the Board to get Site Plan approval to remedy those violations. Ms. Reader said Mr. Stanziale inferred this is a first step to try to remedy those violations and wishes Mr. Stanziale speed in remedying same. Dr. Mason said Mr. Stanziale should take into account the history of this case. Mr. Stanziale asked Mr. Gerety if he wanted changes made to the Site Plan for the BAR. Mr. Gerety said it was not necessary as he had copies for the BAR. The Chairwoman Reader read the next application is a continuation of the Public Hearing as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SPECIAL USE PERMIT-SAVATREE-Don Becker - 633-635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 and 643 (adjourned 7/10/96) On a motion was 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. Don Becker and Daniel Van Starrenburg appeared. Mr. Van Starrenburg said at the last meeting there were two primary areas the Board had questions and concerns about. One of those concerns was what Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 7 ® system SAVATREE would use when washing the trucks and was there an alternative system to the gravel pit that had been previously proposed. At that time Mr. Van Starrenburg stated there is such an alternative system available and distributed copies to members of the Board. The structure is called a Plia-Pad, and there was concern as to whether or not it was inflatable. To clarify that issue, Mr. Van Starrenburg said the walls are supported with foam. It is not a system that relies on air alone to maintain its rigidity. That system offers a 100% closed loop system whereby a truck would drive onto this pad, one of the side walls is collapsible and is designed so the truck can drive over it, and when the truck tires pass, the wall will stand up. The applicant would then proceed to wash the truck and pump the water back into the tank to be recycled for use in the landscape operation. Mr. Van Starrenburg said the second area was about the products that SAVATREE uses in their plant health care program, and are these products hazardous and fully biodegradable. In response to that question, SAVATREE retained Dr. Porcelli of the firm Porcelli Consultants who confirmed that all of the products have no hazard rating as far as the EPA is concerned and are fully biodegradable. There are sections on the Dr. Porcelli's letter Mr. Van Starrenburg highlighted stating "review includes whether they have any toxicity or flammability hazards and whether are biodegradable. The following table contains a summary of the results of my review. Please note that under "Hazard Rating", I have determined if these materials are listed by the EPA as hazardous materials in storage." Mr. Van Starrenburg said he feels that may be the ultimate authority here with the EPA on that. "Comments under "Biodegradability" are based on a study of the chemical structures involved as well as information received from the manufacturers." He points out that after reviewing each of these products that "the inventory of chemicals which SAVATREE uses or proposes to store are quite benign, especially if compared to many chemicals and materials normally found around the home or work place." Dr. Porcelli is very confident about the storage system being proposed, and feels the epoxy and the double berm system is sufficient for what SAVATREE is storing. "In conclusion, the relative lack of hazards in storing this inventory as proposed ® by SAVATREE is due both to the essentially non-hazardous nature of the materials as well as the very low quantities involved. The biodegradability of the products minimizes any potential long term environmental impact of the materials included in your proposal. If the materials are stored and handled properly, consistent in the manner in which SAVATREE has demonstrated in the past, the proposed storage of these materials can be considered to be essentially hazard-free." Mr. Van Starrenburg said this is the opinion of a professional, someone who has spent twenty-six years as a chemical engineer working for various companies. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Van Starrenburg about Dr. Porcelli's doctorate. Mr. Becker said he thought he had a doctorate in chemical engineering. Mr. Van Starrenburg also noted that Dr. Porcelli is the chemical engineer that helped SAVATREE with the same question in the Town of Bedford. Dr. Mason said the Board needs to know that information for the record. Ms. Reader said that in the last paragraph of Dr. Porcelli's letter, Dr. Porcelli establishes his experience as a chemical engineer in his 26+ years of experience in the chemical industry. Ms. Reader asked about the size of the Plia-Pad. Mr. Becker said the drawing indicates 12 ft. x 25 ft. Ms. Reader asked if the Plia-Pad can be made as large as needed. Mr. Becker said there is a whole series of sizes that can be purchased, as it is custom made. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Papazian asked the height of the walls. Mr. Becker said the height of the walls is 3 in. to 4 in. high, depending on the size of the foam inserted. Plia-Pad recommends 3 in. to 4 in. as being sufficient. Ms. Reader said to her understanding it is also placed on top of a 2 in. base of fine ag lime and asked what ag lime is. Mr. Van Starrenburg said ag lime is basically like highway sand. Mr. Becker said it is the same principle behind the gravel pit that was proposed,just the filtration through and into the ground. Ms. Reader asked the Board for comments. Mr. Papazian said he did not have a comment on the pool or pad but on the epoxy. No where in the description of the epoxy does it state how often the epoxy has to he applied. It probably would depend on the use, and as part of the Special Permit the Board should address same to the effect that SAVATREE will inspect the building to see if another layer of epoxy is needed when the applicant reapplies for renewal of Special Permit in two years. Obviously if the epoxy holds up, it will not have to be reapplied. A discussion ensued. Mr. Trachtman said in speaking with a representative from Pittsburgh Paints this date, who advised Mr. Trachtman based on the assumptions Mr. Trachtman made about the frequency of use, it was suggested that if applied as specified in the product data sheet that the layers would last approximately three to four years. Mr. Trachtman feels it is appropriate to ask for certification by the applicant of the condition of the coating and, if necessary, that re-coating was done. Ms. Reader asked for comments or questions from members of the Board. Dr. Mason asked the applicant about the recycling of the water, asking specifically how this is handled; i.e. sump pump. Mr. Van Starrenburg said it is a sump pump system. Dr. Mason said presumably the contaminants in one will not create a problem with the next batch if the water is put back into the tank. Mr. Becker said as previously discussed quantities, if any exist, are minute and the soap that is used is biodegradable. Ms. Reader questioned whether soap can be put hack into the tank. Mr. Van Starrenburg said soap is a very popular natural insecticide. Mr. Becker said the soap is an insecticide and it acts as a surfactant, so it makes the water slipperier giving better coverage on a plant in terms of the control to be achieved. Mr. Trachtman asked if it was the applicant's intent to recycle the water only if the applicant knows that the product going back into a tank is compatible with the next chemical to be put into the tank. Mr. ® Trachtman asked what happens if the applicant is doing a wash down and knows chemicals will be switched that may not be compatible. Would the applicant then be generating a waste that would have to be disposed •of and could not he put back into the truck at that particular time. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Van Starrenburg said at this time SAVATREE is not aware of any conflict in terms of there being material on the list that would not be compatible with the wash water. If the soap would be in conflict with a particular material, Mr. Van Starrenburg would prefer not to use the soap but just wash down with water. Mr. Trachtman said the point is whether or not the rinsate which is created as a result of washing down the exterior of the truck as opposed to the process of rinsing out the tank, capturing and recycling that, becomes a waste. These are two separate processes. But if the rinsate of washing down the trucks turns out to be something that cannot be put back into the tank because the intent is to put something else into the tank, what then becomes of the rinsate. It is now something that would have to be disposed of in some fashion. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if rinsate is a term of art, does that include soap, or what if the applicant just uses plain water. Mr. Van Starrenburg said it is still a rinsate. Ms. Reader said the Board has been told by Mr. Becker that none of the chemicals are incompatible,even as SAVATREE goes from one season to the other season and even if some chemicals are left in the tank the new chemical can be added. A discussion ensued. Mr. Van Starrenburg said products used by SAVATREE are compatible. If they were not, Mr. Van Starrenburg said he would change the schedule for that day, go back to a type of treatment that would use that kind of mix. It is a very unlikely scenario. Mr. Becker said water is the basis for doing the treatments, it is not pure distilled water, it is water that is already impure. The products used work over a fairly wide range of impure water. These products are made to be able to withstand a fairly wide range of pH, impurities in that water, as the water is only a carrier. It is the product itself that does the job. Mr. Trachtman asked where the water will be coming from to conduct the wash down operation. Mr. Van Starrenburg said from a hose. Mr. Trachtman asked if it was water from a hose at the garage. Mr. Van Starrenburg said yes. Mr. Trachtman said there is water on site at the garage, and asked if the applicant can exercise some control on the pressure of water as it is applied to the trucks to minimize the amount of spray that takes place. Mr. Becker said yes. Mr. Trachtman said when washing down the truck and just passing over the truck with the hose, can that achieve the kind of wash down that is acceptable to SAVATREE. Mr. Van Starrenburg said the best way is to use the brushes that are connected to the hose to prevent splashing. Mr. Becker said that is also why the pad is larger than the actual size of the truck. © Mr. Trachtman said he would like to clarify a point. There are 11 products listed in Dr. Porcelli's letter. There are many more products than that listed in SAVATREE'S product catalogue. Is it