Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_03_11 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 11, 1998, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky ,, ,v `� r j C. Alan Mason 4 'tom Edmund Papazian _ A��CEI�/ED Absent:• Linda S. Harrington A 9 1998 � ���A ID Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel > Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer �4> Judy Perrino, 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 Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:25 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the January 14, 1998 meeting and if there were any amendments. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the Minutes of January 14, 1998 were unanimously approved. After some discussion,Ms. Reader informed the Board that the Minutes of the February 11, 1998 Planning Board meeting will be reviewed for approval at the next meeting, as there is not a quorum present this evening of the individuals that were at that meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SPECIAL PERMIT-George Poline/2 Kitchens-2423 Boston Post Road-Block 505 Lot 463 George Poline appeared. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Poline that the matter is on the agenda for consideration which gives Mr. Poline the opportunity to explain the project and for the Board to ask pertinent questions to guide Mr. Poline. Mr. Poline said the proposal is to reopen a restaurant at 2423 Boston Post Road, which will now be a combination Japanese and Thai restaurant. The new operator has been in business approximately 15 to 16 years and is well educated. The interior or exterior will remain the same. A discussion ensued regarding restaurant location. Ms. Reader asked if the Board had any other questions. . Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Davis questioned the description in item#4 on the application which read, an extension of use. After some discussion, Mr. Poline said the application should have stated a continuation of the same type of use as the previous business, a take-out restaurant. A discussion ensued regarding the restaurant being strictly a take-out restaurant, no table service, and the fact that tables previously located in the restaurant have been taken out. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Davis said this matter is an unlisted action requiring referral to the Westchester County Planning Board and the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC). Mr. Davis asked if the previous applicant of the premises had a special permit. Ms. Reader said the previous applicants of the premises had special permits issued, and that each new owner requires a special permit. Ms. Reader declared the Planning Board Lead Agency and asked for a resolution regarding same. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board finds this matter to have no substantial environmental impact, no change from prior use and directs the filing of a Negative Declaration. Ms. Reader requested a referral be made to the CZMC and the Westchester County Planning Board. Mr. Athey questioned whether a referral needs to be made to the Department of Transportation (DOT). After some discussion, it was deemed unnecessary. On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this application be, and hereby is, adjourned for a Public Hearing at the April 8, 1998 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Poline to contact the secretary, Marguerite Roma, for the Public Hearing notice, as it is the applicant's responsibility to notify the neighbors. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-GRIFFEN AVENUE/Bobby Ben-Simon - Block 305 Lot 903.2 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Eliot Senor, P.C., addressed the Board, stating the application is for a residence to be constructed in the Freshwater Wetlands area on Griffen Avenue. Mr. Senor was the engineer and surveyor when the subdivision was approved several years ago. Mr. Senor then discussed the slope of the driveway at that time and the bridge span. There was discussion about the project being in the flood zone. Mr. Senor said it is not in a flood zone, as the datum on the topo was an assumed datum and the property was actually above the flood plain. Mr. Senor said all the changes regarding plantings that were recommended by the Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 3 CZMC were made and the circular area is being changed to pavers as recommended in the CZMC letter dated March 2, 1998. Eleven trees are being removed as stated on the bottom of the plan submitted; i.e. tree inventory, trees to remain, trees to be removed, proposed trees. Mr. Senor proceeded to explain the absorption quality of the proposed trees and rhododenrons, which will survive in a shady area, along the back neighbor's property for screening. Ms. Aisen asked if the CZMC had approved the trees referred to. Mr. Senor said the CZMC recommended the plantings. The trees were chosen because they are good wetland trees; i.e. Maple, Oak, Willows. Mr. Athey stated that these tree selections would probably be acceptable. However, the final approval will depend on the decision of the Tree Commission. Ms. Reader noted that James Athey is the liaison with the Building Department and Environmental Coordinator for the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Davis said the March 2, 1998 CZMC letter referred to above was dated February 26, 1998. Mr. Senor said the February 26, 1998 CZMC letter referred to was stamped received March 2, 1998. Ms. Reader said the letter also recommended paving the site entrance and asked Mr. Senor to address this issue. Mr. Senor said the site entrance will be paved as soon as possible during construction to alleviate erosion of the driveway. The plans were revised to relocate the driveway and bridge, submitted as exhibit 1. Mr. Senor said it is the same plan submitted prior to the meeting, February 27, 1998. The only change to the top sheet is the addition of the sizes of the proposed trees. The second sheet is the profile of the new bridge location, which constitutes the new plan. Frederic Zonsius, the architect for the project, appeared. Mr. Zonsius said the required revisions were made and submitted to the Board on February 27, 1998 following the CZMC meeting. Mr. Zonsius said the site plan and erosion control plan is essentially the same. The additional plan is a profile of the new bridge and driveway. Mr. Davis clarified with Mr. Zonsius that S2 of 2, dated February 24, 1998, is not a new drawing. Mr. Davis stated that the Board had requested all information be submitted one week prior to the meeting to be reviewed. A discussion ensued regarding the plans submitted, revised and clarification of same. Ms. Senor said if the new bridge submission cannot be approved, the applicant would like the first bridge submission approved. Ms. Reader asked if the consulting engineer has reviewed the submission, prior to this evening. Mr. Senor said the drawing was just finished this date. Mr. Capicotto said it is the same bridge routing, with a profile provided with additional details. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Senor for clarification. Mr. Senor said the bridge and driveway that was approved as a part of the subdivision created a 14% slope down to the stream, a 28 ft.bridge span and an 8% slope going back up to the proposed house area. After the CZMC meeting, on the plans submitted February 27, 1998, the bridge was relocated closer to the property line farther to the west and the span length increased to approximately 45 ft. from 28 ft. At the Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 4 far side of the stream the bridge is essentially at the same position,5 ft. from the stream bank. The bridge was lengthened on the road side to span the steep section of the existing contour. The expanded length gets the applicant on top of the bump. It creates an 8'h% driveway slope down to the bridge and a 11/2% slope to the proposed house elevation. One of the concerns of the CZMC was that it was a steep driveway,there could be a lot of erosion during construction and gravel will be washed out during construction. After the CZMC hearing, the site was revisited and changes made. The driveway is approximately 15 ft. off of the side property line creating less problems. The original profile that was approved created a very large cut area. Mr. Senor then explained the proposed driveway and existing grade. Ms. Aisen asked Mr. Senor to point out on the same plan where it is proposed now, which Mr. Senor demonstrated. Dr. Mason stated, as a matter of background for the other Board members, that this was a matter of discussion with CZMC both during the time Mr. Senor,Mr. Ben-Simon and Mr. Zonsius were present and was discussed further after they left. Dr. Mason is delighted with the new proposal, as the revisions were not suggested at that time. What is proposed will be well received with the CZMC. A discussion ensued regarding the steepness of the incline to the road and from the bridge to the proposed house. Mr. Capicotto asked if the bridge abutment is still outside the stream bank. Mr. Senor said the bridge abutment is still outside the stream bank, one outside the other, 20 ft. apart. Ms. Reader asked if a prefab bridge will be used, as presented by the Mr. Senor in the Laurie subdivision. Mr. Senor said it will still be a prefab bridge, more structured with supporting pillars and will look like a zig zag. Dr. Mason asked the bridge width. Mr. Senor said the bridge width will be 15 ft., steel or laminated. Ms. Aisen asked if it will look as was proposed a month ago. Mr. Senor said yes. Mr. Zonsius also addressed this issue. Ms. Reader asked what kind of material will be used. Mr. Senor said a laminated wood beam or a steel beam, zig zag. A discussion ensued regarding steps taken to preserve the laminated wood beams used either interior or exterior. Mr. Senor said H 20 or H 40 will be used and explained the use of same. Ms. Reader asked the weight of the heaviest fire trucks in the Town, feels that should be checked into and suggests that be in the approval. Mr. Senor said the heaviest fire trucks are not more than 20,000 lbs. and he will comply with whatever design loading the Town and/or Building Department requests. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Senor to again go over the pavers, which Mr. Senor proceeded to do. • Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Senor said, as requested by the CZMC, pavers will be used in the circular area and the parking area to the house similar to the neighbor's. Mr. Papazian asked about what has been decided regarding the driveway itself. Mr. Senor said macadam will be used. Ms. Reader asked about the area from the bridge to the circular area. Mr. Senor said blacktop. Ms. Reader asked if pavers can be used in that area to increase the porosity. Mr. Senor said catch basins were shown just before the bridge to catch the runoff. With pavers there will be more porosity. Dr. Mason said at that pitch the amount of porosity that you have will not buy much in the way of passing. The pavers are great on a flatter area but will runoff on a slope and will not be significant. Valerie O'Keeffe of the Town Council and liaison to the Planning Board appeared. Ms. O'Keeffe said the Town has contracted for a new ladder fire apparatus, heavier than any other apparatus the Town has, and the Board should request the specs on that truck. Mr. Senor said whatever the Building Department requests will be done. • A discussion ensued regarding apparatus from neighboring areas that may be called in and the problems that might arise crossing the bridge. Mr. Athey will look into this matter. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Senor to explain why there will not be flooding at the bottom of the driveway. Mr. Senor said with water coming from the street side, the Griffin side of the driveway, it is being picked up at the catch basins just before the abutment, taken through a pipe to a dispersion structure running directly into the stream(the proposed dispersion structure)which was approved with the subdivision. On the house side of the stream catch basins are at the end of the circular area going into a dry well and there is a catch basin just before the house side of the bridge. Because of the elevation of the driveway and stream, Mr. Senor will try to place a dry well on the house side of the stream. If one is not practicable because of the high water level, they will use a dispersion structure and Mr. Senor will add an additional catch basin elsewhere on the house side of the stream. A discussion ensued regarding an energy dissipation structure. If that does not work, Mr. Senor will do what has been proposed on the other side of the bridge. Mr. Senor said the applicant is retaining 100% of the excess runoff, but not all the driveway runoff. The applicant is retaining extra water from the house on the house side of the driveway and the street side of the driveway is running into the stream. Mr. Papazian asked what type of rain Mr. Senor is talking about that the driveway can handle and not have a flood. Mr. Senor said the 25-year storm. Calculations are on the final drawing. Ms. Reader said Mr. Senor is letting it run into the stream through the dispersion system so it slows it down and retards the flow. Mr. Senor confirmed he will install an additional dispersion system on the house side of the stream if he is unable to place a dry well on the Griffen Street side of the stream. • Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 6 Ms. Reader asked how this gets enforced: i.e. that the applicant constructs the dry well or a dispersion system. Mr. Davis said the building inspector has submitted to the Board a series of procedures for monitoring the construction. There is a checklist for each project and there are a series of ongoing inspections. Ms. Reader said this is not a standard event but one with specific concerns, and asked how the Director of Building knows that this has special conditions which must be monitored. Mr. Davis said the Board calls the Director of Building's attention to this matter, the inspector will have the approved drawings if the permit is approved and will monitor construction. Ms. Reader asked if this is done with a special condition in the resolution, is there something on the plan that states alternative B if this does not work. Mr. Senor said it is not on the plan,but is required as part of the building permit and part of the regulation to submit the drainage calculation which shows six (6)dry wells. The inspector will not let the applicant install only five (5). Ms. Reader said she is only trying to alleviate an oversight because someone missed something. Mr. Davis said if the right number of dry wells is not installed or location of one is changed, there should be something stipulated on the plan and in the resolution to show the alternative. Mr. Senor said it can be put on the plan as a footnote. Mr. Zonsius said a note will be made to that effect. Ms. Reader stated if the Board does a resolution this evening, it will need the appropriate language to be included regarding this matter. Mr. Senor said when the calculations were done for the storm water runoff, a percolation test was also done on the site at three different areas. The two areas in the front already show dry wells are possible. The third area down by the stream does not appear amenable to dry wells without a foundation of fill because water is 12 inches below the surface. That is the reason the basement of the house, which is a walk-out basement, is built at grade on the stream side to alleviate excavating on the stream side. The applicant is also doing the standard erosion control, silt fence, etc. during construction. Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Senor has reason to believe the dry well will not work. Mr. Senor said the dry well is in a fill area and won't be completely below existing ground. Ms. Reader stated, and it was verified, that a prefab dry well will be used and if that does not work a dissipation system will be used. Mr. Davis asked if a test had been performed. Mr. Senor said a test had been done at that approximate elevation. A discussion ensued regarding the depth of the dry wells and the different sizes available to retain the volume of water on site. Mr. Papazian then addressed the trees issue, stating the applicant said there is a plus factor of two, adding thirteen, taking away eleven. • Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Senor said one of the thirteen is a Japanese Maple in the circular area, which is only going to be a couple of feet high. Mr. Papazian asked if the trees to be planted and the trees to be removed are the same height. Ms. Senor said the diameter shown for the trees being taken away is larger than the replacement. If the various boards require more trees, it will be done. Ms. Aisen said it is not a question about the number but of the absorption capacity of the trees that are currently there and the trees that will be planted. Mr. Athey said the Tree Commission will take the absorption quality of the tree into consideration. Mr. Senor said that is why Willows were put on the plan, because of water absorption. Mr. Zonsius said at the CZMC meeting a decision had to be made about tree location. It is shown that the trees being removed are not by the river, but the trees being installed are by the river. Ms. Reader said the issue is zero net runoff, water dispersion and dry wells, which Mr. Capicotto has reviewed. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Capicotto had any comments. Mr. Capicotto had no comments. Ms. Aisen stated that even if the Board approves the application,it is conditioned upon the Erosion Permit, the Tree Commission, Building Department, etc. Mr. Davis said that independent approvals are required. Mr. Capicotto said the bridge would fall under Building Department approval. Mr. Davis referred to Chapter 114 of the Town Code and a letter dated March 11, 1998 from Malcolm Pirnie. Ms. Reader asked if there were any more questions from the Board and the audience. Ms. O'Keeffe asked what material is used for the prefabricated dry wells. Mr. Senor said concrete is the material used for the prefabricated dry wells. Eugene Kaplan of 7 Split Tree Road, appeared along with his wife, Jane, and discussed various pictures before the Board stating their property backs on to the applicant's property. Mr. Senor said Split Tree is the road behind the property. Mr. Kaplan said the rear of the proposed house will be 40 ft. from his property, the pool 20 ft. and the pool deck 10 ft. A discussion ensued regarding setbacks, with Mr. Senor stating there is no setback requirements for the deck. Mr. Senor said the applicant has met the setback for the pool and the house. Mr. Kaplan said the proposed structure, house, pool, deck and driveway, is in a wetlands, draining into the Sheldrake River branch and the house will be built on sloping land. The slope runs towards Mr. Kaplan's property and the river. Mr. Kaplan is concerned that any increase runoff into the river will raise the water table on Mr. Kaplan's property which is currently high enough and sometimes overflows. Additional water will runoff onto Mr. Kaplan's land, indirectly by raising the river level and water table under Mr. Kaplan's land. The proposed regrading would have an effect on the gully between the side of • Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 8 the house and the river, which now is a drain for water from the subject site to the river during rain storms. Mr. Kaplan is interested in having an analysis done to make sure Mr. Kaplan is not adversely affected by the proposed house. Questions raised are: (1)whether the proposed dry wells and catch basins are there to protect the stream only or Mr. Kaplan's house as well; (2) what will be the effect of the dry wells closer to the end of the property; (3) there are three dry wells on the side away from the house but none on the other side and Mr. Kaplan does not know whether that is necessary or not; (4) are the hay bales and silt fence sufficient to protect the river and Mr. Kaplan's property during construction and when the hay bales are removed after construction will Mr. Kaplan's property continue to be protected from silt and erosion;(5)what provisions were made for drainage of the proposed pool so that it does not affect Mr. Kaplan's property, where will the drainage go, how will it be drained; (6) there is a proposal to plant six rhododendrons on the back of the property, what is the function, is it for screening or to absorb water. Mr. Senor said the rhododendrons are basically for screening. Mr. Kaplan said if the rhododendrons are for screening, why not continue along the property line. Ms. Aisen said the questions raised are valid considerations. A discussion ensued regarding the standard of the law for runoff which must be shown before approval can be made for a project. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Senor and/or Mr. Zonsius how this will be accomplished on this project. Mr. Zonsius said six more rhododendrons can be planted to create additional screening, the pool and the setbacks are all up to code. The reason the dry wells are on the upper part of the property is because there is more fill. The drainage is piped to dry wells. Ms. Senor said drainage seeps into the ground and the dry wells are not closer than 15 ft. to the property line. The water, as it filters out, should not cross the property. The reason the dry wells are not closer to Mr. Kaplan's area is because that's the area ground water was encountered at a higher elevation. If dry wells were installed in that area, they would not function. Mr. Kaplan said Mr. Senor is adding to the ground water on his property and the direction is changed from a higher elevation to a lower elevation. Mr. Senor said no more water is going to leave the property after construction than before construction. Neither will the direction of flow change. Ms. Reader said at the last meeting she thought Mr. Zonsius said that the way the property was being graded was such that it would angle the property toward the dry wells. Mr. Senor said the plans submitted showed the first floor elevation about 4 ft. to 5 ft. lower,which created a 4 ft. wall along the property line. Ms. Reader stated the applicant no longer has a retaining wall and said the changes should be brought to the Board's attention. Mr. Senor said there is no longer a retaining wall along the easterly property line. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Kaplan's concern is if there are no dry wells on his side of the property and the water is not directed away from his property, how do you prevent more water from coming onto his property. Mr. Senor said the water is directed away from Mr. Kaplan's property by a series of catch basins and piping into the dry wells. The water coming down the hill from the pool area is drain water that falls on the grass. Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 9 Ms. Reader said Mr. Kaplan's point is now there will be a house, pool, driveway, circular driveway, a road all of which currently is grass and porous. The water comes down and seeps slowly throughout. What will prevent more water from coming onto Mr. Kaplan's property. Mr. Senor said the pool deck itself is pitched away from the pool. From an engineering standpoint, there will be no additional water running off onto the property. A raised berme can be put along the property line to guarantee that. Mr. Capicotto said the way it is laid out, it is not pitching towards the property. Mr. Capicotto then explained the purpose of the dry wells and diverting water into the ground. Mr. Darsky asked about the driveway runoff. Mr. Capicotto said the catch basins will handle the water the same way by the driveway around the circle. The only place the water is not handled that way is at the entrance which will be handled with a dispersion structure. A discussion ensued regarding leaders and gutters going into the dry wells. Mr. Kaplan is concerned about the slope down toward his property as toward the brook. The water in the dry well has to seep out into the lower elevation adding to the water table on Mr. Kaplan's property as it would toward the brook. Mr. Darsky said the house is not going to cause more water. Mr. Kaplan asked if the water will seep to the brook on the applicant's property or Mr. Kaplan's property. Mr. Senor said that is the reason why the dry wells are kept more than 10 ft. away from the property line. Mr. Capicotto referred the Board to the ground water table. Ms. Aisen asked about the pool area. As there are no gutters or dry wells in that area, what about the water that now flows into the ground where the pool will be. Mr. Senor said the water that falls onto the pool will stay in the pool. The deck around the pool is pitched toward the pool, and the water will flow and seep into the grass A discussion continued regarding the pool water reaching the rim, coming out of the pool and backwashed through the filter into the sanitary sewer. After further discussion,Ms. Reader reiterated that the applicant will install eight additional rhododendrons on the southerly border to westerly edge of the pool deck for screening. Mr. Kaplan understands that the raised basement might be substantially above the current ground level,and asked if that counts in the calculation of the allowed height of the building. Mr. Capicotto said that is a Building Department question, but an average grade around the house can be taken. Mr. Senor said the only wall on the basement that is exposed is the portion towards the stream. The patio is one step down from the first floor. The pool area is four or five steps down from the first floor. The only wall that is fully exposed faces the west. A discussion continued regarding the height, average grade and depth of the house. Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Darsky said the Board has to assume that the tallest point of the house will not exceed nor violate the code. Mr. Davis said there are several separate issues; the number of stories, if there is too much of the house above grade a third story is created and the 2'h story limit is exceeded. Mr. Davis expanded on that issue. Mr. Senor said he will meet all Building Department regulations in reference to the house. Ms. Reader stated a partial answer to Mr. Kaplan's question is that it is not a completely raised basement but a grade level basement on one side and on three other sides it is below grade. Because of that, the house is not deemed a house that is completely above grade. Mr. Davis pointed out the issues of importance; the wetlands issues and that some decisions were made when subdivision was granted which the Board is required to assume. Ms. Reader feels it appropriate for neighbors to inquire at a public hearing in a broader sense. Jane Kaplan of 7 Split Tree Road appeared. Ms. Kaplan said there is a siltation fence along the stream and asked