Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_10_14 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 14, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington Edmund Papazian Absent: C. Alan Mason_ #kt Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel IPE�EIV Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer NuV 19 E� ,A4 1998 Katie Cullen, Public Stenographers grog twuupe Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. Eat 40 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 111# Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of September 9, 1998 and if there were any amendments. After some discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the amended Minutes were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Rick Bernstein - 24 Winged Foot Drive - Block 204 Lot 310 On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Mr. Darsky, 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. Benedict Salanitro, the engineer for the project, of 517 Linden Street, Mamaroneck, New York, appeared. Mr. Salanitro stated an informal presentation was made at the last meeting for the proposed work, to erect a retaining wall in the rear of the property as well as a chain link fence. Mr. Salanitro informed the board the applicant is also going before the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the height and setback of the fence. In regard to the discussion at the last meeting for softening the look of the wall, the applicant will plant ivy that will fall along the base of the wall and a 6 in. curb will be installed on the top, per Mr. Capicotto's suggestion. Mr. Salanitro presented the Board with revised plans, marked exhibit 1, and proceeded to enlighten the board about the revisions. The project entails the construction of a retaining wall to the rear of the property line, then projecting on either side of the property line near the Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 2 Leatherstocking Trail, which is Town property, proposes to erect a chain link fence, about 5 ft. in height on average. All the work will be done by manual excavation. Ms. Reader asked if the curb will be raised 6 in. above the level of the wall? Mr. Salanitro responded that it will be in order to keep the water from overflowing and cascading during severe downpours. Mr. Carpaneto asked if it will be spiked. Mr. Salanitro said it will be spiked on top. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from board members or the public. There being none, Ms. Reader asked if the fence is in soil, rather than on top of the railroad ties? Mr. Salanitro said that is correct. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from the community. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Salanitro what transpired when he appeared before the Zoning Board. Mr. Salanitro said there was not a quorum present at the last Zoning Board meeting, an informal discussion ensued with the members that were present and the case will be heard at the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Reader said whatever approvals are granted will be subject to approval by the Zoning Board. Ms. Gallent corrected Mr. Salanitro, explaining that there was a quorum of the Zoning Board at its last meet, but the applicant chose to delay the vote on his application until the full Board is present. Ms. Gallent also said that whatever approvals are granted will be subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Reader said approvals, if granted, will be subject to the plans dated August 11, 1998. Mr. Salanitro said the only variance being requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals is the location of the chain link fence above the wall. Ms. Gallent said any change that might transpire at the Zoning Board meeting regarding the footprint of the application in relation to the wetlands area would require a reappearance before the Planning Board by the applicant. Ms. Reader said the fence is irrelevant and is not affecting the freshwater wetlands. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the 5 ft. wall can be built according to zoning regulations. If nothing changes in the footprint, the applicant will not have to reappear before the Planning Board. A discussion ensued regarding same. Mr. Papazian said at the last meeting Mr. Salanitro stated there would be no increase in the ground water flow. Mr. Salanitro said that is correct, and explained that there will be a decrease. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments or questions. There being none, on a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 3 Ms. Reader stated that counsel has advised the Board that due to a change in the statute on SEQRA this is an Unlisted Action rather than a Type II action. On a motion made by Ms. Reader and unanimously approved, a Negative Declaration was ADOPTED. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, -seconded by Mr. Papazian the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS, Rick Bernstein has applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 for the premises located at Lot No. 24 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Lot 310 ; and WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in writing regarding this application to the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, that the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR §665.7; WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 having been held on October 14, 1998; RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Board concludes that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact pursuant to SEQRA; and, therefore adopts a Negative Declaration which is on file with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes finds as follows: 1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance of systems in a controlled area; 2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, because (A) the proposed activity will have only a minor impact, (B) it is the only practical alternative, and (C) it is compatible with the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or social burden on the community; 3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of any part of the wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective conditions imposed by this resolution; 4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of its minor impact in the controlled area; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Rick Bernstein for a permit, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, be and it hereby is GRANTED subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted by Benedict A. Salanitro, P.E. Civil Engineer, dated August 11, 1998, revised 9/30/98. 2. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or combination thereof; Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 4 3. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be in accordance with the requirements of the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code and the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law. 4. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 5. A cash deposit or bond for$2,500.00 shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or disturbed area (includes Erosion Control Permit). 6. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Christopher P. Knopp - 28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.1 The applicant, Christopher Knopp, of 28 Bonnie Way appeared, along with Eliot Senor, the engineer for the project. Mr. Knopp stated he is proposing to build a single family house and appeared for consideration last month before the Planning Board. On a motion made by Mr. Papazian, 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. Mr. Senor referred to the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) letter received, dated September 30, 1998, asking the following;(1)delineate the wetlands; (2)show landscaping; (3)verify the perc test. Mr. Senor said the wetlands were flagged by Mary Jahnig, soil scientist. The location was then surveyed, was put on the revised site plan, submitted and marked exhibit#1. Ms. Reader stated that the revised site plan should have been submitted to the CZMC to be reviewed, with comments provided to the Planning Board. Ms. Reader stated that the Board had requested any submission be submitted to the Board at least ten (10)days in advance of the meeting date for review. The Board is at a disadvantage when submission is made the evening of the meeting,because the input from the CZMC is not available nor has the consulting engineer had a chance to review the submission and make comments. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Senor to make his presentation so that the public, as well as the Board, can observe it. Mr. Senor said the perc test was performed on May 28, 1998 on the property. The perc test holes were 30 in. deep. No ground water was encountered at that depth. The revised plan shows additional wetlands plantings, Chokeberry, Meadow Sweet and Mountain Laurel. Ms. Aisen asked what trees will be taken away. Mr. Senor said five(5)deciduous trees will be removed which are indicated on the plan,as was previously indicated. Mr. Senor said the plan shows fifteen (15) plantings, but it is subject to the tree permit. Ms. Aisen asked about the size of the five (5) trees being removed. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Senor said the trees being removed are 32 in. in diameter. Ms. Aisen asked what caliper trees will be planted. Mr. Senor said generally trees of a 2 in. caliper. Mr. Senor said no trees are being taken down close to the wetlands. Mr. Knopp said the trees are at least 80 ft. away from the wetlands. Ms. Reader asked if all the trees being removed are in the front part of the property, Bonnie Way? Mr. Salanitro said yes, approximately half way between the street and the stream. A discussion ensued regarding the trees, and the location of the proposed house in that area. Ms. Aisen said she made a list of some of the concerns the Board raised during the previous application made on this property. One issue was the elevation of the house. Mr. Knopp said the house is exactly at the same elevation as approved at the time the subdivision was granted in '96, and garage floor as well. Ms. Aisen asked if anyone remembered the last issue at which point the other builder withdrew, as a final examination of the water problem on the site was never addressed. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Altieri, the Town Administrator, is present this evening to describe the changes made with respect to the work the Town has performed with regard to storm drainage in that vicinity. Ms. Reader said that each project stands on its own, and feels it is a mistake to discuss what might have been an issue in connection with the prior application for a number of reasons. One, the board does not know why the applicant withdrew, and this is a different project. Ms. Reader asked if there were any further questions with respect to this project. Ms. Capicotto asked Mr. Senor to address item#2 in the CZMC letter. Mr. Knopp read item #2 from the CZMC letter, "proof of the effectiveness of the proposed drainage structures/proof that existing calculations will remain accurate after the site has been altered," and said at the last CZMC meeting he asked if the Town wanted to have a representative or an engineer present when the perc test is performed. The CZMC said no one need be present, but verification is needed. Ms. Reader asked who performed the perc test. Mr. Senor said someone from his office. Ms. Reader asked the engineer if there are objective reports based upon the perc tests that show findings that can be reviewed and a determination made. Mr. Capicotto said the calculations indicate the value Mr. Senor calculated from the test, and the drawings have a seal on it. Mr. Senor said the Board is asking for verification of a perc test, which is what the board has. Mr. Athey said as far as item#2, the CZMC was not asking for verification of the perc test but requesting proof that the proposed drainage structures will be effective after the site has been altered, as it is immediately adjacent to a stream in the wetland area and there is also quite a bit of rock on the site. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Senor said the perc test was performed in the area of the proposed infiltrator units. Mr. Senor proceeded to explain to the Board the infiltrator unit and the elevation where the perc tests were performed. He said no ground water was encountered when the perc test was performed. The only construction in the area is the infiltrator, which is called a drainage structure. He is not changing any part of the ground in the area of the drainage. Mr. Senor pointed out the drainage structure on the plans, at which time a discussion ensued, with Mr. Senor explaining the workings of the infiltrator. Ms. Reader asked about the proposed drainage on the driveway. Mr. Senor said the driveway is draining toward the street. The driveway drainage is being picked up before it crosses the property line and is being brought back into the infiltrator. Mr. Papazian asked if there will be any increase in ground water flow, once the building is constructed? Mr. Senor said there will be no increase in ground water flow once the building is constructed. There is a lot of ledge rock, which is already 100% runoff, at which time a discussion ensued regarding this issue. Mr. Capicotto asked if Mr. Senor got a reading on the ground water. Mr. Senor said no ground water was encountered. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Altieri to address what has been done in that area regarding drainage. Mr. Altieri said the original reason for getting involved in the drainage issue on Bonnie Way has nothing to do with the proposed development. Mr. Altieri then enlightened the Board and the public on the problems encountered; (1)the drains not functioning properly; (2)water flooding Bonnie Way; (3)ponding at the corner of Weaver Street and Bonnie Way; (4) where the Sheldrake River meets the stream as the water cannot flow properly into the main channel so it accumulates and floods. Mr. Altieri said one problem found, which was easy to resolve, is where the water comes out of the City of New Rochelle and goes underground there is a screen on the inlet which becomes clogged with leaves, the water overflows the inlet and goes down Bonnie Way. As part of the general maintenance, when there is a prediction of any significant rain, the Highway Department crews now check the inlet for leaves, branches and the like. Clearing has also been done further up the Trail, with the consent of the City of New Rochelle, where there is a basin which has fill and some of that basin can be used to try to increase the retention. Mr. Altieri indicated that the Town also found that when water went into the pipe, there are two 24 in. pipes that course underneath the street, and one of the pipes is not functioning. A contractor was brought in to clear it out, and there were still problems. Last summer the Town cleared the entire stream and one of the outlet pipes was covered over with fill. The second pipe was exposed, so it functions along with the upper pipe. Mr. Altieri said on the corner of the lot there is a retaining wall with two pipes coming out of the wall. Trees were then removed along with silt and sediment from the stream, to increase its flow and efficiency. The problem discovered is that the velocity of the Sheldrake River is much greater than the tributary and when the water reaches that point it has no place to go. Mr. Altieri said the second phase of the work in that area is two-fold. One is to resolve this problem. The proposal is to close off the stream in that area, re-pipe the stream and run the pipe directly into the culvert. A contractor will be brought in to perform this work, which the Town Board will consider along with several other storm drain projects. Mr. Altieri then said the other problem is when there is significant rain, it creates a lake at the end of Bonnie Way. The problem became worse when the State replaced the culvert. Mr. Altieri said the Town believes the State may have damaged, broken or otherwise clogged the drain pipe running from the catch basin. The Town will perform the work to try to correct the problem, as part of the feasibility study. Mr. Altieri said most of the problems will be resolved when the flow is improved and made mention of the torrential downpours that occurred in March and June of this year and observations made. Mr. Altieri said the problem on the street seems to have been resolved, except for a portion. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 7 Ms. Risen asked if the project being considered, the Sheldrake River and the stream, is a proposal? Mr. Altieri said it is relatively inexpensive. A contractor will be hired to excavate, with the kind of equipment the Town does not possess. There are two alternatives. One will be to hire a contractor to do the entire project, another will be to use a contractor along with the Town forces. This project will be considered with many other projects. Mr. Altieri said a rock wall will be built to divert the water back into the stream. Ms. Aisen asked if the project will take care of the flooding problem on Bonnie Way. Mr. Altieri said it will resolve the problems experienced in the past. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the public. Judy Dichter and Barry Dichter, of 32 Bonnie Way, appeared. Mr. Dichter said the last time he appeared before the Board on the subject property, a substantial amount of information was submitted to the Board. He does not have all that information submitted,but it is a part of the record. Ms. Reader asked if a video was submitted. Mr. Dichter said a video was submitted. Marguerite Roma, the secretary, said the records were searched and there is not a copy of the video in the file. Ms. Reader said the video and information submitted in reference to the prior application is prior to the work that Mr. Altieri just discussed. Mr. Dichter said he is delighted to hear that another solution to the problem is being considered, as whatever has been done in that area in that past has been unsuccessful. Mr. Dichter stated he would like to make the pictures, video tape and hydrologists report submitted during the previous application part of the record, and will try to located a duplicate copy of the video tape. Mr. Dichter said the pictures he is going to discuss this evening, marked exhibit#2, are pictures that were taken after the work was done. Ms. Gallent said Mr. Dichter should make a list of what items he would like provided from the previous submission. Mr. Dichter said he would like submitted from the prior submission a copy of the video tape showing the conditions of the water (which he will provide), the pictures presented on a poster board with a map of the area,and the report by the hydrologist,Tessier Environmental Consulting. A hydrologist has been retained who would like to study the design, have access to perc tests and have the hydrologist who previously participated in the perc test present along with one appointed by the Board, because of the water problem that exists when it rains creating the ponding. Mr. Dichter said the plans submitted this evening may not be adequate to meet the requirements under Local Law. In addition to the wetlands, there are other control areas that effect this property. The property is a rainfall drainage system and has been historically since the neighborhood was developed in about 1941, 1942. It has been a historic exit for water on Bonnie Way. Under Local Law, the plans have to show it. There was some concern regarding the new type of well, the infiltrator,and would like the hydrologist to know about that. Mr. Dichter said that the lot in question was intentionally left open by the developer as a drainage easement. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Dichter was referring to the original subdivision in the 1930's. Mr. Dichter said possibly the '30's or 40's. Mr. Dichter said it is a covenant that runs with the land and enforced by the neighbors. The lot was originally split into two 40 ft. parts. Each 40 ft. part had a new Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 8 restriction that required an 80 ft. frontage to build a house. It was intentionally split by the developer, so it would not be sold. When one of the parties tried to put it back together again, the developer put a new restriction on drainage and easement rights. The developer also provided that there be no construction on that lot. Many deeds on that block refer to drainage rights and easements. Ms. Gallent said it is private issue between the parties. Ms. Reader understands what Mr. Dichter is saying, but it is not enforceable by the Board. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Dichter needs to show the Board what is referred to as an easement and covenants that restrict building. Mr. Darsky said Mr. Dichter also has to show if there is an easement, how the structure would impinge upon it. Ms. Gallent stated that easements are not enforceable by the Board. Ms. Reader said if it is a significant issue and Mr. Dichter is correct, it should be taken to the Supreme Court. Mr. Dichter continued with his presentation calling the Board's attention to the seven (7) photographs, labeled A-G, on poster board taken within the last few weeks, which referred to 32 Bonnie Way and 23 Bonnie Way, marked exhibit#2. Ms. Aisen suggested that the address of the project also be included on the poster board. Mr. Dichter said the pictures on top of the poster board, marked A,B,C were taken in May of this year and the pictures at the bottom, marked D-G, were taken on September 3rd of this year. Mr. Dichter said picture "A" shows there was a very modest rainfall at the time, pictures "B" and "C" show the subject lot, in picture "D" behind the tree there is ponding water, picture C, the subject lot, behind the tree is ponding water. There was no flooding or water over the curb stone,just rain water. If the video is located, it will show this area totally flooded. Pictures "D" through"G" were taken from Mr. Dichter's house, 32 Bonnie Way, after a torrential rainfall on September 2, 1998. Ms. Reader asked if the Dichter house in on a corner and if the presentation is showing both sides of the corner? Mrs. Dichter their residence is a corner house and is showing both her residence, 32 Bonnie Way, and the house across the street, 23 Bonnie Way. Mr. Dichter said picture "D" is looking with your back towards Weaver Street, looking up, Bonnie Way to the left. The driveway of the house pictured in "F", is immediately behind the four previous pictures. The line of leaves that are shown in the pictures were deposited there by floodwaters. The thunderstorm did not make any major impact. Picture "E", the leaf line, in relationship to the street and the house, shows how far up the water rose and the continuation of the front yard in picture "F". Picture "G" is the house across the street from the Dichter house, which is 23 Bonnie Way. The leaf line on their front lawn goes behind the tree across the front lawn. Ms. Reader said she realizes the answer to her question, the windows are the same, these pictures show the front. Ms. Dichter said she is trying to point out, in these pictures, that the leaf line goes across the lawn and in the back toward the swing. The water pools around and in the neighbor's lawn up the walk. Mr. Dichter pointed out that with respect to drainage, dry wells and pipe, there is a catchment basin directly in front of 32 Bonnie Way, a catchment basin at the corner of 23 Bonnie Way and those catchment basins were not plugged nor filled. They were simply inadequate to handle the volume of water at that Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 9 time. Mr. Dichter said the pipes were not clogged, the catchment basins were wide open, and this should not have happened. Mr. Dichter said now there is talk about dry wells. Mr. Papazian asked where Mr. Dichter's house is in relation to the subject lot. Ms. Dichter said two lots to the left. Mr. Dichter said it is on the same side of the street, the Ladner house next to it and then the subject lot. Ms. Reader stated two lots then the rock? Mr. Dichter said the rock is one lot over and extends onto the Ladner property. Ms. Reader said the layout is the McCarthy property, the empty lot, the Ladner property, then the Dichter property. Mr. Dichter voiced his concerns about the system that may be built and the problems that will still arise. Mr. Capicotto said the trench drain on the subject property with the 4 in. pipe is intended just to drain the driveway. Ms. Reader said this house is positioned and designed differently than the original. Mr. Senor said it is the same plan and house location, but the original prior plan showed more driveway and change to the site then currently being proposed. Mr. Dichter said there is a question of whether the wetlands are properly drawn on the map, which is a legal issue. Ms. Gallent said if Mr. Dichter wants to make the same argument that he made last time, he must make that argument again and not just refer to it as an argument made in the prior application on this site. Mr. Dichter then talked about the infiltrator proposed to be used, and stated he would like a hydrologist's report submitted to be reviewed. Mr. Senor said the plan has not been altered in any way with respect to proposed drainage or landscaping. Mr. Senor mentioned that the wetlands map was professionally certified and flagged. Mr. Senor said they are professional engineers and land surveyors. Mr. Senor said Mr. Dichter, who is not a professional, is critiquing a plan that was professionally prepared. After further discussion, Ms. Reader informed Mr. Dichter he has the right to hire a hydrologist to comment on the current proposed plan and project. All comments pertaining to the prior proposal should not be discussed, as this is not a comparison. Each project that comes before the Board is reviewed upon that project. Mr. Knopp explained the changes that occurred on the proposed plan. Mr. Reader suggested Mr. Dichter take a copy of the proposed plan, hire a hydrologist and have the hydrologist make a presentation of findings to the Board at the next meeting. Ms. Reader said that this matter will be adjourned to the next meeting, and recommended that the hydrologist's report and any other submission by the applicant or whomever, be submitted at least ten (10) days prior to the next month's meeting to allow sufficient time for review by the Board, the Town Engineer, the public and the applicant. Ms. Reader also suggested the applicant describe where the house is and how the proposed structure is different from the previous structure. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 10 Ms. Harrington said she did not feel that is necessary. After some discussion, Ms. Reader withdrew her request. Mr. Knopp asked if there is anything the Board or engineer feels is missing or needs. Ms. Reader suggested everyone call the office to see if anything has been submitted to be reviewed. Ms. Gallent said if the engineer had had the plans beforehand, the plans could have been properly reviewed and comments available for Mr. Knopp this evening. Within the next few days, after review the plans submitted this evening, Mr. Capicotto can let Mr. Knopp know what is missing or needed. Mr. Capicotto asked Mr. Kropp to provide his telephone and fax number, for communication purposes. Mr. Senor asked if the Board wants anything in particular, other than what the engineer might request. Ms. Reader said the engineer must review the plans, and will comment at that time. Ms. Harrington said she is concerned about the 4 in. pipe. Mr. Capicotto reiterated his previous comments regarding same. Ms. Reader said there are two questions. One is whether or not, based upon the Freshwater Wetlands requirement, there is negative increase in runoff. Ms. Reader said the other item Mr. Dichter is talking about is whether this property has the obligation to pick up the water running from the street and control its course through the property. Ms. Gallent said the Board has a memo that describes what the standards are for granting a wetlands permit, as set forth in 6 N.Y.C.R.R.