Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_10_09 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 9, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Stephen Andrew Moser �t�y� � =� ikb Edmund Papazian ,,r • 4%mi Absent: Richard H. Darsky 111101/19 Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel 'No Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Stephanie Hanak, Public Stenographer tf:L 10" 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 Acting Chairwoman, Linda Harrington, at 8:25 p.m., as Chairwoman Reader will be arriving at a later time due to another meeting. Ms. Harrington said in reference to case number 3, CONSIDERATION-SUBDIVISION-Laurel Manor/James J. Vanoli-1001 Fenimore Road-Blocks 301 and 302 Lot 1 (adjourned 5/8/96, 6/12/96, 7/10/96) Mr. Vanoli has requested the Board hear case #3 first as the presentation will only be five or ten minutes long,and asked if there were any objections. There being none, Mr. Vanoli appeared and gave a summary presentation regarding the changes made over the past several months with the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC). Mr. Vanoli also asked that the case be put on next month's agenda for consideration of Lead Agency status, and determination of significance pursuant to SEQRA. Mr. Vanoli said he has been working with CZMC to refine the planting that constitutes the buffer around the wetlands and the wetlands grasses and plantings that are confined by the Sheldrake River, Fenimore Road and the County easement. Mr. Vanoli has addressed the concerns about reduction of encroachment into the 100-year flood plain, originally 0.47 acre ft. of encroachment, now 0.05 acre ft. Mr. Vanoli presented the Board with a new plan with the easement area. Mr. Vanoli said the original plan called for a sanitary sewer collection system along Fenimore Road down through private easements and into the County line, but has been asked to consider taking it out to Fenimore Road and connecting it to an existing sewer which can be done. Those changes are being made at this time. Mr. Vanoli said the applicant has been asked to change the location of a drain manhole onto the shoulder of Fenimore Road to provide better access, which the applicant is pursuing. Within the wetlands,in order to assist with access for maintenance vehicles, the applicant has been asked to extend the geogrid system. Mr. Vanoli said he has contacted the Corps of Engineers, DEC and he will speak to the Assistant Building Inspector shortly. Mr. Vanoli ' Planning Board October 9, 1996 Page 2 said the storm water detention system is a berm above the current one at elevation 99.5, raising the existing berm about 1 to 11/2 feet. Mr. Vanoli said the applicant will continue to maintain the 18 in. pipe that exists, and install a new 15 in. pipe. Dr. Mason questioned the ownership of area B1, B2 and A. Mr. Vanoli said those areas are strictly watersheds, and the only ownership involved is what is being presented. Mr. Lehrer is the owner of the 8.9 acre property. Mr. Davis said the changes are being made for the purpose of making the application complete, and next month the Board will probably be in the position to determine significance to decide whether a Negative Declaration was proper. Mr. Davis said the matter is technically a Type I action, and the only action that can be taken this evening is a referral to the CZMC. Ms. Harrington asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, case number 3, CONSIDERATION - SUBDIVISION - Laurel Manor/James J. Vanoli - 1001 Fenimore Road - Blocks 301 and 302 Lot 1 was referred to the CZMC, and was unanimously ADOPTED. Dr. Mason thanked the other applicants that will be appearing before the Board this evening for allowing the presentation of case number 3 to be first on the agenda. Acting Chairwoman Harrington read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SAVATREE - Don Becker - 633-635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 and 643 (adjourned 6/12/96, 7/10/96, 8/14/96) On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Moser, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Don Becker of SAVATREE appeared and said he is present this evening to get final approval on the Special Use Permit for Site Plan. Mr. Becker stated he was before the Board two months ago, at which time the Planning Board issued a Conditioned Negative Declaration (CND) which was published. Mr. Becker said no comments were received from the publication. Mr. Davis suggested the record note that the notice of the CND was published for the required period of time in the Environmental Notice Bulletin, and suggested Ms. Harrington ask the environmental coordinator, for the record, whether any comments had been received. Ms. Harrington asked Eve Bocca, the environmental coordinator, if any comments were received. Ms. Bocca, the environmental coordinator, said no comments were received. Ms. Harrington asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Planning Board October 9, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Davis said it is important that the resolution approving the site plan and special permit should include the conditions of the Conditioned Negative Declaration, to make certain those conditions are enforceable. Mr. Davis informed Ms. Harrington that since the Board is aware of the conditions that are in the Negative Declaration as adopted and published, Ms. Harrington can direct that the printed Minutes include as conditions those conditions that were in the Negative Declaration. On a motion made by Dr. Mason to approve the