Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_12_11 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 11, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Richard H. Darsky, Acting Chair May W. Aisen C. Alan Mason Linda S. Harrington Edmund Papazian 'ti 4 Absent: Stephen Andrew Moser lE Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman " latI Cr) Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel .i 1 t. 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 Chairman Darsky at 8:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Darsky asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the November 13, 1996 meeting and if there were any amendments. After some discussion Mr. Darsky indicated that due to the fact that Mr. Trachtman was not yet on the dias, the approval of the Minutes would take place at the end of the meeting. Dr. Mason said if there are no objections, due to the fact that it is a fairly long agenda this evening, if items 4 and 5 which are related and should go fairly quickly, can be heard first. There being no objections, Chairman Darsky read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN - WINGED FOOT GOLF CLUB/Caddie Shelter -851 Fenimore Road - Block 347 Lot 1 The applicant and architect, Lawrence Gordon, appeared and stated Winged Foot is proposing a small caddie shelter to be used by the caddies before going on rounds at the golf club. Mr. Gordon said the caddie shelter plans and the required run-off retention drawings were submitted and reviewed by Gary Trachtman, Consulting Engineer, and have been approved. Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board received a memo dated November 11, 1996 from the building inspector stating the proposed caddie shelter falls within the Exceptions of Site Plan Review Law, with which Mr. Trachtman concurs. Therefore, the Planning Board does not have to consider Site Plan review. Mr. Gordon gave a brief description of the shelter, stating the proposed caddie shelter is an 18 ft. x 18 ft. open shelter. He then proceeded to review the plans that had been submitted to Mr. Trachtman with the Board. A discussion ensued. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Trachtman said he is in agreement with Mr.Jakubowski's memo, and added that the proposal was also reviewed within the context of the Surface Water Erosion and Sediment Control permit process, and a draft version was completed. Ms. Gallent said there is nothing further for the Planning Board to review. Dr. Mason stated that the matter will then be sent back to the Building Department for processing. Mr. Gordon informed the Board that approval was also granted by the Board of Architectural Review for the project. Chairman Darsky read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN-WAIVER -WINGED FOOT GOLF CLUB/PGA -851 Fenimore Road -Block 347 Lot 1 Attorney William Maker, Jr. appeared and said that due to the fact that the parties involved in this matter were not present at the moment, because the matter originally was scheduled fourth on the agenda, he will wait until later in the evening for presentation. Chairman Darsky 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(adjourned 9/11/96, 10/9/96; 11/13/96) On a motion 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. Gallent informed the Board about a legal decision affecting this case, stating that since the last meeting there has been a decision by the New York State Supreme Court invalidating the Type II category that made this proposal a Type II action under SEQRA. Ms. Gallent said since that category is invalidated, the matter can no longer be treated as a Type II action and proceeded to explain. Ms. Gallent said under Mamaroneck local regulations because the proposed action is in a wetland control area it becomes a Type I action, must be referred to Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC) and the Planning Board must make a determination of significance under SEQRA. Ms. Gallent said if the Planning Board feels it may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIS will have to be undertaken. Ms. Gallent said in discussion with Mr. Trachtman, it was felt that the Board does not have enough information to make that determination at this meeting, but hopefully will have that information at the next meeting. Ms. Gallent said this matter will be referred to the CZMC. Mr. Saines asked for a list of all the information that will be needed at the next meeting. Mr. Trachtman informed Mr. Saines that based on the findings and discussions that took place on a field visit to the site last week, it appeared that in the context of the SEQRA determination that additional information will be required regarding flooding conditions. Mr. Trachtman said the investigation has not been completed to a point where the requirements can be determined and recommended that they get together and discuss same. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Trachtman in addition to the law, what environmentally has changed. Mr. Trachtman said the central issue is establishing what the appropriate base line is, and whether the proposed application would have an adverse effect on those base line conditions. Ms. Gallent said a letter was received today from Laura Tessier of Tessier Environmental Consulting and that Mr. Trachtman has not had time to review that letter. He will evaluate the letter regarding additional information being necessary before making a determination. A discussion ensued. Mr. Darsky suggested taking a five minute break to review the letter, to insure that any questions there may be will be addressed at the next meeting. Ms. Gallent said that Mr. Trachtman will meet with the applicant prior to the next meeting. Mr. Mustacato, the architect, said he has a copy of the letter and is aware of what Ms. Tessier's comments are. Mr. Saines said he would like comments from others that can be addressed before the next meeting. Ms. Gallent said all information submitted must be received one week before the meeting for distribution to Board members. Ms. Lindsay said she had arranged to meet with Mr. Trachtman on the first available date, which was December 3, 1996, due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Hence, the late arrival of the documents. Ms. Lindsay said she also has a video, which she would like the Board to see. A five minute recess was taken at this time. Dr. Mason said Ms. Tessier has articulated the areas of concern in her letter. A discussion ensued regarding Ms. Tessier's letter, the square footage of the water contribution area and the conditions contributing to the flooding conditions. Mr. Mustacato said the flooding is due to the natural flow of the water and the failure of the system in the street to handle the water. Mr. Mustacato said an easement would be given to the Town to maintain the piping that goes through the property, which he will discuss with Mr. Trachtman. A discussion ensued regarding the flooding conditions and impact on the property. Mr. Trachtman said he anticipates meeting with Mr. Saines as early as next week. A discussion ensued regarding street flooding, drains the water bypasses and the lack of an easement to the Town to allow maintenance. The Board then viewed the video, taken by Bob Lindsay of 23 Bonnie Way of the May storm, which was taken from inside Mr. Lindsay's home looking out into the intersection of Bonnie Way and Addee Circle where the pooling occurs. Mr. Lindsay gave a detailed oral presentation. Mr. Mustacato asked if there were basins in the street. Mr. Trachtman said there are two basins at the corner of Briar Close and Bonnie Way, and additional basins at the corner of Addee Circle, Park Hill Lane and Bonnie Way. A discussion followed regarding the flooding, drains and catch basins. Mr. Darsky said this is an issue to be discussed with Mr. Trachtman early next week. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Lindsay asked if it would be possible for one of the Lindsays and Ms. Tessier to attend the meeting next week. Mr. Darsky said it is not a matter of right, but urged the individuals to get together to work out the problem. Mr. Saines said he felt it would be better to meet with Mr. Trachtman, then the Lindsays can have a meeting with Mr. Trachtman to discuss the results of that meeting. Ms. Lindsay said that would be alright, as long as they hear what Mr. Trachtman has to say in a timely manner to respond for the next meeting. Ms. Aisen asked if a meeting can be scheduled with the neighborhood, so they can respond in a timely fashion before next month's meeting. Mr. Darsky said individuals will certainly have the opportunity to respond to any new matters that are brought up at the next meeting, and urged Mr. Saines to discuss the matter with the neighbors and the Lindsays in advance to move the matter along more quickly. Mr. Mustacato said after the meeting with Mr. Trachtman, the applicant will need time with his engineer to answer whatever issues are raised by Mr. Trachtman Mr. Darsky said as long as the public meeting is open, individual concerns will be addressed. Ms. Lindsay asked if she could have the most recent copy of the plans. Mr. Mustacato said the Building Department has them on file, and it is a public record. Dr. Mason said Ms. Tessier raised a question about the size of the area being drained, 7,500 ft. seems small in actuality, and asked for Ms. Tessier's impression. Ms. Tessier said it is an active water course in the Leatherstocking Trail area that originally used to flow down the southwestern stem of Bonnie Way, which was the water channel, and used the route that goes through the property as a surcharge for coming down where there are now some houses. There was a storm water drainage system installed under that area of Bonnie Way, but the inlet is not functioning properly and cannot handle the flows. A discussion ensued regarding the pipe size necessary to handle the problem. Ms. Harrington said as in the past the Board feels it is important to have a dialogue between all the parties involved. Ms. Harrington said she does not want to receive another letter, as she did this evening from Ms. Tessier, which she must decipher in such a short amount of time and make an informed decision. This causes the public hearings to go indefinitely. Mr. Darsky said it behooves the applicant to share as much information with the Board as soon as possible. Ms. Harrington asked Mr. Trachtman to address the issue of the spacing and depth of the dry wells for the next meeting, so that issue would be clearer. Mr. Mustacato said a percolation test was submitted and reviewed by Mr. Trachtman and the Board when the site was subdivided. Mr. Mustacato said he was informed by Mr. Trachtman that additional testing need not be done, as the information originally submitted was sufficient. A discussion ensued regarding the dry wells and roof water. Mr. Darsky asked the Board members to put the letter aside, and asked for comments, questions or suggestions that would prepare the Board for the next hearing. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Trachtman said he will be away from December 24, 1996 through January 7, 1997,which leaves only a short amount of time. Ms. Lindsay asked if the next hearing can be postponed until February, and said they will not be available after December 18, 1996. Mr. Darsky said it will be put on the agenda for the January 8, 1997 meeting. At that time the.Board will proceed and if necessary will then adjourn the matter to the February meeting.