Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_08_05 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 5, 1998, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 1 Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman Linda S. Harrington 4 C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian RECEIVED c SEP 22 1998 Absent: May W. Aisen PATTO t Dana Richard H. Darsky ROk Ept M.r Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel 8 �g Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer i k Michelle Nieto and Antoinette Day, Public Stenographers 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 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of April 8, 1998 and if there were any amendments. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Linda Harrington, the Minutes were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Brant K. Mailer - 7 Winged Foot Drive -Block 209 Lot 227 On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, 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. Brant Mailer, the applicant, and Robert Ciamei, the architect, appeared. Ms. Reader stated the matter has been put on directly for a Public Hearing after it was discussed with Ms. Reader and she consented. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Carpaneto to give a brief history on the unusual approach taken with this matter. Mr. Carpaneto said the matter started with an application to the Building Department. A Disapproval Notice was sent with an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, because of setback regulations in the rear yard. At that time, it should have also had a disapproval for Wetlands, which was inadvertently Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 2 overlooked. Approximately one and one-half months had already past, and it was realized that the Wetlands notice had not been sent out. Due to the circumstances, it was felt that going directly to public hearing would be a fair and equitable procedure in this case. Ms. Reader said the applicant appeared before the Zoning Board in May 1998. Mr. Ciamei said the proposal is for a one-story addition to the rear of the residence to enlarge the kitchen and breakfast area and add a bedroom. Mr. Ciamei pointed out in perusing the construction drawings, the proposed addition is being built on the first floor level which is actually one story above grade at the rear of the house. The addition is being built on piers. As far as the impact and disturbance of soil, it will have a minimal impact. Soil calculations performed show three(3)yards of dirt to be removed. Nothing will be stockpiled on top of the land. The applicant will be using a dirt dumpster. At one point in time, basement expansion was discussed, but the applicant realized the impact that would cause and abandoned that idea. The rain water will be accommodated with an infiltrator that will be installed behind the addition that will handle all surface runoff from the roof area which will help the current porous surface condition that exists. This will decrease any type of erosion that would normally take place, if any. Straw bales will be put where required, which are indicated on the survey filed with the application. The only item not discussed was if there would be any vegetation installed after the proposed addition is finished. Mr. Ciamei stated he is open to any discussion or comments the Board has. Mr. Maller commented on the Board's concern about protecting the area. He said he and his wife loved the location when the residence was purchased, but the house is not functional for his family. Mr. Maller hired Remodeling Consultants who would understand the depth of the proposal and has performed a number of jobs along the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Maller tried to propose the addition with a minimal amount of soil disruption. Mr. Maller voiced his concern about the inconvenience caused regarding the time taken to resolve this matter, and said he appreciates the Board scheduling a public hearing on the matter. Ms. Reader asked about the plans for a siltation fence. Mr. Ciamei said it was attached to the application. Mr. Ciamei said all excavation for the piers will be done by hand. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Ciamei to explain how an infiltrator works. Mr. Ciamei said an infiltrator is basically a long, thin dry well with water from the roof directed into underground pipes to a gravel pit that takes all the surface runoff, which was engineered by Tom Cronin. Mr. Capicotto explained how an infiltrator functions. Dr. Mason asked how far the infiltration trench is from the stream. Mr. Ciamei said he is not sure how far the infiltration trench is from the stream. It would be approximately 8 ft. off of the rear property line. Mr. Carpaneto said the construction of the piers was measured to be approximately 70 ft. Mr. Ciamei said the infiltration trench would probably be approximately 60 ft. off the rear property line. Dr. Mason asked what the volume would be. Mr. Ciamei said the volume is 45 cu. ft., less than two yards. Dr. Mason asked if it is a rectangle. Mr. Ciamei said it is a rectangle, and demonstrated on the drawing before the Board. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 3 Dr. Mason informed Mr. Ciamei that this matter was on the agenda of the CZMC last week. Mr. Ciamei said he was unaware the matter was on the agenda of the CZMC last week. Dr. Mason said one of the concerns expressed at the CZMC meeting was the infiltration handling the runoff and any increase of impervious surface beneath the overhang of the construction. One of the suggestions was moving the trench a little further from the stream. However, 60 ft. is not bad. It is within the 100 ft. protected area. Mr. Ciamei said the trench could be moved a few feet closer to where the piers are, but not too much closer. Dr. Mason said he was thinking more in terms of moving the trench to the east. Mr. Ciamei said that could be done. A lengthy discussion continued regarding the consequences. Dr. Mason then addressed the second concern of the CZMC, impervious surface. Mr. Capicotto explained the second concern of the CZMC was that grass in the area beneath the addition will not survive. Possibly the applicant will consider using a gravel base, unilock pavers set in sand, round stones or smooth rock. Mr. Ciamei said the suggestions will be considered. Mr. Mailer asked if there could be flexibility in what is considered regarding this matter. Mr. Capicotto said it could not be something impervious, like asphalt, and no exposed soil either. Dr. Mason said the third concern of the CZMC is siltation during construction. Mr. Ciamei stated he plans to have a dirt dumpster at the site to handle the less than 4 yds. of dirt to be removed. There will be no storage of dirt, everything will be done by hand and there will be no trucks on site. All materials will be stacked in the driveway. The only materials that will be stacked in the rear yard will be the materials being used at that time. Everything else will be stockpiled in the driveway and the garage. Dr. Mason asked the square footage of the project. Mr. Ciamei said it appears to be 600 ft., when looking at the plans. Part of that incorporates some of the existing house, which is situated in an irregular shape at the rear of the house. Mr. Ciamei proceeded to explain the details of the addition, stating the new square footage will be approximately 400 sq. ft., a rectangle on stilts. Mr. Ciamei said the columns will be boxed out in cedar. A discussion continued regarding the size of the footings to be used which, will be below the 12 in. concrete pier, and supports the 4 in. Lally columns. Dr. Mason stated that the concerns of the CZMC have been addressed. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from members of the Board or the public. Ruth Gyure, a member of the CZMC, appeared. Ms. Gyure said she wants to reiterate that the CZMC found the project to be inconsistent with the mandate, and continued by expressing her concerns in a presentation on various matters set forth in the August 3, 1998 letter received from the CZMC. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Capicotto responded by stating the purpose of an infiltration trench is to take water that would have gone on the lawn and put it directly into the ground. When its raining on the grass in a heavier storm, there is some sheet flow on the grass towards the river. This will abort that by the rain being infiltrated into the ground. Also, the area is above the 100-year flood zone. It will not take up any flood volume, even with the piers. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Capicotto to explain the effectiveness of the dry well, which Mr. Capicotto proceeded to do. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Capicotto the square footage of the roof involved. Mr. Capicotto said approximately 400 sq. ft. A discussion ensued regarding the runoff of the rain from the roof and the perc test performed by the engineer, which was submitted to the Town and reviewed by Malcolm Pimie. Mr. Papazian stated that the bottom line is that there is zero increase in runoff,which Mr. Ciamei verified. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Capicotto if, based upon the percolation numbers Malcolm Pimie received, has a determination been made that the infiltration trench is adequate and will not impact negatively in terms of an increase in the rate of runoff. Mr. Capicotto said yes. In fact, in this particular situation since everything is being put into this dry well trench, there may be a slight decrease in runoff. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Gyure if the CZMC had a specific basis for believing that this particular addition, as designed, will impact on the habitat or any other resources of the wetlands. Ms. Gyure said the CZMC was concerned about encroachment on property,building in the wetlands area, and that a line must be drawn at some point in time. One criteria is a means must be demonstrated that there are no other alternatives. Mr. Ciamei said all alternatives were examined, as there also was a zoning issue in the rear yard setback. What is proposed is the only one possible place for the expansion to take place. When it was realized there was involvement in the Leatherstocking area, original plans for a two-story addition were abolished, as it would have had a major impact on the neighborhood, the site and the wetlands area. Hence, the pier design, which will not have a major impact on the wetlands area. Mr. Ciamei reiterated that there is no other expansion area on the site, due to the pie shape of the property. Ms. Reader asked if her understanding is correct, that the project is on stilts and is at an elevation above flood level. Mr. Ciamei said it is. Mr. Capicotto said even without the piers, it is out of the flood zone. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Capicotto if the design of this project is consistent with Policy 17. Mr. Capicotto said yes. If an addition is going to be constructed on a house, what is proposed is the best way to proceed causing the least amount of impact. Mr. Mailer stated he is trying to grasp the concerns of the CZMC. Many homes in the area have been expanded to make them more functional. He has spent months trying to expand in an unobtrusive way and asked who has jurisdiction in this matter. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Reader said the Planning Board has jurisdiction in this matter. The CZMC acts as an advisor to the Board and referred the question to counsel. Ms. Gallent said the CZMC is an advisor to all of the Town boards. The Planning Board must consider whether to accept the CZMC determination of inconsistency and approve the application on the grounds that there were no other alternatives, or set aside the determination of the CZMC, which must be set forth in a letter to the CZMC. Mr. Mailer said what is proposed is most consistent with what is going on in the community. Ms. Reader asked if there were any further comments from Board members or the public. Ms. Reader also said a letter was received from Malcolm Pimie on the project, dated August 5, 1998. Mr. Capicotto said the whole project was reviewed and assessed in terms of the four (4) compatibility factors, both in the Town Law and the New York State regulations, and he is satisfied that the project meets the compatibility test and the other criteria. The letter also pointed out that the property is not within the 100-year flood plain. Ms. Reader said Malcolm Pirnie recommends a bond of$1,000.00 be assessed, if the project is approved. Mr. Capicotto stated that is correct. The $1,000.00 bond can be combined with the assessment bond for the Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, covering both under the same bond. Ms. Gallent stated this is a Type II action under SEQRA. Ms. Gyure stated that she is not against the project, but is concerned about the items addressed in the CZMC letter, dated August 3, 1998. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, 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. Reader asked if there were any other comments. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Gallent advised the Board on how to proceed in the voting process regarding this matter, taking into consideration the recommendations of the CZMC. Dr. Mason stated he feels there is an inconsistency, but feels there are reasonable mitigating efforts being made. Dr. Mason would be inclined to accept the inconsistency,but at the same time condition any permit granted to mitigate the damages. Dr. Mason said that Counsel and the Town Engineer can advise the Board, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. Papazian said he would like to lean toward setting aside the inconsistency, based on the discussion presented this evening. Mr. Papazian feels the CZMC is at a disadvantage, because the applicant was not present at their meeting, and that the letter the CZMC drafted was based on assumptions that have been clarified this evening, specifically, Policy 17. It has been expressed there are no other alternatives, the measures now being taken are environmentally sound and there is no increase in runoff to the Sheldrake. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 6 Dr. Mason stated the basic problem still exists on the location within the buffer. To set it aside would be denying the facts that produced the findings of inconsistency. The facts speak for themselves and have to be honored. At the same time, the impracticability of doing anything stands. Dr. Mason disagrees with Mr. Papazian in the approach, even though heading in the same direction. Dr. Mason does not like the thought of denying the facts which run counter to the policies, but there is a valid argument for overriding it. Ms. Reader said she tends to agree with Mr. Papazian. The way it is addressed by the CZMC suggests that any project proposed within a critical environmental area, by definition, is inconsistent. Ms. Gallent said it does read that way. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Gallent if that is the legal effect of the LWRP. They have not been interpreted by the courts. The CZMC is charged with implementing the policies of the LWRP. Dr. Mason said the intent is pretty well spelled out, even the full text of the LWRP. A lengthy discussion followed. Ms. Reader stated she tends to agree with Mr. Papazian. The project is built on stilts, is outside of the 100-year flood zone and the addition of the infiltration system, with the leaders going directly to it from the roof, may actually reduce the runoff from the property and reduce the rate of runoff from the property which makes it consistent with the LWRP. Dr. Mason said he understands Ms. Reader's position,but sees the final plan as a revision of an initial plan and is approaching it as a modified plan. Ms. Harrington said she thought there was some discrepancy regarding the rate of runoff, as to whether it increased or maintained the current rate. Mr. Capicotto said it maintained or roughly decreased the rate of surface runoff. Dr. Mason said it is the same runoff, at a reduced rate. This far upstream that is a goal that is looked for. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Harrington's position on the matter, setting aside the opinion of the CZMC or supporting it but finding mitigation. Ms. Harrington stated she understands Policies 7A and 17. The only concern she has in setting aside the opinion of the CZMC are Policies 44 and 44A. Ms. Harrington stated the Board does not know the exact intent. Ms. Reader said each project must be considered independently. Ms. Reader does not feel the project is impacting negatively. This project is maintaining the ground and installing an infiltration pit. The applicant is willing to agree to a condition that there will be no impervious surface underneath the structure. Ms. Reader does not feel it is impacting Policy 44 and 44A. Ms. Reader said the same standards are used for all applications. After further discussion on this issue and the number of Board members present to vote on this matter, Ms. Gallent said the Board can accept the determination of the CZMC and vote on the wetlands issue. The Planning Board must notify the CZMC in writing of its determination Ms. Reader stated she does not want the applicant further detained on this issue, feels the applicant has been somewhat disadvantaged because of the failure of the Town to properly direct him and that the applicant would have been before the Board approximately two months earlier. It appears the intention of the Board members is to accept the letter from the CZMC and interpret the facts in such a way that, Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 7 from a consistency point of view, it would be acceptable. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Gallent if the Board should also state that there are no other alternatives and no other location. After considerable discussion amongst Board members in regard to voting on this matter before the Board, Mr. Papazian withdrew his motion. A motion was made by Dr. Mason to accept the findings of the CZMC and take into account the mitigating measures, seconded by Ms. Reader, was unanimously approved. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, and unanimously approved, the following Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit was APPROVED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Brant K. Mailer have applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 to construct an addition to their home located at Lot No. 7 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 209 Lot 227; 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, this Planning Board has reviewed and considered the determination of the CZMC that this application is inconsistent with the LWRP: and WHEREAS, the Planning Board heard testimony demonstrating that the addition as proposed is the only practicable alternative to expanding the applicants' house, due to the topography and shape of the lot; and WHEREAS, the design of the proposed addition contemplates piers rather than a concrete foundation,and the installation of an adequately-sized infiltration trench; and WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town, Malcolm Pirnie, has submitted comments and recommendations in writing regarding this application to the Planning Board, by letter dated August 5, 1998; 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; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 having been held on August 5, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes finds as follows: 1. There are no practicable alternatives to the proposed location of the addition. 2. The design of the proposed addition includes features that will minimize all adverse impact on the policies of the LWRP to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the conditions imposed as part of this approval will also minimize adverse impact. 3. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance of systems in a controlled area. 4. 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. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 8 5. 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. 6. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of its minor impact in the controlled area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Mr. & Mrs. Brant K. Mailer for a permit, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114,be and it hereby is GRANTED subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. There shall be no concrete or other impervious surface installed below the structure, nor shall there be exposed soil below the structure. 2. There shall be no open storage of dirt on the site. 3. There shall be no stockpiling of construction materials on the property, except in the paved driveway. 4. All excavation on the site shall be performed by hand. 5. A cash deposit or bond of$1,000.00 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 to cover both the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. 6. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or combination thereof. 7. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be in accordance with the requirements of the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code and the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law. 8. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 9. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN APPROVAL - Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. - 24 Valley Place - Block 131 Lot 36 Henry Meltzer, the representative representing Beechmont Bus Service, appeared. Mr. Meltzer said he has already been before the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) and the Zoning Board, and received Zoning Board approval. He is before the Planning Board this evening to present his proposal. Mr. Meltzer stated the property is 75 ft. x 100 ft. on Valley Place, in an area primarily service businesses. The owners of Beechmont Bus purchased the building with the idea to expand the building,and as required by the State maintained the buses be in a certain orderly fashion. To achieve this, two bays are proposed to be added adjacent to the existing two-bay building. Also proposed is the addition of 500 sq. ft. of offices to the second floor. The building will maintain the same concrete block architecture. On the second floor, there will be windows for the offices. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Meltzer said one of the main considerations is that the property has deteriorated extensively. It will be upgraded to contemporary standards to comply with the Building Department and CZMC requirements. The entire property will be repaved, a 6 in. concrete curbing will be installed around the property to retain the water, a gate and trench drain will be installed. All the water on the site will be put through an oil separator. There will also be a second oil separator for the maintenance building portion, so any oil that might slip through will be separated. Any water going to the existing storm water system in the street will be purified. The roof water that currently spills out onto the Thruway will be collected with the roof water on the proposed addition and will also go into the storm water system. Mr. Meltzer stated that evergreens will be installed in the front of the fence that currently exists and to give protection visually to enhance the street elevations of the property. Mr. Meltzer said the property is currently being used to store buses. With the new design, there will be six employee parking spaces, in lieu of the buses. It will be a great improvement. The buses will come in, go into the building to be maintained, cleaned and go to other locations within the general area. Ms. Reader asked if the buses will be stored at this location. Mr. Meltzer said the buses will not be stored at this location, only if a bus is being worked on. The property is primarily to be used for employee uses. As per the building code, six spaces are required for employees. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Meltzer how long Beechmont has owned the property. Mr.Meltzer said Beechmont purchased the property in January, 1998. Beechmont is currently renting next door, but is moving into the newly purchased property. Dr. Mason stated when this application was before the CZMC, discussions arose about three levels of handling water. Mr. Meltzer said Beechmont will comply with the three issues that arose. He has instructed his engineer to speak to Mark Burdick to resolve those issues and will comply, prior to plans being submitted to the Building Department. A discussion ensued regarding letters received from the Zoning Board and the New York State Thruway Authority regarding his matter. Dr. Mason said if Mark Goddick is satisfied with the approach which was outlined, the CZMC will also be satisfied. Ms. Gallent referred the Board to a copy of the CZMC letter and New York State Thruway Authority letter which was sent to the Zoning Board. Ms. Gallent said it was not necessary to refer this matter again to those agencies. Mr. Papazian asked if Mr. Meltzer read all the terms in both letters and if agreeable will be incorporated. Mr. Papazian also asked Mr. Meltzer to explain how the oil separators will work and will there be a separate oil separator for the new building and the old building. Ms. Meltzer said he is familiar with all the terms, but he cannot tell Mr. Papazian exactly how the oil separator works. One oil separator will be in the existing building and the new building. There will be a separate oil separator for the parking lot. Mr. Papazian asked if that also will take care of the soap, with which Mr. Meltzer agreed. Dr. Mason asked if Mr. Meltzer will be using a coalescent type separator for the shop, with which Mr. Meltzer agreed. The usual sedimentation separator will be used for the parking lot. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Meltzer stated currently there is an oil separator that works. It takes approximately five years for oil to separate into fill. There is not a lot of oil involved. Mr. Papazian said he got the impression from the CZMC meeting that maintenance has not been good, and asked Mr. Meltzer if a maintenance plan has been in effect before and is there currently one in effect. Mr. Meltzer said there is a maintenance plan for buses and any waste products and expanded on that issue. Dr. Mason said the concern that motivated the oil separator for the shop is diesel engines. There is concern about the shop floor. There was discussion about the roof drain going into the oil separator. That is why there is concern that there should be three distinct treatments, as long as that is acceptable to Mr. Meltzer's client. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Meltzer is willing to go along with all the conditions as stated or, at this point, whatever Mr. Godick and the engineer decide upon. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Meltzer cannot give an answer to that question at this point in time, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. Capicotto said he spoke with the engineer, Mr. Senor, and discussed separators, spoke about the outside separator, but did not get into coalescent separators in the garage. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Meltzer to be sure Mr. Senor gives revised plans to the Building Department before September 2, 1998. Mr. Reader asked Mr. Meltzer to be sure Mr. Senor knows exactly what he needs to do, that the plans reflect same and present it to Mr. Capicotto to confirm. Mr. Meltzer that will happen within the next two weeks, at the latest. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Capicotto explained the workings of the oil separators. After Mr. Capicotto's explanation,Ms. Reader said it is double protection, at which time a lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Meltzer stated that very little water is used, mostly steam is used. Ms. Gallent asked Mr. Athey, the Town environmental specialist, if the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board. Mr. Athey said it was not necessary to refer this matter to the Westchester County Planning Board, but it was referred to the Department of Transportation. Ms. Harrington said she would like the biodegradable soap issue addressed. Mr. Meltzer said basically high-pressured steam is used. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Meltzer to have more of an explanation of the cleaning process, the soaps, detergents used and biodegradable soaps, at the next meeting. Mr. Reader again reiterated that the engineer receive the plans with a sufficient amount of time for review before the next meeting. RESOLVED, that the application be, and hereby is, adjourned for a Public Hearing at the September 9, 1998 Planning Board meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 9, 1998. Planning Board August 5, 1998 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ✓ /wl /t Marguerite ma, Recording Secretary