application with the conditions as stated, word for word, in the Conditioned Negative Declaration on August 14, 1996 and any additional findings,seconded by Ms. Aisen, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, SAVATREE submitted an application for a Special Permit for use of the premises at 633-635 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lots 175 and 643 to operate a plant health care business with pesticide storage; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1996, July 10, 1996, August 14, 1996, and October 9, 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board previously adopted a Conditioned Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Conditioned Negative Declaration became final after being published for thirty(30)days in the Environmental Notice Bulletin; and WHEREAS, no public comment was received on the Conditioned Negative Declaration. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of SAVATREE for a Special Permit to operate a plant health care business with pesticide storage subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant will install and utilize a self-contained wash down system, consisting of a Plia-Pad liquid containment system. The trucks will drive into the center of the Plia- Pad, where the wash down will occur. The waste wash water will be contained within the pad, which is similar to a pool. The waste wash water will then be recycled back into the truck tanks. The Plia-Pad will be placed on top of sand, which will provide an additional safeguard without adversely affecting the integrity of the Plia-Pad pool. 2. Any spills of pesticides within the garage will be contained by a double berm containment system. A 6" berm will be constructed at the garage door entrance. The trucks will be required to drive over the berm and into the garage to load the pesticides into their tanks. An 8" berm will be installed directly in front of the pesticide storage area to create a containment system that is larger than the maximum volume of liquid that will be permitted to be stored in the garage. 3. The Plia-Pad liquid containment system will be stored in the garage during the off- season. 4. The walls and floors of the garage will be epoxied to a height of 8" to create an impervious seal. SAVATREE will periodically inspect, maintain and repair the epoxy coating to insure that it will remain in an impermeable condition. Planning Board October 9, 1996 Page 4 5. The applicant will not be permitted to store in the garage any pesticides that persist in the environment. 6. There will be no storage of pesticides in quantities greater than 445 gallons at any time. 7. A plan of emergency response in case of spillage must be submitted to and accepted by the Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department, Town of Mamaroneck Building Department, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New Rochelle Medical Center. The Fire Department must be notified annually regarding the types and quantities of pesticides stored. 8. The pesticides to be stored on site will be limited to those listed on Plan 2, dated June 28, 1996,and as listed in the letter from Dr. Richard Porcelli to Donald C. Becker dated July 24,1996. "Miscellaneous" chemicals referred to in the June 28, 1996 plan shall be limited to Earth Friendly Fruit Spray and Guardian. 9. Permit shall expire after two (2) years. 10. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-31 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Acting Chairwoman Harrington read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - S.A.B. DEVELOPMENT - Andrew Saines -28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.1 (adjourned 9/11/96) Andrew Saines, the applicant, and Mark Mustacato, the architect, appeared. On a motion was made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Mr. Papazian, 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. Mustacato said a revised site plan was submitted to the Board based on the previous meeting's discussions. Mr. Mustacato said among the things that were revised, the site plan was blown up to a larger scale. There was a tree plan that Mr. Saines had which was prepared by the surveyor and Anthony Acocella, the landscape architect, which is being coordinated so that all the trees shown on that plan are now also on the site plan. Mr. Mustacato said a recent revision was made, based on a conversation with Mr. Trachtman, the consulting engineer, this week which was the relocation of the retaining wall to include a culvert under the driveway that was indicated on the original subdivision drawings. The purpose was to allow any water that is collected one side of the driveway to flow underneath the driveway and out onto the other side, as well as adding some catch basins into the driveway. Mr. Mustacato presented a revised site plan to the Board to verify same. A discussion ensued regarding the diameter and pitch of the pipe, the inlet structure, and whether it will exacerbate the flow of water onto the adjacent property. Ms. Aisen asked Mr. Trachtman if he concurred with Mr. Mustacato's conclusion, that the water will be absorbed. Mr. Trachtman said it is consistent with the present flow pattern. Mr. Trachtman pointed out that within the last week or so the Town conducted some maintenance operations on the piping system which is just upstream of that portion of Bonnie Way where there is an inlet at the upper end of Bonnie Way to the Planning Board • October 9, 1996 Page 5 Leatherstocking Trail which is routed into a pipe system that travels underneath the intersection bend in