Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_08_09 Planning Board Minutes (2) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 9, 1995, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chair Person Richard H. Darsky Gabriel Fay Edward Gonye Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Lori Fletcher, Public Stenographer Kazazes and Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue, Suite 24 Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Person, Marilyn Reader at 8:20 p.m. A motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously approved to open the public hearing. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. PUBLIC HEARING- Special Permit - Solac Realty Corp. - (MAX Gasoline Station) - 2517 Boston Post Road - Block 504 Lot 101. Ina Bernstein appeared, representing Solac Realty, the landlord and owner of the property on the Boston Post Road. The tenant, Mangat Singh was also present who is requesting permission to operate 24 hours a day. Ms. Bernstein stated this is a Special Permit coming up for renewal, and they are also requesting extending to 24 hour operation. Mr. Singh stated he couldn't get enough business during the day time period. There are other stations open 24 hours, Mobil and Sunoco, in New Rochelle. No stations are open 24 hours in the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Singh anticipates a 40% increase in business if allowed. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 2 When the permit was granted last time, there was concern from tenants in the apartment house. A discussion ensued regarding gas delivery. Mr. Singh stated gas would be delivered in the morning. John Bonderdenko, 5 Dillon Road, appeared and stated he lives across the street next to the apartment building. He reported that the gas station is a hangout, a site of several burglaries and once last year a burglar ran through his yard. A petition was sent to the Board with forty signatures about the lights, traffic and noise. Margaret Fiumara, 3 Dillon Road, appeared and said there are eighteen families facing the gas station and it would create a hardship on the tenants regarding lighting, noise, traffic and 24 hour service. The hours, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., are ample. Phyllis Wittner, 6 Pheasant Run, representing the Pryor Manor Association stated that a key point made was while CVS was given permission to operate 24 hours, there are no other businesses open in that neighborhood for 24 hours. The pay telephone at the station is now an attractive nuisance and 24 hour operation should not be granted. John Bonderdenko reiterated that garbage was strewn all over. Harbansb Sillon, partner of with Mr. Singh, appeared stating that garbage would be cleared. A discussion ensued regarding entrance and exit into the station. Joseph Fiumari stated he cannot see the station being open 24 hours a day, and when fuel is delivered the fumes are unbearable. A motion was made to close the public hearing by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved. RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Mr. Fay said the last time the permit was granted the board was specific about the lighting problems; lights to go off at 10:00 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Fay for elimination of the phone, the vending machine and retain the present time schedule. Dr. Mason seconded. A discussion ensued. Ms. Harrington would not be in favor of 24 hours. Ms. Reader shared the view of her colleagues that 24 hours would not be in harmony with the surrounding areas and as objections have been stated, the burden has not been met. The Board's consensus is not to permit a 24 hour station. The previous permit was for 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the Board would be willing to grant a permit with some additional conditions. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 3 Ms. Reader stated Mr. Fay's motion eliminates all vending machine. Mr. Fay said to amend the motion and include the vending machine. Mr. Fay moved that the Special Permit application be granted incorporating the following conditions: 1. the illumination canopy will be only on three sides, namely the Boston Post Road, the westerly and easterly sides and if more lighting is needed spotlights used in the rear; 2. the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; 3. all lights except for security lights which shall be turned off at the close of business; 4. retail sales are limited to soda and cigarette vending machines as in the previous permit; 5. the public telephone on the property be eliminated; 6. Special Permit is subject to determination requirement set forth in 89-53 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. On a motion duly made and seconded, the motion was defeated 5-1. Mr. Darsky proposed that the telephone be permitted. A discussion ensued. Dr. Mason moved that the Special Permit application be granted incorporating the following conditions: 1. the illumination canopy will be only on three sides, namely the Boston Post Road, the westerly and easterly sides and if more lighting is needed spotlights used in the rear; 2. the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; 3. all lights except for security lights which shall be turned off at the close of business; 4. retail sales are limited to soda and cigarette vending machines as previous permit permitted. 