Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999_04_14 Planning Board Minutes
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 14, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairperson May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Absent: Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Anthony V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader said that a quorum of the people that were present at the last meeting are not present at this time to approve the previous month's minutes. Chairperson Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Goldberg- Evergreen Lane, Block 309, Lot 21 Bill Brickelmaier of Insite Engineering appeared. Mr. Brickelmaier proceeded to review the plans that the Board members had received. He said the parcel is a one acre parcel located at the end of Evergreen Lane in the Fenbrook Subdivision,on which the applicant is looking to build an individual home. He is before the Board for consideration, prior to applying for the various permits needed. There is a water course that runs through the property. The pipe currently discharges to an open stream. The pipe will need to be extended approximately 10 ft. for the side grading of the driveway, the driveway will go across the pipe and a wetlands permit is needed. Proposed on that slope in the vicinity of the stream is some vegetation to stabilize the slope. There is an existing home where the driveway will come in. Screening is proposed to buffer the impact to the neighbor. They are in the process of preparing a Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. They are looking for input from the Board this evening concerning this matter that can be addressed with the next submission. Dr. Mason asked if they were on the agenda for the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC). Mr. Brickelmaier said they are not yet on the agenda for the CZMC. Ms. Aisen asked why it is necessary to extend the pipe. Mr. Brickelmaier said it is necessary to extend the pipe to install the driveway. Dr. Mason asked how big a pipe will be needed. Planning Board April 14, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Brickelmaier said the needed pipe will be approximately 18 in. He said the pipe goes under the driveway and ends approximately in the middle of the flag portion of the lot, at which time a discussion ensued between Mr. Capicotto, Mr. Brickelmaier and the Board. Ms. Aisen asked what would happen if nothing was done to the pipe. Mr. Brickelmaier said if nothing was done to the pipe, some type of a retaining wall would probably have to be built to build the driveway. Mr. Capicotto explained that the driveway is 8 ft. above the pipe, the ground has to be gradually sloped or a wall has to be built to keep the driveway from collapsing. Mr. Capicotto's asked if the end of that pipe has been located on the survey. Mr. Brickelmaier said the topo currently shown is the Town topo. They will be doing a localized topo and will be officially locating the pipe. Mr. Capicotto said there were some flags indicating the edge of the property. He was trying to see the end of the pipe versus the flags and it seemed it might be further across the driveway than it looked. Mr. Brickelmaier said it may be, but it will be survey located. He said his client has been talking to the neighbor who has agreed to allow access via an easement for construction purposes and possibly a permanent easement. There may be a possibility of moving the driveway over and not have to do anything with the pipe. There are also some very small wetlands that have been delineated on the site by a wetlands consultant, submitted as exhibit#1, which are smaller than the Town's regulated wetlands. They also do not meet the Federal Guidelines for the wetlands. Dr. Mason asked if it joins the Sheldrake and where. Mr. Brickelmaier said he did not know. Dr. Mason said there has been concern with the Fenbrook development as it has been a great source of siltation over the years. Mr. Brickelmaier said that the driveway has been rough graded. Dr. Mason asked how long it is, and after some discussion Mr. Maker said there is a 314 ft. dimension on the plan. Mr. Brickelmaier said it is approximately 300 ft. Mr. Carpaneto said an individual can actually drive back to the main part of the lot. Mr. Brickelmaier said that the majority of it is on the neighbor's property in the vicinity of the berm. Mr. Papazian said basically there is a culvert underneath the driveway, and Mr. Brickelmaier wants to extend the culvert an additional 10 ft. to put the driveway on top and asked what the culvert is currently doing. Mr. Brickelmaier said the culvert is draining and proceeded to explain that the area acts as a detention basin for Fenbrook. He pointed out the outlet control structure and said that the pipe discharges from the outlet control structure. Mr. Papazian asked if it is still functioning. Mr. Brickelmaier said it is still functioning. Planning Board April 14, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Papazian said the culvert is draining into the Sheldrake. What Mr. Brickelmaier is going to do by extending it 10 ft. is not going to effect any of the drainage that is there already and said he is not adding to or taking away from the drainage. Mr. Brickelmaier said that is their goal. When they do the stormwater management report they are looking to place dry wells or retention tanks to hold up the water from the developed portion of the site which will then be discharged into the stream. Mr. Papazian asked why the 10 ft. extension. Mr. Brickelmaier said that will not have any effect on the drainage. Ideally they would like not to have to extend the pipe. A discussion ensued regarding the project, the detention area and the portion of the property below the berm. Mr. Brickelmaier said the water currently goes into Mr. Blasi's back yard, the house on Fenimore. It is the natural flow. They are looking to reduce the amount of water currently going into that back yard, divert it back into the on-site retention system and discharge it into the stream. Mr. Capicotto said there will be no net increase in runoff from the site. The purpose of the pipe is to take anything in excess of the retention and direct it to the culvert. Mr. Brickelmaier said based on what he has seen, he is not sure that the dry well system is going to be the best for the site. They may be looking at tanks with an orifice outlet, retain it in tanks and release it slowly. There is a lot of rock. He explained the proposed procedures to be taken, at which time a discussion ensued. A discussion ensued regarding peak flow and release of same, at which time Mr. Capicotto said he is not sure the way the code of the Town of Mamaroneck is written regarding this issue. Mr. Papazian said some of the water is probably going into the Sheldrake now. The question is,how much and will there be an increase. Mr. Capicotto advised Mr. Brickelmaier to give him a call to discuss that issue. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Capicotto said there were other comments in a letter addressed to Mr. Blakely regarding the second pipe and asked if Mr. Brickelmaier had reviewed them. Mr. Brickelmaier said he had reviewed those comments, was aware of the second pipe and based on that second pipe and the past history of the project they are hesitant about the dry well systems functioning properly. He said they can talk about that in detail. Dr. Mason said the entire subdivision produces a tremendous amount of siltation. The Town got a lot of assurances that it wouldn't happen. Mr. Brickelmaier said he can't guarantee anything, but can place design features into the development of the property to prevent that, at which point it is up to the contractor to install whatever is needed. The natural grade on the site is into the back yard. As the filling operation is going on, the majority of any type of siltation will be heading towards that home. There will have to be barriers to prevent it or that home will be effected, of which they are concerned. Ms. Reader said in the long form EAF, B. Project Description, in answer to question#8, do they anticipate that there will be blasting? Mr. Brickelmaier said there will be rock removal, either by blasting or by hammers. Planning Board April 14, 1999 Page 4 © Ms. Reader asked Mr. Capicotto or the professional staff, if the blasting will impact at all with respect to the wetlands. Mr. Capicotto said as long as mats are used and the blasting is controlled, there should be very little impact. Dr. Mason asked if there was a County main in that area. Mr. Carpaneto said there is a tap for the sewer on the trunk line. There is a main off Fenimore Road. There is blasting on Fenimore Road about 2'h ft. away and there is no damage. If everything is matted, there should be no problem. Ms. Reader asked who will be blasting. Mr. Carpaneto said Valerie Contracting. Ms. Aisen asked if Valerie Contracting got the proper approvals. Mr. Carpaneto said the proper approvals were obtained. Mr. Carpaneto asked Mr. Brickelmaier if he had received a copy of the wetlands report. Mr. Brickelmaier said he did receive a copy of the wetlands report and copies can be made for Board members, which was done at that time for the Board to review. Ms. Gallent asked if this matter had been referred to the CZMC. Mr. Athey said it had not yet been referred to the CZMC. A discussion ensued regarding the small wetlands area, the exposed rock, elevation changes, the amount of fill, approximately 7 ft., to be brought it and used to fill in between the rocks more than remove the rocks. Mr. Brickelmaier said the basement of the house will be constructed in the low area, the fill will be around it. Ms. Reader asked if the bedrock will be used as part of the wall for the basement. Mr. Brickelmaier said yes, the foundation can be set on the rock. Ms. Reader asked what was meant by the comment in the wetlands report, "No water table was encountered within the northernmost pocket". Mr. Brickelmaier said he did not prepare the report, but is guessing that has to do with the northern most part of the lot, at which time a discussion ensued regarding same. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, Ms. Reader said the matter will be referred to the CZMC. Ms. Gallent said this is a Type II action under SEQRA. Mr. Capicotto said there is further information to be submitted. Mr. Brickelmaier said a survey will be furnished, along with an up-to-date topo, a full stormwater management report will be prepared and a full submission made. Ms. Gallent asked that this be done at least two weeks before the next meeting. Planning Board April 14, 1999 Page 5 CDr. Mason said the driveway takes up a big piece of the paper and the lot itself is a smaller scale. He asked if it would be possible to expand the building portion of the lot and have the driveway portion blown up. Mr. Brickelmaier said a 30 scale drawing was submitted, at which time a discussion ensued regarding same. Mr. Brickelmaier said the areas specified will be blown up and the whole lot will be shown on a smaller scale. Dr. Mason asked that the topo information and wetlands information be shown on a larger scale. Ms. Reader said that this matter will be adjourned to the May 12, 1999 Planning Board meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Brickelmaier said he is not sure that all the requested information will be available for the May 12, 1999 meeting date. Ms. Reader said if necessary the public hearing can be scheduled for the June 9, 1999 Planning Board meeting. After discussion regarding this matter, Ms. Reader asked Mr. Brickelmaier to inform the Building Department as soon as possible about the meeting date, as the neighbors are noticed by the Building Department fifteen (15) days prior to that meeting date. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader said that a quorum is now present to review and comment on the March 9, 1999 Minutes and asked if there were any additions and/or corrections. There being none, on a motion made by Ms. Reader, seconded by Dr. Mason, the Minutes of the March 9, 1999 were approved 4-0. Ms. Aisen was not present at that meeting and did not vote. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 12, 1999. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:55 p.m. d / t gC./Yn'� Marguerite Ro a, Recording Secretary . O