Bonnie Way, continues down a portion of Bonnie Way, then heads to the rear of the properties just up the street from the subject property and is directed to the stream which is the Tributary to the Sheldrake River. The cleanout operations indicated that a large degree of silt had collected in a portion of that pipe system. A discussion ensued regarding the size of pipe, the degree of silt in the pipe and when and where the cleanup occurred. Mr. Trachtman said another aspect to the problem is the inlet at Leatherstocking Trail which at times gets covered up with leaves and debris making it difficult for the water to get through into the pipe system causing the overflow onto the streets. This is similar to what is shown in the photographs presented. A discussion ensued regarding the proposed construction of the driveway, and the flow of water. Dr. Mason said the applicant stated the flow of water is being concentrated and discharged in the direction of the neighbors property. A discussion ensued regarding the overflow and discharge of water. Mr. Trachtman said the Town recognizes the need for more frequent attention to this matter, and discussed with Board members and Mr. Mustacato procedures that could be taken to alleviate the problem regarding the proposed construction and the adjacent properties. Ms. Harrington said she does not feel the record should show that it is a burden on the Town, as the Town has remedied the problem. A discussion ensued regarding the edge of the wetlands, the 100-year flood plain and the Tributary. Gary Trachtman said the area referred to is partly within the adjacent area to the Freshwater Wetlands, which is partly within the area defined in the Town Law Freshwater Wetlands as a rainfall drainage system . which means it falls within what is referred to as a controlled area under the permit process but it is not within the wetland itself. A discussion ensued regarding where the rainfall drainage system extends, and the size of piping to be used for drainage especially regarding the overflow, discharge and erosion. Mr. Mustacato said the applicant is amenable to whatever Mr. Trachtman and the Board suggests, and continued his presentation and discussion with the Board regarding the elevations, catch basins, the culvert and the increase in velocity of flow to be submitted at the next meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the rock outcrop, elevations, the amount of rock chipping to be done and regulations regarding same. Ms. Harrington said when the subdivision was approved there was a restriction on the height of the house, at which time a discussion followed including the height of the proposed crawl space area and the elevations in regard to the current homes in that area. A discussion ensued regarding the plans before the Board, at which time Mr. Mustacato said the drawings before the Board are drawings in progress not the actual proposal. Also discussed was concern regarding the stability of the house currently on the rock outcrop and the chipping process involved. Mr. Trachtman reiterated that this particular aspect of the construction of the house does not fall within the purview of the permit process of the Freshwater Wetlands. That is an issue more properly addressed by the Building Department because questions about the integrity of the supporting material for the purpose of construction of a house and the stability of neighboring structures would be within their purview to request necessary technical investigations before a building permit is issued. Mr. Davis agreed and said that is not what this permit focuses on. Mr. Davis said that Ms. Gallent discussed this issue with the building inspector and came to the same conclusion. • Planning Board • October 9, 1996 Page 6 Ms. Reader said it was something dealt with in the original approval for the subdivision,and the condition that there is to be no blasting was made in consideration of the effects on adjacent properties. Ms. Reader said last month it was mentioned there should be someone from the contractor on the premises to observe. Mr. Davis said that if there was concern the building inspector could require that someone be present to observe, but in the absence of such a concern there would be no reason to establish a special condition. A discussion ensued regarding recovery/reimbursement for damages caused during construction to neighboring properties. Mr. Davis said that question is beyond the scope of this permit application. Mr. Davis said in the face of statements made at the last meeting on behalf of the applicant and the Town's engineer, there is no reason to believe that chipping would cause a problem. It would therefore be improper to impose such a condition, even if it were theoretically available. Ms. Reader asked if a bond is required for the installation of the culvert and the rainfall drainage system, to insure there is satisfactory completion. Mr. Trachtman said there would be. Mr. Davis said §114.9 of the Town's Wetland Law requires the Board to require a bond in a sufficient amount to be determined. Ms. Reader said it is premature at this meeting to vote because the Board does not have the specifics in terms of the pipe size of the culvert, drainage pipe or bond, but asked if there are other issues that are still open that should be addressed before the next meeting on this particular project. Dr. Mason said because this is a Public Hearing, the public should be heard. Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the audience. Barry Dichter of 32 Bonnie Way, one house from the west of the subject lot, appeared. As requested at the previous month's meeting, Mr. Dichter presented, to be kept on file, a photographic confirmation of the flooding problems on the street stating where the pictures were taken from and what angle. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Dichter, for the record, to state who took the pictures, when they were taken and whether they were taken at the same flooding event. Mr. Dichter said the pictures were taken by two individuals, one being Mr. Lindsey who is present this evening and the other Mrs. Dichter who was present at the previous meeting. Mr. Dichter said all the pictures were taken at the same time on the same day, midday in May of this year. Mr. Lindsey took pictures numbers 1,2,3 and 4, and Mrs. Dichter took pictures number 5 and 6. Mr. Davis said the record should be clear that Mr. Dichter is submitting six (6) numbered photographs mounted on a board, keyed to a map in the center of the board. This will be kept on file. Mr. Dichter then proceeded to recap the presentation,as discussed last month,picture by picture answering various questions Board members asked. Mr. Dichter said for the purpose of clarity noting the discussions of whether this is a Class I Wetland or not under the Town Law §88.2 Wetlands shall mean not only the Sheldrake Tributary, but also any area within 100 ft. of the boundary of said mapped wetlands. Pursuant to Town Law §88-3, Local Law No. 7, enacted in 1986, classifies those wetlands as Class I Wetlands. Mr. Dichter said at the previous meeting there were six families present who resided on that street who expressed their opposition. Planning Board • October 9, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Reader said that Mr. Davis wrote a memorandum to the Board with respect to his determination as to the legal definition of Class I wetland,and where on the subject property there is a Class I wetland area. Mr. Davis said he advised the Board that he disagrees with Mr. Dichter's analysis, and concurs with the analysis Mr. Trachtman's letter contains that the Class I wetland is the Tributary itself and does not include the adjacent area, notwithstanding the definition of wetland in the Town Code. Mr. Dichter said he had not seen Mr. Trachtman's letter, nor did he see a copy of Mr. Davis' memorandum. Mr. Dichter said he understands Mr. Davis is interpreting the local Town Law and for the purposes of this hearing understands the Board will rely on Mr. Davis' advice and Mr. Dichter will be guided accordingly. A discussion ensued regarding the Class I wetland, the Sheldrake Tributary and the controlled area. Ms. Reader suggested Mr. Dichter be given Mr. Trachtman's October 4, 1996 letter, which was provided. A discussion ensued regarding the determination of compatibility in an adjacent area being different than in a wetland area itself, the culvert, drainage, the pipe used and energy dissipation. Mr. Dichter continued reiterating his description of the pictures, the proposed drainage pipe, the Town's responsibility of maintaining the pipe and the individuals responsible for the maintenance of the house/pipe. Mr. Dichter stated that every tree will be taken down on the property, referring to the pictures before the Board, and said trees hold the soil in place. A discussion ensued regarding the importance of trees. Mr. Dichter said there is a requirement of a 10 ft. drainage easement in the subdivision approval in addition to the culvert, whereby a discussion ensued regarding same including access to the easement. A discussion ensued regarding drywells, catch basins, drainage and flooding. Mr. Dichter made a comment regarding a chart attached to State Regulations§665.7, between paragraphs 41 and 42, in the January 1, 1995 version reissued in July of 1995 and proceeded with his presentation. Dr. Mason thanked Mr. Dichter for his presentation, and said subdivisions have been built all over the Town and economically there are two or three lots not feasible for development at that time but are later developed. Mark Ladner of 30 Bonnie Way, the house directly to the west of the subdivision,appeared and said this matter was before the Board five years ago and proceeded to discuss the issues that were before the Board at that time, i.e. flooding and drainage, and referred to an August 12, 1991 letter from Mr. Trachtman to the Board. Mr. Ladner also made statements to the effect that the process followed by the Board was not fair to objectors. Mr. Davis made a comment with respect to time involved, stating it is important to note that the initial hearing was duly noticed, the last hearing was one month ago, and the next hearing will be approximately one month from this evening. Mr. Davis said a substantial amount of time has passed for anyone to retain a professional regarding this matter. Secondly, there is nothing unfair in Mr. Davis' view in the amendment of plans that were submitted to the Board, as it is a common process in every municipality for the applicant to be in consultation with the town engineers to provide improvements or oversights. Mr. Davis suggested at the last meeting that the process would be improved by an exchange of submission in advance of the hearing. A discussion ensued. Ms. Reader said this subdivision project was before the Board approximately five years ago, and was considered for a lengthy period of time. The plans that are submitted and any plans or housing that is approved will be according to the subdivision that was approved. Ms Reader said the Board is only facing the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, not reconsidering the whole subdivision. A discussion ensued regarding filing times and when submissions are available. Planning Board • October 9, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Dichter said the residents of the street are fearful that the proposed construction will create a dramatic problem for the residents, and continued his presentation. Mr. Davis said the Board's decision has to be supported by sufficient evidence, so that it is not arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Davis said in the record is a letter from the Town's consulting engineer evaluating the submission. A discussion ensued with Mr. Dichter. After Mr. Davis noted that the applicant has no obligation to respond to this matter, Mr. Davis called the applicant's attention to a point made by Mr. Dichter, i.e. the removal of the trees, the changing of the grade and the likelihood that those two events will cause an increase in flooding. A discussion followed. Mr. Mustacato addressed some of the issues made by Mr. Dichter; i.e. the grade, trees removed, catch basins, the easement, changes to the drawings, the culvert, a retaining wall. Mr. Mustacato said these are the changes that were made during the ongoing process, based on conversations with Mr. Trachtman. A discussion ensued regarding the grading. Eve Bocca, environmental specialist, said the Tree Commission is currently reviewing the tree plan, and due to inclement weather the meeting at the site with Mr. Saines scheduled for yesterday was cancelled. Ms. Bocca said currently the plan calls for the removal of approximately 21 out of 34 trees. The Tree Commission will meet with Mr. Saines, and hopefully there are a number of trees that can be saved. Ms. Bocca said a number of trees in the front area of the proposed house are water loving trees. Ms. Bocca said the Tree Commission and Mr. Saines is working together with the tree plan. A discussion ensued regarding the tree plan, notice to the neighbors and attendance at the Tree Commission meetings. Ms. Reader asked the Tree Commission to consider allowing the neighbors to be present at its site visit. A discussion ensued regarding the culvert that effects the back flow from the Tributary on to Leatherstocking Trail, and what the flow of water was from the back flow yesterday. Mr. Trachtman said the back flow depicted was in May of'96. Ms. Reader said if the degree of flooding is not the result of the natural flow of water along Bonnie Way and the property, how does that impact on the standards that are applied with respect to mitigating effects on the wetlands. Mr. Davis said the Board's ability to condition a permit by exacting mitigation measures is limited. A detailed discussion ensued regarding impact on the wetlands,the water courses and the controlled area both by State law and Town law. A discussion ensued regarding the articulation of the easement in the subdivision plat, the proposed application and the flow of water. Ms. Aisen asked what is expected of the interested party between now and next month. Ms. Reader said the applicant will be meeting with Mr. Trachtman to calculate what is recommended to be a drainage system sufficient to result in a discharge out of the drainage system at a velocity no greater than what currently exists, the calculation of a bond, the language on a possible easement, the possibility that the plans are drawn up for the applicant to review them, and the question about the Tree Commission reviewing the property with the applicant and perhaps some members of the neighborhood. Ms. Aisen asked what the Board suggests, so that the neighbors have access to whatever results are achieved; i.e. records kept at the Town office and made available. Ms. Reader said that is correct, but sometimes Mr. Trachtman makes suggestions for changes to the applicant a few days before the meeting. • Planning Board • October 9, 1996 Page 9 Dr. Mason asked the applicant to get out of the realm of theoretical or generic building and supply the Board with actual plans of what is intended to be built as soon as possible. A discussion ensued. Mr. Davis said the wetlands law describes what is required as part of an application for approval in Section 114-7, paragraph F, "The location of all structures, buildings, bridges, retaining walls, walls or dams located on the property", and paragraph D requires, "Maps indicating the location of the applicant's entire property and adjacent properties within five hundred (500) feet". The discussion continued. Ms. Reader then discussed conditions previously made and referred to the Certification granted for the original subdivision dated January 15, 1992, House Elevation, paragraph E, which stated, "No Building Permit shall be issued for a new house on the subdivided property with a first floor elevation higher than the one shown on the plan filed with this application." A discussion ensued. Mr. Davis said the Board has the right to specify anything the Board does not have now, which would assist the Board in making a decision. Dr. Mason asked Ms. Reader to request the secretary bring the subdivision file to the next Board meeting. A discussion followed. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the November 13, 1996 meeting. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, the amended Minutes for September 11, 1996 were approved, 5-0, as Mr. Moser was not present last month. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 13, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Reader, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 11:03 p.m. /71 Marguerit oma, Recording Secretary