5. Special Permit is subject to determination requirement set forth in 89-53 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 4 Upon a motion duly made by Dr. Mason and seconded, the Board approved granting the Special Permit 5-1. Mr. Fay opposed. PUBLIC HEARING - FRESH WATER WETLANDS PERMIT - Mr. and Mrs. Terence Toal -11 Fenbrook Drive - Block 309 Lot 6. William Maker, Jr., attorney for applicant, appeared stating the application was designed to put a sanitary sewer across the stream and all the necessary precautions have been examined, the matter has met with the approval of the Coastal Zone Management Commission, and Mr. Trachtman has submitted a letter indicating he finds nothing wrong with the sewer this way. Mr. Mustacato, the architect, was present to answer any questions. Dr. Mason said the material presented was cogent, they have a difficult problem getting across the stream, and when the hearing is closed he would move to approve. Ms. Reader stated that there is a recommendation by the town consulting engineer that there be a bond for a total of$5,000. There is $10,000 posted at the moment, which is allocated on different items. Mr. Trachtman spoke with Mr. Jakubowski. They agreed for this part of the work the bond should be increased to $5,000. There were no comments from the public. A motion was made by Dr. Mason to close the public hearing, which was duly seconded and unanimously approved. RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. A motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Fay and was unanimously approved. RESOLVED, that this Board finds this matter to have no substantial environmental impact and directs the filing of a Negative Declaration based upon the fact that: 1. Adequate precautions shall be taken to protect the stream. 2. The proposal had been part of the original subdivision and had been subject to full SEQRA Review. 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 Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 5 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; A motion duly made by Dr. Mason to approve the Freshwater Wetlands Permit with the condition that the applicants post a bond equal to a total of $5,000 for the portion of work relating to the Freshwater Wetlands and the connection of the sewer, was seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT - Citipark Service Station, Inc. - 613 Fifth Avenue/2 Valley Place - Block 131 Lot 1. Thomas Gubin, Citipark Service Station, Inc., appeared to renew a special permit under the same conditions as set forth in the last application with no changes or modifications made. Ms. Harrington finds it objectionable that the area has a lot of used parts on the sidewalk and curb, and this should be given consideration. Mr. Trachtman stated during a PEER meeting in July two issues were raised: 1. Parking near the Fifth Avenue property boundary is a problem and the building inspector suggested no parking be permitted along a 4 ft. wide area running along the length of the property adjacent to Fifth Avenue and further recommended that this area be striped. 2. The old gas station tanks must be removed. Applicant stated these have been removed prior to application. Mr. Jakubowski will check. The applicant stated these items have already been taken care of. A motion made by Dr. Mason declaring this 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 actions under SEQRA, was duly seconded, and unanimously approved. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved scheduling this matter for Public Hearing on September 13, 1995 at 8:15 p.m. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 6 CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Paul McCarthy - 26 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52. William Spelman, representing Paul and Kathy McCarthy, appeared for an application for a subdivision approval. In 1992, the Planning Board had actually issued a certification as well as a negative declaration. The applicants got the approval but failed to file the necessary documents with the County Clerk. This is a re-application, and if approved applicants will file with the County Clerk and all necessary jurisdictions. Mr. Trachtman stated the actual construction of the house would require a review pursuant to the Fresh Water Wetlands & Water Courses permit process as well as Surface Water Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Ms. Reader stated the elements of consideration have not changed since 1992 when the original application was approved. Mr. Silverberg also stated the applicants will have to come back for the Fresh Water Wetlands Permit again before the house is constructed. Mr. Spelman said all approvals were granted 1/31/92, the plat was not submitted for timely signature and filing, and that pursuant to the statute the approval expired. Mr. Silverberg noted Section 276 of the Town Law, subsection 5 H reads "within 6 months of approval of the preliminary plan the owner must submit plat in final form. If the final plat is not submitted within 6 months, the approval may be revoked by the community board." He stated there has not been a revocation and therefore the preliminary approval stands. Mr. Trachtman stated Mr. Spelman said he was going to add the conditions of the prior preliminary subdivision approval to the plat before filing with the County Clerk. Ms. Reader stated other than adding the language of the conditions, there were no changes to the final plat. Dr. Mason made a motion to waive the public hearing, which was seconded by Mr. Gonye, and was unanimously approved. Dr. Mason made a motion to approve the final subdivision of 26 Bonnie Way, Block 104 Lot 52 on the condition that the applicant submit the revised plan dated 12/14/91 incorporating all the conditions that have been set by this Board in the preliminary subdivision approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Darsky and unanimously approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Final Subdivision Approval is hereby granted to Paul and Catherine McCarthy pursuant to their application based upon the Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 7 revised subdivision plat prepared by Vito Sinopoli, P.E. and dated 12/14/91 and subject to all terms and conditions set forth below: I. General Requirements All curbs, suitable monuments, water mains, storm drains, sanitary sewer facilities and street trees shall all be installed in accordance with the latest standards and specifications in force at the time work is started in accordance with the approval plan, particularly with respect to the final Subdivision Approval Plan, prepared by Vito Sinopoli, P.E., dated March 30, 1990, last revised December 14, 1991. II. Compliance with SEQRA A. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations of State policy, to the maximum extent practicable from the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out or approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects, including the effects disclosed in the relevant Environmental Assessment Form; and B. All practicable means will be taken in carrying out or approving the action to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects disclosed in the relevant Environmental Assessment Forms and addendum thereto and all special requirements and modifications set forth herein. III. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Drainage 1. The applicant must provide dry wells or other retention facilities on the site so that the rate of runoff from the property is not increased after construction. Such plans, including the percolation chambers, shall be reviewed by the Consulting Engineer to the Town and the Building Inspector and their determination shall be conclusive. 2. There shall be a pipe, culvert or opening underneath any driveway for runoff from the front of the property to the rear of the property. Such plans shall be reviewed by the Consulting Engineer to the Town and by the Building 141" Inspector,and their determination concerning the extent of ' the size, slope and location shall be conclusive. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 8 3. An easement to the Town of not less than 10 feet subject to the approval of the Consulting Engineering to the Town and of the Building Inspector shall be incorporated into the new lot to accommodate a facility for drainage from Bonnie Way. 4. The filing of the signed, final subdivision plat shall not be made until the easement, prepared subject to the approval of the Counsel to the Town, has been filed with the Westchester County Clerk. B. Erosion and Sedimentation Control - (During Construction) 1. Erosion and sedimentation control plans should be based upon the standards presented in the "Westchester County Best Management Practices" manual for construction-related activities and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation standards (1990). 2. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be approved by the Consulting Engineer prior to commencement of construction. A control plan shall be submitted which shall include a construction timetable and an inspection schedule. 3. Erosion control measures must be installed on the building lot prior to excavation of foundations. C. Blasting All rock removal required in conjunction with the construction of a residence on the easterly lot shall be by mechanical means only. Blasting shall not be permitted on such site. . D. Trees Compliance with the Tree Preservation Law of the Town of Mamaroneck is required before a Building Permit shall be issued. E. House Elevation 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. Planning Board August 9,.1995 o Page 9 F. Required Documents and Inspections 1. The applicant shall provide one Mylar reproducible set of approved drawings containing all conditions set forth in the preliminary approval to the Town and one copy to the office of the Consulting Engineer to the Town. 2. The applicant shall submit to the Town one Mylar reproducible and four copies showing the "as-built" conditions for utility and sewer connections prior to the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence to be constructed. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Marguerite oma,Recording Secretary • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 9, 1995, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chair Person Richard H. Darsky Gabriel Fay Edward Gonye Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Lori Fletcher, Public Stenographer Kazazes and Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue, Suite 24 Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Person, Marilyn Reader at 8:20 p.m. A motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously approved to open the public hearing. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. PUBLIC HEARING- Special Permit - Solac Realty Corp. - (MAX Gasoline Station) - 2517 Boston Post Road - Block 504 Lot 101. Ina Bernstein appeared, representing Solac Realty, the landlord and owner of the property on the Boston Post Road. The tenant, Mangat Singh was also present who is requesting permission to operate 24 hours a day. Ms. Bernstein stated this is a Special Permit coming up for renewal, and they are also requesting extending to 24 hour operation. Mr. Singh stated he couldn't get enough business during the day time period. There are other stations open 24 hours, Mobil and Sunoco, in New Rochelle. No stations are open 24 hours in the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Singh anticipates a 40% increase in business if allowed. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 2 When the permit was granted last time, there was concern from tenants in the apartment house. A discussion ensued regarding gas delivery. Mr. Singh stated gas would be delivered in the morning. John Bonderdenko, 5 Dillon Road, appeared and stated he lives across the street next to the apartment building. He reported that the gas station is a hangout, a site of several burglaries and once last year a burglar ran through his yard. A petition was sent to the Board with forty signatures about the lights, traffic and noise. Margaret Fiumara, 3 Dillon Road, appeared and said there are eighteen families facing the gas station and it would create a hardship on the tenants regarding lighting, noise, traffic and 24 hour service. The hours, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., are ample. Phyllis Wittner, 6 Pheasant Run, representing the Pryor Manor Association stated that a key point made was while CVS was given permission to operate 24 hours, there are no other businesses open in that neighborhood for 24 hours. The pay telephone at the station is now an attractive nuisance and 24 hour operation should not be granted. John Bonderdenko reiterated that garbage was strewn all over. Harbansb Sillon, partner of with Mr. Singh, appeared stating that garbage would be cleared. A discussion ensued regarding entrance and exit into the station. Joseph Fiumari stated he cannot see the station being open 24 hours a day, and when fuel is delivered the fumes are unbearable. A motion was made to close the public hearing by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved. RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Mr. Fay said the last time the permit was granted the board was specific about the lighting problems; lights to go off at 10:00 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Fay for elimination of the phone, the vending machine and retain the present time schedule. Dr. Mason seconded. A discussion ensued. Ms. Harrington would not be in favor of 24 hours. Ms. Reader shared the view of her colleagues that 24 hours would not be in harmony with the surrounding areas and as objections have been stated, the burden has not been met. The Board's consensus is not to permit a 24 hour station. The previous permit was for 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the Board would be willing to grant a permit with some additional conditions. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 3 Ms. Reader stated Mr. Fay's motion eliminates all vending machine. Mr. Fay said to amend the motion and include the vending machine. Mr. Fay moved that the Special Permit application be granted incorporating the following conditions: 1. the illumination canopy will be only on three sides, namely the Boston Post Road, the westerly and easterly sides and if more lighting is needed spotlights used in the rear; 2. the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; 3. all lights except for security lights which shall be turned off at the close of business; 4. retail sales are limited to soda and cigarette vending machines as in the previous permit; 5. the public telephone on the property be eliminated; 6. Special Permit is subject to determination requirement set forth in 89-53 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. On a motion duly made and seconded, the motion was defeated 5-1. Mr. Darsky proposed that the telephone be permitted. A discussion ensued. Dr. Mason moved that the Special Permit application be granted incorporating the following conditions: 1. the illumination canopy will be only on three sides, namely the Boston Post Road, the westerly and easterly sides and if more lighting is needed spotlights used in the rear; 2. the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; 3. all lights except for security lights which shall be turned off at the close of business; 4. retail sales are limited to soda and cigarette vending machines as previous permit permitted. 5. Special Permit is subject to determination requirement set forth in 89-53 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 4 Upon a motion duly made by Dr. Mason and seconded, the Board approved granting the Special Permit 5-1. Mr. Fay opposed. PUBLIC HEARING - FRESH WATER WETLANDS PERMIT - Mr. and Mrs. Terence Toal -11 Fenbrook Drive - Block 309 Lot 6. William Maker, Jr., attorney for applicant, appeared stating the application was designed to put a sanitary sewer across the stream and all the necessary precautions have been examined, the matter has met with the approval of the Coastal Zone Management Commission, and Mr. Trachtman has submitted a letter indicating he finds nothing wrong with the sewer this way. Mr. Mustacato, the architect, was present to answer any questions. Dr. Mason said the material presented was cogent, they have a difficult problem getting across the stream, and when the hearing is closed he would move to approve. Ms. Reader stated that there is a recommendation by the town consulting engineer that there be a bond for a total of$5,000. There is $10,000 posted at the moment, which is allocated on different items. Mr. Trachtman spoke with Mr. Jakubowski. They agreed for this part of the work the bond should be increased to $5,000. There were no comments from the public. A motion was made by Dr. Mason to close the public hearing, which was duly seconded and unanimously approved. RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. A motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Fay and was unanimously approved. RESOLVED, that this Board finds this matter to have no substantial environmental impact and directs the filing of a Negative Declaration based upon the fact that: 1. Adequate precautions shall be taken to protect the stream. 2. The proposal had been part of the original subdivision and had been subject to full SEQRA Review. 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 Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 5 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; A motion duly made by Dr. Mason to approve the Freshwater Wetlands Permit with the condition that the applicants post a bond equal to a total of $5,000 for the portion of work relating to the Freshwater Wetlands and the connection of the sewer, was seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT - Citipark Service Station, Inc. - 613 Fifth Avenue/2 Valley Place - Block 131 Lot 1. Thomas Gubin, Citipark Service Station, Inc., appeared to renew a special permit under the same conditions as set forth in the last application with no changes or modifications made. Ms. Harrington finds it objectionable that the area has a lot of used parts on the sidewalk and curb, and this should be given consideration. Mr. Trachtman stated during a PEER meeting in July two issues were raised: 1. Parking near the Fifth Avenue property boundary is a problem and the building inspector suggested no parking be permitted along a 4 ft. wide area running along the length of the property adjacent to Fifth Avenue and further recommended that this area be striped. 2. The old gas station tanks must be removed. Applicant stated these have been removed prior to application. Mr. Jakubowski will check. The applicant stated these items have already been taken care of. A motion made by Dr. Mason declaring this 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 actions under SEQRA, was duly seconded, and unanimously approved. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved scheduling this matter for Public Hearing on September 13, 1995 at 8:15 p.m. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 6 CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Paul McCarthy - 26 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52. William Spelman, representing Paul and Kathy McCarthy, appeared for an application for a subdivision approval. In 1992, the Planning Board had actually issued a certification as well as a negative declaration. The applicants got the approval but failed to file the necessary documents with the County Clerk. This is a re-application, and if approved applicants will file with the County Clerk and all necessary jurisdictions. Mr. Trachtman stated the actual construction of the house would require a review pursuant to the Fresh Water Wetlands & Water Courses permit process as well as Surface Water Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Ms. Reader stated the elements of consideration have not changed since 1992 when the original application was approved. Mr. Silverberg also stated the applicants will have to come back for the Fresh Water Wetlands Permit again before the house is constructed. Mr. Spelman said all approvals were granted 1/31/92, the plat was not submitted for timely signature and filing, and that pursuant to the statute the approval expired. Mr. Silverberg noted Section 276 of the Town Law, subsection 5 H reads "within 6 months of approval of the preliminary plan the owner must submit plat in final form. If the final plat is not submitted within 6 months, the approval may be revoked by the community board." He stated there has not been a revocation and therefore the preliminary approval stands. Mr. Trachtman stated Mr. Spelman said he was going to add the conditions of the prior preliminary subdivision approval to the plat before filing with the County Clerk. Ms. Reader stated other than adding the language of the conditions, there were no changes to the final plat. Dr. Mason made a motion to waive the public hearing, which was seconded by Mr. Gonye, and was unanimously approved. Dr. Mason made a motion to approve the final subdivision of 26 Bonnie Way, Block 104 Lot 52 on the condition that the applicant submit the revised plan dated 12/14/91 incorporating all the conditions that have been set by this Board in the preliminary subdivision approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Darsky and unanimously approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Final Subdivision Approval is hereby granted to Paul and Catherine McCarthy pursuant to their application based upon the Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 7 revised subdivision plat prepared by Vito Sinopoli, P.E. and dated 12/14/91 and subject to all terms and conditions set forth below: I. General Requirements All curbs, suitable monuments, water mains, storm drains, sanitary sewer facilities and street trees shall all be installed in accordance with the latest standards and specifications in force at the time work is started in accordance with the approval plan, particularly with respect to the final Subdivision Approval Plan, prepared by Vito Sinopoli, P.E., dated March 30, 1990, last revised December 14, 1991. II. Compliance with SEQRA A. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations of State policy, to the maximum extent practicable from the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out or approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects, including the effects disclosed in the relevant Environmental Assessment Form; and B. All practicable means will be taken in carrying out or approving the action to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects disclosed in the relevant Environmental Assessment Forms and addendum thereto and all special requirements and modifications set forth herein. III. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Drainage 1. The applicant must provide dry wells or other retention facilities on the site so that the rate of runoff from the property is not increased after construction. Such plans, including the percolation chambers, shall be reviewed by the Consulting Engineer to the Town and the Building Inspector and their determination shall be conclusive. 2. There shall be a pipe, culvert or opening underneath any driveway for runoff from the front of the property to the rear of the property. Such plans shall be reviewed by the Consulting Engineer to the Town and by the Building Inspector,and their determination concerning the extent of the size, slope and location shall be conclusive. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 8 3. An easement to the Town of not less than 10 feet subject to the approval of the Consulting Engineering to the Town and of the Building Inspector shall be incorporated into the new lot to accommodate a facility for drainage from Bonnie Way. 4. The filing of the signed, final subdivision plat shall not be made until the easement, prepared subject to the approval of the Counsel to the Town, has been filed with the Westchester County Clerk. B. Erosion and Sedimentation Control - (During Construction) 1. Erosion and sedimentation control plans should be based upon the standards presented in the "Westchester County Best Management Practices" manual for construction-related activities and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation standards (1990). 2. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be approved by the Consulting Engineer prior to commencement of construction. A control plan shall be submitted which shall include a construction timetable and an inspection schedule. 3. Erosion control measures must be installed on the building lot prior to excavation of foundations. C. Blasting All rock removal required in conjunction with the construction of a residence on the easterly lot shall be by mechanical means only. Blasting shall not be permitted on such site. D. Trees Compliance with the Tree Preservation Law of the Town of Mamaroneck is required before a Building Permit shall be issued. E. House Elevation 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. Planning Board August 9, 1995 Page 9 0 F. Required Documents and Inspections 1. The applicant shall provide one Mylar reproducible set of approved drawings containing all conditions set forth in the preliminary approval to the Town and one copy to the office of the Consulting Engineer to the Town. 2. The applicant shall submit to the Town one Mylar reproducible and four copies showing the "as-built" conditions for utility and sewer connections prior to the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence to be constructed. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Marguerite o�ecording Secretary