Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_02_10 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 10, 1999, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Anthony V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer Michelle Nieto, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kanzi-s & 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 8:16 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the January 13, 1999 meeting and if there were any amendments. Ms. Aisen asked if the court reporter's transcription, that are going to be made a part of those minutes, had been received. Ms. Roma said the transcription of that meeting had not yet been received, but was expected possibly by the end of the week. After some discussion and the fact that there were no amendments, on a motion made by Dr. Mason seconded by Ms. Aisen, the Minutes for the January 13, 1999 meeting, with the inclusion of the court reporter's transcription when received, were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Christopher P. Knopp 28 Bonnie Way -Block 104 Lot 52.1 (adjourned 10/14/98;11/11/98;12/9/98; 1/13/99) 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. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 2 Ms. Reader informed those present that this is the fifth date of the public hearing for this matter. Mr. Reader asked Mr. Knopp, for the record, to identify himself and spell his name. Chris Knopp appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Reader said before Mr. Knopp starts his presentation that this is a continuation of a public hearing. She is going to limit comments on this matter this evening to no more than three minutes for any one person and to new information. Mr. Knopp said there was a question at the last meeting in reference to the easement across the neighboring McCarthy property. It is Mr. Knopp's understanding that the attorney for the McCarthys and Ms. Gallent have spoken. There are technicalities that have to be worked out regarding the metes and bounds which have been ordered from the surveyor, who happens to be the same surveyor that Mr. Knopp uses and is also the same surveyor that performed the original subdivision of the two properties. It is not going to be a major issue. The language of the easement itself is taken more or less from a similar easement used by the Town of Mamaroneck and there should be no major problems. Ms. Gallent said she has a draft of the easement and it should not be a problem. Mr. Knopp said it will be signed, if approval is forthcoming,and assumes the easement will be a condition. Mr. Reader asked if there were any other comments. Ms. Press appeared and thanked the Board for extending time to allow representation by an engineer, Benedict Salanitro, to inspect Mr. Senor's plans, specifically the driveway, and determine if it will or will it not exacerbate the flooding situation. Ms. Reader stated for the record that the Board is in receipt of Mr. Salanitro's report, dated January 26, 1999, which is a part of the record. Mr. Salanitro addressed the Board stating he is pro-development and would like to see the building take place. The neighbors in the area wanted Mr. Salanitro to review the proposal planned to see if there was anything that was missing or needed to be added to better protect the neighborhood. Certain questions and concerns were raised. Mr. Salanitro said he has received a revised plan showing a driveway profile with at least one inconsistency and two other questions that remain unanswered. He does not want to cause any delay and would like to assist in getting all the questions answered. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Salanitro to focus on the two issues of concern. Mr. Salanitro said the concern in his letter of January 26, 1999, which was intended to be addressed in the revised plan, related to the curb stone along the driveway which is not shown in terms of elevation which he believes will dam the water on the southeast corner of the front property. The profile showed the lowest point at the driveway at elevation 89.7. He then informed the Board what the Malcolm Pirnie design showed. The elevation of the proposed retaining wall was to be clarified whether it be in excess of 5 ft. or not and whether it would be at the same elevation of the proposed driveway potentially causing that water not to properly overflow. He said if it requires a variance in excess of 5 ft., the height of the wall would be difficult to meet in terms of zoning requirements. Dr. Mason asked why Mr. Salanitro is addressing zoning. Mr. Salanitro said he is addressing that issue, because if a variance is needed it may compound the issue. Ms. Reader said assuming it might be more than 5 ft. and a variance may be needed, is there a height above which it should not be delineated. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Salanitro feels the most important height is the elevation of either 89 or 89.7, so that the flow would go overland. There is no height shown to ascertain that. The other comment made that is crucial is that his calculation showed that the infiltrators or the proposed dry well for on-site retention are not properly designed. There is a basic assumption made in the front portion where there is a yard inlet that will receive the water from the overland portion of the roadway which is not part of the design calculation. Even if the dry wells were to work, as shown in design that the overland flow will go into the pit area where the yard drain is shown, that is not what it is designed for. Dry wells won't work on the rear of the property. There is a drain in front. The revised plan has shown the water course going overland. Coupled with the proposed design, it may not be prudent for the Town to expend its money on the pipe. There has been correspondence between the developer, the Town, himself and the Town Engineer regarding the design plan. A statement made in a letter, dated January 12, 1999, from Malcolm Pimie to the Board that there are portions of this development in the 5-year flood plain. The issues are more complex than just flooding in the area. There are problems upstream and downstream. Concentration should be on getting the water overland as the new plans show. Once that is accomplished, there will be no problem. Mr. Salanitro said he is present as an assistant to both parties. Mr. Capicotto said he can address all those points. Ms. Reader asked about the 6 ft. drop on the driveway. Mr. Capicotto said it is .7 ft. Mr. Salanitro said there is a discrepancy between the two plans. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Knopp said the dry wells do not have to account for any potential flood water jumping the property, but just account for what is being built on the premises. He stated that the Town is not installing the drainage improvements, he is. He does not want the water to go overland. The driveway designed, in the worst case scenario at the request of a planning board members and if everything goes kaput at the same time, so that the water will go in the same place. In theory, water is never going to run down the driveway. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Knopp is assuming that, if the catch basin works in the front of the property and the new design that is being included by the Town, no overflow is expected? Mr. Knopp said exactly. Dr. Mason said except in a severe storm, at which time it backs to square one. Mr. Knopp said if the Leatherstocking Trail always floods, it is not functioning the way it was designed to function. Mr. Capicotto said he is in agreement with a lot of the points in Mr. Salanitro's letter and that he did write a response to the Board. Mr. Capicotto said the curb stones never appeared on the drawings and won't be approved. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Knopp if the curb stones have been eliminated. Mr. Knopp said he will not be using curb stones. Mr. Capicotto said the elevations shown on the Malcolm Pimie profile, prepared for the drainage pipe for the Town, was based on an earlier version of Mr. Knopp's drawing. The proposed profile was never revised, but now will be revised with the finished elevations as shown on the drawings. The 90 contour wraps around the drain. It will probably be 89.7 at the top of the inlet, the catch basin and the driveway. It is understood that the retaining wall elevation is at 89 on the east side of the property, which is marked. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 4 Ms. Reader asked if a condition should be made, upon approval, that it is the maximum permitted, with which Mr. Capicotto agreed. Mr. Capicotto continued,stating for the Board's understanding,that the wall is 1' ft. lower than the curb. Any flow going over that curb will make its way to the wall and back. The infiltrators, the catch basin in the front yard which had been eliminated on the earlier version, showed up again on this drawing,which Malcolm Pimie does not think is necessary. Ms. Reader asked which infiltrator Mr. Capicotto was referring to. Mr. Capicotto said the catch basin shown in the front lawn is specified CB60. Malcolm Pimie does not approve catch basins being tied into infiltrators,despite the fact that it is not necessary nor not needed and there is now flow across the property. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Capicotto will recommend the elimination of that. Mr. Capicotto said yes, and that it will be taken care of in the erosion control plan review. Ms. Reader asked if that was what Mr. Salanitro was talking about when he asked if that was the one that drains to the dry well in the back of the house and will that be eliminated? Mr. Capicotto said yes,just for the house. Dr. Mason said it is for the gutters and leaders of the house, with which Mr. Capicotto agreed. Mr. Capicotto said that the sizing of the infiltrators is still under review, since the erosion control permit has not yet been approved. If more are required, it will have to be done. That will be taken care of under a separate permit. He then mentioned that Mr. Knopp had mentioned the cost to the Town,but there won't be one because the idea behind it was that this would prevent nuisance flows down the driveway. Ms. Reader asked what is a nuisance flow? Mr. Capicotto if it was not there every time there was a storm and water pooled in the front of the property it is going to run down the driveway. By providing a catch basin, there is a means for that water to make it to the rear of the property. As some people indicated, if it is not enough to handle the flow, it will flip over the side to the original path over land. Ms. Reader said it doesn't provide any negative back-flow which might affect the drainage factor, with which Mr. Capicotto agreed. Mr. Capicotto said in addition, the plan is that the Town will tie in the two (2) catch basins across the street into the same catch basin,because those catch basins probably go down the street and get backed up because of the flow. There will be three(3)catch basins to catch that flow,which hopefully will improve conditions. In addition, Mr. Capicotto said the curb cut is two(2) inches lower than the curb is now. If the catch basin is not working, it will still be better than what is out there now because the water will only have to pool off about three (3) inches before it runs down the driveway and through the property, etc. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Salanitro if that answers all the various concerns. Mr. Capicotto said just to clarify what Mr. Knopp said, the overland flow consideration must be maintained in extreme storm events. The storm drainage improvement does not absolve the driveway working as a drainage pathway. That is fine, as long as Mr. Knopp understands that. Ms. Reader stated for the record that just prior to the meeting, she spoke to Mr. Capicotto about the elevations on the new plan and asked how that works with the driveway. It is Ms. Reader's understanding Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 5 that the driveway will start at about 90.3, goes downwards, there is a catch basin and then goes upwards to the garage door. Ms. Reader asked why is there not going to be pooling in that area? Mr. Capicotto said there will not be pooling in that area because of the elevation. The land is tilted from west to east and pitches to the right also, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. Capicotto said it was recommended in Malcolm Pimie's letter to the Board, that a provision of the permit approval be made to allow an unhindered flow path,so that in the future if someone else comes along and trys to put a curb across the driveway there will be a means to prevent them from doing so. After some discussion between Ms. Reader and Mr. Capicotto, Mr. Capicotto said the curb cut will be at elevation 90.3, flowing continually downward to the retaining wall at the east side of the front yard at elevation 89.0 and shall be maintained. Mr. Capicotto pointed out that last month the question was raised as to why doesn't water flow down the McCarthy driveway because that pitches down. After Mr. Capicotto investigated, he stated they have a rise in the driveway pitch before it drops down to the back. In essence, the driveway acts as a curb. After further discussion regarding the bond issue, Mr. Capicotto said the bond will be linked with the erosion control bond. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Salanitro asked if there will be insurance that goes with the easement agreement about the maintenance. The basins can clog and will clog especially with the flow of water as mentioned in his letter. It is an important feature to have the basins cleaned for both the home owners, the property owner as well as the neighboring neighbors. Mr. Capicotto said the Town will handle the maintenance. Ms. Harrington asked if the Board had a mechanism to insure that Town performs the maintenance, as she feels there should be some responsibility for such. Ms. Gallent said the Town is responsible. Ms. Harrington said the Town has not met their responsibilities in the past. Ms. Reader said it is a difficult area to enforce. Mr. Capicotto said these problems happen all the time. He said he is sure when it was first built everything worked fine. Mr. Capicotto said as more development went on, it increased the runoff. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments from the public or board members. 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. Reader said so that counsel can draft a resolution to be reviewed and modified if necessary at the next meeting, she would like to get a consensus of what the Board wishes to do. Does the Board favor that a resolution be drawn approving the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit for the project with five (5)(?, only 4 listed) special conditions as follows: 1. There be a utility easement granted to the Town of Mamaroneck from the McCarthys of 26 Bonnie Way. The terms and language of that utility easement must be approved by the Town of Mamaroneck. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 6 2. The retaining wall, if there is one, on the east side of the property shall at a maximum elevation of 89.0. 3. The curb cut for the driveway shall not exceed an elevation of 90.3 and the grading of the property shall flow continually downward from the curb cut to the retaining wall at a maximum elevation of 89.0 and the downward grading to that shall be maintained in perpetuity. 4. A bond will be posted together with the bond required for the erosion control permit. Ms. Reader asked that the board members individually indicate whether they approve the drafting of a resolution by counsel, consistent with the above conditions. Mr. Papazian said it is fine with him. The only question he has, before moving forward, is if there is anything else that the Coastal Zone Management Commission had recommended regarding the area in the back. Ms. Gallent said she has a letter from the CZMC dated November 6, 1998 to the Board. After discussion between Ms. Gallent and Mr. Papazian, he stated he does not have a problem and the drafting of a resolution is fine. Ms. Reader said she supports the drafting of a resolution. Dr. Mason said he thinks it is a realistic approach to a very difficult situation in that particular neighborhood. He said Mr. Knopp is neither adding to the problem nor is he being called upon to resolve it which he cannot possibly do with this little bit of a project he is proposing. He has no problem with the drafting of a resolution. Ms. Harrington said that she has mixed feelings because she strongly feels that there should be some way to insure that the drainage measures are maintained. Mr. Capicotto said there will be maintenance which will be added to the Town's periodic maintenance roster, when they maintain the other drains.. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Carpaneto if there is a time schedule followed or is it guesstimate? Mr. Carpaneto said he believes the Highway Department does maintenance at least twice a year, but they do keep a special eye on that area when they know they know they are going to have an event. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Carpaneto, as part of the Building Department, can setup a schedule so that at least twice a year they will inspect it and clean it out if necessary. Mr. Carpaneto said he can make that recommendation. Ms. Gallent said it is not periodic maintenance but more a need to be cleaned when there is an event that makes it important that it be cleaned. Dr. Mason said it has got to be looked at whenever there is a situation where the stream is backwatered in a flood event where a lot of silt is carried into the system and is unable to flush through. Those are the situations where the stream at the back of the property is quite high, there is a heavy rain and the system becomes either overwhelmed or inundated by backwater from the brook. That is what has to looked at and flushed out hydraulically. Ms. Gallent said the Board can write a letter to the Highway Department urging it to do the maintenance required to keep the stormwater system working effectively. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 7 Ms. Reader asked counsel to draft a letter regarding that matter, independent of the resolution for the wetlands. Mr. Carpaneto said the Board has the support of the Building Department concerning the maintenance. Ms. Harrington asked if there wasn't some mention of leaves in the record that are not coming as a product of someone clearing their lawns, but just because of the woods and trees, as there is a tremendous amount of leaves dropping. Dr. Mason said not so much on that property. That is stuff that gets carried down from the woods. Mr. Darsky asked if the Town Engineer is satisfied with respect to the points raised by Mr. Salanitro. Mr. Capicotto said yes, all of them. Mr. Darksy said then he is in favor of the resolution. Ms. Reader directed counsel to draft a resolution for next month's meeting to be reviewed by Board members to make intelligent input. Ms. Aisen stated for the record that she did not participate in the vote because she has recused herself. Ms. Reader stated that the record is closed on this matter pending submission and receipt of all documents that the Board will consider. Ms. Gallent called attention to the fact that Mr. Capicotto has given to the Board members a letter, dated February 10, 1999, which is required under the Wetlands Law. After some discussion, Mr. Capicotto said the Board had received an earlier version of that letter, dated February 10, 1999. Ms. Reader reiterated that the record is closed. The next meeting date is March 10, 1999. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT -Robert Greenberg - 19 West Drive - Block 107 Lot 40 On a motion made and seconded by , 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. Ken Kurtz, of Stephen Tilly Architects, appeared representing the applicant. He stated that the application is for a two-story addition to an existing two-story house. The lot coverage of the addition is 318 sq. ft. With the deck behind it, it is 175 sq. ft. Last month they appeared before the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC)and have an application to be reviewed for erosion control with a few minor changes to be made. Ms. Reader asked if the applicant is before the Zoning Board. Mr. Kurtz said he is before the Zoning Board for a side yard variance. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 8 Ms. Reader asked about the side yard. Mr. Kurtz said the proposed side yard is 9.9 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required, being the rear yard on that side. Mr. Kurtz said the side yard required, because of the Leatherstocking Trail, is 10.0 ft. which the house now has. The house addition does not encroach, but the proposed deck will encroach on that 31/2 ft. leaving a side yard for the deck of 6'h ft. Mr. Carpaneto said that the Zoning Board asked that they make some changes in the roof line, but not dealing with the footprint. Mr. Kurtz said there was an objection about the height. Ms. Reader asked if the deck was going to be slatted. Mr. Kurtz said that the deck is going to be slatted and will be on pier footings. It will probably be a little wider than what is shown on the drawing. Ms. Reader questioned what will be wider. Mr. Kurtz said the spacing of the supporting piers for the deck. Mr. Capicotto said the question was actually the spaces in the decking between the boards being 'h or'/s inch. A discussion ensued regarding the spacing between the slats, with Mr. Carpaneto stating the minimum space between decking slats is '/s inch. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from board members. Mr. Papazian said he had no other question except the letter from the CZMC. Ms. Gallent said that the CZMC letter doesn't state whether it believes this application is consistent or inconsistent with the LWRP. If the Board were to grant this permit, the Board will not have to go through the process of putting in writing whatever it is overriding or accepting anything, as it doesn't state an opinion. Ms. Aisen asked if there was another letter from the CZMC in which they referred to all the three (3) different properties and they say there is a general creep around the Leatherstocking Trail area. Dr. Mason said the concern expressed at the CZMC meeting was that there are several properties where people have cultivated, planted the lawn, even landscaped portions of the Leatherstocking Trail so that it incorporated into their properties. No one indicated that this property had done so, but the concern was that when the landscaping is done in that area, that there be a clear delineation between the Leatherstocking Trail property and the individuals'property. Mr. Kurtz said that the letter refers to that. Ms. Reader read the portion of the letter from the CZMC, dated January 27, 1999, and asked if that is what Mr. Kurtz is referring to; "A lawn area presently encroaches onto the conservation area; the CZMC understands that the applicant intends to restore this area, as much as possible, under the supervision of the Town Conservation Department." Mr. Kurtz said yes, that is what he is referring to. Mr. Reader then asked if it was Mr. Kurtz's intention to work together with the Town Conservation Department. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Kurtz said yes. Ms. Reader said that can be made a condition of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. Ms. Reader asked if that was what Mr. Papazian was referring to. Mr. Papazian said that is one point. The second point is, why does the deck have to come closer to the Leatherstocking Trail? In the letter from the CZMC it states the applicant is 10.0 ft. out now, and will be closing in on 6' ft. He asked Mr. Kurtz to explain that. Mr. Kurtz said the end of the house is 10.0 ft. Anything that is built will come closer to the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Papazian stated there is no deck there now, with which Mr. Kurtz agreed. Mr. Kurtz said that the 3' ft. is about the minimum clearance you can get if there is a railing and still be able to walk by the house on the deck. The letter referred to the visual impact of it. There is an additional approximately 20.0 ft. of planting proposed between the trail and their property line. Mr. Papazian asked what leads out of the house, and what is the deck attached to. Mr. Kurtz said the deck would be accessed from the patio glass doors from the kitchen and connects to an existing stone terrace that is off the living room. Mr. Papazian asked, then to have access to the outside of the house, there must be a deck? Mr. Kurtz said they have access from the living room. There is no other access except through the living room and they need a deck.. Ms. Aisen asked if a deck should be permitted or is it strictly a zoning question. Ms. Gallent said the question for this Board is the impact of the deck on the wetlands. The Zoning Board has different issues. Ms. Reader said the Board consistently approves decks that have been slatted, built on piers and the condition that what is underneath that part of the deck be pervious, non-erodible material. Mr. Capicotto said that material could be gravel on a filter fabric. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Capicotto if the Board has to put something in the resolution about the plantings. Dr. Mason said James Athey is going to work on that. Mr. Kurtz said plantings will be installed between the deck and the property line, and said the survey submitted at the last meeting was marked to the extent of the line. They are planting the area of • encroachment on the Leatherstocking Trail as directed by the Town Environmental Coordinator. Ms. Gallent informed the Board that the Westchester County Planning Board wrote that the matter is for local determination and it has no comment. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 10 Ms. Reader said this is a Type II matter and asked for a motion to approve the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit for Robert Greenberg, 19 West Drive, Block 107, Lot 40. On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Robert Greenberg has applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 for the premises located at Lot No. 19 West Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 40; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and that no further review is required under SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in writing regarding this application to the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, that the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR §665.7; WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 having been held on February 10, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes finds as follows: 1. The activity proposed is such that it will not effect or endanger the balance of systems in the nature of the controlled area; 2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, because (A)the proposed activity will have only a minor impact, (B) it is the only practical alternative, and(C)it is compatible with the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or social burden on the community; 3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of any part of the wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective conditions imposed by this resolution; 4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of its minor impact in the controlled area; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Robert Greenberg for a permit, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall restore the area of the lawn that encroaches on the Leatherstocking Trail to its natural state under the direction of the Town Conservation Department. This area shall remain in a natural state in perpetuity. 2. The proposed deck shall have adequate spacing between deck boards for storm water to reach the ground. 3. A non-vegetative pervious material shall be placed below the deck to prevent erosion, such as a layer of gravel placed on a filter fabric. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 11 4. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or combination thereof. 5. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be in accordance with the requirements of the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code and the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law. 6. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 7. A bond to be combined with the erosion control permit shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or disturbed area. 8. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-SPECIAL PERMIT -Peter Camaj-170 Myrtle Boulevard-Block 133 Lot 657 Howard Cohen, the architect for Mr. Camaj, appeared. Mr. Cohen said the application is for a new restaurant in an existing building on Myrtle Boulevard, that has seating for forty(40)people He said that Mr. Camaj has already been before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a parking variance. It is a sit-down and take-out restaurant. The primary business will be in the evening, with the hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There will be a trash pickup every day by a private carter. There is no on-site parking for this particular group of stores, as the building goes property line to property line. There is no access to the rear yard. Ms. Aisen questioned the parking for this particular area. Ms. Gallent informed the Board that this matter is before the Zoning Board for a parking variance. Mr. Cohen said the situation on Myrtle Boulevard is that there is no overnight parking permitted. Any residents in the area have to have their cars off the street, in parking lots or garages. In reality the street is empty at night. Ms. Aisen stated that individuals can park in that area for an hour or two but not overnight, with which Mr. Cohen agreed. Dr. Mason asked if the Town had six (6) hour continuous parking. Mr. Carpaneto said that the Town has the meters in parking lot#3 for twenty(20)parking spaces for three (3)hours. He investigated the area and counted fifty(50)spaces on the street in that general area and said there is a constant turnover. He spoke to the officer who patrols that area who said it is busy but it does turnover. He made a recommendation about changing the hours on the metered parking for a shorter period of time and said there also some diagonal parking possibilities. A discussion ensued regarding the Town parking limitations in that area. After that discussion, Mr. Cohen said the concern was in regard to commuter parking, which has been somewhat alleviated recently by new regulations. Ms. Gallent said, for clarification, the standards for granting a special permit includes one finding that the Board must make which is that the proposed use is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 12 not adversely impact upon adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto and off of adjoining streets, as noted in Section 240-62A. Ms. Reader said the location is where Gjoko's is located and that the respective flow of business would be lunchtime and after 6:00 p.m. For clarification purposes, she asked if his is the area where there are burnt out stores, which was verified. Mr. Cohen said that for additional background, there was a restaurant in that area called the Gold Lake Diner. Ms. Aisen asked about the seating that existed in the Gold Lake Diner. Mr. Cohen said the seating was about the same. He said that Gjoko bought the building which is currently being renovated. Mr. Carpaneto said there will be a hair dresser, a nail salon in that area in addition to one empty store that has not yet been designated.. Ms. Aisen said then there is proposed to be one restaurant where there previously had been a restaurant. Mr. Cohen said there are no restaurants in that area now and it is needed, because of the offices located in that area and no place to eat. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments or questions. MaryLynn Taylor, president and manager of 172 Myrtle Boulevard appeared and addressed the Board.. Ms. Taylor said she is concerned about vermin. They have a communal back yard and see rats from time to time. She would like to know where the garbage is going to be stored until it is removed. Peter Camaj, the applicant, said he has been dealing with the garbage carter, Suburban Carting, for five years. He also has a store in Rye where the garbage is picked up six days a week. The garbage is put outside 11:00/11:30 p.m. and is picked up 5:30/6:00 a.m. the following morning. They assured Mr. Camaj every morning they will pick up the garbage in the back of the building and bring it to the front. He will try to eliminate rats, so they will never be seen again. Mr. Cohen said currently there is no food service in the building and asked where the rats are coming from. Ms. Taylor said from the garbage containers. Mr. Camaj said his business will not attract rats. Ms. Reader asked how the garbage will be contained. Mr. Camaj said there are plastic containers, the garbage is put in plastic bags and tied, then put in this plastic container which is picked up from the back of the building brought to the front of the building then into the garbage truck. This is done six (6) days a week, Monday through Saturday. Mr. Taylor asked how the garbage people will gain entry to the back. Mr. Camaj said access will be through the building. Mr. Cohen said they have permission from the business on the corner to have access to get to the cans in the back. A discussion ensued regarding how removal of the garbage will be achieved. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 13 Ms. Reader said if granted a condition will be that all garbage will be in enclosures. Mr. Camaj said he will supply as many containers as needed to contain the garbage, the garbage bags will be sealed and all the garbage containers will be washed every day. Ms. Harrington asked about recyclables. Mr. Camaj said that is a separate issue. The cans are kept inside and every day he takes them to the place where they recycle cans. He said that 99% of the cartons are reused for outgoing orders. Everything is done daily. Ms. Taylor said Mr. Camaj is right in the middle. He is on one side and Ms. Taylor's building is on the other side with Gjoko's and then a dry cleaner. He has no direct access to the street, which will create a problem with rats and raccoons. Ms. Aisen asked Mr. Camaj or Mr. Cohen to explain to the Board the relationship of the access way to the restaurant. Mr. Cohen said on the plans it shows the building 40 ft. wide with a driveway on the side. He pointed to the location of Mr. Camaj's proposed store and the driveway. Presently the garbage is collected by the Town of Mamaroneck by backing the truck down the driveway. There is a reciprocal agreement with that building to damage the building to get to the back to remove the trash. Ms. Reader asked if he has a license to use their driveway for access for garbage removal. Mr. Cohen said Suburban Carting will not be permitted to drive down the driveway. Ms. Reader said then how will Mr. Camaj's garbage be collected. Mr. Cohen said the garbage will be wheeled out in plastic cans, from behind the building. Ms. Reader said someone will cart out whatever garbage exists each day using the same driveway that the Town of Mamaroneck uses, with which Mr. Cohen agreed. Mr. Darsky said the record should show that there are already rats and raccoons. Ms. Aisen said the record should show it is an existing problem and presumably will not be exacerbated. Mr. Cohen said it is a problem that is currently under control. All the buildings have pest control contracts which is done on a monthly basis. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Cohen had anything in writing with the owner of the building, a license, to get access through the driveway. Mr. Cohen said he can get a letter from the management of the building. Ms. Taylor said the tenants park across the street in the municipal parking lot. There is a vandalism problem in that lot. She is concerned that the proposed pizza place will become a children's hangout. Ms. Aisen said the police patrol the area. Mr. Camaj said they usually close at 10:00 p.m., the place is then cleaned which takes about one(1)hour. He has a store in Rye in the middle of Town, has been there for five (5) years and has never had a problem. Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 14 Dr. Mason said when there is a sit-down restaurant there are people coming and going, there is less opportunity for surreptitious vandalism. Sometimes the worst thing to have is a quiet environment. As long as you have a flow of activity,and there is no guarantee, but it is possibly a plus rather than a minus. Ms. Harrington said there is a police booth on the corner. John Coughlin a resident of 172 Myrtle Boulevard appeared. He said he has no problem with the restaurant, but is concerned with the traffic flow around the area. Individuals leave cars parked all day on the Thruway side of Myrtle Boulevard. The lot from Chatsworth down to where the burned out building was, is not an easy place to get a parking space. There is also a lot of traffic during day, a tremendous flow and suggested that board members go down to see it between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. and watch the traffic flow come down Myrtle Boulevard going to the Thruway. Any pizza place is going to do take-out business. There is always a lot going on at Gjoko's building that closes at 6:00 p.m., and it is not unusual to see him there at 9:00 p.m. There may be a lot more going on in that area than the Board is familiar with. There is double parking in that area at 6:00 a.m. Try crossing the road between 5:00 and 7:30 p.m. from the parking lot to the other side and it will be a dangerous situation. Ms. Harrington said she grew up on Myrtle Boulevard and it has always been that way no matter what. There was always traffic, always double parking and always U-turns. She does not think this will make it any better or any worse. It is just another type of business going in that location. Mr. Coughlin said there wasn't a lot going on at Gold Lake at 7:00 or 8:00 at night. Ms. Harrington said not in the past few years, but before that there was plenty of business day and night. Gold Lake did a big evening business. Mr. Cohen said he is also the owner of the building of 170 Myrtle Boulevard. He is an architect and had his office there for eight (8) years. There is heavy traffic in the morning, but in the afternoon it is very quiet. In the evening it is dead on Myrtle Boulevard. There might be an hour or two of rush hour traffic, the same as on any other street, but this will not create a significant increase in traffic or cause those kinds of problems. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. There being none, Ms. Reader thanked Mr. Coughlin and Ms. Taylor for their comments. Ms. C'.11ent said the CZMC wrote a letter to the Board saying it did not believe that this application will neither enhance nor hinder the policies set forth in the LWRP. It is an unlisted action under SEQRA. The Environmental Coordinator has prepared a draft of a Negative Declaration for review by the Board before adoption. Ms. Reader read the draft negative declaration for the Board, which is a part of the record. Ms. Harrington asked if a suggestion can be made to the Town to look into a walk light at that area. Ms. Gallent said the Town is conducting a traffic study in that area right now. Ms. Reader asked for a motion to adopt the Negative Declaration. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the adoption of the Negative Declaration was unanimously approved. ® On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Dr. Mason, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 15 WHEREAS, Peter Camaj submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for use of the premises at 170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 657 as a restaurant; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1999 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action for purposes of SEQRA and, at the meeting held on February 10, 1999, adopted a negative declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Use Permit, the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses to questions by the applicant, the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit; 3. The proposed Special Use Permit use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of Peter Camaj for a Special Use Permit for a restaurant subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The restaurant's hours of operation shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven (7) days a week. 2. There shall be daily pickup of garbage six(6)days a week. All garb-:ge shall be bagged and tied prior to placement in a secured, closed garbage container until picked up by the contracted carting service. 3. Applicant shall provide to the Building Department a letter from the owner or managing agent of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue granting a license to the applicant to the driveway at 17 North Chatsworth Avenue to provide access to the garbage for the contracted garbage carting service to remove refuse. 4. Recyclables shall be kept inside the building, until disposition. 5. This permit shall expire after two (2) years. 6. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-31(B)of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Laurie Carlson of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue asked if this matter will be discussed further or is this the last path. 1 Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 16 Ms. Reader said the public hearing is the last path. Ms. Carlson asked if the Zoning Board will be dealing with this matter. Ms. Reader said yes. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-RENEWAL/SPECIAL PERMIT-Village Square Bagels/John Mercaldi-1262 Boston Post Road - Block 407 Lot 192 John Mercaldi, the owner of Village Square Bagels, appeared. Mr. Mercaldi said he is before the Board for a renewal of the special permit and that nothing is being changed. After some discussion, Ms. Gallent informed the Board that this is a Type II action. Ms. Aisen said that Mr. Mercaldi has moved the store and asked if that has already been cleared. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Mercaldi just moved over two stores. Mr. Mercaldi said he moved over two stores. Ms. Gallent said they have already dealt with that. She also said this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board because it is located on the Boston Post Road,by letter dated February 3, 1999. It indicated that there were no issues of concern. Mr. Papazian asked if the seating was still nineteen (19). Mr. Mercaldi said yes. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Reader asked for a motion to grant the special permit for Village Square Bagels with the same conditiors as existed on September 17, 1996, with the five conditions. Mr. Mercaldi asked that condition#3 be updated to the latest amended traffic plan. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Village Square Bagels submitted an application for the renewal of the Special Use Permit for use of the premises at 1262 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 192 as a restaurant for the sale, service and consumption of food; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1999 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for renewal of the Special Use Permit, the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses to questions by the applicant, the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; and Planning Board February 10, 1999 Page 17 pRESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit; 3. The proposed Special Use Permit use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of Village Square Bagels for the renewal of the Special Use Permit for a restaurant for the sale, service and consumption of food subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The restaurant's hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven(7)days a week. 2. Seating capacity will be limited to nineteen (19) seats. 3. Traffic ingress and egress and traffic patterns on the site shall be as shown on the amended plans dated May 18, 1997, approved November 12, 1997. 4. This permit shall expire after two (2) years. 5. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Sections 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30(B)of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 9, 1999. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:50 p.m. l 9731 Marguerite , Recording Secretary ' r-