• A discussion ensued regarding vacation schedules and arrangements that can be made. Eve Bocca, from CZMC, informed the Board that the CZMC will not have a their December.meeting until January 7, 1997. Mr. Papazian asked Ms. Gallent if the Board is still relying on the same statute as far as what the Board is supposed to consider, i.e. 665.7 E(1). Ms. Gallent said she would like the opportunity to review Ms. Tessier's comments regarding legal analysis and classification, and will then advise the Board. Mr.Darsky asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, on a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 8, 1997 meeting. Chairman Darsky read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL-Laurel Manor/James J.Vanoli- 1001 Fenimore Road-Blocks 301 and 302 Lot 1 James Vanoli, the engineer of record, appeared. Mr. Vanoli said the hearing is for the Laurel Manor 6 lot subdivision off of Fenimore Road. Mr. Vanoli said the subdivision is proposed to be served by a newly constructed road, approximately 45.0 ft. long, 50 ft. longer than generally accepted as a cul-de-sac in the Town. The road will be dedicated to the Town of Mamaroneck. The project is to be served by public sanitary sewers and a public water main, both to be in the rights-of-way of Fenimore. The new road to be called Laurel Lane. Mr. Vanoli said the project presently has a large home with an out building, several parking lots, a tennis court and extensive roads and pathways. Ms.,Gallent said there has been a request that the Board members speak up,because they cannot be heard by the audience. Mr. Vanoli proceeded to describe the proposal. Mr. Vanoli said the proposed drainage system collects the water along the proposed Laurel Lane and transports it to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation required gravel swale, which is used to treat the first flush that being the first one-half inch of runoff which falls upon the impervious areas of the site. Mr. Vanoli said the gravel trench performs two functions; i.e. the intended DEC function and additionally aides in the recharge of the defined wetlands area; a point that was brought out by the CZMC because the project might reduce the amount of water that currently flows in that area due to the road construction,the homes and footing drains around the homes. Mr. Vanoli said in an effort to recharge the wetlands the storm water is being brought down, allowing it to repercolate the aquifer. Mr. Vanoli said the gravel trench will aid in storm water detention, as will raising the current berm that exists; the berm that exists has a blacktop road which will be removed, the berm raised approximately 18 in.; the area will be considered from elevation 102 down the river which will be considered as flood plain Planning Board December 11, 1996 • Page 6 and the storm water detention area. Mr. Vanoli said the design allows for an ebb and flow within the entire flood plain and wetlands area, and was determined during the development of the project that would be the appropriate way to handle the storm water, as the Town is realizing a problem further down stream with the lower intensity storms and described same. Mr. Vanoli said additional planting was proposed along Fenimore Road to screen the houses from the street and the street from the houses which was reviewed with the CZMC. Mr. Vanoli said in an effort to provide a visual barrier along the edge of the wetlands and therefore inhibit intrusion into the wetlands,an extensive planting scheme was proposed along the Westchester County sewer trunk line. Mr. Vanoli said the homes are proposed to be larger homes in excess of 5,000 sq. ft.; the storm water system has been designed to collect and address all the runoff • which includes the roadway, driveways, the roof leaders and the porches; the driveways are proposed to be gravel, in an effort to reduce the impervious areas; the only area of blacktop being the small portion that lies between the edge of the roadway and the edge of the right-of-way and a bit of blacktop where the turning movement occurs in front of the garages. Ms. Aisen asked how long will it be before the trees along Fenimore Road form a screen. Mr. Horsman said the visual buffer will take approximately five or six years to form a screen on lots 5 and 6, and said the size of the trees will vary. A discussion followed regarding the various degree of screening. Steve Kantor appeared and said he has property contiguous with lot 2, and met with Robert Lowe this date . whose property is contiguous with lot 1. Mr. Kantor is concerned about the screening shown on the plan between lot 2 and his,property, because the trees are Mr. Kantor's trees and discussed his concerns in detail;.i.e. the elevations, runoff, screening, tree removal and whether blasting is allowed in that area. Mr. Vanoli said no blasting is needed in that area, but in some places it would be possible. Mr. Vanoli said there is a discharge of water from the property onto the Medwick property and the improvement plan shows picking it up and bringing it across. Mr. Vanoli said currently there is no easement for the discharge, the water is collected and directed onto the Medwick property. A discussion then followed regarding how the applicant intends to handle the screening question raised and the ponding area that occurs adjacent to lot 1 and lot 2 and an easement required for an existing pipe on lot 3. Mr. Vanoli then discussed the disposition of the water that is collecting at the rear of Mr. Kantor's property and the natural flow of water through the drainage course which is not on the applicant's property. Mr. Kantor then talked about the larger lots on the north side, and asked whether a diagonal type arrangement for the road would enable the homes to be moved further away from the neighboring property rather than diagonal that is proposed. Dr. Mason said that area is being preserved as a wetland. Mr. Vanoli said the answer to Mr. Kantor's question is on sheet 4-A, the tree preservation plan, the existing trees identified by the surveyor in the field which are numbered from 28 to approximately 40. Mr. Darsky said the issue is that there is not enough tree plantings to separate that property from the new lot. A discussion ensued regarding the additional planting of trees. Ms. Aisen asked about the depth of the pool on lots 1 and 2 after the property is developed. Mr. Vanoli said the swimming pool will not be affected, and said the drainage work is downstream, eastward. Mr. Aisen asked Mr. Vanoli if it will make a deeper natural pool. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Vanoli said he would not be making a deeper natural pool. The discussion continued regarding the Kantor property, lot 2, and additional screening. John Epstein, the developer, appeared and said no trees will be removed along the perimeter of the property, only dead, straggling trees which will be replaced as the houses are built. Mr. Darsky said he wants to be sure that Mr. Vanoli addresses all the issues that have been raised at the next meeting;i.e. trees, pooling of water, angle of the driveway,blasting. Mr. Darsky said the only issue he is concerned about is that the houses on lots 1 and 2 not create more pooling where Mr. Kantor's property adjoins. Mr. Vanoli said all the activities are at a lower elevation than Mr. Kantor's property. Mr. Epstein said the tennis court area will be regraded and will not be pooling, and that any drainage that needs to be addressed will be done by their drainage system. Ms. Gallent said a note should be made that Mr. Kantor said the fire and police district should be correctly identified, which Mr. Vanoli said will be checked. Mr. Darsky asked if there are any other comments from the public. William Maker, Jr., Esq. appeared representing Mr. &Mrs. Mark Linton of 961 Fenimore Road, which is east of the Sheldrake, facing lot 4. Mr. Maker said the issues that the Lintons would like to explore are; i.e. blasting,filling of the property because of the flow of water and the architecture of houses to be built. Mr. Vanoli said the possibility of blasting exists on all six lots and the road, and if needed will be done in accordance with Town code. There will be filling on lots, the amount of which is shown on the grading plan, and the homes will be custom designed, not substandard for the neighborhood. A discussion followed. Mr. Maker also asked about the effect of the proposed project on the Sheldrake River, as there is considerable ponding in that area, especially the southeastern corner of the property. Dr.Mason said six months was spent on just that question,which Mr. Vanoli discussed earlier. The entire CZMC and several members of the Planning Board visited the site and that issue has been well addressed. Mr. Trachtman said the considerations during the review of the drainage proposal also considered the potential effects on down stream areas. Concern was voiced as to whether or not the discharge from the system could have an effect on the down stream area. The drainage system proposed will not have such an effect. Mr. &Mrs. Linton asked about notice of meetings under Town regulations. Ms. Gallent said previous meetings were public meetings and anyone interested could attend, and only Public Hearings are noticed to neighbors. Mr. Trachtman referred to a letter from Malcolm Pirnie before the Board, dated December 9, 1996 and noted; the preliminary plat layout plan dated October 15, 1996 had been reviewed and found substantially in accordance with Town Law of New York State as well as requirements of Section 190-12 of the Town of Mamaroneck Subdivision Law; it is their opinion that they form a suitable basis on which the Planning Board may discuss the plans related to subdivision approval, that the Board is having this evening; if the applicant chooses to have any modifications incorporated in the plan as a result of these discussions, the applicant may do so; the project, as proposed and shown on the plans and the detailed construction drawings referenced in Malcolm Pirnie's letter of November 13, 1996, is substantially in accordance with Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 8 the design standards and plat requirements of Section 190-10 of the Town of Mamaroneck Subdivision Law; the only deviation noted is that the length of the proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 50 ft. longer than the general limit that the Town Subdivision Code provides for, that limit being 400 ft. Mr. Trachtman also noted that there had been another subdivision in the general vicinity,the Fenbrook subdivision,where the length of the cul-de-sac was in excess of 400 ft., which the Board felt was permissible under the circumstances. Mr. Trachtman said a number of items that had been discussed at the November 13, 1996 meeting will be included in the final plans in addition to any further requests the Board may have as a result of this evening's meeting; there would also be a requirement that the Town Board authorize an extension of the Town sewer district to serve the applicant's property which is not presently in the district, provided all the plans are updated to reflect the comments that may be received; there would also have to be approval by the County Health Department. Mr. Trachtman said Malcolm Pirnie would be willing to prepare a letter regarding the adequacy of the Town sewer system in order to receive the discharges from the proposed sewer in the subdivision. Mr. Trachtman said a separate letter of adequacy will be required from the Westchester Joint Water Works in regard to water service, and said the applicant has been developing the plans in accordance with their requirements, Mr. Trachtman said all of these issues must be reviewed prior to the applicant receiving final approval of the subdivision and also recommended would be that the final subdivision approval should include requirements for a conservation easement for the wetland area on lots 5 and 6, a performance bond to ensure the completion of the public improvement, as well as the granting of a Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit. Ms. Gallent said Mamaroneck Subdivision Law, Section 190-10M states that "variations-of the general requirements of the design plans may be permitted by the Planning Board on application to the Planning Board when, in its judgment, special factors warrant such a variation", and said the Board would have to grant such a variance of that general 400 ft.design criteria and asked Mr. Vanoli to address that area issue. Mr. Vanoli said special factors are aesthetic, the road shortening will still support a six lot subdivision, lot 3 would be long and narrow, lot 2 would gain an irregular configuration, and tree removal would not have to be done under the plan as proposed. For general planning,conformity, and lot configuration, the plan proposed is a superior design and limits the road to 400 ft. long. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Vanoli to address the impact on the wetlands by providing a second access . Mr. Vanoli said it would be deleterious to the wetland area as the roadway would have to have a stable base which would take away the wetland character. A discussion ensued regarding the general 400 ft. requirement for the cul-de-sac; the fact that it was a requirement of the fire department; the comment made earlier on the Fenbrook development which under the circumstances, were permitted a greater distance for the cul-de-sac. Ms. Aisen asked if the fire department has to be informed. Mr. Trachtman said a request should be made for fire department review on the project. Mr. Darsky asked if there were any comments from the public or the Board. There being none, on a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Gallent said the record has to remain open until the Board receives a letter from the fire department. At that time, if the Board feels the letter is sufficient,they can vote. Ms. Gallent asked Mr. Epstein and Mr. Kantor to advise her and the Board as to what conditions have been agreed upon, as it will be part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Darsky read the next application as follows: • Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING - MODIFICATION/FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT -Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tricarico - 771 Forest Avenue -Block 210 Lot 35 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. William Widulski, the engineer for the project, appeared. Mr. Widulski said the Board is familiar with the application to modify an approval previously granted April 10, 1996. Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board had requested a memo from the Building Department, which was received and summarized the contents of the letter for the Board; i.e lot coverage. Mr. Widulski said in regard to the 35% lot coverage, the lot is 26,000 sq. ft. in area, 9,000 sq. ft. coverage is allowed and the applicant has 8,000 sq. ft.; the applicant is at 31.6% lot coverage. Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board asked the Building Department to inform the Board of the procedures when a modification occurs, and that Mr. Jakubowski responded that no part of the Freshwater Wetlands chapter specifically addresses amendments to permits already issued,but when discrepancies are observed, the individual is advised that changes must be filed with the Planning Board as the individual is not in compliance. Ms. Gallent said Mr.Jakubowski believes that the procedure for filing a Freshwater Wetland permit application should be changed in two respects; i.e. the Board Certification should include a condition that the permit is issued based on the plans and supporting documents on file, and that any deviation from those approved documents must be filed prior to the proposed changes being made and that this should be reinforced verbally to the applicant at the end of the meeting. Mr. Trachtman then read the first paragraph of the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit application which already contains that stipulation. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the modification being performed before Board approval for the modification; i.e. a matter of principle and setting a precedent. Ms.Gallent said there are criteria in the law for granting approval which Board must review before making a decision. Ms. Gallent said if the Board believes there is an enforcement issue, the Planning Board can make a recommendation to the Building Department as the Planning Board is not an enforcement agent. The building inspector enforces the law. Ms. Gallent said the Board does have a letter from the Consulting Engineer about the environmental impact of the change, and based on that letter, the Board has to review the law and decide if it can be granted. The Planning Board can also recommend that the Town Board address the issue and create a law creating a penalty. A discussion ensued. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Trachtman, in regard to the environmental impact, if the Board was better off before the applicant made the modification or after the modification was made. Mr. Trachtman said he pointed out in his letter that the concrete paver which is on a porous base does cover a larger area than originally approved, but the area is above the 100-year flood plain elevation and a portion of that area has been retained as landscape. Mr. Trachtman said the conclusion was that the net result of the revision made, somewhat reduced the impact from the original application. Mr. Trachtman said there was also an issue regarding the encroachment of the proposed slopes around the pool within the flood plain, and that was eliminated as a result of some of the changes. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 10 A detailed discussion continued regarding the process followed by the Planning Board in reviewing and granting an application, and the fact that changes are made without notification to the Planning Board. Ms. Harrington said that the Town Administrator is present and possibly steps can be taken to address this and similar problems. • Valerie O'Keeffe, liaison, said she feels Ms. Gallent's suggestion is the best, to communicate to the Town Board in writing regarding changing the law, and inquire as to the penalties that are at the disposal of the building inspector. Ms. O'Keeffe said she will talk to the Town Attorney, Charlene Indelicato, at the next Town Board meeting and will report the findings to Ms.Gallent. Ms. Gallent said it calls for a legislative change, and Gary Trachtman pointed out there is a precedent in the Town's Law and Erosion Sediment Control Law that might be useful to be incorporated in the Wetlands Law. A discussion followed regarding voting on the issue, and the concern with the violation before the Board. Ms. Aisen suggested deferring approval, recommend the Building Department do what it is empowered to do, and refer the issue to the Town Board as well for their consideration. Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board has to vote on this application,not necessarily this evening,based on criteria in the law, Section 114-8, which is "Standards for issuing of permits" which the Board should review prior to voting. Ms. Gallent said the motion on the floor is whether the Board should vote this evening or defer voting until information is received from the Building Department. Ms. Aisen said she would like to know what recourse Mr. Jakubowski recommends and what he is empowered to do. Ms. Aisen made a motion that the Planning Board not vote on this application this evening, the matter be referred to the Building Inspector for information and his decision on what to do in terms of a penalty, then return to the Board at a later time for a vote by the Planning Board. Mr. Darsky seconded the motion. At this point in time a discussion ensued regarding the motion, the referral to the Building Department, enforcement. Ms. Gallent referred the Board to the Town Code regarding standards for issuing permits. Mr. Darsky said there is a motion on the floor, which does not preclude an additional motion to approve the application. The motion did not carry. A discussion followed. Mr. Widulski asked to address the issue and said the applicant sought approval and that inspections were • made by the Building Department on August 13, 1996,August 9, 1996 and July 30, 1996 during the course of construction. Mr. Widulski said the Building Department was aware of the construction change. The owner brought to the Building Inspector the proposed construction of the wall. When Mr. Widulski visited the site sometime in August and realized there was a change he informed the owner he would speak to Mr. Jakubowski on how to proceed. Mr. Widulski said Mr. Jakubowski had been in and out due to illness, and when he finally spoke with him mentioned it should be resubmitted to the Planning Board because of the change. Mr. Widulski said Mr. Jakubowski stated Mr. Gerety, the new Assistant Building Inspector, is not conversant with the situation. Mr. Widulski said redrew the plan, submitted it on October 28, 1996 during the course of the change, and did not pay a fee until November 1, 1996 because the application was referred to the Zoning Board attorney and Consulting Engineer for guidance. Mr. Trachtman said he did not know about the time line between the time the changes were actually made and plans describing the changes submitted to the Building Department, but there was a request made Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 11 asking for guidance as to how to handle this situation. It took some time to review the law to figure out what to do. Mr. Trachtman said the law, as written, does not cover this situation. Mr. Widulski said the applicant would have resubmitted in July, at the time the Building Inspector was informed of the proposed change. Mr. Widulski said three inspections were made in July and August,and upon discussion with Mr. Jakubowski and Mr. Gerdy, he asked how to handle the situation. On September 28, 1996 the plan was submitted,and Mr.Widulski was called just before the start of November to pay the fee of$100.00 to appear before the Board. Ms. Gallent said in that time there was discussion between Mr. Jakubowski and Mr. Trachtman, and also between Mr. Trachtman and Ms. Gallent on how to handle the situation due to the fact that the law does not cover a situation of this type. Ms. Gallent then informed Mr. Trachtman the matter should again go before the Planning Board. • Ms. Aisen said the circumstances are confusing, the law should be reviewed and clarified, so the Board knows what recourse they would have in a similar situation. Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board should make a recommendation to the Town Board that a review should be done. Mr. Gallent asked if there was now a motion on the floor. Ms. Aisen said there is no the motion on the floor. A motion was made by Ms. Aisen, and seconded by Mr. Darksy, 3-2, to approve the application; Dr. Mason and Mr. Papazian abstained. Ms. Gallent said the motion does not carry. • On a motion and seconded, it was unanimously • RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the next meeting, January 8, 1996. Mr. Papazian asked Ms. Gallent if the Board could receive documentation from the Building Inspector for the next meeting giving the Board options should a similar situation arise. Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board has no options, and the current law is lacking on how to handle a modification. Ms. Harrington said the Building Department should give a brief outline of events that occurred. Mr. Darsky read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SPECIAL USE PERMIT-M&R ARCADE CORP. -1265 Boston Post Road- Block 412 Lot 449 Mr. Darsky said this matter was adjourned prior to the start of this evening's meeting, and will be put on the January 8, 1996 agenda. Mr. Darsky read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN-WAIVER-WINGED FOOT GOLF CLUB/PGA -851 Fenimore Road-Block 347 Lot 1 • Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 12 • William Rose, Vice President of Winged Foot Golf Club appeared. Mr. Rose said Winged Foot will be hosting the 1997 PGA Golf Championship to occur during the week of August 11, 1997. Mr. Rose said he is before the Board to share any of the details for planning for the event, and because of the nature of what is intended to be done that the Board waive Site Plan approval. Mr. Rose has been having informal discussions with the staff, keeping them abreast of what the plans are, to make sure that what is done is within the laws, regulations and common sense. Mr. Rose said one of the considerations of having the tournament at Winged Foot,based upon