HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_07_10 Planning Board Minutes (2) AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
JULY 10, 1996, 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 `i " .tr,
C. Alan Mason
Stephen Andrew Moser
Edmund Papazian
Absent: Richard H. Darsky k'
OA It eftri ;
Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel , NY
Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer
Eileen Agnoletto, Public Stenographer
Carbone & Associates, Ltd.
111 N. Central Park Avenue
Hartsdale, NY 10530
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Reader asked if the Board had an opportunity to review the draft of the Minutes of the June 12, 1996
meeting and asked if there were any changes.
Mr. Trachtman said at the top of page 13, the second line should read, "The proposed activity is next to
a small stream that is less than 6 ft. in width which flows into the east branch of the Sheldrake River."
Mr. Moser said on page 4, after the 9th paragraph which contains statements made by Mr. Vanoli, a
paragraph should be added as follows: Mr. Moser disputed Mr. Vanoli's conclusion regarding the runoff.
Ms. Gallent said on page 4, second to last line should be deleted as it is repetitious.
On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, the amended Minutes for June 12, 1996 were
unanimously approved, 5-0. Ms. Harrington did not vote.
The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING-RENEWAL-SPECIAL PERMIT-Mark and Bob Car Wash d/b/a High Tech
Car Wash - 2434 Boston Post Road North - Block 503 Lot 326.1
® On a motion was made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 2
The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of
this record.
Dolores Battalia, of Stein& Battalia, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont who represents the applicant, and
Mark Askinazy, one of the co-owners of the property and co-operator of the site appeared. Ms. Battalia
stated that the applicant is seeking an extension of a Special Permit to operate the car wash which was
originally granted in 1991 and extended in 1994, since the Town statute only provides for two year periods
for Special Permits. All the appropriate information has been submitted. The applicant made a preliminary
submission at the last Planning Board meeting, and there have been no significant changes to the site or
the operation. There was a minor alteration for safety purposes, which Mr. Trachtman reviewed and
approved. To the applicant's knowledge, there have been no complaints to the Building Department. The
applicant is in full compliance with all the conditions that were issued in the original Site Plan and Special
Permit approval.
Ms. Reader asked if the minor change was to the ramp.
Ms. Battalia said the minor change was eliminating a slight incline in the ramp for safety purposes.
Ms. Reader informed the Board that attached to the application for their review was the previous permit
issued in 1994, and asked Ms. Battalia if the applicant was asking for the same conditions.
Ms. Battalia said the applicant will continue the same operation and same conditions.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the public or the Board. Ms. Reader then asked Mr.
Trachtman is he had any comments.
Mr. Trachtman said Malcolm Pirnie has reviewed the change in the ramp and finds the explanation and
the modification described therein to be acceptable, as stated to the Board in a letter dated June 11, 1996.
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.
On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was
unanimously ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Mark and Bob Car Wash d/b/a High Tech Car Wash submitted an application for a Special
Permit for use as a car wash of the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action
and that, therefore, no further action is required under SEQRA.
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on July 10, 1996 pursuant to notice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Permit, the plans and
zoning report and environmental assessment 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
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 3
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 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 Permit;
3. The proposed Special 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.
4. The property subject to this Special Permit has no existing violations of the Town of
Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance.
5. The applicant has demonstrated that there has been no change in circumstances in the
area which would require the Planning Board to deny this extension.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of Mark and Bob Car Wash
d/b/a High Tech Car Wash for a Special Permit for a car wash subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. No gasoline shall be sold at the site.
2. The triangular planting in the rear of the premises (adjoining the residential site to the
West) shall be ten feet (10') by fifteen feet (15').
3. Maximum hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.
4. There shall be no externally audible public address system, bullhorns or walkie-talkies
on the premises.
5. All lights, except for security lighting, shall be turned off at the close of business.
6. All lights for the driveway shall be directed toward the building. The final plans
submitted prior to issuance of any Building Permit shall show traffic lanes on the
property for ingress and egress.
7. The applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions of the easement agreement
relating to the buffer zone.
8. This Special Permit approval is subject to additional conditions imposed by the Zoning
Board of Appeals including limitation of canopy height to twenty feet(20'), limitation on
size of the pole sign on front of the premises, on the "menu" sign at the rear of the
property and a requirement that the exposed source of illumination for the front canopy
shall be directed to the ground only and be recessed behind the side and front of the
canopy.
9. Permit shall expire after two (2) years.
10. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in 89-53 of the
Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. •
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING- SITE PLAN APPROVAL -Frank and Ann Auricchio -5 Fifth Avenue-Block
132 Lot 609
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 open.
The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of
this record.
Robert Stanziale, architect, of 270 North Avenue, New Rochelle appeared representing Frank and Ann
Auricchio and stated this was a continuation of the Public Hearing that was held last month which did not
come to a conclusion due to an open zoning board matter, that being the legalization of the Towing Service
storage of cars at the rear of the property. Additional information was requested, at which time the
Auricchio's decided to withdraw the application and eliminate the use of the property for the Towing
Service. Mr. Stanziale then discussed the revised Site Plan which had been submitted to the Board showing
a continuation of the open parking area at the rear of the property. The Board had requested Mr. Stanziale
to fill out Part II of the Long Form EAF for Mr. Trachtman's and counsel's review, which had been done.
The applicant has to appear before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) for landscape approval on
the site, which has not yet been obtained.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale if he had appeared before the BAR regarding signage.
Mr. Stanziale said he has yet to appear before the BAR regarding that issue.
Ms. Reader asked counsel if the Planning Board has to wait until BAR review is received.
Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board has to wait until BAR review is received before proceeding further
on this application.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale if the tanks have been removed.
Mr. Stanziale said the tanks have not been removed as of this date, but will have to be removed. By law,
due to the period of time the tanks were abandoned in the ground they must be removed, even though
testing was done last year on the tanks which showed they are not leaking and there is no contamination.
Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Stanziale had received the memorandum dated July 10, 1996 from the Town of
Mamaroneck Building and Engineering Department with respect to the tanks.
Mr. Stanziale said he had not received a copy of that memo, and the secretary provided a copy for him.
Ms. Gallent asked whether the catch basin shown on the revised plan is the one recommended by the
CZMC.
Mr. Stanziale said the catch basin recommended was going to have some drainage in the area where cars
were being stored for the towing service, which has been eliminated at this point.
Ms. Reader asked if the matter should be referred again to the CZMC due to the fact that Collins Brothers
trucks will still be using that parking area. Ms. Reader then asked if the area was a paved area.
Mr. Stanziale said the Collins area is a gravel area.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if the matter needed to be referred to the CZMC because of the catch
basin and oil separator.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Trachtman said because that the Towing Service has been eliminated, it does not have to be referred
again to the CZMC.
Ms. Gallent asked how many spaces were shown in the area that was to be a towing service.
Mr. Stanziale said there were four (4) additional parking spaces, for a total of sixteen (16)spaces on the
site not counting the spaces which are reserved for Collins Brothers.
Ms. Gallent said CZMC's recommendation dated December 4, 1995 states that the oil and silt separation
device is not required for an addition of four(4)spaces for a total of eight(8)spaces, but should additional
spaces be required or the adjacent lot be paved the installation of a unit will be necessary to insure
consistency with the LWRP.
Mr. Trachtman said that refers to the activity of the adjacent site, the office building on the other side of
SAVATREE.
