Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_03_13 Planning Board Minutes (2) AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 13, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman . ' , ; 'fi r Richard H. Darsky � ' r Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Stephen Andrew Moser Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Susan Delapp, Public Stenographer % f, Carbone & Associates, Ltd. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:17 p.m. Ms. Reader then welcomed the new Planning Board member, Stephen Andrew Moser, to the Board. Mr. Moser is a registered architect, educated at Cornell, has a Masters at Harvard. Mr. Moser has performed as a principal project manager on international projects, and also most importantly in Larchmont. It is a privilege to welcome Mr. Moser to the Board. Ms. Reader also wished to thank board member Mr. Ed Gonye who has resigned due to travel commitments in his business. Mr. Gonye has been a member of the Board for approximately eight years, serving one full term and then had volunteered to serve a second term with the Board. He felt because he had been unable to attend the last few meetings due to business commitments, it was in the best interests for himself and the Board to resign. Mr. Gonye has been a marvelous member of the committee who was always pleasant, and his sense of humor always contributed well to the Board's considerations as well as his insights. The Board wishes Mr. Gonye well in his travels. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Darsky and seconded by Dr. Mason, the Minutes for February 14, 1996 were unanimously approved. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tracarico - 771 Forest Avenue - Block 210 Lot 35 On a motion was made by and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Planning Board • March 13, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Widulski appeared with the applicants. He then proceeded to say that following the last meeting the applicants got an aerial photograph of the Town maps of the general area and proceeded to point out areas in question regarding the flood plain elevations in relation to the applicants' property with the Board. He took a contour elevation of 72 ft. as the 100-year flood plain, even though on the flood plain map the applicants' property shows an elevation of 70 ft. At that elevation, the stream contour line on each edge of the stream is 70 ft. If this is true, the water doesn't come out of the stream, but we know it does. It comes to about 72 ft. He said he took the 72 ft. elevation. At the bridge the elevation is 69 ft. That bridge is a lot smaller. Mr. Widulski said elevation 72 ft. as the 100-year flood plain elevation is more to the truth than 70 ft. shown on the flood plain map. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Widulski to explain the flood plain elevations in non-engineering terms. It seemed that Mr. Widulski was inferring, in his educated interpretation, that the flood plain map was incorrect in the statement of 70 ft. at the location where the house exists. It should be 72 ft. Mr. Widulski said that was correct, it is clearly too low. The map that was cross checked for elevations against a sewer map, confirmed his interpretation. Dr. Mason said that Mr. Widulski has taken a safer guess at 72 ft. and should go from there. Mr. Widulski said they developed a cross section across the rear of the house where the proposed swimming pool will be constructed, and these two sections are not in line with the projection of the building. One is 69 ft. to the existing wall, and the other is 78 ft. Using the building wall and pool location, Mr. Widulski then discussed the various grades and impact on the renderings presented at the meeting. Ms. Reader asked what was being done at that point in construction. Mr. Widulski said the applicant will fill around the pool which is the height of the building,which is 76 ft. above the flood plain. Dr. Mason asked about the construction of the pool material. Mr. Widulski said it was going to be constructed with concrete. Ms. Reader asked if the side of the pool was flush with the back of the building. Mr. Widulski said it is parallel to the back of the building, 15 ft. away. Ms. Reader asked what was between the back wall and pool. Mr. Widulski said a patio was in between. Currently there is a deck that projects about 4 ft. in that area. Dr. Mason asked about the surface of the patio. Mr. Widulski said the patio was flagstone. Ms. Moser asked what is the maximum allowable grade or slope around the pool. Mr. Tracarico said they were trying to find out how it impacts the flood plain. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if that was standard based upon convention as opposed to statute. Mr. Trachtman said Mr. Widulski is correct in that there are a number of alternatives possible for treating that side of the pool. Along the same lines, he was going to question whether or not it would be possible to decrease the width of the terrace. The pool has to be a minimum of 15 ft. away from the house. Planning Board March 13, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Widulski said the applicant may make a deck with a concrete flagstone patio adjacent to the pool. Mr. Trachtman said the cross section,northerly side, shows that the 100-year flood plain would submerge part of the fill slope and would be up against the side of the pool. The applicant might be able to mitigate that by reducing the width of the terrace and putting the pool closer to the house. The zoning ordinance may not permit going closer to the house. Another alternative would be a low wall where the pool is shown, about 1 ft. or 18 in. high, like a retaining wall. Mr. Moser said it is his understanding that the 100-year flood plain comes up to an elevation of 76 ft. Mr. Widulski said it comes up to 72 ft. It is caused by down-stream obstructions, the bridge being one. There is also a Town drain laying in the stream, a concrete pipe with a retaining wall behind it that is causing the flow to be impeded. The stream has widened out, made its own way and has exposed an entire length of concrete pipe, 6 ft. to 8 ft. What the applicant has done is walled the entire rear yard, and has a channel that is in excess of 20 ft. wide. Mr. Trachtman said a study done on the Sheldrake River in 1991 indicates that the 100-year flood plain would rise to an approximate elevation of 72 ft. in that vicinity. The 25-year flood plain is not that much further away. Dr. Mason said part of the problem is that the west branch comes down and creates a dynamic blocking, so Mr. Widulski is quite right in plugging in his safety factor. Mr. Reader asked if the Board needs plans to show the retaining wall and other mitigating structures. Mr. Trachtman said that is part of the building permit process. Mr. Widulski said he had a plan, which he presented to the Board, and discussed. Ms. Reader asked Attorney Silverberg if specific plans were needed, or can that be granted subject to approval. Normally, the Board is given plans with various mitigating factors in them. Attorney Silverberg said if this is information needed to show compliance with permit requirements, then the Board should review it. Ms. Reader suggested that Mr. Widulski speak to Mr. Trachtman to verify everything needed on the plans, so that next time the Board will be in a position to close the matter. Mr. Moser stated that being a new board member, he asked if this was in a controlled area. Mr. Trachtman said it is within 100 ft. of the stream which puts it into what is referred to as an adjacent area or a controlled area in the Town Law. That requires that the Board go through a review process. Mr. Trachtman prepared a letter on the subject presented this evening, which summarizes the review process the applicant must go through under the Wetlands Law. The law is specific for construction of this nature, a residential structure in the adjacent area of the wetlands, and the State has guidelines. There are some related issues that have to do with sediment and erosion control measures during the construction process that has been partially addressed on the plans to date. Mr. Trachtman said there are additional comments in the letter presented. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Widulski had received a copy of the letter. A copy of the letter was presented to Mr. Widulski this evening. Mr. Trachtman said a bond should be posted in the amount of$1,500.00. Mr. Moser said as it is steeply graded around the pool,how does the applicant propose to stabilize the soil. Planning Board March 13, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Widulski said the applicant will bring in a landscape plan at the next meeting. Ms. Harrington asked about traffic concerns. Mr. Widulski said that is addressed on the plans presented. Mr. McGahan said due to the fact that this matter is at the Sheldrake River which is a critical area, it should be referred to the Coastal Zone Management Committee (CZMC) for review. Mr. Widulski said the applicant had made an application to the CZMC and will be heard on March 26, 1996. A motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved to adjourn the PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT- Mr. &Mrs. Frank Tracarico - 771 Forest Avenue - Block 210 Lot 35 until April 10, 1996 to allow Mr. Widulski to address to questions presented. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Guo Tong Lin/George Poline -Lucky Wok - 2423 Boston Post Road - Block 505 Lot 463 Mr. Poline and Mr. Lin appeared and said everything was in place and ready for opening. Ms. Reader asked if the restaurant was already operating. Mr. Poline said the applicant did operate for a number of days, as the applicant thought when the sign was granted he could open the restaurant. The applicant closed when Mr. Poline advised him he needed the special use permit. Ms. Reader said this is an application for a Special Use Permit to operate a take-out Chinese restaurant in a location where there had previously been at least one, maybe two, take-out Chinese restaurants. The applicant is just moving into the space and opening the business and referred to a copy of the previous certification. Ms. Reader asked the applicant if he was requesting the same hours of operation. Mr. Poline said the applicant would like the hours of operation to be from 11:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. rather than 11:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. On a motion was made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved that the resolution for a Special Use Permit of Guo Tong Lin and George Poline, as landlord, for the Lucky Wok as follows: WHEREAS, Guo Tong Lin/George Poline/Lucky Wok submitted an application for a Special Permit for use of the premises at 2423 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 463 as a take-out restaurant; and Planning Board March 13, 1996 Page 5 WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on March 13, 1996 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Permit, the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant, comments and responses to questions by the applicant, the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,vibrations,flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Permit; 3. The proposed Special Permit use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of Guo Tong Lin/George Poline/Lucky Wok for a Special Permit for a take-out restaurant subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The hours of operation of the store shall be 11:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. daily. 2. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in 89-53 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. On a motion was made by and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION-TOWN OF MAMARONECK RECREATION DEPARTMENT - 140 Hommocks Road - Block 411 Lot 1 & 16 Dick Ward of Ward Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, who have been retained by the Town to design the outdoor components at the Hommocks appeared, and said he would make his presentation with Bill Zimmerman of the Town Recreation Department. Attorney Silverberg said that Mr. Zimmerman would be delayed due to a previous meeting, and the Town administrator requested that Mr. Ward should proceed with the presentation. Mr. Ward said he would briefly describe the project. Ward Associates is working with the Town to develop a wading pool and a training pool in the outdoor area the area that is currently enclosed by a fence. There will be some decks and a small filter building included in the project. The project will be landscaped with lawns,plantings and buffers. Last night one of the Ward engineers reviewed the project at the Coastal Zone Management meeting. In two weeks the Ward architect will review the project at the Board of Architectural Review Board meeting. This summer the project will receive bids, and construction will hopefully start in September, 1996. Planning Board • March 13, 1996 Page 6 Dr. Mason said the present pool is notorious with all the problems the Town has had with it over the years and asked how Ward Associates planned this project so that it doesn't become an albatross. Mr. Ward said the pools are outdoor pools. The Town will not have the problem of a roof structure, which they previously did. The pools and the building will be pile supported structures with all piping encased in the concrete and hung from the structural slabs and beams. Ms. Reader asked how much more impervious surface will result from this project. Mr. Ward said obviously there is more than what exists now. However, the drainage on site is designed to mitigate an increase in impervious surface. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman if he looked at the piling structure, how it is tied together at the top, and the support on this. Mr. Trachtman said he had not done that. Mr. Ward referred to a particular junction in the renderings and they had mapped out the structural points on the site plans. The structural plans are being produced at this time. Mr. Ward said the depths of the pools are as follows; the wading pool 0" to 14" deep; training pool would be a 2 ft. to 3 ft. depth. The training pool will be a great teaching station, 30 ft. x 50 ft., 1,500 sq. ft., and would be sloped 2 ft. to 3 ft. deep in one direction. Mr. Moser asked to refer to the previous impervious surface, because based on the drawing it looks like they are actually reducing the amount by 50%. Mr. Trachtman said the pipe line is there. The terrace area runoff will be routed through dry wells,which will be allowed to overflow into the catch basins. Ms. Harrington asked if Mr. Ward will be doing soil testing at the site with borings. Mr. Ward said they did take borings and found rock between 35 ft. and 40 ft. down and various layers of cinders to debris. Ms. Harrington asked if they found any chemicals or trace of any oils. Mr. Ward said the soil was not tested for chemicals,just soil borings which showed the strata of the soils, what was there and the consistency of the soils which confirmed that they were into pile supported structures and couldn't rely on what was there to support the pools and the support building. Mr. Trachtman asked if they did testing for methane gas. Mr.Ward said they did a series of probes,but nothing to be overly concerned about. On the filter building there might be cause for special ventilation. The information received from the boring logs hardly shows any kind of organics,just debris. Ms. Reader asked if wood debris was found. Mr. Ward said very little wood debris was found, mostly metals, cinders, broken rock and other construction matter. Ms. Harrington asked that the soil be tested for chemicals, so that children will not be exposed to this. Mr. Ward said they can include some testing in the contract to verify that there are not any toxins. • Planning Board • March 13, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Moser asked if the soil being excavated is being used for regrading. Mr. Ward said the area where they have some excavation is where the pools will go, and they will have the soil tested. Mr. Ward passed around a color illustration of the project. Mr. Moser asked how Mr. Ward will be grading next to the driveway. Mr. Ward said there will be a steeper grade than already exists,but will essentially be the same. Around the deck they are collecting an underground system tied into the system in an overflow. Attorney Silverberg said the EAF talks about 9.5 acres of a project area. Under the Type I list it says any Unlisted action which exceeds 25% of the threshold which are wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated park land, recreation area or designated open space, the potential threshold would be 25% of ten acres or 2-1/2 acres and the question of whether or not the project or action involves physical alterations on 2-1/2 acres or more. Mr. Ward said no. Mr. Silverberg concluded this would be an Unlisted action. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action. Attorney Silverberg said referrals should be made to the CZMC and the B.A.R. to request their comments for the April 10, 1996 Public Hearing meeting. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to schedule a Public Hearing for April 10, 1996 at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Ward said if there are any further questions feel free to pass them on to Bill Zimmerman, the Town coordinator, and they will be addressed. Dr. Mason asked if there was any way the pipes can be treated, bonded electrically or zinced to delay the process of corrosion. Mr. Ward will ask the structural engineer that question and address it at the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on April 10, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:26 p.m. 771a4 Margue Roma, Recording Secretary