the Town's experience with the United States Open Championship held in 1984, was traffic control. Due to the volume of traffic at that time, Winged Foot is attempting to alleviate that condition by busing individuals from remote locations to the site which will reduce the vehicular traffic by 90%O. Mr. Rose said the roads that exist at the present time on the golf course itself are not adequate to handle bus traffic and the geometry of such would not be possible nor feasible. Mr. Rose said Winged Foot is proposing to build a temporary road beginning at Old White Plains Road, indicated on the plans before the Board, going around Mr. Carmel's property and egressing on Waverly Avenue, a town right-of-way which Winged Foot improved marginally in 1984 for maintenance traffic. Mr. Rose said the temporary roadway would allow buses to arrive, drop off spectators and then continue out to Old White Plains Road to return to the parking lots from whence they came. Mr. Rose said in consultation with the staff and as advised by Bill Maker, their counsel, and Stu McMillan from the Winged Foot Board, this is a Type II action. Mr. Rose said since most of the improvements are of a temporary nature, Winged Foot is asking that the Board waive formal site plan approval. Mr. Rose said the nature of the permanent improvements are as follows; from White Plains Road, beginning at the right-of-way, Winged Foot will be constructing a small amount of paved road, something just over 100 ft. to allow two buses to be staged temporarily to find a parking space; the balance of the road would be constructed of crushed stone, which would be permeable and would allow water to-pass through; to allow for the width of the bus, Winged Foot would be widening Waverly Avenue for safety; at the conclusion of the tournament,Winged Foot proposes to construct a permanently locked gate at the section leaving Old White Plains Road and cover the pervious material with topsoil and grass to return it to is natural state. Mr. Rose said the actual permit and improvements are of no permanent value or use to the club, and would return everything to its former natural condition;i.e. fencing,bleachers, tents. Mr. Rose said the timing is such that the for improvements Winged Foot is planning, that is the road itself, Winged Foot has retained a professional engineer to do the sediment control detailing. This matter has also been referred to Westchester County, the results of which has not been received to date. Mr. Rose said, subject to the Board's decision, Winged Foot thinks it appropriate to consider the formal site plan approval, subject to review by the Town engineer of any sediment control measures and subject to the receipt of a favorable letter from Westchester County. Ms. Gallent said there are two issues, one being the site plan law-exception,where the building inspector and the engineer agree there is no substantial change and therefore the applicant may be exempt from site plan. What Winged Foot is looking for is a waiver,not an exemption. Ms. Gallent then read Section 177- . 17 Waiver of requirements for the Board. Ms. Gallent said the Board has the authority to waive submission of the plans,given this case would fall under the category of"limited nature",which also make it a Type II action under SEQRA. Ms. Gallent said site plan applications are referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and the County has 30 days to respond. Ms. Gallent said the Board cannot actually vote on the matter this evening because the County Planning Board has not yet responded and 30 days has not yet elapsed. Ms. Aisen asked how long the roadway will be in place before the tournament and asked about the removal of same. Mr. Rose said roadway would be in place for approximately seven or eight months, and the roadway will be removed as quickly as possible. A discussion then ensued regarding not only waiving site plan review, but the waiving the rights of the neighbors to be heard at the public hearing, which Dr. Mason feels should not be waived. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 13 Ms. Bocca, Environmental Specialist, advised the Board that there has been a tree application submitted for the proposed road and public notification has already been sent to residents within 250 ft. of the club. Many resident have already come in to review the plans to determine that the proposed roadway and the removal of trees will not adversely affect them. Ms. Bocca said the twenty-day period has elapsed and no grievances have been filed. Mr. Darsky asked if the residents have been advised that there will be no public hearing to express their • concerns. Ms. Bocca said if the residents have a problem with the road or the removal of trees, the residents have an opportunity to be heard before the Town Board. Ms. Gallent said the public has.the Planning Board,agenda which states clearly site plan waiver. A discussion ensued. Mr.Maker said in understanding Ms. Bocca's comments, that people closest to the site have actually gotten • letters and have been made aware of the action. Mr. Maker said he does not know what further notice is necessary. Mr.Rose added that there have been at least ten different articles written in the newspapers about the PGA championship including the fact that spectators will be bused to the site. Ms. Gallent said a public hearing can be scheduled for the next meeting if the Board chooses. No vote can be taken this evening in any event because the Board is still within 30-day period with the Westchester County Planning Board and the lack of an answer from them. Dr. Mason said at the next meeting the Board can either hold a public hearing and make a decision at the end of that hearing or make a decision to waive site plan and approve it.. A discussion ensued. Mr. Darsky asked Mr. Rose what the negative impact would be on the application if the Board chose to have a public hearing and review of the site plan on January 8, 1996 and voted that evening. Mr. Rose said concern is that the matter not be held into the Spring because of the