Mr. Stanziale agreed that it refers to the initial application, the office building.
Mr. Trachtman said the last recommendation that counsel,reviewed was a question that was covered in the
June 5, 1996 letter which referred to the twelve(12)parking spaces that were to be designated for the auto
towing storage.
Ms. Reader was given a copy of the letter to review and a discussion followed.
Ms. Reader then asked if there were any comments from the public or the Board.
Ms. Reader advised Mr. Stanziale to make an appointment with the CZMC.
Mr. Stanziale said he just wanted to comment that the applicant has improved the situation by eliminating
the towing service.
Ms. Gallent said the Local Consistency Law requires Unlisted actions to be reviewed by the CZMC.
Ms. Reader said that when the CZMC reviews the application they may very well agree that an oil
separator is not required, but due to the fact that the CZMC has not reviewed the application without the
towing operation it should again be referred.
Ms. Reader asked for a motion to adjourn the public hearing.
Ms. Gallent said that because there has been a change in the application, and it also has to be reviewed
by the BAR before the Board can act, it would not delay the application to require the applicant to appear
before CZMC with the revised plans.
On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the August 14, 1996
meeting.
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SAVATREE - Don
Becker - 633-635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 and 643
On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 6
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open.
The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of
this record.
Robert Stanziale, architect, of 270 North Avenue, New Rochelle appeared for Don Becker of SAVATREE
who could not be present this evening. Also present is the president of SAVATREE, Daniel Van
Starrenburg. Mr. Stanziale then presented the amended Part II and Part III of the EAF to the Board. As
a recap from the last meeting, the Planning Board had a conversation with Mr. Becker from SAVATREE
with respect to two items that were major concerns; both related to pesticides. One is the concern of
washing the trucks on the site, and the other was an additional containment system for the storage of
pesticides inside the storage facility. Mr. Becker had explained that the trucks would be loaded and
unloaded inside the garage itself where the pesticides, in sealed containers, would be loaded and unloaded
onto the trucks for daily use. Mr. Stanziale then referred to a rendering before the Board and stated the
applicant has added an 8 in. berm in the back of the storage building itself where the pesticides will be
stored which creates a containment system that is larger than the maximum volume of liquid that the
applicant may have on site in case of a spillage.
Ms. Reader asked what the distance was between the back wall and the berm in the back.
Mr. Stanziale said the width is 4 ft. There still is, as proposed at the last meeting, an additional 4 in. to
6 in. curb that protects the door and overhead garage openings to the building as well. Everything will
be epoxied up to 8 in. on the wall, and the floor itself will be sealed to make it an impervious seal. As
discussed with Mr. Becker, the applicant has created a truck wash area, 12 ft. x 25 ft., with a 6 in. course
gravel area immediately adjoining the storage facility contained with a curb, probably an 8 ft. x 8 ft.
railroad tie or something of that nature to contain the gravel. When the trucks are washed in that area if
there are any pesticides, they will be diluted with the water and will be contained and trapped by the gravel
and evaporated from there in a period of time rather than potentially going into the ground water.
Mr. Moser asked what is under the gravel, because if you wash the trucks it goes into the ground.
Mr. Stanziale said dirt will be under the gravel. The gravel acts as a filter as the water hits the gravel first
and it is absorbed into the gravel before it is absorbed into the soil itself.
Dr. Mason asked Mr. Stanziale if his client can give the Board some answers on the life of the materials
to be stored.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said it is highly unlikely that there will be any pesticide residues on the trucks, as
they are not the target of the application. In terms of the products that will be used in the plant health care
program, which had been submitted previously,none of the products used are in any way persistent in the
environment. They are all 100% biodegradable and most fall into the category being designed for food
crops that are grown organically. The label of many of the products allows application to food crops and
harvest the same day, which is an illustration of the type of products the applicant has chosen for the plant
health care program. It has always been a concern of the applicant that while they are working to preserve
the environment, they are using products that are compatible and constructive in supporting that goal. The
residue on the trucks is more likely to be road dirt. Mr. Van Starrenburg said he was not sure how the
pesticide issue got brought to the forefront, because that is highly unlikely. SAVATREE is not spraying
the trucks, but treating landscape plantings in a landscape environment.
Ms. Reader said SAVATREE is also spraying trees, and it was brought out by several people that with the
wind and deflection off of trees as the trees are sprayed chemicals do get on the windows, cars and on the
trucks.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 7
Mr. Van Starrenburg said that is a possibility, but there is a whole shift occurring in the arborculture
world. SAVATREE scouts the property and then treats only the trees that need to be treated. The
products used to treat trees affected in an epidemic of gypsy moth are natural, organic or botanical extract
products. The industry is already regulated by both the EPA and the DEC, and these are the concerns that
those regulatory agencies have addressed for the industry.
Dr. Mason asked if Mr. Van Starrenburg had any objection to a condition in the resolution that states
SAVATREE will not be using persisting materials.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said that would be fine.
Ms. Aisen said that Mr. Trachtman had requested a 20 sq. ft. gravel pit at the last meeting, the proposed
is a rectangle, and asked if there was any objection to that.
Mr. Trachtman said there was no objection,because the total square footage is something approaching 300
sq. ft. which the applicant is representing and is adequate for the vehicles.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said that is correct, as the widest truck is only 7 ft. and the longest truck is 12 ft.
to 14 ft. The area is far larger than the largest truck.
Ms. Harrington asked if there is a ventilation system in the building.
Mr. Stanziale said there will be a natural ventilation system, and there will probably be an exhaust fan as
well to maintain a constant air flow.
Dr. Mason asked if the ventilation will be through a stack or a hole in the wall.
Mr. Stanziale said ventilation grills as proposed will be on either end of the wall for cross ventilation.
Dr. Mason asked if there is electricity in the building.
Mr. Stanziale said there is electricity in the building.
Mr. Van Starrenburg also added that any of the products that are stored are the same that would be found
in any hardware store or garden center.
Mr. Moser said he had a question about the July 2, 1996 CZMC letter to the Planning Board which was
a part of the Public Hearing which needs to be addressed. CZMC states the SAVATREE proposal to be
inconsistent with certain policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, though it is not clear
from the letter what policies it is inconsistent with.
Eve Bocca asked if the Board had the letter from the CZMC of June 5, 1996.
Ms. Gallent said the letter of June 5, 1996 only refers to the policies by number. It does not describe the
policies themselves.
Ms. Reader said the opinion of the CZMC in their letter of June 5, 1996, permitting storage of pesticides,
herbicides and other chemicals at the location is inconsistent with Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 39 and Policy
44 of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Policy 7 is "Significant coastal fish and wildlife
habitats, as identified on the coastal area map, shall be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored
so as to maintain their viability as habitats" which is under Fish and Wildlife Policies. Policy 8, also under
Fish and Wildlife Policies is "Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction
of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bioaccumulate in the food chain or which cause significant
sublethal or lethal effect on those resources." Policy 39 is under the Water and Air Resources Policies and
says, "The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 8
coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies,
significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources."
Mr. Van Starrenburg said none of the products used are by definition hazardous.
Ms. Reader continued reading the policies referred to and said Policy 44 is also under Water and Air
Resources Policies and that is, 'Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits
derived from these areas."
Dr. Mason said to Ms. Reader that it might be appropriate to have Mr. Van Starrenburg directly address
Policies 7, 8, 39 and 44.
Ms. Reader said Mr. Van Starrenburg just addressed Policy 39, and recited Policy 7 to which Mr. Van
Starrenburg replied, that they are totally in agreement with complying with Policy 7 as it would be totally
inconsistent with the purpose of the company to do anything contrary to working to preserve any kind of
habitat. The only way Mr. Van Starrenburg can respond is that they plan to be very responsible.
Dr. Mason said Mr. Van Starrenburg should address Policy 8 as it is more specific, which Ms. Reader
then recited.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said to the best of his knowledge none of the products accumulate in the food chain.
The products used are not anything in the first and second generation pesticides that have that type of a
problem. When one thinks to bioaccumulation one thinks of products like DDT,which is a first or second
generation pesticide that is a far distance from anything that SAVATREE would even consider using.
M, Ms. Wittner said she wanted to simply clarify for the Board that the Policy 7 reference is to the Premium
Pinebrook Wetlands and that Pinebrook is right across the street from the subject property.
Ms. Reader said that has been very clear in the previous presentations.
Ms. Aisen said the conflict arising on one hand is that Mr. Van Starrenburg is assuring the Board, as Mr.
Becker did at the last meeting,that everything is biodegradable and nothing is hazardous. There is concern
among some people on the Board and perhaps the Coastal Zone Commission that it may be hazardous.
The issue was brought up at the last meeting of getting a disinterested expert opinion as to whether the
chemicals are potentially hazardous or not which was dropped when it was assumed the gravel pit would
wash everything away. Ms. Aisen feels the Board should get an expert opinion, to avoid endless repetition
on the matter.
Ms. Harrington said when the Board heard the case involving Winged Foot, Winged Foot came in with
the labels which had a complete description of what the product was, what it affected, whether or not it
was toxic and how it broke down which might be helpful to have a package like that for the Board to
review.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said SAVATREE did have a package to that effect which was a part of a previous
submission.
The secretary presented a data sheet which was in the SAVATREE file pertaining to that issue.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if the double berm and the epoxied floor as containment would provide
security regarding the chemicals used.
Mr. Trachtman said if the activities referred to were conducted in that area, they would be effective.
Ms. Reader then asked if the gravel surface serves as a filter to prevent anything that might be on the truck
from entering the ground.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 9
Mr. Trachtman said to some degree there might be some absorption on the surface of the gravel, and it
is clear to say there will be some percolation of chemicals into the ground. The applicant made a point
that these chemicals were biodegradable, and there is a reasonable effort being made to provide
containment.
Ms. Aisen asked if the Board was at a point to prepare a response to the CZMC.
Ms. Reader said that it would be appropriate at this time to have someone from CZMC speak, as Ms.
Wittner is present and would like to hear their position. Ms. Reader said she is not sure if CZMC has
reviewed the revised plans with the double berm and the epoxy.
Ms. Wittner said CZMC has not seen the revised plans nor the data sheet, and asked if the Board restrict
the pesticide chemicals the applicant can use and have a list the applicant can have at the site. Ms. Wittner
submitted an article, "Why No One Can Say Pesticides Are Safe", to the Board for their perusal. Ms.
Wittner said Ms. Aisen raised a good point and feels the Board does need an expert opinion. What
disturbed CZMC is the fact that the applicant appeared before CZMC and the Planning Board less than six
months ago and at that time the Planning Board made the statement that there would be no storage of
pesticides or herbicides or any equipment stored on the site by Mr. Auricchio or any other tenant.
Ms. Reader said midway through the applicant's application, it was clearly stated there was no intention
to store pesticides in the Town but would be stored in Bedford. At a later point, Mr. Becker began to
attend the Planning Board meetings as opposed to the original representative and he at his very first
appearance indicated that the storage of chemicals was an incorrect position. The applicant did intend to
store, at least seasonally, products. The Board then took the position,since it was originally presented to
the Board that there would be no pesticide storage, that would be a condition.
Ms. Wittner said the matter should have be referred back to CZMC because at the first presentation there
was no discussion about pesticides storage at that particular site.
Ms. Reader said the applicant knew it would be a completely new application and they would have to go
through the whole process again, and this is a new application. Ms. Reader feels it would be unfair to
view this as something underhanded.
Ms. Wittner said she takes exception to some of the remarks made, first of all the discussion on the gravel
wash pad. Ms. Wittner does not think gravel absorbs, and the amount of evaporation is very little. In
reference to the spraying that was mentioned, when Ms. Wittner viewed trucks spraying the hose is
dripping chemicals all over the truck and elsewhere. The trucks will have chemicals on them. Another
point which was actually on Part II which was amended, did state there would be some effect on surface
and ground water quality. Regarding the impact on public health, Ms. Wittner pointed out to the Board
that directly across the street from the applicant's property there are many residents residing in apartments.
This is an issue that should be considered. Part III dismisses the effect on public health and safety simply
because there will be berms and epoxy material, and Ms. Wittner is not sure that addresses the issue.
Ms. Aisen said the Board and the applicant will continue to go back and forth unless there is a disinterested
expert opinion obtained discussing toxicity or the potential for it. Last month a lot of time was spent
discussing this issue and it is continuing.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said the only reason he can state with confidence that none of the material by
definition is hazardous is because in the Town of Bedford where SAVATREE has another office they had
a similar application and the site in Bedford is located in the aquifer protection zone where water is
consumed by many people in the area. The town of Bedford was very concerned, as the Board is, and the
e.r applicant hired a chemical engineer who indicated that none of the products used are hazardous.
Ms. Harrington said almost every product listed in the product sheet of SAVATREE, states there are
environmental hazards, the products are highly toxic to fish. The label instructs user not to contaminate
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 10
Now
water when disposing of equipment wash water, not to contaminate water by cleaning up equipment of
disposable waste, environmental hazard, do not apply directly to water or wetlands. Ms. Harrington said
she is missing the biodegradable issue. These are the labels from the products listed and everyone of them
has an environmental warning.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said all the products are biodegradable, and not all of the products have a warning.
Most products have a caution label that applies to the active ingredient, products in the container as sold
by the manufacturer. Manufacturers go through a tremendous amount of trouble to get these products
passed through EPA regulations which are extremely stringent.
Mr. Papazian said there seems to be a problem with washing the trucks. Basically if trucks are washed
constantly and it goes into the ground constantly, with the chemicals used even though they might not be
hazardous they are toxic. Therefore the concentration going into the ground, since it is in such a sensitive
area, the Board is having a problem reconciling what is stated in the pamphlet about the chemicals and
what the applicant states. There seems to be a conflict.
Ms. Aisen said that Mr. Becker said the trucks would not be washed at the Larchmont site but in Bedford
and asked if that could again be considered, since Bedford is more accepting.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said that would not be a practical solution, as SAVATREE went through quite a
process to get Board approval in Bedford.
Ms. Reader asked when approval was received in Bedford, as there was a thought that possibly the
application was granted before current regulations were in effect.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said approval was received in 1989, and assured the Board that the regulations are
very much the same.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if he knew how that relates to this application in terms of the dates.
Mr. Trachtman said the only item he can comment on directly this evening is the guidelines that were
developed by DEC in 1995 for the storage of chemicals which the applicant is in accordance with.
Ms. Reader then asked Mr. Trachtman about the wash down area.
Mr. Trachtman said he did not believe the wash down area is specifically covered by the guidelines.
Mr. Moser then referred back to the Minutes of the last meeting, page 11 and page 12, "Attorney
Silverberg said under the Town's Consistency Law, the Board, to override that must provide specific
permanent findings why the Board disagrees with the findings of the CZMC. In addition to prohibit the
activity, the Board has to have some basis for doing that." Then Ms. Reader pointed out that CZMC's
finding of inconsistency relates to the storage of the chemicals, not to the washing down of trucks. Ms.
Reader suggested the double berm would be consistent, and by doing that it would take care of the
inconsistency. The other issue was the wash down area, and at the last meeting the discussion was that
a 20 ft. x 20 ft. gravel pit might be the way to take care of same. The Board then asked SAVATREE to
come back with a revised plan that would indicate that. In addition, SAVATREE has presented the Board
with specific literature about the chemicals used.
Ms. Aisen said the literature seems to contradict what is being said, as there are many warnings which the
Board would not have anticipated based on what is being presented.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said the difficulty with the entire topic is that anytime the word pesticide is brought
up it provokes an emotional reaction. If the products are used in a responsible way, they can be conducive
to building a healthy environment. The chemicals are designed for food crops, and have to be handled in
a responsible manner which is regulated by the State and Federal government. These products are being
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 11
Near used in the Town, not just by SAVATREE but by any other landscape, tree or lawn care companies and
are for sale on the shelves in any hardware store and garden center.
Ms. Aisen said the Board is concerned about the cumulative effect of washing the trucks time after time.
One way of eliminating that problem would be to wash the trucks in Bedford. Other than that, the Board
must be advised in a definitive way whether this, in a year or two, is going to prove to be a problem.
Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman if it would be appropriate to use some material other than gravel as an
absorbing material in the pit that would be renewed on a periodic basis.
Mr. Trachtman said the Board seems to be heading toward the preference that the residuals be collected
and dumped as a waste on a regular basis rather than allow it to disperse through the pit.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said there is a system being designed which is like a blown up swimming pool where
the walls are collapsible, you would drive over the walls with the truck, wash the truck so all the wash
water is contained and the wash water can be put back into the tank. SAVATREE would be prepared to
use that system as an alternative to the one presented, if that satisfies the Board.
Ms. Reader suggested sending the new design of the containment wash down area to the CZMC for their
comments.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said the new system does not involve any construction, as it is just a inflatable pool
that SAVATREE would agree to use anytime a plant health care truck would be washed on the premises.
w•• Ms. Reader asked if the new system can be put on a gravel bed so there is a backup in case of a leak.
Mr. Trachtman said he would suggest the design of the supporting system should not adversely affect the
integrity of the pool. The manufacturers of the pool material will have some recommendations as to what
a suitable support system would be.
Ms. Reader said if that was considered as an alternative for the Board to consider, it would be helpful if
the Board had the manufacturer's materials regarding same. It would also be helpful for SAVATREE to
present to the Board and the CZMC the environmental engineer's report SAVATREE had that was given
to Bedford on the quality and toxicity of the chemicals. Ms. Reader also suggested that Mr. Van
Starrenburg get a copy of and respond to the article presented to the Board by Ms. Wittner. Ms. Reader
then asked if the Board agreed that CZMC should review the matter again.
Ms. Aisen asked Ms. Wittner if she felt the CZMC should review the matter again.
Ms. Wittner said that obviously there have been mitigating methods presented and the CZMC should see
it and suggested that counsel answer this question. The Planning Board has to respond to the inconsistency
in any event.
Ms. Gallent said the local law does not require that this matter be referred again to the CZMC, but if the
Planning Board would like to refer it back to the CZMC they can do so. With respect to the Planning
Board responding to the determination, the law does say that the Planning Board must do so at the earliest
possible time. Ms. Gallent's only concern is that if there are other further mitigating measures that are
going to be proposed by the applicant at the next Board meeting, it might be premature at this point for
the Planning Board to respond before seeing them.
Ms. Harrington asked if that would fall under 4B of the Local Law No. 5, and asked that this be looked
\vase into.
Ms. Gallent said yes, the mitigation measures implemented might enable the Board to set aside the
CZMC's inconsistency determination.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 12
Mr. Moser said it does not need to go back to the CZMC at this point because apparently the Board is
going to get a statement of inconsistency again. It seems to be the matter of the timing of the Board's
response, and the Board is awaiting additional information from SAVATREE, basically a portable,
inflatable car wash.
Ms. Reader said in reference to the June 5, 1996 letter, the finding of inconsistency related specifically to
transfer of chemicals from the storage area to trucks. In the opinion of CZMC, permitting storage of
pesticides,herbicides and other chemicals at the location requested is inconsistent. The inconsistency that
has been declared does not relate to wash down. The Planning Board has raised an additional concern
about wash down. It appears to Ms. Reader's understanding from Mr. Trachtman even if the Board
discounts the opinion Mr. Van Starrenburg made that it is very biodegradable if the Board states that there
is a level of toxicity to these chemicals, the proposed double berm and the epoxy storage containment unit,
the garage, satisfies DEC's concern for containment. The Board's engineer is indicating it is sufficient.
There seems to be enough basis to articulate in writing,and our attorney is going to help draft a response,
that the Board disagrees with the determination of inconsistency because their letter is very specific, it does
not involve the wash down area.
What Mr. Van Starrenburg may be missing is the location selected. Many Board members subscribe to
services such as these, and are not against this type of service. It is the storage, use and cleanup of the
trucks at that location that is a concern. It happens to be a location that leads into Pinebrook River as the
Premium Marsh. Ms. Reader said that even though they are in an aquifer in Bedford, apparently
SAVATREE had to go through a great deal of work to get approval. The Planning Board needs to be
persuaded as well, in terms of the wash down area. Ms. Reader is comfortable responding to the CZMC
respectfully, because the changes in the plan satisfy Ms. Reader that it has mitigated the potential damage.
Ms. Wittner asked for an explanation when there is a spill off the shelf of gallons of undiluted pesticides,
what the berm does.
Ms. Aisen said the berms keeps the spill from moving out of that area.
Ms. Wittner asked how does one get rid of the pesticides.
Ms. Reader said SAVATREE has a very specific, regulated cleanup process for that. That is why the
Planning Board requires a double berm. Originally there was only the back berm, and SAVATREE
revised the plan eliminating that and put a supplementing 6 in. berm by the driveway and the door area
with epoxy. The Board questioned if there is a spill the trucks will be going in and out carrying
toxic/chemical materials on their wheels. The Board said where the storage area is if there is going to be
a spill let it be contained in the back area by a berm. Apparently the combination of the epoxy and the
berm will pool it.
Ms. Wittner said other than the absorbent pads, what is done with the material.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said in terms of the material that is running, it is in a limited space and cannot just
run. SAVATREE uses a spill kit, pig blankets which are super absorbent type pillows, and then there is
a clay type of absorbent similar to kitty litter that is cleaned up and disposed of according to DEC
regulations. The DEC permits disposal of same in an appropriate landfill.
Ms. Wittner asked if SAVATREE has a company come in at that point, remove all of the waste and
dispose of it at a landfill.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said that is what would be done if that would happen.
Mr. Moser asked what is the 50-year or 100-year flood plain.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 13
Aom'° Mr. Stanziale said that SAVATREE tried to establish that with some of the elevations, referring to the
rendering before the Board, and said it is above the 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said would it be an option for the Board to approve the storage but that SAVATREE
agree not to wash the vehicles on the site until SAVATREE satisfies the Board as far as washing the
vehicles and that SAVATREE will address the wash down at the next meeting. SAVATREE is planning
to come before the Board at the next meeting with a 100% system.
Ms. Reader said the Board cannot do a partial approval, which Ms. Gallent confirmed.
Ms. Gallent said the Board cannot segment its review of the elements of the application.
Mr. Stanziale asked if it might be approved at the next meeting.
Ms. Reader said apparently because of the conditions that are going to be set, the Board has been told that
the applicant can store no more than 440 gallons of material. The whole garage can hold four times that
amount. Ms. Reader said she would be making that recommendation, in addition to the chemicals not
being persisting that they also not be stored in greater than 440 gallons. Those are the conditions that
relate to the environmental protection. It is Ms. Reader's understanding that is called a conditional negative
declaration. If the Board were to make a determination that there is no harm to the environment, it is
based upon these conditions and has to give a 30-day notice to the public to comment. Ms. Reader said
due to these facts, the answer to Mr. Stanziale's questions is no.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said in that case how does SAVATREE make the Board comfortable with the
,,...,, product. Bedford established that they needed to know by scientific definition that none of the products
sta., used in their plant health care program are hazardous, which was done by a chemical engineer.
Ms. Reader asked if the chemical engineer was still available, and if so the Board would like an updated
letter from the engineer regarding the chemicals currently used.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said he did not know if the chemical engineer was still available but will try to get
in touch with the engineer and get a new letter from him stating the chemicals are not hazardous, and asked
if that would satisfy the Board.
Ms. Reader said she could not verify it would satisfy the Board, but it certainly is material that might
satisfy some of the concerns of the Board.
Dr. Mason said at the last meeting the Board did touch on the possibility of an enclosed wash down or
recycling water and it was not pursued by Mr. Van Starrenburg's colleagues.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said he is present this evening because Mr. Becker is on vacation.
Dr. Mason asked if possibly both Mr. Becker and Mr. Van Starrenburg can both be present at the next
meeting.
Ms. Reader said at the very least she suggests an updated letter from an engineer, and the manufacturer's
materials showing the containment intended with the use of the inflatable pool and its integrity so the Board
knows there is a backup should something fail with the installation.
Ms. Harrington said for the record, SAVATREE, according to the New York State DEC, must submit a
° °` plan of emergency response in case SAVATREE has a spill where the local fire department, rescue squad,
and hospital has to be notified. They should be given copies of this plan. It also states that annually the
fire department has to be notified regarding the types and quantities of pesticide stored. Ms. Harrington
wants to be sure that Mr. Van Starrenburg will do that as well. A discussion followed.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 14
Mr. Van Starrenburg said absolutely, as it is existing law today.
Ms. Gallent said that in the application, in response the question as to whether other permits are required,
the applicant responded "not sure". The Board needs to know whether any other permits are required.
Mr. Stanziale said no other permits are required.
Mr. Papazian said the public also had one other comment that was not addressed this evening, basically
the concern that the epoxy is thin and might wear out.
Mr. Stanziale said that he could submit a specification for the type of epoxy to be used.
Mr. Papazian said the concern is how often the epoxy must be applied.
Mr. Stanziale said he will address that issue at the next meeting.
Ms. Reader said in regard to Ms. Harrington and Mr. Papazian's concerns, subject to State law and
Federal law, DEC and EPA perhaps it is not incumbent upon the Board they require as a condition any
notice. Ms. Reader said that all Ms. Harrington is really asking is that the Planning Board get a copy of
the notice of any spills that SAVATREE has to report to the DEC or the EPA.
Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Van Starrenburg what the specifications are when there is a spill as far as
notification is concerned.
4,10110. Mr. Van Starrenburg said SAVATREE is required by law to immediately notify the DEC, and they will
be a part of whatever action is taken.
Mr. Papazian asked if the Town or fire department get notification.
Mr. Van Starrenburg said he believes that happens automatically through the DEC.
Ms. Reader stated this is a public hearing and asked if there were any other comments from the public.
Ms. Wittner said she does not think the DEC does notify the Town in case of a spill, nor does the Coast
Guard. Ms. Wittner asked if this is the type of application, a Special Use Permit, that has to come back
for review every two years.
Ms. Reader said yes. Ms. Reader then informed Mr. Van Starrenburg there are two applications at the
same time, Site Plan and Special Use Permit. Site Plan does not have to come before the Board every two
years, but Special Use Permit does.
Ms. Wittner asked if the Board is sending this case back to the CZMC?
Ms. Reader said she did not think so, the Planning Board will give the written response on the consistency.
Board of Architectural Review approval has already been received for the sign and landscaping..
Ms. Aisen said the Board's concerns have been satisfied regarding storage.
On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the August 14, 1996
meeting.
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 15
PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Anne D.
Ruppel - 871 Fenimore Road - Block 312 Lot 45
Richard Hein, architect, and Phil Ruppel, husband of the applicant, appeared.
On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Moser, 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.
Mr. Hein said they are present for the continuation of the Public Hearing and the continuation of the
presentation of last month for the proposed swimming pool. There have been no modifications to the plan
since the last presentation and are present hopefully for approval.
Ms. Reader said this is a Type II action and it is recommended that there be a $1,500.00 bond posted.
Mr. Hein said that was agreeable to the applicant.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the Board.
Dr. Mason asked if the applicant is familiar with regulations on back flush and disposable types of material.
Mr. Hein said yes, he has been in consultation with Mr. Gerety. The drawings reflect that and obviously
the pool is submitted to full inspections during construction and for a Certificate of Occupancy.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if the laws and ordinances with respect to the maintenance of the pool
and back flush requirements are the concerns of the Building Department.
Mr. Trachtman said that is a part of the Building Department, plumbing code.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Ms. Wittner said she just reviewed Malcolm Pirnie's letter, and asked why the Erosion and Sediment
Control Law was waived.
Mr. Trachtman said it is not a question of waiving, the construction involves a pool and spa, a small filter
building for the pool. That would not require installation of dry wells, there is no addition to the house
or additional impervious surface in that sense.
Ms. Wittner asked if there will be excavation.
Mr. Hein said there is no waiver of the Erosion Control. There is a barrier in the design.
Mr. Trachtman said he wanted to be sure Ms. Wittner understands the application. Regarding the surface
control and the sediment erosion aspects, there are adequate provisions under the Fresh Water Wetlands
and Water Courses Permit procedure to make sure appropriate erosion control and sediment control
•
measures are taken during the construction.
Mr. Hein added to Mr. Trachtman's statement by saying the drawings document a perimeter of silt fence
during the construction process, as requested by Malcolm Pirnie and approved by Mr. Gerety as well.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 16
%to►' Mr. Trachtman said his letter refers to the proposed action as Type II action under the Town Law.
Technically it is under State law.
Ms. Reader said under the new SEQRA law, anything that is listed as a Type II under State Law applies
also to the Town's environmental quality law. Anything in the Town law that contradicts the State Type
II list is superseded.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any further comments from the Board, and asked Mr. Trachtman if there
were any conditions on the application other than the bond. There being none, on a motion was made by
Dr. Mason, seconded by Aisen, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed.
On a motion was made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the following was unanimously
approved:
WHEREAS, Anne D. Ruppel has applied for a permit pursuant to Local Law #7-1986 for the premises
located at 871 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 312 Lot 45; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action
and that no further action is required under SEQRA.
WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in
writing regarding this application to the Planning Board by letter dated July 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Local Law #7, Section 86-6(D), that the
activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR §665.7;
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986 having been held on July 10, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes findings of fact as follows:
1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance
of systems in a 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 Anne D. Ruppel for a permit pursuant to Local
Law #7 of 1986 be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other
individual, entity or a combination thereof;
Planning Board
•
July 10, 1996
Page 17
2. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be
in accordance with the requirements of the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Law.
3. The project shall be consistent with the revised plans submitted to the Building
Department dated June 3, 1996.
4. Work involving site preparation shall take place from Monday through Friday between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. only.
5. A cash deposit or bond for$1,500.00 shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to
ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or
disturbed area.
6. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the
date of its issue, whichever first occurs.
On a motion was made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Ms. Reader, 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.
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL PERMIT - Larchmont Station Luncheonette - A.T. Russo - 176
Myrtle Boulevard - Block 133 Lot 642
Anthony Thomas Russo appeared.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the public. There being none, Ms. Reader asked Mr.
Russo if the luncheonette was open for business two weeks ago.
Mr. Russo said that was correct.
Ms. Reader said she thought it was made clear that although he was taking over another business, he
should not be operating.
Mr. Russo said he was given permission by the Building Department to operate.
Ms. Reader said that was fine, because she had said if the Building Department gave permission it would
be fine to open.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any further comments from the public or the Board. There is no need for
the Site Plan review as that is not a part of the application before the Board, pursuant to a letter from Mr.
Trachtman.
Mr. Trachtman said that was correct, and said the Building Department was also going to submit a letter
regarding same.
Ms. Reader said there was a letter dated July 9, 1996 from the Building Department stating, "A review
of the above-referenced matter was made to determine the need for Site Plan Review of the Planning
Board. Based on that review the Building Inspector and Town Engineer find the use as requested will not
Planning Board
•
July 10, 1996
Page 18
'Sow- substantially intensify or modify the site, nor will it have a substantial impact upon the character or
environment of the surrounding area. Please consider this memo as the finding required under Site Plan
Review, Chapter 66A-7 - Exceptions."
Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the public. There being none, on a motion was made
by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed.
On a motion was made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following was unanimously
approved:
WHEREAS, A. T. Russo/Larchmont Station Luncheonette submitted an application for a Special Permit
for use as a luncheonette of the premises located at 176 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 642; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action
and that, therefore, no further action is required under SEQRA; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on July 10, 1996 pursuant to notice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special 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 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 Permit;
3. The proposed Special 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.
4. The property subject to this Special Use Permit contains no existing violations of the
Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of A. T. Russo/Larchmont
Station Luncheonette for a Special Permit for a luncheonette subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Daily hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
2. Permit shall expire after two (2) years.
3. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in 89-53 of the
Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck.
Planning Board
• July 10, 1996
Page 19
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING -FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT -Anthony
Coschigano III - 2 Carroll Place - Block 222 Lot 390
On a motion was made by Mr. Moser, 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.
Jack Caliendo from Antonucci & Lawless appeared and submitted a plan for the proposed addition at 2
Carroll Place which was revised July 9, 1996 and stamp-dated received July 10, 1996. The last plan was
a regrading plan for which there was a problem. The plan was revised with notes and referred to the notes
stating disregard Surface Water, Sediment and Erosion Control Notes#2.0 and General Notes#2 as it is
not a proposed regrading plan. The applicant is also proposing the basement and crawl space is not going
to be considered habitable and will not contain any electrical or mechanical equipment.
Dr. Mason asked how the applicant is going to square that with the electrical code that requires one (1)
light in a crawl space.
Justin Minieri, architect, said the crawl space basement is technically a basement centered 7 ft. in height
on grade. All the mechanical and electrical equipment is located in the existing structure. In the new
structure all that will be provided will be code required light fixtures that are ceiling mounted.
Dr. Mason said the electrical inspector has the option of simply dropping the requirement, which is the
standard requirement in any crawl space.
Mr. Minieri said if the Building Inspector requires it and permits the applicant to delete it then it will be
handled. The light fixture is above any flood plain.
Ms. Reader asked if the whole property is on the 100-year flood plain.
Dr. Mason said yes.
Mr. Trachtman said the first floor elevation is above the 100-year flood plain.
Dr. Mason said the elevation 78 is 5 ft. above elevation 73 which is not shown.
Mr. Caliendo said the proposed foundation walls will be provided either with an opening to divert water
or a sump pump can be installed to pump water out if it gets in.
Mr. Moser asked if the elevations indicated on the grading plan are as requested based on the NGVD data.
Mr. Caliendo said they were transferred from the USGS maps, and adjusted all appropriately.
Mr. Moser asked Mr. Caliendo if Mr. Trachtman knew the elevations at the 100-year flood level. Per
USGS maps, it is roughly 78 to 80. The note on the plan states the existing first floor sill elevation is 84,
so the existing first floor elevation based on the plan is what, 81, 82-1/2 ft.?
Mr. Caliendo said the first floor elevation if 84. The 100-year flood is approximately 78. A discussion
followed.
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 20
Dr. Mason said if you get to 79, it will cross Rockland Avenue.
Mr. Trachtman said his recollection showed that at some point in the vicinity it was elevation 80 and then
it dropped off, so perhaps at the southern end of the property it was close to elevation 79. The bottom line
is that the first floor elevation of the proposed terrace and proposed addition will be above that.
Anthony Coschigano asked if Dr. Mason measured the 5 ft. above 73 at the last flood.
Dr. Mason said no, it was September 25, 1975.
Mr. Moser asked how the applicant gets down to the terrace to grade level.
Mr. Minieri said there are stairs that wrap around the octagon shape which is indicated on the plans
submitted to the Building Department.
Mr. Moser asked what the 45 ft. plus or minus and 55 ft. plus or minus designation referred to.
Mr. Minieri said it refers to the new property line.
Mr. Moser asked if there are setback and stair requirements.
Mr. Minieri said the applicant exceeds the setback and stair requirements.
Mr. Coschigano said the plans have already been approved by the Zoning Board and everything is within
regulations.
Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the public or the Board, and asked Mr. Trachtman
if the Board should be aware of anything else.
Mr. Trachtman said the letter the Board received this evening discusses the bonding requirements of
$1,500.00.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman about dry wells.
Mr. Trachtman said there dry wells are shown on the drawings and it won't hurt to put them in.
Dr. Mason said there is a small tributary that runs along the edge of the property where it faces the woods,
and asked if it would be more economical to discharge directly into that?
Mr. Trachtman said it could be set up so that there would be an overflow from the dry well that would
allow that to happen. Under the circumstances it would be a way to minimize the erosion that might take
place.
Mr. Minieri said there are five (5) dry wells. One is proposed for the driveway, an existing driveway
trench drain.
Ms. Reader said the application will be as presented in the Erosion Control Site Plan, amended to Site Plan
revised 4/3/96.
Ms. Gallent said there is a correction in the letter from Mr. Trachtman. The action is a Type II action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, not the Town's law.
On a motion was'made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 21
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed.
On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the following was unanimously approved:
WHEREAS, Anthony Coschigano III has applied for a permit pursuant to Local Law #7-1986 for the
premises located at 2 Carroll Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 222 Lot 390; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action
and that no further action is required under SEQRA.
WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in
writing regarding this application to the Planning Board by letter dated July 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Local Law #7, Section 86-6(D), that the
activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR §665.7;
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986 having been held on July 10, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes findings of fact as follows:
1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance
of systems in a 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 Anthony Coschigano III for a permit, pursuant
to Local Law #7 of 1986, be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not he transferred to any other
individual, entity or a combination thereof;
2. 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.
3. The project is consistent with application as presented in the Erosion Control Site Plan
Addendum to Site Plan dated 2/27/96,revised 4/3/96 and the Proposed Addition Existing
Grading Plan dated July 9, 1996 and stamped as received July 10, 1996, S-1.
4. Item 2. C. under the Surface Water, Sediment and Erosion Control Notes and Item 2
under General Notes on the Proposed Addition Existing Grading Plan presented to the
Planning Board
July 10, 1996
Page 22
Planning Board this evening, dated July 9, 1996 and stamped as received July 10, 1996,
S-1, be deleted.
5. Work involving site preparation shall take place from Monday through Friday between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. only.
6. A cash deposit or bond for$1,500.00 shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to
ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or
disturbed area.
7. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the
date of its issue whichever first occurs.
On a motion was made and seconded by, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed.
The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows:
CONSIDERATION -SUBDIVISION -Laurel Manor/James J. Vanoli- 1001 Fenimore Road-Blocks
301 and 302 Lot 1 (adjourned 5/8/96; 6/12/96)
James Vanoli, appeared and said the purpose of his appearance is to describe what activities have taken
place with the CZMC to keep the Board abreast of what is being done, to present the wetlands lines and
e.°4, request the Board take no action at this time but give an indication of their feelings regarding the proposed
drainage which is a modification from the original.
Ms. Reader then said it is her understanding the Mr. Vanoli has met with the CZMC and their various
consultants, Steve Coleman, Mr. Ferrandino, Mr. Vanoli's engineers, Mr. Trachtman of Malcolm Pirnie
and Joan Hansen, Malcolm Pirnie's wetlands specialist.
Mr. Vanoli said all of the above met, along with Shimon Gitlitz, the Town engineer, and Steve Altieri,
Town Administrator. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Town's concerns with the proposed
storm drainage. The concern was that it would difficult to maintain the facilities and the Town wanted a
more natural approach. Although the storm drainage is separate from the wetlands on this project it is tied
together. The feeling was it would be nice to get an even flow in and out. Prior to the meeting, Mr.
Vanoli recalculated all the storm water work with an eye toward the HEC-1 program which is a core of
engineers storm drainage program similar to but different then the TR-55 which is typically used and was
used the first time. It was further necessary to do HEC-1 so it could be compared with the Malcolm Pirnie
study that was done about four year ago. It was submitted to Mr. Trachtman, he reviewed it and it is Mr.
Vanoli's understanding that the time of concentration for the watershed is 12.5 hours, the time of
concentration for the site as it site today is 12.4 hours and the time of concentration for the proposed
development and the originally proposed storm drainage detention is 12.3 hours. There were some very
close peaks. While they were not concurrent, they were only about 1/10th of an hour, about six minutes
apart.
Mr. Papazian asked what was significance of Mr. Vanoli's last statement that the peaks are similar.
Mr. Vanoli said it has to do with the fact that there are two sub-basins within the drainage shed, sub-basin
3 which the proposed project lies in, and sub-basin 7. Apparently these two sub-basins have a confluence
at York Drive and that is where the Town is experiencing flooding problems.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if Mr. Vanoli was referring to York Drive.
Planning Board
• July 10, 1996
Page 23
Mr. Trachtman said not quite. There is a culvert down stream at York Drive which is located in sub-basin
#7. The confluence of the two basins would actually be at the other end of sub-basin #7. What Mr.
Vanoli was referring to is that this culvert seems to be acting as a restriction. It is probably more
important to relate to the timing of the peak at the site to the timing of the peak at that location. This
would be in response to the question Dr. Mason raised a couple of meetings ago having to do with whether
or not it really is appropriate provide detention on the site. We were able to go back through the analysis
that was done in 1991 and determine that the timing of the peak at that location would probably be the most
critical aspect of the hydrology in that area for determining whether or not there should be detention. The
point was that the analysis of the proposed detention facility seemed to indicate that basically it would be
causing the peak at the site to occur somewhat closer to the peak that is experienced at York Drive which
is something we would not basically want to do.
Ms. Moser said the detention on the previous plans could possibly be exacerbating the condition at York
Drive.
Mr. Vanoli said it was also determined that the lower intensity storms were the problem storms, the five
year storms with that particular culvert. With that in mind, Mr. Vanoli tried to come up with a more
natural storm water detention system where the river would be allowed to flood and then recede. There
is a natural berm created by the roadway, referring to the rendering before the Board, that was originally
planned to be removed, both the blacktop material and the actual dirt so that it would be a flat plain. It
appears now that the best way is to remove the blacktop material from the wetlands, but maintain the berm
raising it from 98 to 99.5 which is the elevation of the 5-year storm and provide either a dip or some sort
of an outlet control structure so the water can come in and flood and then find its way out through the
control structure. That would satisfy the maintenance concerns.
Ms. Reader asked if there would be pipes that would lead into the pooling area.
Mr. Vanoli said that was correct. In the wetlands part of it, there were two mappings. One Mr. Vanoli
did, and handed out copies of same which were referred to throughout the presentation, and the mapping
prepared by Joan Hansen of Malcolm Pirnie. A discussion followed. Mr. Vanoli, referring to the
rendering, said the orange and green line are basically co-linear and run the same wave length. The red
line depicts the project wetlands, so there is no net loss in wetlands area. The area is generally bounded
by the County sewer trunk line. A detailed discussion occurred with Mr. Vanoli referring to the rendering
and discussed creating a wetlands outside of the original mapping but within the bounds of the County
sewer line.
Ms. Reader asked what is done to create a wetlands.
Mr. Vanoli said you take it out, lower it and install wetlands plants then with the ebb of the flow, in order
to satisfy the DEC first flush Mr. Vanoli is taking the storm drainage and piping it down with a gravel
trench that wraps all around between the County sewer line and the proposed wetlands. That will
effectively add water to the area, as the pitch will be gradual away from Fenimore Road down toward
Sheldrake. It will be at a higher hydraulic gradient, the water will be wanting to go along the ditch to
Sheldrake but also filtering into the area between the sewer line and the river. Mr. Vanoli explained the
renderings in detail with the Board, explaining the berm at elevation 99.5 where the perimeter roadway
is, the wetlands area and drainage swale which is the DEC gravel ditch. The drainage ditch that exists is
V shaped. Mr. Vanoli said after that ditch is the vegetated transition zone which has varying species which
forms a physical barrier to prevent people from getting into the area and is a visual barrier. Mr. Vanoli
said Mr. Horseman and Mr. Coleman worked together since the meetings and came up with a menu of the
different plants and shrubs that can be used.
Mr. Papazian said then that Mr. Vanoli is taking the wetlands away and putting new wetlands in and asked
what the trade-off is, is he gaining more wetlands or is it equal.
Mr. Vanoli said it is equal.
Planning Board
• July 10, 1996
Page 24
Mr. Papazian asked what the State DEC regulations are and did they allow the trade-off.
Mr. Vanoli said yes, there is no net loss.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Coleman if she was correct that it is not going to create any wetlands to begin with
and it has just been lawnized.
Mr. Coleman said, for the record, that at the meeting with various consultants the consensus was that the
dealing was with an altered wetlands system, restoring pieces of the wetlands that have been altered over
time. In a sense it is constructed wetlands, reconstructing and restoring some of the original functions.
Ms. Reader said it was her understanding that Mr. Coleman's analysis was that is very wet surface and
if it had not been gentrified with a lawn it would have been wetland vegetation.
Ms. Aisen said when walking at the premises Mr. Vanoli had been talking about feeding the wetlands,
maintaining it by a pipe system across the top curve at various openings. Will it be sufficient to maintain
the wetland and the extended portion though draining.
Mr. Coleman said he would have to defer to the hydrological models that have been done. Because it is
an existing wetlands by diverting the storm water into it there is a potential to allow a more consistent flow
into the wetland area and with additional plantings it should retain the water and also provide the filtering
needed.
Ms. Moser said he does not quite understand how the system works. All the water is collected down at
"ow the bottom, there is a pipe running down and feeding the swale, there is a discharge at that point and then
Nfte,,, the water is flowing along the swale around the perimeter. At what point does it then feed the wetland
area. Isn't that part of the intention of the swale that the swale is filtering the water, the DEC requirement
that the gravel filled swale is filtering the water. At what point is it discharged from the swale and starts
to be the wetlands.
Mr. Vanoli said from the point of the head wall along its entire length to a point of discharge to the
Sheldrake. The water percolates in, flowing along slowly because it is generally flat. The water is coming
in seeking its own level, slowly finding its way toward the Sheldrake and in the course of it is going
laterally also into the ground. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Coleman said he did not have a chance to see the plan until this evening, but Mr. Horseman and he
have spoken. There are some recommendations CZMC will be making on the quantity and diversity of
vegetation.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Vanoli if there is still a potential meeting with the CZMC.
Mr. Vanoli said yes, if agreeable he will be back in September before the Planning Board with the final
plans.
Ms. Gallent said under Mamaroneck's Environmental Quality Review Law this would be a Type I action,
which would mean that a conditioned negative declaration would not be available. However, Ms. Gallent
said that the Town Board will be considering changing its Type I list at its next meeting.
Ms. Reader said in that case, Mr. Vanoli may not want to reappear until October.
Mr. Vanoli agreed.
Now
Mr. Coleman wanted to clarify the question about the DEC involvement. Technically this case does not
qualify as a State wetland area. It is under local jurisdiction only. A discussion ensued.
Planning Board
• July 10, 1996
Page 25
Ms. Reader said Mr. Vanoli is asking the Board to continue to waive any time requirements with regard
to this application for SEQRA and the subdivision. Ms. Reader said Mr. Vanoli is just keeping the Board
abreast of the developments and asked Mr. Vanoli if he wants the matter adjourned to next month's
calendar.
Mr. Vanoli said he would like to work with Mr. Trachtman on the outflow structure, and said the October
schedule would be fine.
Dr. Mason suggested having the matter adjourned to the next month's calendar subject to cancellation by
mutual agreement.
Ms. Reader adjourned the case until next month's meeting, and both sides agree that if more information
is not available it will be withdrawn from the calendar.
NEW MATTER
Ms. Reader said added on to the calendar is the referral to the Board, the amendment to the Local
Ordinance.
At this point in time Ms. Reader welcomed Judy Gallent as new counsel to the Planning Board. After
working with Ms. Gallent on another matter, Ms. Reader found Ms. Gallent to be very clear in the
explanation of the law, to be very precise in her presentations and looks forward to working with her.
Ms. Reader then returned to the referral regarding the amendment to Local Law.
Dr. Mason said the amendment was presented by Steve Silverberg, Esq. at Coastal Zone with explanation
of the area of change.
Ms. Reader said the Town Board would like to vote on the amendment, and Planning Board comments
must be made.
Ms. Reader asked Ms. Wittner if she had any recollection of what was discussed.
Ms. Wittner said it is her understanding that the original recommendations for some of the changes were
reviewed by the Planning Board and these changes have already been considered.
Mr. Trachtman asked if Ms. Wittner was referring to specific codes.
Ms. Wittner asked if the amendments were an accumulation of changes based on past recommendations.
Mr. Trachtman said the fence ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Board, and a few others.
Ms. Harrington said the changes would have to be between October '94 to date, because the last time
revisions were made was October '94.
Ms. Reader said the only comment she had was with respect to Section 240-17 on page 8-29 of the
proposed code adoption of Local Law, Schedule A-29 §240-17.Flood-hazard areas under G. Tennis Courts
- it says, (D. and E. came before the Planning Board; the State Town Law had been changed) "Tennis
courts are permitted when constructed in conformity with the following: (a) Tennis courts must be in the
rear one-third (1/3) of the property; and (b) No court may be erected closer than fifteen (15) feet to the
property line." There is no distinction between rear side lines of the property. However, the law relating
to the pool on page 23 it does provide the setbacks as required front, side and rear lot lines of any
residential property has to be complied with. Ms. Reader does not see why the Town should be less strict
• with the tennis courts.
Planning Board
• July 10, 1996
Page 26
Mr. Moser asked Ms. Reader if the Planning Board should add the required front or side yards of any
residential property?
Ms. Reader said that was correct, but should also say rear property line; side, front and rear.
Mr. Moser said if tennis courts must be in the rear one-third (1/3) of the property, you do not need the
front.
Mr. Trachtman said it also states it cannot be closer than fifteen (15) feet to the property line. A
swimming pool has to be at least 20 ft. from the rear lot line and 15 ft. from the outside edge to a side
yard lot line. Mr. Trachtman says there is nothing that says it cannot be a front yard.
Ms. Reader said if the rear yard line should be 20 ft. to 25 ft., why is the Town allowing it to be 15 ft.
Ms. Gallent said it cannot be the front yard. It says 1.(a) the outside edge of any swinuning pool shall
not be operated from - C. the required front or side yards in any residential property.
Ms. Reader said why is the Town allowing a tennis court, which can be as noisy or noisier than pool noises
to be closer to the rear yard than a pool.
Ms. Wittner said the Board is talking about FEMA in that section of the law. Ms. Wittner said she is
making a comment on behalf of the Town Clerk who said the codification business has been going on for
three years and any changes would be welcomed as amendments to the law.
",.,., Ms. Reader asked is there were any other comments on the amendments. Ms. Reader asked the Board if
they can advise the Town Board that the Planning Board supports the proposed amendments.
The Board agreed.
Ms. Gallent said before the meeting adjourns she wanted to announce that last Friday the Supreme Court
of Westchester County upheld the Town's rezoning of the Bonnie Briar and Winged Foot properties and
dismissed part of the Bonnie Briar Syndicate's challenge to the rezoning. Ms. Gallent gave a copy of the
opinion to Ms. Reader.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on August 14, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the meeting was unanimously adjourned
at 11:05 p.m.
ail 4,27t4t_
Marguerite a, Recording Secretary