if it is ever put on the property line to prevent silt from accumulating on the rear of the property. Mr. Capicotto said as the construction area pitches toward that property, it will be done. The erosion control permit will handle this issue with hay bales, silt fence, etc. Mr. Reader said when construction is being performed Ms. Kaplan should speak to the Building Department to focus on this matter. Mr. Capicotto then addressed the drainage of the pool into the sanitary sewer. Mr. Papazian suggested the applicant be given a wider flexibility and range of choice regarding plantings to be used for screening as long as the height level is met when approved. Ms. Reader asked if the wording plantings is more agreeable than rhododendron, to which Mr. Papazian agreed. Barry Weisfeld, 109 Griffen Avenue appeared. Mr. Weisfeld said he is the owner of the adjoining property that was originally subdivided and was also present at the approval of the original subdivision. At that time the driveway was 40 ft. off his property line. The new proposed driveway is about 14 ft. or 15 ft. off the property line. The original footprint for the house was 40 ft. by 70 ft, the current proposed house is 75 ft. by 55 ft. with a pool. The house, driveway and pool fall into the 100 ft. control zone and Mr. Weisfeld would like to know why the 100 ft. control has not been addressed this evening. Mr. Weisfeld said it took him six months to resolve and enormous resources to comply with all the Planning Board requests for his project. Mr. Capicotto said a determination was made by the State that the area at that time was not under requirement of the DEC, which was verified in a letter from the State. Other setbacks have been met; there is a sewer easement and construction is permitted on the edge of that easement. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Weisfeld is speaking about being within the 100 ft. buffer of a wetlands or being within the 100-year flood plain zone. Mr. Senor stated Mr. Weisfeld is referring to the fact that the applicant is only within the 100 ft. buffer zone of the wetlands,which is the edge of the stream. In the original subdivision,the suggested house was proposed to be 18 ft. off the property. In this project the applicant is proposing 15 ft. off the property, 40 ft. off the back yard, and 5 ft. off the property line for the driveway on the house side. The house was enlarged in a natural design in a direction away from the easement so as not to encroach on the easement Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 11 given to Mr. Weisfeld. The applicant is within the 100 ft. setback and is before the Board for a permit for controlled activity. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Weisfeld had an engineer presenting his matter. Mr. Weisfeld said he did have an engineer presenting his matter. Ms. Reader said the standards are the same but each project is determined independently depending on the particular property. Mr. Weisfeld said he was not permitted to use macadam in the driveway but was required to put down blocks in sand, not cemented, because of the concern over drainage. Mr. Weisfeld said he is 50 ft. to the left, away from the river. How is that a concern a few years ago, and not now. Dr. Mason said two factors come into play. The pitch in the applicant's particular driveway towards the stream does not give the benefit received from the blocks because it is steep. Because of such an incline snow removal on the paving blocks is more difficult. Macadam is more appropriate and that was the thinking when it was before the CZMC. Mr. Weisfeld said the macadam is near the Sheldrake River. Dr. Mason said the consideration was drainage and percolation not the surface water. The applicant is making other provisions for the surface water. Ms. Reader said the circular drive in the new proposal are pavers. The purpose was to increase the percolation, the same consideration given to Mr. Weisfeld. A discussion continued regarding the use of pavers on the full length of the driveway from the bridge to the circular drive until it was pointed out it is detrimental. Mr. Weisfeld said the relocation of the driveway places the driveway within 5 ft of Mr. Weisfeld's property line. Under the former proposal the driveway was 40 ft. from Mr. Weisfeld's property line. Mr. Weisfeld indicates the driveway now is coming through Mr. Weisfeld's easement. Dr. Mason asked what easement Mr. Weisfeld was referring to and who granted the easement. Mr. Weisfeld said the easement was granted for the fence around the pool by the Town. A discussion ensued with Mr. Senor stating that the pool is the required distance, but at the time the fence around the pool was over the line at the edge, encroaching at the edge. Ms. Reader asked if there is an encroachment. Mr. Weisfeld said the encroachment is on the easement less than 5 ft. from the property. The corner of the house which is at street level by the garage, is also about 5 ft. from Mr. Weisfeld's property line. Mr. Senor said the zoning setback requires a driveway not be closer than 5 ft. to the property line. Mr. Weisfeld asked about the house setback. Mr. Senor said the house requires the minimum setback, 15 ft. Mr. Davis said the final subdivision did not require an easement. Ms. Reader said it may be a private easement. Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 12 Ms. Reader recalled that the subdivision provided an easement to the second piece of property. Ms. Reader said an easement is not an extension of Mr. Weisfeld's property,but is a right to use the adjoining property. The issue is whether the current project encroaches on Mr. Weisfeld's easement. A lengthy discussion continued between Mr. Weisfeld and Mr. Zonsius regarding this matter. Mr. Darsky suggested the Board take and deal with each issue separately. Mr. Weisfeld said the first issue is the driveway. Putting the driveway at 15 ft. there are large trees that would have to be removed on Mr. Weisfeld's property or face being killed. Mr. Senor said that the driveway is 15 ft. from the property line. Mr. Darsky asked Mr. Weisfeld if the trees that will be damaged are on his property. Mr. Weisfeld said that is correct. Mr. Senor said the setback of the driveway is 5 ft. Mr. Darsky asked the applicant if he is endangering trees on Mr. Weisfeld's property even though the setback is appropriate. Mr. Senor said as far as endangering the trees on Mr. Weisfeld's property, the applicant is pretty far away from the property line. Mr. Darsky asked why Mr. Weisfeld thinks the trees will be endangered. Mr. Weisfeld said based on where the trees are located. The area starts out at 15 ft. and as it goes up the driveway it becomes less than 5 ft. Mr. Darsky asked for clarification whether the driveway is less than 5 ft. from Mr. Weisfeld's property. Mr. Weisfeld said 5 ft. Mr. Davis referred to the Town code regarding the setback distance of the driveway and the easement. Ms. Reader explained her confusion regarding easement and the fence. Mr. Senor said when Mr. Weisfeld entered into a contract of sale to buy the Lourie house there was a fence around the pool that encroached into the vacant lot by 4.5 ft. Ms. Reader said as a point of clarification a property line is a property line, an easement does not extend the property. Mr. Davis said measurements are taken from the property line. Mr. Darsky said setbacks outside the easement is correct. Dr. Mason asked if the applicant were to build a fence or the fence is already built, can the driveway be built still exercising the right permitted under the easement to have a fence. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the easement and the fence. Mr. Senor said the easement for the fence was a triangular piece of the property, the length of the triangle is 41/2 ft., the driveway is 5 ft. off the property line, there is a 'h ft. distance between the fence and the driveway. • Planning Board March 11; 1998 Page 13 Mr. Darsky said as planned it will not encroach on the PasPment, and he does not understand the problem and asked Mr. Weisfeld to address the difficulty. Mr. Senor said the driveway is essentially on grade on the existing ground at that point, top soil will be removed but there will be no difficulty. Mr. Darsky asked if there is a danger of damaging Mr. Weisfeld's trees if the driveway is placed as planned. Mr. Davis then discussed the law regarding nuisance framework for the use of property and said it is not an issue for this Board. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Weisfeld that the Board cannot take any action on a supposition that something might occur, which the Board concurred with. Mr. Weisfeld said he needs to know how the dry wells will work in soil, especially going across the utility easement. Before Laurie built the house that exists, a house was taken down and buried. Mr. Senor said as part of the original construction a house was taken down closer to the brook on the south side and a new house was built at its current location. Mr. Weisfeld said that he did not believe the Board properly answered his questions regarding the 100 ft. setback. Mr. Darsky reiterated to take each issue separately. The only issue addressed to completion before the Board is the three part question of the driveway and asked Mr. Weisfeld to layout further issues of concern. Mr. Weisfeld said he was prevented from building a Jacuzzi because it resided within 100 ft. of the Sheldrake River. The pool that is proposed resides within 100 ft. of the Sheldrake River. Mr. Weisfeld would like to know why it is being approved when Mr. Weisfeld was prevented from building a similar type structure. Ms. Reader did not remember a Jacuzzi but a circular driveway, and possibly the Building Department rejected the Jacuzzi issue. Mr. Weisfeld said the Planning Board rejected it. Dr. Mason said it never came before the CZMC and it would have. Mr. Capicotto asked if there was a Freshwater Wetlands Permit for that property, which was verified. Mr. Weisfeld said he resides here and complied for months and years to keep the property beautiful in the area and does not understand why the Board approves things that were denied to a resident. A discussion ensued regarding recollection of the Jacuzzi issue, the year it was applied for and the reason for the rejection of same. Ms. Reader said the issue before the Board is this particular project. Mr. Weisfeld's project was considered. Ms. Reader said that each project has its own problems and there is not a correlation of one to the other. Mr. Darsky asked Mr. Weisfeld if all the Board addressed all his issues of concern, because if not Mr. Weisfeld has the right to delineate each and every issue. Mr. Weisfeld said the Board did address all of his concerns. Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 14 Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments with respect to this project. Valerie O'Keeffe questioned the building of a swimming pool that necessitates more water running off. Mr. Senor said because of the height, the location of the pool and elevation with respect to the first floor, most of the pool will be above ground or in a fill area. The storm water calculations that were done are a calculation based on total impervious surface; i.e. the driveway, including the circular driveway where the pavers are, the house, the pool and all the decking around the pool and patio which calculated a zero net increase of runoff from. Ms. O'Keeffe said the water is going into dry wells and they are not around the pool. Mr. Senor said that water will stay in the pool and will not flow out of the pool. The applicant is taking. care of a percentage more than required to on the calculations. Ms. Reader asked if there were any further questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Reader said there are additional permits and regulations that have to be discussed. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Capicotto in addition to the Freshwater Wetlands, the Building Department and the PEER review people have a series of regulations; i.e. erosion control, setbacks, engineering requirements, Best Management Practices that are not the purview of the Planning Board but must be satisfied. A discussion then ensued regarding zero increase in the rate of runoff, adverse impact avoided by the design of the project and the issuance of a negative declaration. Ms. Reader read a draft of the negative declaration prepared by counsel. Dr. Mason informed the Board a letter was received from Mr. &Mrs. Peter Ciregna stating they were not properly notified. The Planning Board secretary checked the records and found all the appropriate people were notified. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Roma if that was correct, which Ms. Roma verified. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian and unanimously approved, it is RESOLVED, that this Board finds this matter to have no substantial environmental impact under SEQRA and directs the filing of a Negative Declaration. Ms. Reader asked for a discussion on the resolution for approval of the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit. After some discussion and a straw pole taken, on a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the application be, and hereby is, adjourned to the April 8, 1998 Planning Board meeting for counsel to draft the proper language to be included in the resolution for the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit and for a draft resolution to be submitted for the Bond's . Bobby Ben-Simon, owner of the property, appeared and said he has accommodated the panel above and beyond, going through the expense of all the requirements stated; i.e. paving the driveway, raising the house, eliminating the walls along the property, shrubbery requirements, satisfied the concerns of the CZMC to satisfy the neighbors and various committees. The delay of another month will cause substantial debt. Mr. Ben-Simon said he worked with the Boards, the engineer and the architect to make sure it complied and asked the Board to take that into consideration. Planning Board March 11, 1998 • Page 15 Mr. Davis stated the Board has accommodated Mr. Ben-Simon by conducting a public hearing this evening, rather than continuing the consideration from last month's meeting. The Board believes the matter is complex enough so that drafting a resolution on the spur of the moment is not a prudent action to take. Mr. Davis understands Mr. Ben-Simon's frustration, but feels the Board's judgment is correct and for everybody's welfare the resolution should be carefully drafted. Mr. Zonsius asked if the matter could be resolved the next week. Mr.Davis said the resolution has to be adopted at a public hearing. The Board must make formal findings, which the Board was not in a position to do because various questions were not answered. Ms. Reader said that plans were presented this evening for the Board to review, when the applicant had been informed specifically to have everything discussed with the Town engineer and the Building Department at least two weeks before the meeting date. After considerable further discussion and the consensus of Board's approval for the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit at the April 8, 1998 meeting, Mr. Zonsius was advised to discuss the matter with the Director of Building, Ronald Carpaneto, regarding obtaining a building permit. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Zonsius that the negative declaration is resolved, which is a requirement of the Freshwater Wetlands permit process. What has not yet been formally adopted is the resolution granting the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses permit. Mr. Davis stated the Board determined this evening that there is no significant adverse impact. The Board also took a straw vote showing approval for granting the permit. Approval is not actually granted until the Board formally votes on a resolution,however, and until that time the Board retains the right to change its mind. Mr. Ben-Simon asked why it is necessary to wait a full month to review the language of the draft resolution. Mr. Davis said a resolution must be adopted at a public meeting,which will occur next month and referred to the Sunshine Law. On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the application be, and hereby is, adjourned to the April 8, 1998 Planning Board meeting for a decision on the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit. Mr. Zonsius asked if his appearance was necessary at the April 8, 1998 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Davis said that someone should be available to answer questions that may arise. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -LEHRER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP- LAUREL MANOR/James J. Vanoli - 1001 Fenimore Road - Blocks 301 and 302 lot 1 On a motion duly 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. Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 16 James J. Vanoli, 1001 Fenimore Road, appeared representing the applicant. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Vanoli to address the three issues that were to be on the final plat as noted in the resolution, referring to the Minutes of January 8, 1997, when subdivision approval was made. Mr. Vanoli addressed these issues to the satisfaction of the Board. Ms. Reader verified with Mr. Capicotto that everything that was needed on the plat is noted as such. Mr. Davis clearly identified that he, Tony Capicotto and Ronald Carpaneto, Director of Building, were involved in the review. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Stephen Kantor said he was at the January 8, 1997 meeting and asked what changes have occurred. Mr. Vanoli stated that no changes have been made. Ms. Reader said the January 8, 1997 meeting was for preliminary approval of the subdivision. In the interim, the applicant has complied with all the requirements of the preliminary subdivision approval and is seeking final subdivision approval including the filing of the Mylar plat with the County of Westchester. Mr. Davis clarified that the bond has not yet been posted,as stated in the draft resolution before the board. The easements required by the subdivision have all been executed by applicant. The resolution provides that as a condition of receiving the building permit the bond has to be provided in a form satisfactory to the Building Inspector and filed in accordance. Ms. Reader stated the certification for the final subdivision is conditioned upon satisfaction of that. Mr. Davis said the draft resolution was carried forward from the direction of the preliminary subdivision. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Reader read the proposed draft resolution. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the following resolution was unanimously approved: WHEREAS, Lehrer Limited Partnership, by James J. Vanoli, P.E. (the "Applicant"), has submitted an application for Final Subdivision Approval in proper form and complying with all requirements of the Town,other municipal agencies, the comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and this Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the application for final subdivision approval on March 11, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Subdivision Approval granted on January 15, 1997 has not been revoked; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the Applicant, the criteria contained in 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.7(c), identified the relevant area of environmental concern, determined that the proposed subdivision will have no significant environmental effect, and set forth its determination of significance and the basis therefor in a negative declaration, dated November 14, 1996, which was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on November 27, 1996; and Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 17 WHEREAS, each of the easements described in the Preliminary Subdivision Approval have been executed by the Applicant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Final Subdivision Approval is hereby granted to Lehrer Limited Partnership to develop the subdivision to be known as Laurel Manor, on property now known as 1001 Fenimore Road (Section 1 Block 301 Lot 1 and Block 302 Lot 1) in the Town of Mamaroneck pursuant to the application and plans prepared by James J. Vanoli, P.E. and subject to all terms and conditions set forth in the Preliminary Subdivision Approval and below: I. General Requirements 1. All curbs, pavement, suitable monuments, water mains, storm drains, sanitary sewer facilities, landscaping and street trees shall be installed or planted in accordance with the latest standards and specifications in force at the time work is started in accordance with the approval plan,particularly the Final Subdivision Approval Plan,prepared by James J. Vanoli,P.E., dated October 27, 1997,and last revised February 20, 1998. 2. The issuance of the Certificates of Occupancy shall be contingent upon the Applicant's compliance to the satisfaction of the Planning Board with the terms and conditions contained in the Preliminary Subdivision Approval and herein. II. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Sanitary Sewerage.Drainage,and Conservation Easements 1. The Applicant must comply with the Town Surface Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control Law so that the rate of runoff from the property is not increased after construction. Detailed design shall be consistent with the stormwater drainage system shown on the January 8, 1998 plans and the Drainage Report last revised June 18, 1996, prepared by James J. Vanoli, P.E. 2. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall present to the Building Inspector certified copies of the fully executed and filed and/or recorded conservation, sanitary sewerage and drainage easements, as described in the Preliminary Subdivision Approval. 3. Upon completion of all sanitary sewerage and storm drain facilities, the Applicant shall arrange for all such facilities to be flushed and cleaned. 4. Anchorage details for the proposed footbridge on each of Lots 5 and 6 in compliance with the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. B. Erosion and Sediment Control During Construction 1. Erosion and sedimentation control shall be in accordance with the Town Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Law. 2. Erosion and sediment control plans shall be approved by the Town Consulting Engineer prior to commencement of construction. Such control plans shall include a construction timetable and inspection schedule. Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 18 C. Blasting 1. All blasting on the premises shall be done in accordance with the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and the most stringent,currently accepted engineering standards. 2. No blasting may be conducted without first obtaining a permit from the Town Building Department. 3. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall hold harmless and indemnify the Town, its officials, elected or appointed, employees, agents, and the Consulting Engineer from and against all claims, losses,damages and expenses, direct,indirect,consequential or otherwise (including but not limited to fees and charges of attorneys and other professionals and court and arbitration costs) arising out of or resulting from the blasting performed by the Applicant, its employees, contractors or agents. D. Trees 1. Compliance with the Tree Preservation Law of the Town of Mamaroneck is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Twelve Eastern Red Cedar trees shall be planted on the westerly border of Lot 2 to provide a visual buffer between Lot 2 and the lot to the west, designated on the survey, dated February 23, 1996, as "Land N/F Meyer." 3. All other plantings shall be in accordance with the Tree Preservation and Planting Plans submitted by the Applicant. E. Performance Bonds/Letter of Credit 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance bond and/or letter of credit in favor of the Town of Mamaroneck shall be filed in amounts to be determined by the Town Engineer, and in form satisfactory to the Town Attorney. A performance bond will be accepted for an amount not exceeding 75 percent of the amount determined by the Town Engineer, and the balance shall be secured by a letter of credit. 2. The term of the performance bond and letter of credit shall be from the commencement of construction through and including acceptance of improvements by the Town. A maintenance bond shall be posted thereafter in an amount equal to 40% of the original amount of the performance bond and letter of credit. Such maintenance bond shall run for one year after acceptance of improvements by the Town. 3. Upon the expiration of the performance bond and letter of credit, in the event that construction on the site is not completed, the Applicant shall repair and/or restore any and all public improvements damaged as a result of activities of the Applicant, including but not limited to, construction activities. 4. Upon acceptance by the Town of the public improvements, the amount of the performance bond and letter of credit shall be reduced to 40% of the original amount. Planning Board March 11, 1998 Page 19 F. Utility Connections All house water and sewer connections shall be installed to the property lines of Lots 1-6 prior to placement of the road base course for Laurel Manor Lane. G. Required Documents and Inspections 1. The Applicant shall provide one Mylar reproducible set of approved drawings to the Town and one copy to the office of. the Town Consulting Engineer. 2. The Applicant shall submit to the Town one Mylar reproducible set showing the"as built"conditions for utility and sewer connections prior to the granting of Certificates of Occupancy for the residences to be constructed in this subdivision. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Vanoli that the Laurel subdivision is approved and signed the Mylar. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. NEW MATTER Mr. Davis said that Trader Joe's previously appeared before the Board, at which time the Board approved site plan, issued a Negative Declaration and the matter was referred to the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC). After that, there was confusion in the applicant's mind as to whether a special use permit was required as an independent approval. The applicant has now applied for a special use permit. Mr. Davis' recommendation to the Board is that a Public Hearing be set for the April 8, 1998 meeting. To schedule this matter for consideration seems unnecessary at this time. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing be, and hereby is, scheduled for Trader Joe's for a Special Use Permit for the April 8, 1998 Planning Board meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on April 8, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Dr. Mason, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary