Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_04_10 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 10, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Stephen Andrew Moser Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Gina Landi, Public Stenographer 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 8:20 p.m. Ms. Reader welcomed a new member to the Planning Board, Ms. May W. Aisen, who has lived in the community for eleven years and has been a hospital administrator for the past fifteen years. Among many other accomplishments, Ms. Aisen has a degree in Master of Urban Planning from Hunter College. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Ms. Harrington,seconded by Dr. Mason, the Amended Minutes for March 13, 1996 were unanimously approved. 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 Ms. Reader said this matter was a continuation of the Public Hearing from the March 13, 1996 Planning Board meeting and asked for a motion to continue the Public Hearing. On a motion was made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, 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. 11111W Mr.Widulski,P.E., and Mr. Tracarico appeared. Mr. Widulski said following the last meeting a retaining wall was added, the slope was cut back out of the wetlands area. Mr. Widulski also said a letter was received from the CZMC, stating they had no objection to the application. i Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 2 Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if he had an opportunity to review the amended plans. Mr. Trachtman said he did review the amended plans and find that the plans comply with the requests made. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the members of the Board or the public. Mr. Widulski said there must be a fence to enclose the pool by building code, which will be installed,and said the wall will be approximately 3 ft. high, elevation, a slight pitch away from the pool. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if there was a bond required. Mr. Trachtman said a $1,500.00 bond is required. On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Harrington asked Mr. Widulski about the landscape plan that was proposed at the last meeting. Mr. Widulski said most of the landscaping was lost when the wall was pulled back, but on the two ends there will be sod and evergreens by the fence. Ms. Reader said the discussion is creating a procedural problem, and will need to open the Public Hearing as long as there are additional questions. • On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared reopened. Mr. Moser asked Mr. Widulski if the area below the retaining wall will remain untouched. Mr. Widulski said the area will be lawn which will be disturbed and restored as lawn where the wall is, and at the fence to enclose the pool he will introduce some evergreens, approximately one row of plantings. Due to the apron on the pool, there is only about 1.6 ft. to 3 ft. of earth that can be planted. Mr. Moser said there is still sloping on the side. Mr. Widulski said there is sloping on each end, which will be sodded. Ms. Reader asked if there were any further questions or comments from anyone in the public. There being none, on a motion was made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the following was unanimously approved WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tracarico have applied for a Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit for the premises at Lot No. 771 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 35 pursuant to Local Law #7-1986; and IIIL WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and that this Board is the appropriate Lead Agency with respect to Environmental Quality Review; and • Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 3 ikow 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 Local Law #7, Section 86-6(D), that the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6NYCRR 665.7; WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Local Law#7 of 1986 having been held on February 14, 1996, March 13, 1996, and April 10, 1996; and WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes findings of fact 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 Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tracarico for a permit, pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986, be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or a combination thereof; 2. 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. 3. As presented in the plans submitted with latest revision date of April 1, 1996 which includes the site plan topographic map elevation and the addition to a one-family dwelling on Drawings No. S-1 and S-2. 4. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM. 5. A cash deposit or bond for$1,500.00 shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or lbw disturbed area. 6. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 4 Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING- SITE PLAN APPLICATION -TOWN OF MAMARONECK RECREATION DEPARTMENT - 140 Hommocks Road - Block 411 Lot 1 & 16 On a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. Dick Ward, Ward Associates, president and landscape architect, appeared and stated there were a few questions raised at the last meeting that he will address. One question that arose was what kind of piles will be used. The structural engineer said wood piles will be used. There was also a questions on the soils and the possibility of methane in terms of the existing soils on the site. The evaluation, at this point in time, is the fact that there is some 6 ft. or 7 ft. of over burden on the site that was more than likely trucked in when the school and the facility was built. The excavation will not go through that layer, and Ward Associates does not see it as a concern. Soil will be brought in to raise the site, from an off-site source. Ms. Reader said Mr. Ward stated they will not be going through the 6 ft. or so layer, but won't the pilings go through? Mr. Ward said the pilings will, but once you reach 7 ft., there is ground water. The only place where there are seepage basins is the grass area to catch water and disperse it before it goes into the positive system. Basically even in that area they will not be penetrating deep enough to get through the fill that was brought in years ago. Ms. Harrington requested that tests be done on the soil. Ms. Harrington said Mr. Ward had previously stated that the soil was not tested for chemicals,just soil borings which showed the strata of the soil, what was there and the consistency of the soil. Mr. Ward said soil test borings were taken on the site. Ms. Reader asked Ms. Harrington what kind of chemicals she was referring to. Mr. Harrington said methane, petroleum and outside chemicals that might be present. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Silverberg if the project is represented as not going to involve disruption of the lower layer, does this Board have authority to require testing for the quality of that lower layer's chemicals in the soil? Mr. Silverberg said the issue is whether or not there is a potential to release something that could be problematic,which is an engineering question,and whether or not the nature of the activity will constitute a disturbance of whatever is underlying that area that could potentially cause some hazard to people who will be using the site. It is an engineering question. Mr. Trachtman said as far as the proposed project and its impact on soil there now, similar borings were taken at the time the ice rink was constructed and at that time it was determined that the upper layer of soils in the area of the ice rink were very similar to borings taken from this project. Within roughly the top 7 ft. to 8 ft. of the project site of the pool, the materials that are present are materials brought in from elsewhere; glass, wood fragments, etc. from construction, demolition debris. Below that layer, 11 ft. or 14 ft. down, some of the borings, of which there were three, one indicated some had organic content at a depth of 14 ft. below the surface and perhaps some odors. It is similar to the conditions encountered at the time of the ice rink construction. At that time, probes were taken in the upper layers of soil to see whether the organic content of the soil itself was causing excessive amounts of soil gas released into the Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 5 air. A series of probes were taken, and in many cases no soil gases were detected at all. In some cases there was minimal detection, in a few instances there was elevated levels, but nothing to be concerned about. Based on that, it was suggested during the construction process samples be taken, and depending on the results of samples require further monitoring. The excavation is well within the upper layer. The only disturbance of area below that would be from the driving of the piles. Ms. Harrington asked what the organic content was. Mr. Trachtman said it was not measured, but was noticed upon examination of borings. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman if these are pools being supported on pilings, he was concerned about the loading density on the pilings as the discussion is about a fairly heavy device, and asked what the chances are of an uneven settling of these pilings post-construction. Mr. Trachtman said the Town has not asked Malcolm Pirnie to perform any kind of a structural review on the project. Dr. Mason said the history of uneven settling in that area is documented with the school building. Mr. Ward said they would be putting in piles similar to what was done at the ice rink. The spacing is different, but the concept of the project is the same. Dr. Mason said the loading would be more severe with a tank of water than it is with three, four or six inches of ice. Will it be square footage, the pounds per square foot or pounds per inch loading density. It will certainly be heavier with a concrete tank of water as opposed to a slab of ice. NOW Mr. Ward said the structural engineer will say that is the easy part of the job. At this stage, Mr. Ward doesn't know, it has not yet been designed. Once Mr. Ward gets through this phase of the project, the next phase will be construction drawings. Dr. Mason said the school building was built on pilings, it has been a disaster as far as settling, and also have a pool was built on pilings which has been a disaster. Mr. Ward asked if the ice rink has any problems. Dr. Mason said the ice rink is a feather weight compared to a masonry building and a tank of water. Mr. Ward said to rest assured that these are small pools and small decks. Dr. Mason said what kind of density is Mr. Ward looking at? What kind of centers are on the pilings? Mr. Ward said approximately an 8 ft. to 10 ft. on center. He cannot be more specific because it has not yet been designed from the structural point of view. They do have an architectural design of what the components will be, but since there is no approval to go further it has not been given to the structural engineer to provide the detailed design for the pilings and structural work. In preliminary discussions with the structural engineer, it has been indicated that it will be a reinforced concrete shell and deck and would be pile supported. Ms. Reader said the questions Dr. Mason is asking are meaningful,but perhaps Mr. Silverberg can indicate whether or not (I have asked to review of the site plan approval statute) it seems our charge with the site plan approval really doesn't deal with the structural engineering of plans and it is not part of the Board's charge. Therefore, it isn't part of Mr. Trachtman's charge in reviewing plans for this Planning Board to do that. Mr. Moser asked what the Board's charge is. Ay Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 6 Iiiie Ms. Reader said the elements that the Board considers on a site plan are (a) through (g) with the amendment that occurred in 1986, traffic access in roads, pedestrian safety and access, circulation and parking, screening and landscaping, environmental quality. When reading the environmental quality it states, all bodies of water, wetlands, steep slopes, hilltops, ridge lines, major stands of trees, outstanding natural topography, significant geological features and other areas of scenic, ecological and historic value shall be preserved insofar as possible; soil erosion shall be presented insofar as possible; flood hazard shall be minimized; air quality shall be well within legal limits, and all potentially ecologically disruptive elements of site preparation, such as blasting, diversion of watercourses and the like, shall be conducted according to the highest standards and professional care. F. is fire protection, G. is drainage, H. is refuse and sewage disposal, I. is water supply and J. is location and dimension of buildings,and K. is impact of the proposed use on adjacent land uses. Those are the elements of the consideration. Dr. Mason said the Board could make a good case for the geological concerns. Mr. Moser said in terms of specific recommendations, there is a concern about the structural design of the footings. The Board could ask Mr. Trachtman that calculations be submitted for that, given the history of that area and the problems of settlement in that area. Ultimately, it is the responsibility and liability of the engineer doing the calculations for that area. Dr. Mason said his concern is the Board has a site with a history of competent engineers building major structures that have had repeated problems. Somewhere in the process of approving those facilities, it wasn't done adequately. If it is not in the Board's purview to call attention to that, whose purview is it? Mr. Silverberg said first of all, structurally it isn't within the scope of the authority of this Board, and typically applicants that come before the Board don't have the structural drawings. The Board cannot require that applicants submit the structural information as part of the approval. The Town would probably `� want the consulting engineer to review whatever is submitted when the structural drawings are completed. Steve Altieri, Town Administrator, appeared and said the project will have to get a building permit, and it will go before the building inspector. Also, the Hommocks Pool site generally suffered a myriad of problems. None of those problems have ever been the pool tank. The deck that settled is not on piles. The problems have been with the decking, the galley under the decking and the filter system. The pool tank is built on piles and the engineers had said if everything else collapsed around it, the pool would look like a 1920's bathtub. The Town has never had a problem with the tank itself. Nonetheless, this project will go before the building inspector, and when there is any serious structural design, it is not unusual for Malcolm Pimie to review it as well. Dr. Mason asked if it was also true that there hasn't been settling at the school. Mr. Altieri said he cannot speak for the school structure itself. The Town Board reviewed cost estimates and came back with a second estimate when it was realized piles were needed. Ms. Reader said the specific topic is outside our authority. I think it has been made clear, and the Town has already indicated they are conscious of the same issue. Ms. Harrington said she would still like an answer to her question regarding soil testing for chemicals. Mr. Silverberg said Mr. Trachtman answered the question by stating he does not anticipate there will be a disturbance of the soil of such a nature that assuming there was something under the top layer that would create concern which would be released. If it was in fact shown that there was something there that could be released as a result of a disturbance of the soil, then it would be in the scope of a SEQRA review. I don't see it in this case. Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Harrington asked, if you go down 10 ft. and you don't take soil out but push and move soil, by moving that soil there is no possible way that could have any effect that if something was there it couldn't be released? Ms. Reader said Mr. Trachtman has addressed that as well. Ms. Harrington said she would like Mr. Trachtman to reiterate in layman's terms. Mr. Trachtman said, as said before, the nature of the work is to drive piles into the soil. He does not know what will be underneath the driven piles. Based on the borings, below the 8 ft. thickness of soil that were brought in from elsewhere, seem to be naturally occurring materials. Materials that were there long before. Based on that, it doesn't seem that there will be a problem. Ms. Harrington said there is a definite perception problem. In speaking to various individuals, there is an absolute perception that there is something under there. If an additional recreation area is going to be installed and many children will attend, she would rather be safe than sorry. Ms. Aisen asked what was the perception based upon. Ms. Harrington said there was a dump there. Mr. Darsky asked what the cost would be to satisfy this concern. Mr. Ward said looking at the history of the ice rink and the test borings taken, there isn't any alarm at this point. It can be put into the contract that some immediate testing be done where they are excavating and go into monitoring. They don't expect there will be a problem. Ms. Harrington said that the nature of a dump is such that you don't know where the pilings will be situated. Mr. Ward said once you go down 7 ft. or 8 ft. you are in ground water. Ms. Moser said the concern is that if there is something toxic, there can be leaching and could be carried to the top of the soil. The history of the area is that those chemicals do not exist, but there is the concern that it will be more intense and that something could be checked through that area. It is part of the Board's purview to request that this be done. Mr. Alfieri said he thought the standard that would be better applied would be the standard that is used by the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is they require soil be tested when it is excavated and moved. There is a minimal amount of soil to be excavated. The only real disturbance of the soil is the driving of the piles. Another 1,500 yards of material will be brought in which further fills the area where the pools are sited. When the Town has had to apply for DEC permits for soil testing, their standard has been are you going to pick it up, move it and are you going to expose it. Their standard is based on the concern whether someone will be exposed to the soil, but that is not something that is going to happen. That is why the Town doesn't think soil testing is really necessary. If anything, the Town will further bury whatever may be underground. Ms. Reader asked what the depth will be with the 1,500 yards of material being brought in. Mr. Ward said it will vary from 6 in. to 1 ft. near the building, to 2 ft. maybe 2-1/2 ft. out into the path 11111. like a pie shape. Ms. Aisen said there is a concern about bumping into the theoretical gas tank that was dumped some years ago that nobody knows for sure if it is there or not. Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Ward said the worst part of the site, the Town in 1963 or 1964 received a permit from the New York State Department of Conservation, to fill in a wetland. The section that was filled is the area basically behind the ice rink. A lot of material was brought in and the trucks used to enter on Hommocks Road. The Town used to use that site for a rubbish dump. It was a wetlands as well. It was then filled in with cleaner soil, not organic,just dirt. Mr. Ward said they have related agency reviews from Coastal Zone Management on a couple of plant species and the architectural partner was before the Board of Architectural Review (B.A.R.) and had comments from them. Ms. Reader said they asked Mr. Ward to use more native plantings than they intended to use, and asked if there was any modification. Mr. Ward said the B.A.R. agreed with most, but Eve Bocca, Environmental Coordinator, would rather see White Oaks, Lindens or Beeches instead of Honey Locust. Mr. Ward said whatever Ward Associates is directed to do will be done. The reason the Honey Locust was picked was because it was a species that provided light shading so that it will both provide shade and allow the lawn to grow and wouldn't be a heavy block of sun. White Oaks, Lindens and Beeches are very dense foliage trees. Mr. Moser asked what species of the trees are mostly used around the area. Mr. Ward said he didn't know. He then said the B.A.R. had some questions on colors and signage which they will address at the next B.A.R. meeting. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Silverberg if any approval had to await the B.A.R. review. Mr. Silverberg said the B.A.R. laws specifically provide findings by the Planning Board after it receives the recommendations of the B.A.R. Eve Bocca said Nancy Sterbenz looked at the plan and made recommendations approving five or six of the plants that were listed. She had suggestions and alternatives on two of the species that were proposed. Ms. Aisen asked if the recommendations were based on what is indigenous or native to the area. Ms. Bocca said recommendations were based on what is indigenous or native to the area. Ms. Harrington again stated she wanted to go on record as saying that if chemical tests are not done, I don't think the cost can be that much, she doesn't understand why it is not being done. Mr. Ward said they don't have any objections to doing the tests, but the tests should be done at the time of the excavation. On the history of this particular area, the ice rink and the borings taken, there are no problems. Mr. Ward is not saying they won't do the tests, but will do so as part of the contract. When the first excavation is done, they will monitor it. Ms. Aisen said if something toxic is found along the way, is there something that can be done at that point? Mr. Ward said in terms of gases, if something was found then they would go into a monitoring program, and normally if methane is found, a venting system is used. Ms. Aisen said monitoring doesn't include doing something to alter or get rid of the problem, just monitoring it. Mr. Ward said if the pit is open a couple of days a test is done, and if something is found it will be retested in a couple of days to check if it still exists as it may just be a pocket. Ms. Reader said it was her understanding that pockets of methane or methane development is a natural process of decomposition in organic materials which will be found in this type of environment. Ms. Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 9 Reader understands Ms. Harrington's concern, but perception has to founded on something articulable. There has already been borings, and the Board has been told there will be no excavating within that layer. Based upon previous borings, there is nothing that shows any pollutant other than the natural decomposition with residues. At this point it would be unreasonable for the Board to do more than propose a condition, but as Mr. Trachtman has indicated, during the construction process samples of soil will be taken and monitored to see whether there is a discharge of any soil gasps or even pollutants. If there is, then appropriate measures must be taken to mitigate those problems. Mr. Reader asked Mr. Silverberg if this can be imposed as a condition. Mr. Silverberg said he was not sure about the pollutants because it is not clear if there are any, but from his understanding there is such a huge range of possible pollutants that he did not know what conditions could be reasonably imposed without an idea of the areas of concern. Mr. Moser had a question regarding the 50-year and 100-year flood plain in relationship to the finished grade of the pool. Mr. Ward said he was not exactly sure, but the buildings in the area have to be at elevation 13. The terrace around the pool is a little less than 13, it varies. There is no requirement for an outdoor pool. Mr. Moser asked what is the history of the water level rising above the level of the pool or up to elevation 12. Mr. Ward said he did not know. Ms. Reader said a couple of years back there was a lot of flooding in that area, but the flooding never reached the school or pool area. Mr. Moser said if the water level comes up to the level of the pool, is there a possibility of leeching, and if the water levels come up that high, concern regarding the chlorine water of the pool dumping into the streams around the area? Mr. Ward said if it floods to that degree the amount of chlorine in the pools is so small the chlorine level there is really of no significance. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions or new issues, and said the case will be adjourned until next month. Mr. Moser said in terms of tree plantings, most of the work is being done around the pool area and asked if any work was being done in the area around the footpath and the area to the south? Mr. Ward said lights are being relocated in that area, and the ground will be sloped into the swale area and seeded. Mr. Moser said the area is close to the wetlands, and asked if seeding was appropriate or should wetland type material be used. Mr. Ward said there is an erosion control plan which was submitted to the CZMC, and was reviewed in terms of hay bales to contain any sediments during the construction. Ms. Reader asked if the plantings Mr. Moser was speaking about would be erosion control after construction? Mr. Moser said it is also aesthetics and erosion control. Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Ward said the sloped area between the tree and the path will be worked on and the base of the slope will be maintained until the grass is stabilized with hay bales and a silt fence. There is very little run-off that goes in that direction. Mr. Moser said one side is being fixed and nothing is being done on the other side. Another question is the landscaping around the volley ball court area and the entire edge of the parking lot and foot path,which extends further south. Mr. Ward said the Town stated they have scheduled some work around the parking lot in a year or two. What is before the Board is within the fence line and confines of the pool. There is a little outside because of transitions between the pool and the existing fence line. Ms. Reader said what Mr. Moser is saying is it also raises the possibility of doing more landscaping around the volley ball court and the other side of the walk than as shown on the plan. As long as plans are pending,we should take advantage of the opportunity to improve the aesthetics of the area on the other side of the fence and by the volley ball court. Mr. Ward said more could be done, but they are working within the budget. What is shown at this point in time,.is what has been estimated and budgeted. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public or the Board. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Mr. Moser the Public Hearing was unanimously adjourned to May 8, 1996. Mr. Ward said at that time possibly they will have the B.A.R. and CZMC concerns ironed out so that they can be presented to the Planning Board. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Chairwoman Reader read the applications as follows: CONSIDERATION - RENEWAL - SPECIAL PERMIT - Metropolis Westchester Lanes - Athletic Express - 2444 Boston Post Road - Block 503 Lot 137 CONSIDERATION-RENEWAL-SPECIAL PERMIT-Metropolis Westchester Lanes-CVS-2444 Boston Post Road - Block 503 Lot 137 CONSIDERATION - RENEWAL - SPECIAL PERMIT - Metropolis Westchester Lanes - Staples, Inc. -2444 Boston Post Road - Block 503 Lot 137 Andrew Fredman, architect for the project appeared and asked if the three matters can be heard together. Ms. Reader said if the Board members concur, three, four and five will be heard together. The Board concurred. Mr. Fredman said the property was the original Loyal Lanes Bowling Alley until the end of 1993 at which point this conversion began. The applicant appeared before the Planning Board, Zoning Board and Architectural Review Board, Coastal Zone Management Commission in that year and Traffic Committee thereafter. The issues raised in front of the Planning Board related to traffic, parking, storm water retention and landscaping,all of which were answered. The zoning issues that arose related to parking and also the signage which required variances. This evening Mr. Fredman is before the Board to renew the special permits granted two years ago, which is necessary according to regulations. Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 11 Ms. Reader asked what transpired regarding the traffic lights. Mr. Fredman said one of the requests of the Planning Board was that if the Town required a change in the signaling of the traffic light that the developer proceed with that change. The developer hired a traffic engineer who issued a report which gave nine or ten options for changing the light. The Town elected the option they wanted to pursue, at which point Mr. Fredman went to the State of New York because they have jurisdiction over the Boston Post Road. On one occasion the State wrote back and said it wasn't necessary, but a study was done and traffic data obtained from the Town, Larchmont and New Rochelle. The study concluded there was no need for changing that light. The letter was sent to the Building Department approximately six months ago and the applicant has had no response to date. Mr. Fredman's clients will do whatever is necessary, per the State or the Town. Dr. Mason said he has been at the site many times, and has never seen a parking problem nor a problem with ingress or egress. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Fredman said he is before the Board for three of the four stores. The fourth store, Nature's Warehouse opened much later and their special permit renewal will be at a later date. Ms. Reader said the applicant is before the Board this evening for consideration of renewal, and is subject to a Public Hearing at the next meeting. Mr. Silverberg suggested getting comments from the Police Department, because over the last several years he has received various calls concerning problems with cars being towed. Mr. Fredman said there was an issue at one time with the Saturn Dealership parking cars on the Boston Post Road without .plates which obstructed visibility. Y On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen for the renewal of Special Use Permits on the agenda, items 3, 4 and 5, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board 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 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. Fredman asked if it was his responsibility to notify the neighbors? Ms. Roma, secretary to the Planning Board, said the applicant notices the neighbors. When the notice is prepared, she will contact Mr. Fredman. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Fredman if he knew of any issues that might arise that the Planning Board should be prepared for. Mr. Fredman said children still play in that area and there is noise. There was a garbage issue a while ago and in the last two years the garbage area was expanded through the B.A.R., but it seems to be running smoothly. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen the above cases were unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on May 8, 1996. Planning Board April 10, 1996 Page 12 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 8, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:45 P.m. Marguerite Ro , Recording Secretary