§ 665.7(e)(1). That is what the Board is bound by. Ms. Reader clarified Mr. Dichter's request; that the property be developed,not be developed,or developed in such a way that it takes the water running from the street and courses it through the property. A discussion ensued regarding this matter. Mr. Reader said she feels Ms. Harrington's question related to Mr. Dichter's presentation. Mr. Knopp said in speaking with Mr. Carpaneto and Mr. Altieri, the Town of Mamaroneck has an easement off the property going to the catchment basin. Mr. Knopp said he will put a catchment basin in the driveway at the street line, in favor of the Town of Mamaroneck, if they feel it is necessary. A discussion ensued regarding same. Valerie O'Keeffe, the Town Board Liaison, of 11 Dante Street, asked who is paying for this. Mr. Knopp said Paul McCarthy. Ms. Aisen asked if Mr. McCarthy still owns the property. Ms. Reader informed the Board that Mr. Knopp is the contract vendee, the contract is pending, not closed. Ellen Marcus of 10 Bonnie Way appeared, said she wanted her presence known and will be at the next meeting. She stated she is the second house in from the street on the right and is affected by the flooding. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Ms. Gallent said the outstanding issue should be referred to the CZMC. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Dichter asked if the CZMC meetings are open to the public. Ms. Reader said they are open to the public, and advised Mr. Dichter to check with the Building Department office on this matter. Ms. Reader reiterated that all information should be received ten days ahead of the scheduled meeting, and that direct conversations between the individuals, which are off the record, can resolve some mutual concerns. Mr. Capicotto asked, along side the driveway, is this side going to be pitched up to the house and is there anything that is going to be done about that? Mr. Senor said there is a retaining wall and trees will be put in a tree well. Ms. Reader said there cannot be any increase in runoff. Ms. Reader asked that all Board members be forwarded a copy of the revised plan that was submitted to the Board this evening before the next meeting, and asked that the secretary distribute same when received. Ms. Gallent advised Ms. Reader that the record should reflect 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. Mr. Dichter said he would like to submit copies of the deeds, and asked if the Board requires certified copies? Ms. Reader said photocopies will be fine. Ms. Reader said in regard to the easement given from the original owner to every person who purchased a lot, that easement is also something the Board can consider as it was stated those are private rights. It would be beneficial for the Board to pursue that easement. Mr. Darksy stated he would a response from the Town to the pictures, as it has been indication that all the work the Town performed did not work. Mr. Altieri said the photographs show a dry road, and what that appears to mean is there may have been a point in the storm where the storm drain surcharged and the water went back down. It does not mean that the system is not working, but could mean there was too much water in the system. Mr. Altieri said he does not have the conditions of the storm. There could have been something in the drain, as the Town had not seen flooding in March and June as shown in the photographs and in the video taken the last time. Weaver Street and Bonnie Way have a current problem that has to be fixed, which the town is aware of. There are times when the storm drain does not take all the water. The work performed on the Sheldrake and the tributary will increase the flow of the water to the tributary. The stream that is in the back of the home is not a channel of the Sheldrake River. It is relatively shallow and narrow. Inevitably, at some point, the water floods into the back yards and toward the Con Ed property. Unless the Town decides on a project to build,effectively, the Sheldrake River there is never going to be a situation where the back yards will not be wet during times of rain. After further discussion, Ms. Reader asked if the only condition the Board has to decide is whether this lot contributes to the flooding or is the flooding something the Town has to address. Ms. Gallent said the Board only has to consider what the law requires, at which time a discussion ensued regarding the three factors set forth in 6 N.Y.C.R.R.§ 665.7(e)(1) for granting approval. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Capicotto, if the lot does not contribute to the flooding of the street, then it is a victim of the flooding on the street as much as anyone elses property? Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Capicotto said the Board is considering the house that is proposed to be built and how that how will affect the wetlands, not how the house will affect the flooding on the street and expanded on that issue. Ms. Reader said Mr. Dichter is saying it is one unified system, the lot is a channel. Mr. Dichter said there are two separate issues. Under the Local Law this lot is a control area. The rainfall drainage system is an interconnected network and expanded on that issue. Ms. Aisen asked if Mr. Dichter is saying this lot comes under that definition? Mr. Dichter said yes. Secondly, this lot slows the flow of water into the stream so that the stream does not flood as severely and have a direct effect on the wetlands. Mr. Dichter referred to the pictures presented, continuing his presentation. Ms. Reader again suggested the applicant and Mr. Dichter speak to each other, which might resolve some of the problems. Mr. Darsky said there are two different opinions of where the wetlands are located. Ms. Gallent said the Town's Consulting Engineer will handle that issue. Mr. Dichter asked if the Local Law is still in effect. Ms. Gallent said yes. Ms. Reader asked that the record reflect that Ms. Harrington needs to leave the meeting, and that there is still a quorum. Ms. Harrington stated she would appreciate getting any information ahead of time, as Ms. Reader earlier suggested. It is impossible to interpret information given at the evening of the meeting. Ms. Aisen said a wetland helps absorb the water from heavy rainfalls, and asked if there is a point when water is channeled for the wetlands to be harmed because there is a more forceful stream coming through a pipe. Mr. Capicotto said the wetlands could be disturbed, but there is nothing in the plan that indicates that will be happening. Ms. Aisen said she is concerned because this is one of the issues raised by Mr. Dichter, and asked Mr. Capicotto to respond to that question. Mr. Capicotto said there is a high point in the center of the lot, which is where the applicant is proposing to put the house. In that area now, Mr. Capicotto cannot see where any flow would come in from the street and go over the 9 ft. rock ledge. Ms. Aisen said Mr. Capicotto can address that issue when he does his report. Mr. Darsky stated that is important because it is dealing with the impact on the wetlands, a primary focus of the Board. Mr. Dichter reiterated that the pictures show the ponding on the subject lot. Ms. Reader suggested Mr. Dichter mark where the ponding shows on the pictures on his copy of the plan submitted this evening and marked exhibit#2, to make it clear for the Board and those interested where the ponding occurs. Ms. Reader also asked Mr. Dichter to forward a copy of that plan to the Mr. Capicotto in advance of the next meeting for his comments. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 13 There being no further comments or requests, on a motion made by Ms. Reader and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the November 11, 1998 Planning Board meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL - METROPOLIS WESTCHESTER LANES/Andrew D. Fredman - CVS - 2444 Boston Post Road - Block 503 Lot 137 Andrew Fredman, of 21 Howell Avenue, Larchmont appeared, representing the applicant. Mr. Fredman stated he was the architect when the original application was presented in 1992. As part of the development,a special permit is required in that zone district for a specified use, a special permit for retail use every two years. Hence, Mr. Fredman is before the Board for renewal of the special permit for the three following stores at that location. After conferring with counsel, Ms. Reader said all three application's,CVS, Athletic Express, and Staples, will be handled together and will include the following two as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL - METROPOLIS WESTCHESTER LANES/Andrew D. Fredman - Staples - 2444 Boston Post Road -Block 503 Lot 137; and PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL - METROPOLIS WESTCHESTER LANES/Andrew D. Fredman - Athletic Express - 2444 Boston Post Road - Block 503 Lot 137 On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearings be, and hereby are, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Mr. Fredman said, as a matter of information, the fourth store at that location, Nature's Warehouse, will be opening at a later time and will reappear at a future date for renewal at which time there will be a name change, sign change, etc. Mr. Fredman said he will answer any questions the Board may have at this time. Ms. Aisen asked if anything has changed. Mr. Fredman said he has not heard of any changes, but the garbage area was increased a few years ago. Mr. Papazian asked if the hours and conditions will remain the same. Mr. Fredman said yes. He stated that CVS was approved to be open 24 hours a day, but has not done so. Mr. Papazian stated that Mr. Fredman is before the Board for renewal, which Mr. Fredman verified. Ms. Reader asked if there were comments from the public. There being none, Mr. Carpaneto informed the Board that there are no violations of record for any of the stores. On a motion made by Ms. Aisen and seconded by, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 14 On a motion made by Mr. Darksy, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the following resolutions were unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS, Metropolis Westchester Lanes, Inc. submitted an application for a renewal of a Special Permit for a retail store operated by CVS located at 2444 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, New York, and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 137; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on October 14, 1998 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, 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; WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for renewal of a Special Permit, 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 renewal of a 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 renewal of a 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 Metropolis Westchester Lanes, Inc. as landlord for the renewal of a Special Permit for a retail store on the premises under the name of CVS subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. No change in all terms and conditions stipulated in prior Special Permit approval. 2. All terms and conditions stipulated in the Site Plan approval granted to Westchester Metropolis Lanes, Inc. by this Board on February 10, 1993. 3. The store may stay open 24 hours a day. 4. Permit shall expire after two (2) years. 5. This renewal of a Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Sections 240-60 and 240-31B(1)of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. WHEREAS, Metropolis Westchester Lanes, Inc. submitted an application for a renewal of a Special Permit for a retail store operated by Staples, Inc. located at 2444 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, New York, and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 137; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on October 14, 1998 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, 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; Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 15 WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a renewal of a Special Permit, 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 renewal of a 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 renewal of a 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 Metropolis Westchester Lanes, Inc. as landlord for the renewal of a Special Permit for a retail store on the premises under the name of Staples, Inc. subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. No change in all terms and conditions stipulated in prior Special Permit approval. 2. All terms and conditions stipulated in the Site Plan approval granted to Westchester Metropolis Lanes, Inc. by this Board on February 10, 1993. 3. The hours of operation of the store shall be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 4. Permit shall expire after two (2) years. 5. This renewal of a Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Sections 240-60 and 240-31B(1) of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. WHEREAS, Metropolis Westchester Lanes, Inc. submitted an application for a renewal of a Special Permit for a retail store operated by Athletic Express located at 2444 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, New York, and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 137; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on October 14, 1998 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, 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; WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a renewal of Special Permit, 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; Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 16 2. The operations in connection with the renewal of a 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 renewal of a 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 Metropolis Westchester Lanes, Inc. as landlord for the renewal of a Special Permit for a retail store on the premises under the name of Athletic Express pursuant to a lease to Kinney Shoe Corporation subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. No change in all terms and conditions stipulated in prior Special Permit approval. 2. All terms and conditions stipulated in the Site Plan approval granted to Westchester Metropolis Lanes, Inc. by this Board on February 10, 1993. 3. The hours of operation of the store shall be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 4. Permit shall expire after two (2) years. 5. This renewal of a Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Sections 240-60 and 240-31B(1) of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION -FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Brant K. Mailer and Sheryl A. Odentz Mailer - 7 Winged Foot Drive - Block 209 Lot 227 Brant Mailer, of 7 Winged Foot Drive,appeared. Mr. Mailer is before the Board again, having previously appeared before the Board for a Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses permit for another project, but there was a setback issue. Mr. Mailer said he is before the Board with a design change for a wrap-around deck, which provides more useable space. Ms. Aisen asked if the proposed deck will be built on posts. Mr. Mailer said yes. The same type of excavation will be used. The back yard is very steep and not useable. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Mailer to explain how the deck wraps around, which Mr. Mailer proceeded to do stating the proposal is for a two-level, tiered deck, slightly longer and wider. Mr. Capicotto said the deck is closer to the rear property line. Ms. Reader asked if this matter is before the Zoning Board as well. Mr. Carpaneto said yes. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Papazian asked if there will be dirt under the deck. Mr. Mailer said yes. , Planning Board October 14, 1998 Page 17 Mr. Capicotto said in regard to the area beneath the deck, the Board is looking for impervious surface that will not erode, that being gravel on fabric or paving blocks set in sand. Mr. Carpaneto said no asphalt or concrete. Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments or questions the applicant needs to provide ten days before the next meeting. There being none, Ms. Reader said the matter needs to be referred to the CZMC and that this is a Type II action requiring no further action under SEQRA. Mr. Mailer said the last time before the Board there were a lot of issues with the CZMC, and asked how that will affect this application. Ms. Reader said the Board does not know, but Mr. Mailer should get a sense of the Board after meeting with them. Mr. Athey said after the meeting a referral will be sent to the Planning Board from the CZMC. Ms. Reader said the Board will make an independent ruling. Mr. Mailer asked if the CZMC is a public meeting. Mr. Athey, the Environmental Coordinator, said it is an open meeting. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Mailer to attend the CZMC meeting,as it involves his project. Ms. Reader also informed Mr. Mailer to bring the designer to answer whatever questions may arise. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. There being none, Ms. Reader adjourned the matter for a public hearing to be held November 11, 1998. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 11, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:30 p.m. in. a. 4.. Marguerite R 7 , Recording Secretary