Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_06_09 Planning Board Minutes © AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 9, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairperson May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Philip A. Leger, Consulting Engineer Michele DiEdwards, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 40 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. ® APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the April 14, 1999 meeting and if there were any additions and/or corrections. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the Planning Board Minutes of April 14, 1999 were unanimously approved. Chairperson Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Goldberg- 10 Evergreen Lane, Block 309, Lot 21 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. Keith McMillan appeared to represent Lynn and Louis Goldberg. He informed the Board that his partner and lead counsel, Bill Maker, who appeared at the last meeting could not be present this evening. Mr. Reader interrupted so that the record could reflect that Ms. Harrington arrived. Mr. McMillan said at the last board meeting, the Board was interested in having a larger scaled drawing presented,which he has this evening in color form. The Board was provided with copies. There was also some question about the reconfiguration of the pipe on the adjacent property that was on the original subdivision approval. The proposal has been changed, so that pipe will not now have to be affected. Mr. Maloney, who is also present at the meeting this evening, has offered to give the Goldbergs an easement Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 2 on his property which will allow the driveway to go onto Mr. Maloney's property so that the pipe will not have to be altered. Ms. Reader asked if that was the culvert pipe. Mr. McMillan said it was in the retention basin that was on the 1986 subdivision approval map. Ms. Reader said then it will not be changed and there is no need to extend it. Mr. McMillan said that is correct. Before turning the presentation over to Mr. Brickelmaier, Mr. McMillan mentioned the individuals also present this evening; Louis Goldberg and his wife, Lynn, Ralph Mackin, the architect for the project, Joe Maloney in support of the application, Mrs. Levine, along with her counsel, Jodi Rosenstrat. A discussion ensued regarding the location of the Maloney property, lot 20. Mr. Brickelmaier gave a brief overview of the larger scaled drawing, pointing out the location of the Maloney property and where the proposed changed driveway is located. They are proposing evergreen screening suitable for the area. Native shrubbery type vegetation will be planted on the fill part of the driveway and more evergreens will be planted on the adjoining property. Dr. Miclat asked where 1 Winding Brook Drive is in relation to that corner, which Mr. Brickelmaier demonstrated. Mr. McMillan said, for the record, that the property is a one acre piece of property in the Fenbrook Development off Fenimore Road. Mr. Brickelmaier continued his presentation pointing out various areas. He said those interested can look at the smaller scaled map that is available and explained the direction of the pipe. Mr. Brickelmaier said that the Board had questions at the last meeting regarding the stormwater. The applicant is proposing small ponding areas in three locations, as the site is not suitable for dry wells due to the rock. They will be creating small depressions with small inlets with a monitored outlet that will allow the stormwater runoff to pond. The water will pond rather than rush off the site. Ms. Reader asked where the ponding areas are. Mr. Brickelmaier said the ponding areas are in the gray area of the drawing, and is actually on the Maloney property which will handle the stormwater runoff from the driveway. He pointed out that the yellow line is the proposed swale. Ms. Reader asked if there is a right-of-way or easement for that. Mr. McMillan said yes. Mr. Maloney is going to confirm that. Mr. Brickelmaier said there will be a small inlet with an 8 in. diameter pipe to discharge at the existing stream in that location. The remaining part of the driveway and half the house and the court yard in front of the house will discharge to a ponding area, which will have an 8 in. pipe and discharge to the stream. The back portion of the property will be discharged to a ponding area. There will be a level spreader to allow the water to spread out and discharge onto the adjoining property. Ms. Aisen asked what is on the adjoining property. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Brickelmaier said currently it is the back yard of the neighbor's house. As much water as possible has been redirected from the ponding area. Ms. Aisen said that some water goes onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Brickelmaier said that is correct, it currently goes there now. He said they are cutting approximately in half the area of water going to the neighbor and redirecting it to the ponding area. Nothing can be done with the water in that area other than letting it go where it naturally goes -- out the adjoining property. Ms. Aisen said then Mr. Brickelmaier is diminishing the amount of water going onto the neighbor's property, with which Mr. Brickelmaier agreed. Ms. Reader asked if calculations were available. Mr. Brickelmaier said calculations were submitted. Mr. Leger said the calculations will be reviewed. Ms. Aisen asked if the adjacent property, where some of the water is going, is part of the wetlands. Mr. Brickelmaier said a wetlands report was submitted at the last meeting. He pointed out the small areas, and said they don't meet the requirements. Mr. Brickelmaier said there is a basin area that may meet the requirements, but that is a water course issue for which a permit is needed. Ms. Reader said that Ms. Aisen asked about the property to the left. Mr. Brickelmaier said that property is the Blasi property. Ms. Reader asked if there is also a wetland on that property. Mr. Brickelmaier said he does not believe so, as it is a landscaped lawn. He then pointed out the 100 ft. control zone from the water course. The only thing inside the 100 ft. control zone is the driveway which is necessary to get to the house site and a small portion of the court yard area. Ms. Aisen asked about the driveway. Mr. Brickelmaier said the driveway will be asphalt and the court yard area will be Belgium Block, to help reduce the runoff. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the Board. There being none, she asked if there were any questions from the public. Richard J. Scheuer, Sr., of 21 Willow Avenue, Larchmont addressed the Board. He asked if the ponding area referred to will be a permanent easement and will the land be kept permanently opened. Mr. Brickelmaier said it will be incorporated into the landscaping of the yard and will not be noticed. Mr. Scheuer said his question is about the legal permanence of a right to the pond and asked if there is a permanent easement on that land. Dr. Mason said that Mr. Maloney is present to answer that question. Mr. Maloney said he has agreed to that. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 4 Seth Marcus, an attorney representing Ann Ruppel, the owner of 871 Fenimore Road, which is one of the adjoining properties, addressed the Board. Mr. Marcus said he has a number of objections, one being procedural, as he was not aware there had been prior proceedings. He did note that the most recent plans seen were dated June 1, 1999, that is the receipt date of the Building Department which, is well inside the fifteen(15) day statutory notice period that is supplied to adjoining property holders to review and make objections if there are any. He would argue that for this reason alone, it might be advisable for final consideration to be put off until the next meeting of the Board, as it has come to his attention that there are serious drainage issues that he noticed in the original subdivision file in the Building Department. He pointed out that the Board is well aware Fenimore Road periodically is subject to severe flooding problems, the major contributing factor of which is the stream which runs behind the rockridge. Dr. Mason asked if the project will exacerbate the problem. Mr. Marcus said he does not know, but would like additional time since the plans were submitted late, to allow time for an expert to submit a report to the Board. It appears that there is additional piping into that stream. He would like to determine whether or not the problem on Fenimore Road will be aggravated and if there would be drainage problems to the adjoining properties. He has retained an expert and a report will be available in a matter of weeks, well before the next meeting of the Board. He also pointed out in reviewing the original subdivision file for lot 21, he noted a memo from Steven W. Peterson, dated February 25, 1985, submitted as exhibit#1, regarding several lots including lot 21, which stated that any houses built on this lot should avoid the existing stream and drainage channels on this lot. The recommendation is motivated by concerns over how the overall subdivision would constrict natural drainage and would seem to be aimed at avoiding additional drainage problems. A discussion ensued regarding the foundation of that memo. Ms. Aisen feels Mr. Marcus is saying he didn't have reasonable time to review the file. He came across a number of things which led him to believe that given a few more days or a fair amount of time he could investigate the matter further. Dr. Mason said Mr. Marcus is presenting something to the Board without a foundation. Mr. Marcus said he is only pointing out something already in the Town files. He said there are also concerns because the environmental assessment form indicated that the construction contemplated some blasting. He stated that the Ruppels have recently installed an in-ground pool in an area in close proximity to where blasting might occur and they are concerned about possible negative impact on the pool. If blasting does take place, he hopes there will be a current analysis of negative impact on existing structures. He feels it will be unfair for new construction to create damage to neighboring properties. Ms. Reader said that the Building Department does have regulations regarding blasting. Mr. Marcus said the submission of the new plans on June 4, 1999 should also call for submission of a new environmental assessment. The form he reviewed in the file was dated February 16, 1999. Ms. Gallent informed Mr. Marcus that this is a Type II action under SEQRA. No environmental assessment is necessary. Mr. Marcus said it is an opportunity to raise issues of concern the Ruppels and a few others have. Mr. Reader asked if the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) is still reviewing this matter. Mr. McMillan said the CZMC is still reviewing this matter. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 5 Ms. Reader said that this matter has to held over until next month, awaiting the CZMC comments. She asked that information be submitted at least two weeks before the next meeting for review. Mr. Scheuer said he is not clear on how far north the 8 in. pipe goes. Mr. Brickelmaier said it discharges on the applicant's property. A discussion ensued regarding the discharge pipes in the vicinity of where the existing discharge pipe from the retention area discharges and feeds into the stream, including the small water course in that location. Mr. Scheuer said there is a culvert on the Ruppel property that comes to an end before the stream. Mr. Brickelmaier said Mr. Scheuer is not talking about the same location, at which time a discussion ensued. Ms. Aisen asked about the green spot on the drawing. Mr. Brickelmaier said there is a pipe between the two locations. The green spot represents the ditch that directs the water in a confined channel that currently exists. Water currently goes to that location to the property overland, and because imperviousness on the site is being increased on the site, runoff time needs to be slowed down by ponding it on the property and discharging it through a small hole. Ms. Aisen asked if the pipe will go under the driveway. QMr. Brickelmaier said that is correct. It is an 8 in pipe with a metal plate in the basin to restrict emission. Dr. Mason said the goal to be achieved is no increase in the rate of runoff and no increase in runoff total, both of which can be accomplished with this approach. Dr. Mason said he hasn't reviewed the calculations, but will do so. Mr. Scheuer reiterated the need for a topo showing all the lots concerned and how the water is running. Dr. Mason said there is a topo map in the booklet submitted,at which time a discussion ensued regarding the location of the lot and the movement of the water. It was asked if Mr. Brickelmaier has the contours to the west of the property. Mr. Brickelmaier said he has Town topographic maps that would show additional topography. It was asked if what is being presented was produced from those maps or from their survey. Mr. Brickelmaier said the topography on the site is produced from their survey, which was matched with the Town topo. Ms. Reader asked if maps were available that takes the property down to Fenimore Road Mr. Brickelmaier said the drainage was analyzed in the local area. The design point of the stream was looked at in that location with the water running off the property and the report submitted demonstrates there is no increase in the rate of water runoff at that location. iliPf Dr. Mason said he understands what Mr. Brickelmaier is saying, in that he doesn't feel the responsibility to go beyond. However, there have been problems in the past. If the facts are available, Dr. Mason would like to see them and would like to see what the topography is. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Brickelmaier said once you look further downstream at that design point, the contributing area becomes much larger. Dr. Mason said the facts can be taken into consideration, but it would be to his benefit to show this information to the Board and the CZMC. Mr. Leger said it is true that the area's responsibility is the drainage basin within which their proposed residence is located. They are required to make sure the rate of runoff is not increased. As long as they achieve that, it is a moot point what is going down stream. Mr. Leger said he does not know if the calculations are correct, but if the runoff is not increased there is no impact downstream. Mr. Scheuer said with what is proposed, the runoff has to be increasing somewhat. Ms. Aisen said not if you provide for same. Mr. Leger said that is correct. The rate of runoff is not higher than it was before construction. It has to be reviewed to make sure it is correct. Dr. Mason said if maps are available, it would help the Board to make a judgment. Dr. Miclat of 1 Winding Brook Drive, Larchmont, which is off Fenimore Road addressed the Board. Dr. Miclat said his main concern is the flooding in that area. It has been a perennial problem which has been worse the last few years. In regard to what Phil Leger was talking about not increasing the flow to the brook area, it does increase the flow. Dr. Miclat has lived at that residence for twenty-one years and cannot use his driveway at times because of flooding. There is either something wrong with the storm drain, or the construction along Fenimore Road has contributed to the increase runoff of water in the area. The east branch of the Sheldrake River divides Dr. Miclat's property in two. It gets scary when it rains. He wishes there is a way it could be dredged for a bigger place for the water to go. It is also a traffic hazard when it is flooded, and could also be a potential health hazard. Ms. Harrington asked if Dr. Miclat has called the Town of Mamaroneck to check the storm drains to see if there are any clogs. Dr. Miclat said recently he contacted the Town of Mamaroneck, but it still floods. Ms. Aisen asked what the Town told Dr. Miclat. Dr. Miclat said he did not call personally. Ms. Reader informed Dr. Miclat that the Board does appreciate that. Ms. Aisen asked Mr. Carpaneto if the area around Winding Brook Road is one of the areas that the state was going back to correct, because along Weaver there was a question about whether they had inadvertently exacerbated the problem. Mr. Carpaneto said he was not familiar with that issue. Ms. Gallent said that Mr. Altieri had spoken about that. Ms. Aisen said she was wondering if that was also true about Fenimore. Ms. Reader said she did not think so. It had to do with the culvert on Weaver Street. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 7 Ms. Harrington asked if something was going to be done further up on Fenimore. Mr. Vanoli said he is not familiar with any off-site work. Ms. Reader said for the record that Mr. Vanoli is a licensed professional engineer related to the Coventry • Court project. Ms. Reader asked if there was dredging of the Sheldrake a few years back. No one was aware that had occurred. Dr. Mason said that Mr. Scheuer is right in that the problem of the drainage along Fenimore Road has gotten progressively worse over the years, since the development of the subdivision. Whenever water is taken from working woods and you develop it, no matter how strict the flow is regulated there will be an increase no matter where you run it. The development was not held to the standards that are in place now. The applicant has certain grounds that he has to meet in order to qualify for the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. If he meets those requirements, which will be looked at closely, he is entitled to a permit. The Board has quite a bit of information and has made several requests for more information. Dr. Miclat is ,`• correct, the problem has gotten worse in the last few years. He stated that Dr. Miclat's property is divided by the east branch, Dr. Mason's by the west branch. The problems have been dealt with. Dr. Mason does not know if their solutions will work in the applicant's area, but the responsibility of the applicant is clearly defined. Ms. Aisen asked if the record can reflect a request that the Town look into whether there is anything that can be done to relieve the flooding problem on Fenimore. 11110 Ms. Reader asked if there were any further questions or comments from those present. Louis Goldberg of 15 Manor Place, Larchmont addressed the Board. He said he has no additional comments or requests. He would like to know what the sequence is over the next few weeks, so everyone gets the right information submitted at the right time. Ms. Reader said the next official meeting on this matter is scheduled with the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC). Ms. Reader recommends that Mr. Brickelmaier speak with Mr. Carpaneto to make sure that everything needed for that meeting is submitted. She said also Mr. Leger, from the Town's consulting firm, Malcolm Pirnie, is available to answer any questions. Mr. Goldberg asked the deadline date for submission, and what additional information is needed. Ms. Reader said she does not know the date for the CZMC meeting, nor information needed. Ms. Aisen said that Mr. Marcus should get copies of any additional information also. Ms. Reader said that Dr. Mason has asked for additional topographic maps, if they exist, so proper determinations regarding the wetlands and runoff can be made by the Town engineer and Building Department. Mr. Brickelmaier said to be clear the Board is looking for a copy of the map, no analysis. Dr. Mason said that CZMC requires a complete application. They will be asking the same questions the Board is asking this evening. If the map can be produced along with an analysis, it will help. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Brickelmaier said analysis is a broad term. The report before the Board is a detailed analysis. However, a stormwater analysis takes several hours to prepare. Dr. Mason suggested a response to the questions raised. Mr. Marcus said he has copies of the plans, the application, the building permit, etc. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Marcus had the drainage report from Insite. Mr. Marcus said he didn't believe so. Mr. Reader asked that a copy of the drainage report be provided to Mr. Marcus. Mr. Goldberg said as a matter of due process, if they attend the meeting of the 22nd and subsequent meetings, are they not entitled to any notice of concerns or objections. Mr. Reader said the Planning Board requires that the CZMC submit to the Planning Board by June 30th. Ms. Reader said the Planning Board cannot require that this be physically done. The CZMC submission is to the Building Department. Ms. Reader suggested that those involved exchange calls, regarding information submitted. Mr. Marcus said when he reviewed his files there were some questions as to the foundation of the document. He noticed in the first paragraph of the document stated on the reported review of the DEIS prepared by William Morganroth, P.E., the engineer on the project, was based a on site inspection conducted on February 20, 1985. He will make efforts to specifically find that. Mr. Reader mentioned to Mr. Carpaneto that she does not have a copy of the subdivision. She asked Mr. Carpaneto to review the subdivision to see if there are any conditions put on the subdivision with respect to construction, specifically on lot 21 and the lots around it. Mr. Papazian said that the other question is if it is an approved buildable lot. It is a flag lot obviously, and therefore a flag lot assumes that you have to have access to this property. The other question is that he thinks it is the only way into this piece of property. It is an obvious fact. A discussion ensued regarding this fact. Ms. Reader asked if the easement from Mr. Maloney is yet in writing. Mr. McMillan said no. Ms. Reader asked if the written easement can be available at the next meeting. Mr. McMillan said that can be worked on. Mr. Goldberg said that he and Mr. Maloney are in substantial agreement. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Goldberg was in contract to buy the property or is he the owner of the property. Mr. Goldberg said he has a contract to buy. Ms. Reader said he is the contract vendee. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 9 Dr. Mason said a letter from Mr. Maloney with a copy of the draft indicating he agrees to the easement would be helpful. Ms. Reader accepts what Mr. Goldberg has stated. She is not going to ask for a formal easement document, but said it very well may be a condition should any approval granted. The Board may desire to have it as a condition for the issue of the drainage. It would help the Board to know that it will legally occur. Ms. Reader asked if the contract to purchase the property is subject to receiving the Freshwater Wetlands permit. Mr. Goldberg said yes. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, Ms. Gallent informed the Board that this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board. Ms. Reader said she has a letter that states this matter has been referred to the Westchester County Planning Board. Ms. Gallent said this is a Type II action. On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. • Ms. Reader asked Mr. Athey for his comments. • Mr. Athey said he has the list of requests from the CZMC. He said that Mr. Brickelmaier came to the meeting and the matters were discussed that the CZMC requires for the next meeting. A discussion ensued. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments or questions. There being none, on a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the July 14, 1999 Planning Board meeting. Chairperson Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-MODIFICATION to PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, dated January 10, 1996 - Coventry Court/Demetriades Developers, Inc. - 1006 Fenimore Road - Block 202 Lots 30 & 110 James Vanoli, the engineer of record for the Coventry Court subdivision being developed by Demetriades Developers on Fenimore Road, appeared. He is present this evening to request a modification to the preliminary approval regarding the surface of the driveways. The preliminary approval allowed for blacktop to be placed in the driveway at the garage turnaround apron and that portion of the driveway that falls within the Town right-of-way only. The balance of the driveway was to be gravel. At the time, the concern was runoff. The drainage report was prepared and approved with the anticipation that the Town Board would enact a 35% maximum density requirement. When Mr. Vanoli fist began this job he met with Mr. Jakubowski, the former Building Inspector, and he informed him that while that requirement was not yet in place, it was being considered. He advised Mr. Vanoli that it would be appropriate to design the stormwater detention system to reflect that and it was done. The drainage report was submitted recently Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 10 and at the beginning of the project. They have found that the grades on the driveways are steep and not conducive to gravel for day to day occupancy by the homeowner. He doesn't believe the grades on the driveways will provide any real absorptive qualities. In an effort to respect the idea of permeability of pavement, they have discovered a product that is produced by Unilock. It is a paver, the corners are truncated, as can be seen in the catalogue submitted, the idea being that where there are flatter slopes they can still adhere to the original thought of permeability. It will be packed with some pea stone and gravel. The manufacturer recommended a pavement of subsurface material and cross section which will be adhered to. Mr. Vanoli said information regarding the material he is referring to is on the 4th sheet of the catalogue that was submitted. He stated that in further support of the paving material, he pointed out when the original analysis was done the anticipation was that a great deal of the property would be lawn area. He said one can see that is not going to be the case. The majority of the property is heavily wooded. Mr. Demetriades has planted over 2,000 plants alone on lot 4, in excess of the plant and tree replacement schedule. This brings the runoff coefficient lower and the scale higher and gave examples of same. Mr. Vanoli said a stormwater detention system was built that has already provided for the 35% maximum coverage. Additionally, the runoff has been reduced by changing from lawns to heavily wooded areas. He believes that a combination of these things, adding in the human factor of what may happen in a few years when individuals move in and request to replace blacktop or perhaps no request but just blacktop it on their own. Any type of opportunity would be lost to gain any type of perviousness. Ms. Reader pointed out that the letter from the applicant requested uniformity for the design of the driveways. Mr. Vanoli said yes, in all four homes the blacktop turnaround area that was allowed, the garage aprons, will be deleted and paved with the proposed pavers. The area to the right of the driveway area in the right- of-way,would be up to the Town. He said that some Towns allow different paving materials, determined by the Highway Superintendent. Mr. Vanoli said he would like to have a uniform driveway to the edge of where the curb would be, which will include the area within the right-of-way. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Vanoli if the proposed product will stand up to the freeze and thaw, or is it going to crack. Mr. Vanoli said yes, the product will stand up. They are not a brick, but clay that is fire hardened. These are cast and more dense than brick and are heavier than brick. He informed the Board about a seminar he attended in Manhattan, especially on Unilock Pavers and their products. One of the important things is that they are put very close to each other and gain a tremendous amount of strength by being close to each other. He then gave an example of the strength provided by an engineer from England. Mr. Vanoli said after dealing for twelve years with Mr. Demetriades and knowing his product, a solid sub-base will exist and if the pavers are damaged will be replaced. Ms. Aisen said that doesn't address the question about hot and cold. Dr. Mason said the paver itself will not be damaged by the hot and cold cycle, but the sub-stream might generate a void. At this point in time, Ms. Reader read from the literature provided by Mr. Vanoli, which stated, "UNI Eco-Stone pavers are manufactured to meet or exceed ASTM C-936 specifications of minimum 8000 psi, maximum 5% absorption and freeze-thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM C-67. Mr. Vanoli said when you take ASTM standards and concrete cylinders, 6 in. in diameter, 12 high, put a plastic cap on it and use a hydraulic press to pressure, that is the psi rating on it, the 8000 lbs. Mr. Vanoli has no question that it will be fine. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 11 Phil Leger of Malcolm Pirnie said it was looked at and recommendations were made in their letter of June 1, 1999, which is a part of the record. He does not understand Mr. Vanoli's reasoning for requesting this, as it will create problems plowing, etc. Mr. Darsky asked why the Board required gravel in the first place. Mr. Vanoli said they were looking for more pervious area. A discussion ensued regarding the gravel requirement, the pavers becoming a nuisance and reverting to using blacktop. Dr. Mason said that while he is inclined to go along with the request, he would like some assurance the pavers will not break. Mr. Vanoli said a Westchester County grant was received, a Community Development Block, and rather than brick used sandblock pavers for the downtown area, the density being 50% greater than brick. Ms. Reader said according to Mr. Leger's letter and based on their evaluation, he recommends the use of blacktop which is more impervious than the proposed blocks and had asked a question of Mr. Vanoli before, would he prefer to blacktop or for aesthetic reasons does he prefer to use pavers. Drainage is more than adequate even if blacktop is used. Mr. Vanoli said he would take either one. Ms. Reader said with deletion of special condition#1 regarding the gravel, Mr. Vanoli will be free to do whatever he wants to do and asked if that is correct from an engineering point of view,which was verified. After further discussion, based upon the new Town of Mamaroneck Ordinance regarding lot coverage and drainage, the Board agreed to delete the first special condition. Ms. Reader asked if there were any further comments from the public, the Board or the professional staff. Ms. Gallent said that this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and they indicated it is a non jurisdictional matter. On a motion made by Ms. Reader and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On a motion was made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was APPROVED 5-1, Dr. Mason opposed: WHEREAS, the Planning Board previously granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval to Coventry Court/Demetriades Developers, Inc. - 1006 Fenimore Road-Block 202 Lots 30& 110,by resolution dated January 19, 1996 ("Preliminary Subdivision Resolution"), a copy of which is attached hereto; Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 12 WHEREAS, Demetriades Developers, Inc., by James J. Vanoli, P.E., has submitted an application requesting an amendment to the Preliminary Subdivision Resolution seeking to delete the requirement, contained in General Requirement I. 1., that all driveways in the subdivision shall be gravel; WHEREAS, the Town's consulting engineer, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., by letter dated June 1, 1999, signed by Antonio V. Capicotto, P.E., has indicated that the proposed change in driveway material will not have any adverse impact on drainage or runoff; WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is a Type II action under SEQRA; WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the application on June 9, 1999; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Preliminary Subdivision Resolution is hereby amended to delete the entirety of General Requirements I. 1., which reads as follows: "All pavement, including portions of driveways, within the right-of-way of the new common access road(Coventry Court)shall be blacktop. The individual property driveways shall be gravel from the right-of-way of Coventry Court up to a point near the garage, from which point blacktop will be used for the garage apron." Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN-Winged Foot Golf Course -851 Fenimore Road-Block 347 Lot 1 Larry Gordon, the architect, Steve Sullivan, project manager for Winged Foot Golf Club, and James Vanoli, the engineer retained for the investigation of soil to address the rest room facility, appeared. Mr. Gordon said the proposal is to build another rest room on the grounds of Winged Foot Golf Club. He informed the Board that there is a change in location to the site plan which the Board has, but it is in the same general area. The new drawing was submitted as exhibit#1. The County Health Department and James Vanoli did a perc test to find a suitable place to put the septic fields, and the proposed site was moved as shown on the new drawing. Ms. Aisen asked what is inside the arrow and what is on other side. Mr. Sullivan said it is property owned by the neighbor, and that there are some houses on Carriage House Lane. Ms. Aisen said she is interested in the visual as well as drainage impact to the neighbors. Mr. Sullivan said that the building itself will be located in the center of a thickly, heavily wooded grove. Ms. Aisen said then it can't be seen from outside the property line, which was verified. Ms. Reader asked what materials will be used. Mr. Gordon said it is the exact building previously built on the golf course. Ms. Aisen asked if the woods around the one-story structure is taller than the structure,which was verified. She also asked about the drainage. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Vanoli said the original area that was looked at was discounted because it was not appropriate. The percolation rates into the ground were too great and the area was subject to the sprinkler system. It was also subject to flooding from time to time from natural rain. That was at the "T". A line was investigated along Fairway, down to the end of the greenway, and there is an area with reasonable existing dirt with rock at 5 ft. Approximately 2 ft. of certified septic material would have to be brought in to meet the County Health Department requirements. It is not going to alter the drainage pattern on the ground, nor will impact the neighbor's property where there is a chain-link fence and the property is slightly elevated from it. Mr. Vanoli asked if it was a service road. Mr. Sullivan said it is a road occasionally used to bring TV trucks into and out of the club. Mr. Vanoli said the whole area drains in the other direction away from the neighbors. Ms. Reader asked if those people affected will be notified before the public hearing. Mr. Sullivan said they plan to notify those individuals beforehand. Mr. Reader said that notification is required, which the Board does. Ms. Aisen asked how the issue of scent, and the height of the trees is verified. Mr. Sullivan said one rest room is already built on the grounds. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Sullivan why he cannot go into the sewer system. Mr. Sullivan said it is not available. A discussion ensued regarding the smell from a septic system. Mr. Vanoli said it is under the purview of the County Health Department. He said it is important to realize the location and the need for the proposed rest room. Mr. Carpaneto asked if it will be used when there is a large tournament. Mr. Sullivan said no, and that Collin Burns, the manager, said it will be locked and not used. Dr. Mason asked if it will be closed in the wintertime. Mr. Sullivan said it will be closed down in the winter and will be open November through April. Dr. Mason asked whether there is a sewer system on Old White Plains Road. Mr. Vanoli said there is a sewer system on Old White Plains Road, but there is none close. He has been told, it is at least one-half mile away Dr. Mason said in looking at the map, it does not look like it is one-half mile from the proposed site. Mr. Vanoli said he will look into that more closely. A discussion ensued regarding the size of the tank to be used, followed by an absorption facility. Ms. Reader said if he can hook into the system it should be done. Planning Board June 9, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Leger said that is up to the Westchester County Health Department, either way. Mr. Carpaneto said that the Board of Architectural Review has no comment. Ms. Reader asked if the roof is asphalt tile and cedar shingles, which was verified. Ms. Gallent said that Westchester County will review it. Ms. Reader said that it is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the July 14, 1999 Planning Board meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Reader took a moment to offer condolences to Ms. Harrington on the recent passing of her father. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on July 14, 1999. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Aoyi A.,„,,A- --,,,,...„ Marguerite l a, Recording Secretary