Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_02_11 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 11, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman �� May W. Aisen 0, Linda S. Harrington RECEIVED Edmund Papazian °3 APR 9 1998 Darsk PATRICIA A.DiCIOCCi0 Absent: Richard H. y TOWN CI.ERK C. Alan Mason MAMARONECK c N.Y. Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:18 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES After some discussion, Ms. Reader informed the Board that the Minutes of the January 14, 1998 Planning Board meeting will be reviewed for approval at the next meeting, due to the absence of a few Board members. Ms. Reader brought to the attention of the Board a memorandum received from the Building Department regarding a request to indicate how conditions that the Planning Board sets are followed through on various resolutions that are passed; i.e. site plan,subdivision approval,freshwater wetlands,special permits. There has been a turnover in the Building Department in the last few years and the Board feels it is important that procedures be set up to enforce conditions imposed by the Board. The Board will review the memorandum. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-GRIFFEN AVENUE/Bobby Ben-Simon - Block 305 Lot 903.2 Bobby Ben-Simon appeared. Ms. Aisen asked if Mr. Ben-Simon will be the owner of the new house. Mr. Ben-Simon said he will be the owner of the new house. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Ben-Simon was expecting his architect or engineer. Mr. Ben-Simon said he is expecting his architect. Ms. Reader suggested taking a five minute break to await the architect's arrival, as it is important the architect be present during discussions about the proposed project. Planning Board . February 11, 1998 Page 2 The meeting convened at 8:27 p.m. Fred Zonsius of Frederic Zonsius, Architects and Designers, the architects for the project, appeared. Mr. Zonsius apologized for his late arrival. Mr. Zonsius said that he met with the building inspector a few times and will discuss the preliminary comments made at that time. Mr. Zonsius said there is a 16 ft. drop from the basic street, Griffen Avenue, to the creek. The creek is a Tributary to the Sheldrake River, known as the east branch of the Sheldrake and is classified by New York State as Class C. Mr. Zonsius then presented and commented on pictures, which are a part of the record, numbered 1 through 12, and Exhibit A, a sketch of the bridge. Ms. Reader asked what subdivision the application pertains to. Mr. Zonsius said it is the Lourie subdivision. All the utilities that feed both the lots caused by the subdivision are north of the river. When the current applicant brings in utilities, the easements on the adjoining property will be used to access the lot. Ms. Reader stated that Gary Trachtman was instrumental in recognizing that would be helpful,to minimize the disruption. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the pictures presented, with comments and questions from the Board regarding the width of the bridge,erosion control,the length of the driveway, the turnaround,the setbacks, dry wells for drainage and materials to be used, trench drains and the pitch of same. Also discussed was the distance of the Sheldrake River from the project. Ms. Aisen asked for as much room for water absorption as possible, which was addressed. A discussion ensued regarding the use of impervious surface, getting the water to the dry well, the use of tiles or blue stone, runoff and the grades proposed. Ms. Aisen asked if Malcolm Piave has had a chance to review the submission. Mr. Capicotto said the drawings were received the day before the meeting, and has not addressed erosion control, dry wells, etc. Mr. Zonsius said the dry wells were submitted with the package, but was informed that the calculations could follow. For erosion control there are the bushes, the tall trees and a gravel driveway in the front circle. Ms. Reader asked about the other side of the bridge. Mr. Zonsius said that area is paved, because of the incline. Ms. Reader questioned if porous paving blocks could be used. Mr. Zonsius said the applicant is dealing with a 16 ft. drop, but will look into the use of paving blocks. Ms. Aisen said the Board is looking for water absorption in the wetlands. Mr. Zonsius said the dry wells will handle the bulk of the water. During construction bales of hay will be used. The house will be put in the middle contour and sited so it is almost in a natural place. One portion of the easement has never been touched. The only dirt being disturbed is the upper contour for the driveway for entrance into the garage, a turnaround and retaining wall. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Papazian asked if gravel will be used in this area. Mr. Zonsius said blacktop will be used for turnaround and the apron by the driveway. Ms. Reader asked the dimensions of the paved area. Mr. Zonsius, perusing the blueprints, indicated same. Ms. Reader asked the applicant to keep the property as porous as possible. Mr. Capicotto said the block referred to previously are Unlock blocks. Mr. Zonsius said the use of Unlock blocks will be considered rather than blacktop. He discussed the minimal impact on the other contours with the use of shrubbery, dry wells and percolation of soil. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Zonsius knew where the 100-year flood plain is located. Mr. Zonsius said he did not know and checked with various agencies that also did not know. The house cannot be moved and is within the setbacks. Ms. Aisen said the house can be made smaller. Mr. Papazian asked the square footage of the house. Mr. Zonsius said the proposed house is 5,000 sq. ft. Ms. Harrington asked the length and the width of the drive going to the house. Mr. Zonsius said the width is 12 ft. by approximately 100 ft. and a 30 ft. bridge, then gravel, 40 ft. to edge of the house, 15 ft. setback, 32 ft. from the corner to the edge of the driveway, 56 ft. from the corner to the rear and 32 ft. from the corner to the start of the circle. The circle is 21-22 ft. and the doughnut in the middle 20 ft. Ms. Reader asked what will be in the doughnut. Mr. Zonsius said there will be grass and shrubs in the doughnut. Mr. Capicotto questioned the placement of the manhole. Mr. Zonsius said after checking with the County of Westchester, it is an existing manhole. Ms. Reader said her drawing is different. Mr. Zonsius said the manhole was moved on the drawings he was referring to, as the map showing the correct location was just received from the County on Tuesday. Ms. Reader said the applicant will need new plans with more information indicated on the plans, and that Mr. Capicotto will advise Mr. Zonsius as the current plans in the possession of the Board are inadequate. Ms. Aisen asked when the Board makes a referral to the CZMC. Ms. Reader stated between now and the public hearing date. The Board will refer it to the CZMC this evening. Mr. Papazian said the applicant has Town sewers and asked if the applicant will have Town water also. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Zonsius said the applicant will have Town water. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Zonsius what is currently in the area. Mr. Zonsius said it is a wooded site, with a large clearing in the middle where the proposed house will be built. Ms. Reader asked the address of the remaining house after the subdivision. Mr. Zonsius said it is 109 Griffen Avenue. Ms. Aisen asked which side of Griffen Avenue the proposed house will be. Ms. Reader said it is between Weaver and Fenimore. Mr. Ben-Simon said the proposed house will be on the right side, between Fenimore and Mamaroneck Road; Grand Park becomes Fenimore Road; between Grand Park and Mamaroneck Road. Mr. Papazian questioned the fact that it is a wooded lot, but there is a clearing. Mr. Zonsius referred the Board again to the pictures. Mr. Papazian said if the property is an acre, how much of the land does the applicant estimate to clear. Mr. Zonsius referred to a tree removal drawing, stating eleven (11) existing trees. Anything to the right of the easement will not be touched. Just the upper end of the lot will be touched, based on access to the driveway. Mr. Papazian asked about the trees toward the bridge toward Griffen Avenue, which Mr. Zonsius addressed. Mr. Papazian said applicant will be adding more trees than those being taken down. Mr. Zonsius said the applicant will be adding sixteen (16) plus trees. The applicant wants to screen the back and use the trees for erosion control. Ms. Reader asked what kind of trees will be planted. Mr. Zonsius said the applicant is currently working with a nursery on that matter. Mr. Papazian asked what kind of trees are being removed. Mr. Zonsius said Tulip, Oak and Beech trees are being removed. Ms. Harrington asked if the plan indicated the size of the trees being removed. Mr. Zonsius said the size is indicated on the tree permit plan. The Board members said they did not receive a copy of the tree removal permit plan. Mr. Zonsius said only four (4) copies were submitted as requested. Ms. Reader asked the secretary to get copies of the tree removal plan for the Board members. Ms. Aisen asked Mr. Zonsius to comment about the impact on the wetlands relative to the trees that are being removed and the impact on the wetlands relative to the proposed trees. The number of the trees is not the only thing needed. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 5 James Athey, Environmental Coordinator, said when trees are removed evergreens are not generally recommended as replacement species by the Tree Commission. Deciduous trees are usually the preferred recommendation. Ms. Aisen asked why evergreens are not recommended and what is the impact on soil erosion relative to the other trees, which Mr. Athey addressed. Ruth Guyre, of the CZMC, also addressed this issue. Ms. Harrington asked when the mature trees are removed, depending on what size the replacement trees are, how long will it take for the trees to be able to absorb the amount of water the removed mature trees. Mr. Zonsius said in terms of sucking up water, that is what the dry wells are for. Only three(3)trees are being taken down in the back. The dry well, which is 218 ft. away from the river, will take the water away better than the absorption from the three (3) trees that will be removed. The six (6) trees to be removed in the front end of the house where the proposed driveway will be located, patterned pavers will be used that will percolate which will drain into a trench drain system that goes back to the same dry well. For aesthetics, Mr. Zonsius is planting eight(8)or nine(9)trees to screen the neighbors. In another area, the neighbor has a huge pool next to the property line, there are tall pines, and additional trees and shrubs will be installed. Mr. Davis suggested the applicant list on the tree permit plan the type of trees being removed, type of replacement trees, caliper, size, etc. Ms. Harrington reiterated, if you take down all those trees and replace them, how long will it take the trees being installed to absorb the same quantity of water. A discussion ensued regarding this issue. Ms. Reader asked if the applicant, by building the retaining wall, is in some way damming the runoff of the water from the adjacent property. Mr. Zonsius said there is a paved swimming pool adjacent to the wall. Ms. Aisen asked the purpose of the retaining wall. Mr. Zonsius said he needs more flat area for the driveway that will be provide by cutting into the hill, hence retaining the dirt on the hill. Mr. Davis said the question is, does it have any effect on the pattern of runoff. Mr. Zonsius said no, it does not have any effect on the pattern of runoff. If water comes over the wall for any reason in a flood situation, the trench drain will pick it up. Mr. Davis asked if the top of the wall is at the swimming pool grade. Mr. Zonsius said it is a little below that. The impact is to minimize the interruption of the land. Mr. Papazian asked what his answer will be, if a neighbor asks if there will be flooding because of the retaining wall and house. Mr. Zonsius said definitely not. More water will be picked up by the dry wells than is currently absorbed. Ms. Aisen asked if the capacity of the dry wells is great enough to absorb everything Mr. Zonsius has intimated. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Zonsius said capacity is calculated on square footage, and a civil engineer will calculate the square footage. Ms. Reader asked if that is bacPd on the 5, 10 or 25-year flood. Mr. Capicotto said it is based on the 25-year flood according to code. On the opposite side of the river, because of the paved driveway, there should be zero increacP in the rate of runoff. Because the driveway is paved towards the river, all the water may not be able to be stopped with plantings along the driveway but may need a dry well on that side. Ms. Reader said the Board does not have the calculations nor plans to review to advise the Board of the proposed intent given those calculations. Once that is received, the Building Department and the Town's consulting engineer will scrutinize what is presented, check the calculations and advise the Planning Board. Ms. Reader said the Board needs plans, similar to what the Board has, but with more detail in terms of erosion control. Ms. Aisen said Malcolm Pirnie, our consulting engineers, needs time to do calculations and advise the Board. Mr. Harrington said the public also needs time to review the plans, which are not yet available. Mr. Capicotto said once Mr. Zonsius gets the 100-year flood elevation shown on the drawing, then the Board will want to see how much of the structure is in the flood plain, how much of the flood water is being displaced by earth or structure and how that will be accounted for. Mr. Zonsius then addressed the pool drainage. The Westchester County Department of Health informed Mr. Zonsius that as long as the water has zero chlorine, the water can drain into the dry well. The backwash system goes into the house sewer, which was confirmed by the Town of Mamaroneck Engineer, David Goessl. Mr. Zonsius then addressed the issue of the bridge and handed out copies of documentation to Board members regarding same, which is a part of the record, stating no permits other than the Town of Mamaroneck Building Permit are necessary. Mr. Davis asked if the Corps determination is Nation Wide Permit #25, a copy of which Mr. Zonsius supplied to the Board with the documentation, and does it require a water quality certification. Mr. Zonsius was not told it requires a water quality certification. Mr. Zonsius was told as long as they have a structural engineer and submit drawings, which was done, and the drawings conform to the guidelines it will give no effect. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Zonsius if he asked DEC whether water quality certification was required. Mr. Zonsius said the DEC would not look at it, but was told to go to the Army Corp of Engineers, which was done. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Zonsius to confirm whether a water quality certification is needed before the next meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the Full Environmental Assessment Form submitted. The Board questioned a number of items on page 3 paragraph B. lb, lc, also percentage developed and undeveloped, page 3, item 19, page 4, item 15, page 4, item 16 and item 17, page 7, item 3 and other various items. