Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_12_08 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 8, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Absent: Richard H. Darsky Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Anthony C. Catalano, Consulting Engineer Michele DiEdwards, 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 8:14 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of October 13, 1999 and if there were any amendments. There being none, on a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, the Minutes were approved. Ms. Harrington did not vote. Chairwoman Reader informed those present that a letter was received from the attorney representing the below listed applicant requesting an adjournment to the January Planning Board meeting: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Goldberg- 10 Evergreen Lane, Block 309, Lot 21 (adjourned 6/9/99;7/14/99;8/11/99;9/8/99; 10/13/99;11/10/99) On a motion made by Li. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, 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. Seth Marcus appeared on behalf of Anne Ruppel and Gertrude Scheuer, the adjoining property owners. He pointed out to the Board that this matter has already been adjourned five times, this being the sixth request. Based on conversations with attorney Rosenstrach, it is clear that nothing has been done on this application during that period. Mr. Marcus feels it is unfair to get another adjournment, as his client has expended substantial resources in trying to educate the Board regarding the issues involved and to continue monitoring the issues. He stated Ms. Levine can always submit another application when she is truly ready to build,commented about the required fifteen-day certified notice provision and keeping up-to-date on what has and has not been filed. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 2 After some discussion regarding this, Ms. Reader said it has been communicated to the Board that the contract vendee, as a result of difficulties in not obtaining conditions required in the contract, that the respective purchaser has backed down. About two months ago the owner decided to maintain the application, rather than start a new one. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the process required for renotice. Ms. Reader said it is her understanding that the applicant has changed engineers and expects to be ready by next month. Ms. Harrington asked if the fee on a subsequent application is waived, as she feels that the people have repeatedly come for a public hearing on this matter, the matter was adjourned at the last minute and again they have to come back to the next meeting. Mr. Marcus explained that when the last adjournment was requested, he did not contest the November adjournment but asked that it be the last adjournment. When he went on Friday to look again at the files to see what, if anything, had been filed, nothing had been filed. He called Ms. Rosenstrach on Monday. On Tuesday he got a call from Ms. Rosenstrach and she requested Mr. Marcus send her copies of what had previously been filed with the Board, which Mr. Marcus left in his mailbox for her to pickup. This morning she faxed over a letter. Mr. Marcus had already done a letter in preparation for the meeting. Dr. Mason commented in some jurisdictions once an application is terminated, there is a six month waiting period before it can be reinitiated. He asked counsel if the Town has any such provision. After some discussion, Ms. Reader said that the owner wants to continue with the project and granted a final adjournment for one more month. Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - Carlton House Condominium - 35 North Chatsworth Avenue - Block 134 (adjourned 11/10/99) Joan Maw, the president of the Carlton House at Larchmont Condominium located at 35 North Chatsworth Avenue, appeared. She is representing the unit owners in the request for a site plan amendment to the original traffic flow pattern in the parking lot at the Carlton House. Unit owners are requesting the Board consider their concern for a safe means of exiting the parking lot. They are requesting the site plan be amended to allow ingress and egress onto North Chatsworth Avenue,where currently they are only allowed ingress. The traffic engineer was contacted, Mr. Mike Galante, the Senior Vice President at the firm of Frederick P. Clarke Associates. Per Board request, Mr. Galante worked closely with Mr. Carpaneto, the Town Director of Building, and Mr. Leger, the Town Engineering Consultant, in order to provide the Board with details of the original traffic flow plan as well as an accurate assessment of the current traffic flow pattern as it exists today. She stated that the Boa-d received an updated report,and turned the podium over to the traffic consultant, Mr. Galante. Michael Galante, Senior Vice President of Frederick Clark Associates, the firm responsible for the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted for review, appeared. He said the most recent updated report submitted for review was dated November 22, 1999. The first report was dated September 13, 1999. The difference between the two reports is that additional traffic counts were done from early November, at the request of the Town, in response to concerns that traffic volume might be greater after Labor Day. He said each report summarizes the traffic volumes on area roads and adjacent streets, traffic volumes for driveways entering and exiting the properties, both in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Surveys were conducted on a typical morning 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. on a weekday, both times. For comparison purposes, North Chatsworth Avenue carries about 700 vehicles two-way during the peak hours, whereas the driveways in total, the site driveways, carry anywhere from 30 to 50 vehicles two-ways during the peak Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 3 hours during the week. If the driveway is converted to a two-way driveway, 11 vehicles at most will enter and exit. He then addressed the levels of service in each case. He informed the Board that he went through the files, as requested, from the original approval in the early 1980's and the draft resolution had a two-way driveway. In the final approval, it was an entrance only. Ms. Aisen said she could find no motivation for that change. She asked if anyone knows why they changed it from two-way to one-way in 1983. Ted Brown of 1 Lafayette Road spoke. He said at that time he was a member of the Larchmont Civic Association and will answer questions. The reason for the change was there was too much traffic exiting onto Chatsworth Avenue and it was asked that it be one-way. Ms. Aisen asked who requested that change. Mr. Brown said the Association. Armond Siconolfi who has lived on the corner of North Chatsworth and Lafayette, 61 North Chatsworth Avenue for 27 years said he can get onto North Chatsworth Avenue, do the speed limit from Rockingstone down and have people blowing their horns. He said on the old Garfield Street that comes out approximately where the driveway is, he came out of there making a left turn with a van and was broadsided coming down that hill. His only concern is the left turn at the driveway. There are elderly people coming out of the apartment house, there have been close calls and it is really a safety concern. When the Association negotiated this,it was done so the Fire Department would have egress. He said what Mr. Brown said was very true, the Carlton House had no problem with this. Someone had said when you come out the back onto Fifth Avenue, it is too slow and too dangerous. Mr. Siconolfi reiterated that his main concern is safety. He said it was always one-way. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Galante said they contacted two Town Police Departments and discussed accident history in that area from North Chatsworth. They were told there were not any accident injuries at that point. The site distance for vehicles exiting that driveway is 260 ft., which is more than adequate. Mr. Galante thinks it is a better driveway exit than on the Madison and Fifth Avenue side. Dr. Mason asked if a new survey was done on the speed in that area. Mr. Galante said they did time checks and found the speed to be in the low 30 mile per hour. Ms. Reader asked if he could project how many additional cars will be coming out. Mr. Galante said it was estimated 7 to 11 vehicles during peak hours. Ms. Reader asked how many would be making a left turn. Mr. Galante said 3 vehicles. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Brown said that the Carlton House people have not always come out of that driveway. Mr. Brown's only comment would be that there be a stop sign at the end of the driveway. Ms. Reader said that she believes that is a part of Mr. Brown's recommendation. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 4 After further discussion regarding Mr. Siconolfi's comments and the stop sign, Mr. Brown said as an individual he would rather have the left turn and exit on that side of the building at the stop sign rather than have it narrow and somewhat random. Dr. Mason said the stop sign would be on private property. Valerie O'Keeffe said one cannot go out onto a public roadway from an alley or drive without a full stop. It's a violation. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Brown if there is a speed bump. Mr. Brown said there is a speed bump once you go approximately 50 to 75 ft.into the parking lot,but not on the driveway itself. Mr. Galante said in the traffic analysis and findings, recommendations were made for a sign and paved markings. To reinforce that, New York State Department of Transportation requirements were followed. It was recommended that the following modifications be provided: 1. A double yellow centerline should be installed on the North Chatsworth Avenue driveway; 2. A STOP sign and STOP bar should be installed at the driveway approach to the public street; 3. At the North Chatsworth Avenue approach, the STOP sign and STOP bar should be placed prior to the sidewalk; a 12" white paint line on the pavement; 4. Remove all existing signing that refers to one-way traffic; 5. Restrict on-street parking within 30 ft. of access drive (remove one parking space); 6. Install a DO NOT ENTER sign on the gas station side of the Madison Avenue exit drive; 7. Replace short section of double yellow centerline at Madison Avenue exit drive with "cat tracks"; 8. Install INTERSECTION CURVE WARNING signs Madison Avenue and 5th Avenue approaches to site exit drive; a dash line coming through. Ms. Galante said in the back of the report there is a sketch. After further discussion, Mr. Galante said in summary they have gone through traffic analysis, looked at traffic volume and the traffic that would be redistributed if the driveway is converted to a two-way driveway and find that the volume of traffic would be 7 to 11 vehicles added. That additional traffic will not change the operational characteristics of the driveway in the intersection. They don't think there will be any negative impact on North Chatsworth. There is more than adequate site distance visibility which was checked in both directions, following the New York State criteria for site lines. Ms. Aisen asked how people that do traffic studies can estimate how many cars that park in the parking lot will drive out to North Chatsworth that now drive out through Madison. Mr. Galante explained that individuals are stationed at the driveways performing the count. From that information, projections are made. They look at the patterns of traffic now on the roads and where it might be going. Ms. Aisen said Mr. Galante is talking about very few cars going in and out during the peak hours. Mr. Galante said the maximum is 51 vehicles going in and out from both driveways. Ms. Aisen said that she considers the estimates soft. A discussion ensued regarding the numbers of cars referred to. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 5 Ms. Reader said there are 18 going straight, and asked why Mr. Galante only took 11 vehicles. Mr. Galante said 18 is the actual count from early November. Today it is 26. The numbers shown in brackets are the numbers for November. It is based on the estimate of where the residents are going. Based on the patterns sought out, there are two traffic counts. The volume as shown, the numbers without a bracket, are from August. The numbers shown in a bracket are from November. After some discussion regarding the traffic patterns exiting on Madison Avenue and North Chatsworth and the volume, Galante said his final recommendation would not have changed. Ms. Reader said North Chatsworth is a street with people coming down the road that tend to go 30 miles per hour. It is a street where shortly after the entrance or exit on North Chatsworth, people who do come from the highway,I-95, make a left or right on new Jefferson. They are generally looking at three places; across the street at the people coming out of the parking lot which is a major distraction and adds to the danger of that area, people coming from the south/north, people coming down from North Chatsworth. People don't stop and swing around. There are a lot of distractions. Additional cars do a double crossing should they make a left turn to add to the danger. Mr. Galante said if you compare the site line from the driveway on Carlton to the New Jefferson Street intersection, the site line at the driveway is a lot better. The difference is there is parking on both sides of the street at the new Jefferson street intersection. The Carlton driveway it is more open,with no parked cars. The site lines are better. Ms. Aisen asked why after eight or nine years has the exit onto Madison become unpleasant for so many people. Elaine Coren said she has lived in that area for 46 years. There are 14 entrances and exits on Madison Avenue between the apartments before the bend, two cross streets from Jefferson to the Thruway and back. That is the most terrifying street she has ever been on. Wynne Stern,the former president of the condominium and a resident of the condominium since it opened, addressed the Board. He said that many of the people in the condominium are fair and legal minded people. Though they were not supposed to go out onto Chatsworth they always did from the very first day, turning left and right. All that time they did not have accidents at either end of the apartment. The Town suddenly said they can't go in and out the way they have been going. The number of cars that have been going out turning left and right never impacted any safety problems. There might have been close misses. He said that he has lived in the Town since 1966. Madison Avenue, as his neighbor indicated, is a very bad area. Individuals are coming out on a curve, and people are coming down Madison Avenue toward the building that want to go Fifth Avenue. There are vehicles coming up from New Rochelle. He has never seen anyone coming out of Madison Avenue. Mr. Stern said for about ten years there has been a security problem at the Carlton House. Cars have been stolen. The police can't help them, so they put up a back gate which is kept closed at night and all of the thefts at night ceased. When the Police Department was contacted about the traffic conditions, the police reported that the most dangerous place around them is north Jefferson and Chatsworth. He feels he is living more dangerously than he lived for ten years. Ms. Reader asked if he was told by the Town. Mr. Stern said a letter was received advising them they could not change back to the way it was originally zoned. There would be a lot of trouble. He said that the board immediately made the alteration. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. Dr. Mason said they have a security problem. He asked how many cars were involved. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Stern said before the gate went up they were having probably 2/3 cars stolen a year. They were broken into. The avenue of escape is out through Madison. Dr. Mason asked if it was just a gate. Mr. Stern said it is a breakdown gate, because the firemen have to come through. Ms. Aisen asked if it is attached to the hedge, which Mr. Stern verified. Ms. Harrington said she has no problem with this. The left turn out of the driveway is troubling. It is a lot more dangerous onto Madison and again onto Jefferson. It is a better plan to come in and out onto Chatsworth. If IKEA comes into being, there will be a problem. Ms. Harrington said she would be in favor of the application. Ms. Aisen said because of the problem going north on Chatsworth, she would propose to restrict a right turn onto North Chatsworth. Ms. Reader said if the Board restricts a right turn, they lose the option of putting a gate. Mr. Papazian said as far as the Traffic Commission's recommendation of September 21, 1999, the they recommended that the rear exit should not be closed between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Ms. Reader asked if that is a problem. Mr. Stern said it is only closed at night. A discussion ensued regarding the time the exit will be closed, which will be taken into consideration and put in the site plan. Mr. Stern said he never had an accident going left out of Chatsworth Avenue. Ms. Corin said no matter how it personally affects her, the whole street needs a lot of attention. Ms. Reader said that is not the Board's venue. Mr. Papazian withdrew his concern regarding a left turn out of the Carlton House onto Chatsworth. Ms. Aisen also withdrew her concern. Dr. Mason said he still has an objection, not because it's the best idea, but the security problem outweighs that concern and he withdraws it. Ms. Aisen asked if the Board will require a sign on the street facing up the hill on Chatsworth Mr. Galante said a warning sign can be put up. Shimon Gitlitz, the Highway Superintendent, said there are so many signs another sign will not be meaningful. He does not see a problem. Mia Rendi of 35 North Chatsworth Avenue, said she is a longtime driver, 53 years, who has gone all over the United States. Going out the exit is less dangerous than coming up Jefferson Avenue because you cannot see. Mr. Siconolfi said there seems to be a guard in the yard and asked if security was in place before cars were stolen. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Stern said the security guard was put in because cars were being stolen. The security guard is there constantly at night. Cars were still being stolen until the gate went up. Mr. Brown said because there are so many driveways there, he recommended signs. There should be a sign there for safety. Ms. Reader asked if the Traffic Commission looked at the issue and made recommendations. If not, she suggested the Traffic Commission look at this issue and make a determination. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. Ms. Gallent said a letter was received from the CZMC stating this will not affect the policies set forth in the local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The matter was also referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and there was no response. Mr. Catalano said the report was reviewed and they agree it is a small volume and they don't see any significant affects. Ms. Reader asked that the Board review the Negative Declaration prepared by counsel. After some discussion and corrections noted, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following amended Negative Declaration was adopted: WHEREAS, Carlton House Condominium (the "Applicant") has submitted an application for an amendment to resolution of this Board, dated August 7, 1985 and modified by resolution dated October 8, 1986, May 13, 1987 and November 9, 1987 granting site plan approval for the premises located at 35 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 134 (the "Site Plan Approval Resolution"); 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 Coastal Zone Management Commission and members of the public; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the Short form EAF submitted by the Applicant and has determined that the Proposed Action will not have a significant impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board adopts the Negative Declaration attached hereto. The Carlton House at Larchmont Condominium,located at 35 North Chatsworth Avenue (Block 134) (the "Property"), has submitted an application, dated September 14, 1999, to the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board for an amendment to a previously granted site plan approval dated August 7, 1985, to allow two way traffic flow at each of the two entrances to the Property's parking lot (the "Proposed Action"). The currently approved site plan allows only for one way traffic flow— vehicles enter the parking lot from North Chatsworth Avenue and exit onto Madison Avenue. The Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 617.4 and 617.5; Town of Mamaroneck Code §§ 92-7(A) and 92-7(B). The Short Form EAF submitted by the applicant reveals that the only area of potential impact is traffic. The applicant has retained Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. (the"Traffic Consultant") to investigate the potential traffic impacts of the Proposed Action. The Traffic Consultant has submitted a report to the Planning Board, dated September 13, 1999,and updated November 22, 1999(together, the Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 8 "Report"), analyzing the Proposed Action to assist the Board in its site plan review. The Traffic Consultant's findings are summarized below. 1. Sight distances at the two intersections exceed minimum standards for two way traffic flow in and out of the parking lot. 2. There are no fundamentally unsafe conditions near the two intersections that would make two way traffic flow inadvisable. Further, the Mamaroneck Police Department has noted that there have been no accident-related concerns at or near the Property's access drives. 