anticipation of a large number of deliveries from the agencies employed to supply materials for the PGA tournament. Mr. Rose said if Waverly Avenue is not complete, which is one of the access points that will be used during the tournament, it could slow down preparations hindering the tournament. Mr. Trachtman asked if the improvement on Waverly Avenue is required for the preparations and when Mr. Rose expected to proceed. Mr. Rose said the improvement on Waverly Avenue will be helpful as there will be an acres worth of television trailers, 40 to 50 at a minimum, arriving that are fairly wide which will be using Waverly Avenue as an access road. Mr. Rose said the additional preparations will begin during the Spring,and the roadway is absolutely necessary for anything else to take place. Mr. Trachtman said the widening of Waverly Avenue would be necessary for the trailer traffic, but asked if the construction of the bus drop off road would not necessarily begin at that time. Mr. Rose said the applicant would like everything to begin as quickly as possible, as it is part and parcel of the application. A discussion ensued regarding scheduling a publication, notification, time constraints and a permanent change to a public street regarding the homes that back onto Waverly Avenue. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 14 • Mr. Papazian asked Ms. Gallent for clarification of the fact that this is a Type II action, as earlier in the meeting on a different case, discussion was held regarding invalidation of Type II actions. Mr. Gallent said this case is not one of the Type II categories invalidated by that decision, and will send Mr. Papazian a copy of the decision. Ms. Gallent said the application as submitted on which a waiver is being requested is complete and a public hearing can be scheduled. A discussion ensued. Mr. Trachtman said it was mentioned earlier that there will be a Surface Water Erosion and Sediment Control review of the plans, which is not part of the site plan itself, and asked about traffic issues and signage. Mr. Trachtman asked Mr. Rose if he could make sure the there is clear designation on one-way streets. Mr. Rose said the streets will be under police control at all appropriate points. Mr. Trachtman asked for clarification, as the site plan refers to two (2) bus drop off pickup areas and a small area referred to as a spectator loading and unloading area, and asked what the difference is, which Mr. Rose explained. • Ms. Aisen asked for comments from Board members about the impact of the permanent changes on Waverly Avenue regarding the two houses involved, as they were only notified regarding tree removal. Ms. Bocca said the residents were notified there was a road being installed and trees removed. The individuals that reviewed the site plan saw the road and the trees around and in the roadway that were going to be removed. A discussion ensued. Dr. Mason said the residents will have an opportunity to speak at the public hearing. Mr. Darksy said there are major issues involved; i.e. public safety, erosion control, neighbors. Steve Altieri,Town Administrator,said that if the road was not being built,the event would not be before the Board. Mr. Altieri said he understands the Board's concerns, but it is the road that is triggering it and hot the event. A discussion ensued. Ms. Gallent said the applicant has suggested the action is Type II under 617.5-C15-minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent impact on the environment. On a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Dr. Mason, 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. Mr. Darsky said whatever the Board can do to elicit issues prior to the next meeting should be done, as this seems to be the most time sensitive matter before the Board for over three years. Stu McMillian appeared and said he was on the Town Board for ten years, at the time of the U.S. Open, and because of what happened at the U.S. Open in bringing the applications late, which is the reason the matter is before the Board at this time to alleviate any problems with the neighbors. Mr. McMillan said he hopes the matter will be resolved on January 8, 1996. Dr. Mason said the Board is unanimous on that issue,but does not want to be in a position of not handling the matter properly. Planning Board December 11, 1996 Page 15 On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, scheduled for the January 8, 1997 meeting and that the Board not waive site plan this evening. Chairman Darsky read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - WOK II - George Poline/Tin Poo Wang - 2423 Boston Post Road - Block 505 Lot 463 George Poline appeared and stated the application is for the same business as previously granted; i.e. same equipment, same location, same hours. Ms. Gallent asked if the application was for a change in operator. Mr. Poline said the application was for a change in operator. Mr. Trachtman asked if there would be a change in the sign. Mr. Poline said there would be no change in the sign, except in the lettering. Ms. Aisen asked when the last permit was issued. Ms. Gallent referred the Board to a copy of the last permit issue, which was March 13, 1996. Ms. Gallent said this matter would be a Type II action under SEQRA, because it is a permit transfer and there will be no material changes in permit conditions in the scope of permitted activities. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, scheduled for the January 8, 1997 meeting. Ms. Gallent advised Mr. Poline to contact the secretary regarding procedure to be followed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Darsky asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the November 13, 1996 meeting and if there were any amendments. After some discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Dr. Mason, the Minutes of the November 13, 1996 were unanimously approved, 5-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 8, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 11:25 p.m. 7ba Marguerite R , Recording Secretary