SAVATREE'S intent only to store on site the products listed in Dr. Porcelli's letter? Planning Board • August 14, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Becker asked Mr. Trachtman if he was referring to the data sheet that was supplied to the Board several meetings earlier. Mr. Trachtman agreed. Mr. Van Starrenburg said the data sheet lists every possible product that might he needed for use over the course of the season. There are some products on the list that might never be used. The ones listed on the list, looking on the original chart indicating the products used, the last line item said miscellaneous. The ones not listed are ones that might be used every three years for one application. By law in the data sheet all chemicals must be included, therefore when the products are renewed products were added under miscellaneous that are not specifically listed on the original Site Plans. The products that fall in the miscellaneous category are very small quantities which probably are used one day and finished. Mr. Papazian said the products then would not be in storage. Mr. Van Starrenburg said they would not be in storage. Mr. Trachtman said the only products, those listed by Dr. Porcelli, will be stored on site. Mr. Van Starrenburg said that is correct. Mr. Trachtman said is it possible that some of the products would wind up as residues on the outside of the truck. Mr. Van Starrenburg said in theory yes, but it would be important to note that none of those chemicals are hazardous and all are biodegradable. Mr. Trachtman said on the subject of whether the chemicals are hazardous or not on the products that are listed in the product catalogue, upon review of Part 597 of the DEC Regulations it refers to a hazardous substances list. Three of the products have an active ingredient which is considered hazardous. It may or may not be stored in quantities that exceed the threshold stated in that part, which I believe is 185 gallons for above-ground storage of concentrate. Secondly, one of the products listed, Spotrete F, has an active ingredient of Thiram. According to Part 371 of DEC that is a characteristic of a hazardous substance which may be referred to as a Toxic substance because it has a new designation under Part 371. Ms. Reader said that is not on the list. Mr. Van Starrenburg said that is in the data booklet. Mr. Trachtman said it is a product which had been sprayed during the day and therefore could wind up as residue on the outside of the truck and then would potentially he washed down. Mr. Becker said one of the reasons it is not on either list is because Spotrete is used in the fall applications and in the down county area that treatment is not performed. Secondly, when that treatment is performed it is a backpack spray that is used, not the truck. Mr. Trachtman said one of the products listed in Dr. Porcelli's letter, Pyrenone, has an active ingredient which is mentioned in Part 596. Mr. Van Starrenburg said this particular source of Pyrenone is botanical. It is purely extracts from ® chrysanthemum flowers, the safest that can be used. It is used on organic food crops, and these materials list a certain waiting period from application to harvest, which in this case is zero days. Mr. Trachtman had one other comment on list of products in Dr. Porcelli's letter. There is a reference Mr. Trachtman came across referring to the Dimilin 25W which has an active ingredient, Dyzonbenzeron. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 11 In 1989 a study had been done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which indicated, at that time, there was not an update on that particular substance and was not listed as an EPA registered product whereas all of the others on the study matched up with SAVATREE'S product list and are EPA registered specifically stating where they can be used. Mr. Van Starrenburg said since then that particular product has been the most popular with the United States Forest Service in the control of gypsy moth outbreaks. Mr. Van Starrenburg said he was sure that prior to the United States Forest Service using that chemical in area applications they have satisfied themselves as to the type of product used. That is a product that is not significant in SAVATREE'S program, and even though it is on the list, Mr. Van Starrenburg doesn't feel SAVATREE will be using it next year. Mr. Trachtman said for those products that were mentioned in the study that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had done, in general the conclusion was that the products generally had a half life measured in two weeks with one that had a half life for as long as 28 days. In general the bioaccumulation of compounds were considered mostly in the low range, one considered moderate, Thiram. In a couple of instances all the products are indicated as biodegradable. The children of the biodegradation process in some cases are more toxic than the parent. The context of the study to examine the affects of these chemicals is for certain species, none of which exist in this area. A prime test will be studied to examine the affects of these chemicals. Dr. Mason asked if that is a cause or effect situation because these chemicals have not been used. Mr. Trachtman said there was concern about the fact that these chemicals existed and were found in various places. They were removed to study the effects, considering the relatively short half lives and the time of travel that could be involved; i.e. primarily an overflow situation where chemicals could get onto the surrounding soils and down into the soils. This is travel through soil because there is no direct connection proposed for any storm drain system in the vicinity in relation to the habitats the Board is concerned about. The risk of a problem with the species in a habitat are minimal, considering the precautions the applicant proposes to take. Ms. Reader said in her check of the lists made regarding chemicals proposed to be stored, based upon the June 28, 1996 Plan #2 to the Board and Dr. Porcelli's list, the only chemical that doesn't check on both is fungicide and asked which product on Dr. Porcelli's list is a fungicide. Mr. Van Starrenburg said it would be Manzate 20DF, which is the fungicide. Ms. Reader said there were a few others in Dr. Porcelli's list and asked Mr. Van Starrenburg if those were intended to be under miscellaneous. Mr. Van Starrenburg agreed. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Van Starrenburg to explain what Guardian is. Mr. Van Starrenburg explained same to the Board. Ms. Reader asked about the Earth Friendly Spray. Mr. Van Starrenburg said it is Earth Friendly Fruit Spray, which is a natural treatment performed on fruit trees. Ms. Reader then asked if Fertilizer 10-10-10 is just fertilizer. Mr. Becker said Fertilizer 10-10-10 is fertilizer with ingredients; i.e nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Pause 12 Ms. Reader then asked Mr. Trachtman if there are any chemicals listed, based upon Mr. Trachtman's review, that Mr. Trachtman would recommend to the Board to preclude from storage. Mr. Trachtman said no. The key point is whether or not the quantities generated as the result of the wash down operations could produce a volume amount of hazardous substance to qualify as a hazardous waste. Mr. Trachtman believes the answer is no. Mr. Trachtman asked Mr. Van Starrenburg if there would be any chance, as a result of excessive wash down and a damp pad and rain on Saturday and Sunday, if the pad could overflow. Mr. Van Starrenburg said there would have to be a lot of rain. Mr. Trachtman asked about resiliency of the foam as after repeated driving over the foam, eventually the resiliency will wear out and there may be less than 4 in. of protection on that side of the pad. Mr. Trachtman then asked how often does the applicant intend to replace the pad. Mr. Becker said it would require regular inspection and maintenance. When it no longer serves the function it was intended for, it would he replaced. Without having used it for a period of years, it is difficult to decide. Mr. Trachtman said after SAVATREE collects the proposed wash down that will occur as a result of using a hose creating a damp pad with chemical content, would SAVATREE take the contents from the hosed pad and put it back into the truck. Mr. Becker agreed that would be done. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Gallent if that needed to be made a condition. Ms. Gallent said it could he made a condition. Ms. Gallent asked if the pad will be a permanent fixture. Mr. Van Starrenburg said it would be permanent during the season; i.e. 6 months. The pad will be put in proper storage in the winter on site. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. Ms. Reader said she had just been given procedural advise by counsel. Ms. Gallent said one issue has surfaced whether this matter should go to the BAR. Originally a Site Plan application was filed because you want to delete from your earlier Site Plan approval, the condition prohibiting storage of pesticides. Now a physical change to the Site is being proposed. If that change is a temporary one, perhaps it need not be referred to the BAR. Mr. Darsky and the Board agreed that this is a temporary use, a six month season. Mr. Darsky said SAVATREE has been before the Board as the seasons change, and anything_that the Board can do would be well in the public interest to send them on their way; either reject it or approve it. Ms. Gallent said it would not effect the timing at all given the SEQRA process, which has to by law, continue for another 30 days if the Board adopts a CND. Ms. Reader said Ms. Gallent brought to the Board's attention last month a procedure the Board is not familiar with, that being the establishment of conditions to the Site Plan to create a Conditioned Negative Declaration and asked Ms. Gallent to inform the Board about the procedure required. Ms. Gallent said as discussed at the last meeting the Planning Board would find, based on the initial plans presented, that the project might have a significant effect on the environment. However, with the conditions proposed, those potential impacts will he eliminated. In that case, the law requires the Planning Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 13 Board to adopt a Conditioned Negative Declaration. The procedure for adopting a Conditioned Negative Declaration is that the Planning Board will vote tonight to issue same, then the text of it will go to the State Environmental Notice Bulletin. It is required that the Conditioned Negative Declaration be published for thirty (30) days to elicit public comments. The Planning Board will reconvene at the end of thirty (30) days and consider any public comments received to see whether the public comments change the Board's mind about whether the Board can still issue a CND at which time it is finished with SEQRA and the Board can act on the Site Plan application. The Planning Board cannot vote tonight. You must by law have a thirty (30) day publication. The Environmental Notice Bulletin is published by the County. The deadline for submission is every Wednesday, which means the submission date is the following Wednesday from this evening's meeting and it will be printed the following Wednesday. The timing is beyond the Board's control. Mr. Van Starrenburg said then the case will be on the October calendar. Ms. Reader said those are the procedures that are imposed on the Planning Board. Ms. Reader said that what Ms. Gallent was saying earlier, is that if the Board feels it is appropriate to send it to the BAR, the BAR response will be received for the next meeting so there is no delay. It should also be recognized that the initial application to the Board said there would he no chemical storage and a second application was made. Mr. Darsky said the Board also has to consider the time SAVATREE has spent before the Board. Mr. Darsky would like to recommend temporary use and SAVATREE will not have to go before the BAR. Ms. Harrington said she agrees, along with other Board members. © Ms. Reader asked for a motion to find that the proposed action as presented on the plans dated June 28, 1996, page 2, and July 31, 1996, page 1 would not have a significant impact on the environment, provided the following conditions are met: (1) There will be no use of persisting materials. (2) There will be no more than 445 gallons of chemicals stored at any time. (3) In the case of spillage a copy of the notice required to be given to the DEC or Fire Department will also be given to the Town Building Department. (4) Miscellaneous chemicals as listed in Plan 2 dated June 28, 1996, are limited to Earth Friendly Fruit Spray and Guardian, the chemicals listed in Dr. Porcelli's letter. (5) The installation of the Plia-Pad shall be as presented to the Board pursuant to the manufacturer's specifications for the wash down pad and the water generated in the wash down pool will be recycled and returned to the tanks in SAVATREE'S trucks. (6) SAVATREE will inspect, maintain and repair the epoxy coating so that it will maintain an impermeable condition. (7) Plia-pad liquid containment pad shall be stored off-season in the facility garage. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously recommended, 5-0, that a Conditioned Negative Declaration be published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin as follows: © WHEREAS, Say-A-Tree has submitted an application for Site Plan Approval for the premises located at 633-635 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lots 175 and 643; and Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 14 WHEREAS, the Planning Board has declared the application to be an Unlisted Action under SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed all of the submissions by, and on behalf of, the applicant, all correspondence from Town officials, the Consulting Engineer to the Town, the Board of Architectural Review and the Coastal Zone Management Commission and members of the public, and Public Hearings have been held pursuant to notice on June 12, 1996, July 10, 1996 and August 14, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board adopts the following Conditioned Negative Declaration and directs that notice thereof he published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin: 1. The applicant will install and utilize a self-contained wash down system, consisting of a Plia-Pad liquid containment system. The trucks will drive into the center of the Plia- Pad, where the wash down will occur. The waste wash water will be contained within the pad, which is similar to a pool. The waste wash water will then be recycled back into the truck tanks. The Plia-Pad will he placed on top of sand, which will provide an additional safeguard without adversely affecting the integrity of the Plia-Pad pool. 2. Any spills of pesticides within the garage will be contained by a double berm containment system. A 6" berm will be constructed at the garage door entrance. The trucks will be required to drive over the berm and into the garage to load the pesticides into their tanks. An 8" berm will he installed directly in front of the pesticide storage area to create a containment system that is larger than the maximum volume of liquid that will be permitted to be stored in the garage. 3. The Plia-Pad liquid containment system will he stored in the garage during the off- ° season. 4. The walls and floors of the garage will be epoxied to a height of 8" to create an impervious seal. Say-A-Tree will periodically inspect, maintain and repair the epoxy coating to insure that it will remain in an impermeable condition. 5. The applicant will not be permitted to store in the garage any pesticides that persist in the environment. 6. There will he no storage of pesticides in quantities greater than 445 gallons at any time. 7. A plan of emergency response in case of spillage must be submitted to and accepted by the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department,Town of Mamaroneck Building Department, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New Rochelle Medical Center. The Fire Department must be notified annually regarding the types and quantities of pesticides stored. 8. The pesticides to be stored on site will be limited to those listed on Plan 2, dated June 28, 1996, and as listed in the letter from Dr. Richard Porcelli to Donald C. Becker dated July 24,1996. "Miscellaneous" chemicals referred to in the June 28, 1996 plan shall be limited to Earth Friendly Fruit Spray and Guardian. Mr. Van Starrenburg asked if the Board was in agreement with the temporary nature of the containment pad. Ms. Reader said it is her understanding the consensus of the Board is that the Plia-Pad is used on a temporary basis through the year and therefore is not required to go before the BAR. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Becker said SAVATREE will he back in October, and in terms of being prepared asked what to expect in October. Ms. Gallent said Mr. Becker should check periodically with the Town office to see whether any comments have been received from the publication notice. If there are comments, then Mr. Becker can decide how to respond. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington,seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously agreed to continue the Public Hearing in October. On a motion was made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION/RENEWAL-SPECIAL USE PERMIT -Village Square Bagels-John Mercaldi - 1262 Boston Post Road - Block 407 Lot 192 John Mercaldi appeared and stated he is before the Board to renew the Special Permit from two years ago as nothing has been changed and basically was just for tables and chairs. Dr. Mason asked if there was any feedback or problems regarding same. Mr. Mercaldi said there has not been any problems relating to the tables and chairs. 40111 Ms. Gallent asked if Mr. Mercaldi had a copy of the certification. Mr. Mercaldi said he did not have a copy of the certification. Ms. Reader asked the Planning Board secretary if she had a copy of the certification. Ms. Roma, the Planning Board Secretary, said there is no copy of the certification in the file, but there are Minutes from the May 13, 1992 in the file which can be copied for the Board. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Mercaldi as this is a renewal, was he asking for the same conditions as previously existed. Mr. Mercaldi said yes, he was asking for the same conditions as previously existed, as nothing has been changed. Ms. Gallent said the record should reflect that because the property is located on the Boston Post Road the application has to be referred to the County Planning Board, and when notices of the Public Hearing are mailed out a copy should also be sent to the County. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. ® On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously agreed to adjourn this matter for a Public Hearing next month, September 11, 1996. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Mercaldi was informed to contact Ms. Roma of the Building Department to obtain a copy of the Public Notice, as the applicant notices the neighbors when applying for Special Permit. The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - New No. I Chinese Restaurant - Chen Qi Yong - 176 Myrtle Boulevard - Block 133 Lot 642 The applicant was not present. The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES - Ellen and Eric Marcus - 10 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 84 Ellen Marcus appeared and stated the applicants want to build a deck on the current house. The drainage ditch in the backyard and the land falls under the Freshwater Wetlands regulations which was found out after obtaining the building permit and construction was approved. Two changes have been made so that there are staked hay bales along the stream. There will be six (6)pilings for the deck. The other four(4) homes that border the stream, all but one of the homes have decks in place. Ms. Reader asked how far the deck is from the stream. Mr. Trachtman said the back edge of the deck would be about 50 ft. from the edge of the stream. A discussion followed. Ms. Reader asked the size of the deck. Ms. Marcus said the deck is approximately 13 ft. deep. Dr. Mason asked if the proposed pilings for the deck are wood or steel columns. Ms. Marcus said the pilings would be wood. On a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Ms. Marcus asked if it would be helpful to bring additional information to the next meeting. Mr. Trachtman said it will not be necessary to bring additional information to the next meeting, as the letter Mr. Trachtman will prepare regarding this matter will contain mutual requirements for posting a bond and will be sufficient. On a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously agreed to adjourn this matter for a Public Hearing next month, September 11, 1996. The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as tbllows: © CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES - S.A.B. DEVELOPMENT - Andrew Saines - 28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.I • Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 17 0 Andrew Saines and Mark Mustacato appeared. Mr. Mustacato said the property was subdivided and had a Freshwater Wetlands review at that time, and the application is the resulting house from that subdivision. The footprint of the house is in the impervious area and is less than what was approved in the subdivision granted by the Planning Board. During the construction there would he no blasting on the property. Indicated on the plan is silt fencing across the back and up the sides of the property and details of the silt fencing as far as containing the runoff. Also, the tree protection is indicated. The 100-year flood elevation is in the neighborhood of 86. All the work is above the 100-year flood plain. There are no changes at all in the flood plain area. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman if the proposed construction is really above the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Trachtman said according to the hydrologic investigation prepared in 1991, the elevation of the 100- year flood would appear to be approximately at the elevation 86. This site sits up on a large rock outcrop and agrees with Mr. Mustacato. Mr. Mustacato said the proposed building is going essentially into the rock. Ms. Reader asked if that was why Mr. Mustacato prefaced his presentation stating there would be no blasting. Mr. Mustacato said that was why he prefaced his presentation stating there would he no blasting as it was an issue. Mr. Saines said rock that needed to he removed would he chipped out. Mr. Mustacato said the rock is on the left side of the proposed house, and that is where the garage and basement area will be with the assumption being there will he crawl space under the left side of the house where the rock is. Ms. Reader asked if there would be a basement. Mr. Mustacato said there will be a partial basement on the right side of the house, and crawl space on the left side of the house. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Mustacato the square footage of the footprint of the house. Mr. Mustacato said the square footage of the footprint of the house is approximately 1,600 to 1,700 square feet. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Mustacato to have the size of the footprint for the Public Hearing. Mr. Mustacato said a great deal of the information on the plan is the same information that had been entered and approved on the subdivision. Borings had been done at the time of the subdivision. The basement level will be at elevation 91. The area where the basement will he is approximately 1 ft. below the existing grade. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr. Trachtman said he had a comment on the Long Form Environmental Assessment Form. Part I(A) question 11 and 12 on page 3 the answers seem to be transposed. Mr. Mustacato said that is correct Part I(A) question 11 and 12 on page 3 the answers are transposed. Ms. Gallent said to correct same in the record. Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 18 Ms. Reader asked if this is a Type II action. Ms. Gallent said that by law this is a Type II action because it is the construction of a one-family house. Mr. Papazian asked if this was a subdivision, was there another house built before. Mr. Mustacato said the proposed application was created by a two-lot subdivision from an existing house. Ms. Reader asked which subdivision it was. Mr. Mustacato said it is McCarthy subdivision. Ms. Reader asked if this had to be referred. Ms. Gallent said no referral is necessary. Dr. Mason said he would like to see very good data on the stream in the flood plain at the next meeting. Mr. Trachtman said in reviewing the plot prepared in the '91 study the elevations seem to be correct. Dr. Mason said a few weeks ago on Bonnie Way there was street flooding. Mr. Trachtman said that was traced back to the problem of cleaning the grate. Dr. Mason said the new culvert under Weaver Street should help the situation. Mr. Mustacato said the topography was reverified by Gabriel Senor, the surveyor, and tied into the coastal geodetic mark which was the datum used. Ms. Reader said then the plan and the elevations Mr. Mustacato are usin are based upon that reference mark that was verified by Mr. Senor. Mr. Mustacato said that was done because of conversations with Mr. Trachtman and because of past experiences when there were times the reference points were not the same. On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously agreed to adjourn this matter for a Public Hearing next month, September 11, 1996. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 11, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:25 p.m. At this point in time, Ms. Harrington asked Ms. Reader about the fourth case on the agenda, New No. 1 Chinese Restaurant, and said the applicants have a difficult time speaking english. Maybe they did not understand the procedure. A discussion followed, after which Ms. Reader made a motion to schedule the ® fourth matter for Consideration/Renewal - Special Use Permit - New No. 1 Chinese Restaurant-Chen Qi Yong - 176 Myrtle Boulevard - Block 133 Lot 642 for a Public Hearing on September 11, 1996, which seconded by Dr. Mason and was unanimously approved. Ms. Reader also made the recommendation that someone from the Building Department should go to the establishment and speak to the applicants. • Planning Board August 14, 1996 Page 19 C.; Ms. Gallent asked the secretary to call the applicant to inform and assist them regarding the Public Hearing and procedures that needed to be followed. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Ma/i Marguerite Ro Recording Secretary