3. Under the Proposed Action (two-way traffic flow at the North Chatsworth access drive,and one-way traffic flow at the Madison Avenue access drive)the redistributed vehicle routing would result in up to 11 vehicles exiting the Property from the North Chatsworth access drive during the peak morning hour, and 8 during the peak afternoon hour. This compares to none under the current configuration in the existing condition. Through traffic on North Chatsworth Avenue consists of 291 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 369 during the afternoon peak hour. 4. The redistribution of traffic will have a negligible impact on the Level of Service (LOS) at the relevant two intersections (North Chatsworth and Madison). Under existing conditions,LOS is either"A" or"B" depending on the hour and the specific traffic movement. Under the Proposed Action LOS is expected to remain at "A" and/or "B" with movement delays into/out of the parking lot at under 15 seconds. The Traffic Consultant has recommended as part of the Proposed Action modifications in signage and parking as detailed in the November 22, 1999 Report on pages 4 and 5 and depicted on sketches in Appendix A. The Town's Consulting Engineer, Malcolm Pirnie,Inc.,has reviewed the Report,as well as the traffic section of the FEIS for the original site plan approval, dated September 1982, and has visited the Property. Based on this review and visit, Malcolm Pirnie has indicated that (1) it confirms the Report's findings set forth above; (2) no unsafe conditions were observed either on the Property or at the relevant two intersections that could result in a significant impact if the Proposed Action were implemented; and (3) the Proposed Action will result in an insignificant redistribution of traffic flow into and out of the Property(a maximum of one vehicle per five minutes exiting to North Chatsworth Avenue during the peak morning hour). Based on its review, Malcolm Pirnie further concludes that the traffic changes proposed are minor and will result in no significant traffic impacts. Moreover, the Town of Mamaroneck Traffic Committee determined that the Proposed Action is "acceptable," but indicated its view that the rear exit should not be closed between 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM, as proposed by the Applicant. Accordingly, the Planning Board finds that the Proposed Action will have no significant impact on traffic in the area. Ms. Gallent corrected the record stating the reply from Westchester County was dated October 13, 1999, stating the matter was for local determination. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Reader asked if there was anything further from the professional staff. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 9 Mt. Catalano said a note should be made of the recommendation to this report that the resolution is incorporated as part of the site plan approval. After further discussion, on a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Reader the amended site plan, dated August 7, 1985, was approved as follows: WHEREAS, Carlton House Condominium (the "Applicant") has submitted an application for an amendment to resolution of this Board, dated August 7, 1985 and modified by resolution dated October 8, 1986, May 13, 1987 and November 9, 1987 granting site plan approval for the premises located at 35 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 134 (the "Site Plan Approval Resolution"); 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 Coastal Zone Management Commission and members of the public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing pursuant to notice on December 8, 1999; WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the Short form EAF submitted by the Applicant and has determined that the Proposed Action will not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore adopted a Negative Declaration, by resolution dated December 8, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Site Plan Approval Resolution is hereby amended as follows to alter vehicle access and egress from the parking lot of the Carlton House: 1. Special Requirement and Modification,number 16, is hereby amended to permit vehicles to enter and exit from the North Chatsworth access drive with the following conditions, which are set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the November 22, 1999 report of Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.: a. A double yellow centerline shall be installed on the North Chatsworth Avenue driveway; b. A STOP sign and STOP bar shall be installed at the driveway approach to the public street, prior to the sidewalk; c. Aii existing signage referring to one-way traffic at the North Chatsworth driveway shall be removed; d. A DO NOT ENTER sign shall be installed on the gas station side of the Madison Avenue exit drive; e. On-street parking shall be restricted within 30 feet of the North Chatsworth access drive (one parking space shall be removed); f. The gate located at the Madison Avenue access drive shall be open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Ms. Gallent will send a separate letter to the Traffic Commission regarding this matter. Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 10 CONSIDERATION-RENEWAL/SPECIAL PERMIT -SAVATREE-633-635 Fifth Avenue-Block 132, Lot 175 and Lot 643 Ms. Reader asked that the record reflect that Ms. Aisen recused herself from hearing this consideration and determination. Matthew Mosher, the Branch Manager for SAVATREE, addressed the Board. He stated the application is for the renewal of a special permit for SAVATREE. There are no changes from the original special permit previously issued and granted by the Town. The items requested have been done. There have been no changes made to their operation. Ms. Reader asked if they are using any new chemicals or any change in the quantities used. Mr. Mosher said they are not using any new chemicals and the quantities remain the same. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Carpaneto if there has been any complaints or violations. Mr. Carpaneto said the only item that arose was the use of a grinder on the property. They were told to stop that use and they complied. Ms. Reader asked if it was a noise issue. Mr. Carpaneto said it was a combination of things. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Carpaneto to reiterate what it was. Mr. Carpaneto said it is large grinding equipment that makes wood chips. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Mosher was familiar with the conditions that currently exist on the permit that was granted on October 16, 1996 and if there were any modifications. Mr. Mosher said he is familiar with the conditions and they do not want any modifications. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Mosher will comply with the original conditions,with which Mr. Mosher agreed. Ms. Gallent said this is a Type II action. Mr. Papazian asked how the wash down system works for the trucks. Mr. Mosher said it is working satisfactory. It is not easy for the crews to use, but it does work. Ms. Reader asked if a berm was built. Mr. Mosher said it is a Plia-pad, a system the Board has the specs for in the original permit of how it's designed and explained the workings of the system. Mr. Papazian asked if the operation is currently being used 12 months a year. Mr. Mosher said that is correct. The tree portion is used 12 months a year. The plant health care, etc., is only 10 months a year. Ms. Gallent said that Westchester County indicated they reviewed the matter and stated if is a matter for local determination. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 11 Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. There being none, on a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing be, and hereby is, scheduled for the January 12, 2000 meeting. The secretary informed the applicant that on a special permit request the applicant must send notice the neighbors. She informed them to contact the Building Department for that notice, as notice must be sent to the neighbors a week before the meeting. Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SUBDIVISION - Woodruff/Roxbury - 96 Weaver Street - Block 406, Lot 47 Anthony Carbone, and attorney from Berlingo&Carbone, of 320 Westchester Avenue,Port Chester, NY, appeared to represent the applicant, along with the principal of the applicant, Dominic Marchese, and the supervising architect, John Woodruff, who will answer any questions the Board may have. He said the subject of this application is the property located at 96 Weaver Street, in the Town of Mamaroneck. The present use on the site is that of Grant's Florist. Mr. Carbone said that the property has approximately 140 ft. frontage on Weaver Street and is approximately 126 ft. in depth. The property is irregular in shape. It is approximately twenty-three sevenths (23/7)of an acre located in an R-7.5 Zone. The present use is preexisting, nonconforming. On the site is a hodge podge of various buildings;the florist shop and greenhouse, a single family house in which the owner's son presently resides. They are submitting the application and have submitted to the Board a sub-division application along with a Long Form EAF both dated 11/10/99. In addition is the survey of Aristotle Bournazos, dated June 18, 1999, along with Mr. Woodruff's site plan. The application is a simple one. The proposal is to take one lot and divide it into two lots, lot A and lot B. He said Mr. Woodruff can review with the Board the details of the site plan. They conform in all aspects of the zoning except for one, the width at the building line for lot B. Ms. Aisen asked where the flower shop is currently and if it is going to be removed. Mr. Carbone indicated the location on the plan, and said it is going to be removed. All the other buildings will be removed on the site as indicated. Two single family houses will be constructed, stick built houses, by Mr. Marchese. Mr. Woodruff said they are proposing two approximately 2,500 sq. ft. Colonial houses which would have two-car garages, a stick built house, and will pickup some of the traditional details that are used in the neighborhood. They are proposing the traditional homes and are open for suggestions in terms of the style of the home. The houses would have full basements, concrete foundations and dry wells will be installed to handle all the roof runoff for the rain water as well as the dry wells for footing drains. Ms. Reader said there will be net zero impact. Mr. Woodruff said there will be net zero impact on the rate of runoff from the property. They will maintain all the water on the site. The site slopes from the front to the back, approximately 5 ft. to 6 ft., so there will be minimal grading as well. They will do typical landscaping around the houses. Ms. Reader asked if the traffic will be at least the same or less than what Grant's had. Mr. Woodruff said it will probably be less. It was a commercial use as opposed to a residential permitted use. Ms. Harrington asked if there is a law that prevents a circular driveway in the Town. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Carpaneto said no. Ms. Harrington asked if that would be something to consider in this area, because backing out of either one of the driveways will be horrendous. If one trys to do it in the morning when people are going to the Hommocks or in the afternoon it is incredible. Dr. Mason asked what the scale is. Mr. Catalano said the scale is 1 to 10. Dr. Mason asked about a common driveway. Ms. Aisen said that is the way it is now. Mr. Woodruff said the way it is configured now, there is that area of street. That area, the circular area in front of the property, will remain because that belongs to the State and is a part of the State road. He then pointed out Weaver Street and the circular drive, marked exhibits 1 and 2. Ms. Reader said there is common access to both houses, with which Mr. Woodruff agreed. Ms. Reader asked if people would have to back out, as there is no turnaround. Mr. Woodruff said there isn't a turnaround,but a circular driveway can be configured because the lots are large enough, 75 ft. width. If a circular driveway is installed it takes the front lawns and greenery and makes it macadam. There will be 4 curb cuts, as opposed to 1 curb cut. There is 1 curb cut per lot. After further discussion, Dr. Mason suggests in positioning the houses that Mr. Woodruff allow enough room so something like that could be done. If Mr. Woodruff talks to anyone that lives on that stretch of Weaver Street, between the Boston Post Road and Palmer Avenue, getting out is very difficult. Valerie O'Keeffe said there have been discussions with the State Department of Transportation with respect to their Boston Post Road study. They have recently examined the part of Weaver Street from Palmer Avenue to the Boston Post Road especially with respect to the Howell Park area across the street. There have been suggestions from the people of Howell Park that Weaver Street be widened, because of the tremendous traffic going to the Hommocks School. If the bond issue passes, and even if it doesn't, all the sixth grade children from the school district going to the Hommocks is going to increas the amount of traffic going down Weaver Street. Ms. Reader said that children from Central and Murray already go to Hommocks. Ms. O'Keeffe said that Chatsworth doesn't. Those discussions are taking place now that there be a widening of Weaver Street, cutting into the park across the street. There has also been a suggestion by the Department of Transportation if one wants to widen Weaver Street to widen it on this side of the street. Nothing has happened, but there are discussions with respect to that particular roadway now. Mr. Carbone said the project is less of an intensive use on the site than has been over the years, and there will be 2 curb cuts. However, they are single family homes, it is not a commercial use and there are other homes on Weaver Street that have similar positions on the site and have similar curb cuts. People have to be careful when they back up onto Weaver Street. A discussion ensued regarding this. Mr. Carpaneto referred the Board to Section 240-79 of the Zoning Code; parking shall be laid out so that vehicles will not be required to back into the public highway when leaving the parking area. He said they may have to put in a Hammer Head. Mr. Woodruff said a Hammer Head can be put on the driveway by the garage. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Carpaneto said two vehicles can park side by side; the Hammer Head could be operable for both cars. Mr, Woodruff said they have the room to do it. Ms. Reader's recommendation is to have all the suggestions incorporated for the next meeting and submit that in the blueprints. Mr. Carpaneto asked if there is a frontage issue. Mr. Woodruff said the frontage is 30 ft. required; he has 62 ft. in the two pieces; he needs 75 ft. Ms. Reader said this matter is to be referred to the CZMC. Mr. Woodruff said this is his first time before the Board. Ms. Reader explained that the CZMC makes recommendations as to whether this project upsets the environmental concerns. Ms. Gallent said it is the local law. Ms. Reader said it is an unlisted action under SEQRA. Ms. Gallent said a long form environmental assessment is needed. Mr. Woodruff said that has been submitted. Ms. Reader stated there will be no blasting, with which Mr. Woodruff agreed. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Woodruff is restoring more grass, pervious ground. Mr. Woodruff said they are restoring much more of the pervious ground, as the whole lot is currently paved and will now be all lawn. Ms. Carbone said the existing survey submitted shows the coverage. Dr. Mason suggested when Mr. Woodruff comes before the CZMC, the last Thursday of the month, he show up with site plans and drawings for drainage, elevations, etc. Ms. Reader said the Board must get the recommendations of the CZMC, who may not be meeting in December. Therefore, the matter may be put off until a later date, possibly February. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Woodruff to keep in communication with the secretary regarding this. Mr. Carbone said they are contract vendees, and have a relatively long window open. Ms. Gallent asked the nature of the State road. Mr. Woodruff said they will have to file and make an application with them. Ms. Gallent said she does not know if the State has to comply with SEQRA because it is an unlisted action. Ms. Reader asked what happens if the State objects. Ms. Gallent addressed that issue. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Carbone said he wouldn't object to an uncoordinated review. Mr. Carbone asked if there were any other questions. It is a good project, is good for the Town and he looks forward to moving ahead. Mr. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Dr. Mason said he is sorry to see Grant's go, as they have been around a long time. Mr. Carbone asked if the next step is the CZMC before zoning. Ms. Reader said that is correct. Ms. Gallent said the request to the Zoning Board is a Type II and does not require SEQRA. Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Stephen Land -29 Mohegan Road, Block 208, Lot 546 John Slaker, the registered landscape architect, retained by Stephen Land who is also present, appeared. He was asked to come up with a design for a swimming pool for their property, which is a long narrow lot with no rear yard. The back yard is approximately 20 ft. off the back of the house. They have to apply for a variance to locate the swimming pool within a side yard area on the property. What is proposed is to minimize the amount of grading on the property, hopefully eliminating the need to take out any rock. In doing so, they propose to start the pool at the upper end, the shallow end, at approximately the existing grade and then fill in the part to the back of the property where there is a broken down stone wall. It is proposed to build up the stone wall at the back of the property and then fill against that. Currently the wall goes right down to the property line. They are proposing to plant from the edge of the pool terrace to the property line with various shrubs and plants and eliminate the lawn in that area. The grading and drainage has been designed to pick up all new impervious surface that they are proposing, including the area of the pool. They have designed dry wells to handle another 2 in. of rainfall over the impervious surface, which are located on the grade plan the Board has, behind the pool in the fill area where the overflow drains back into the wetlands that would be behind it. The storm drains would percolate out into the soil in a slow fashion. There will be catch basins located in the back of the back yard. Ms. Reader said Mr. Slaker said overflow into the wetlands behind him and asked him how that works. Mr. Slaker said it is being retained, percolating in and if there is a storm like the one a couple of months ago when the drains can't handle the 2 in. rainfall there is a drainage pipe at the top that will allow it to flow out slowly into the wetland area. Mr. Catalano asked if it will be a level spreader. Mr. Slaker said they are proposing a rip/raft apron at the back. A level spreader can be put back there, but it is limited. Ms. Reader asked what is a rip/raft apron. Mr. Slaker said that is where the pipe comes out large stones are put so the soil does not erode and the water will come out. They do not anticipate any velocity in that. More than likely, it will probably never happen. Ms. Aisen asked if the house is in the middle of the block. Mr. Slaker said it is three houses up from the corner from Avon. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 15 After further comments, Dr. Mason asked the size of the pool. Mr. Slaker said the pool size is 20 ft. wide by 40 ft. long., a normal size. Dr. Mason said Mr. Slaker indicated they don't expect any rock. Mr. Land said the pool is elevated enough. If rock is encountered, it will be chipped. Mr. Slaker said there is a whole formation of rock ledges as you come out of the side of the house that drop down into the lawn area. The house is entirely within the confines of the eastern low spot. Mr. Land showed a small version of the survey. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Catalano if he had any recommendations. Mr. Catalano said it is a typical erosion control plan. Other than that, the only concern would be the rock; blasting or chipping. Mr. Slaker said they would do chipping. Ms. Reader asked if the wetlands is Leatherstocking. Mr. Land explained it is behind the property. Dr. Mason asked about the provisions made for draining the pool. Mr. Slaker said that the major drains will probably have to be pumped out and taken away. The details have not been worked out on the backwash, but the codes and standards will have to be met that are provided. Dr. Mason said there have been incidents in the past where people have pumped out water, the chlorine is still pretty fresh and there were a lot of dead fish in the duck pond. There is concern it might happen again, as it will have an impact on the duck pond. Mr. Land said it is not in a water shed, but goes under the Town of Mamaroneck river. Dr. Mason asked if it will feed into the east branch of the Sheldrake. Mr. Lane said no, it will be on the other side. Mr. Catalano said what is being said is that the side where driveway is,whatever is pumped out is directed toward the dry well. Mr. Slaker said they could do that. A discussion ensued regarding backwashing the pool. Ms. Reader said the Board is concerned about the health of the wetlands. The CZMC will make conditions. Mr. Papazian said the applicant should be prepared to address concerns about drainage, dry wells, etc. Ms. Reader said that this is a Type II action, requiring no further action under SEQRA. The matter will be scheduled for the February meeting, awaiting recommendations from the CZMC. Planning Board December 8, 1999 Page 16 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 12, 2000. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:04 p.m. 721 coAcuA.,1,c 7211—A-- Marguerite Rattia, Recording Secretary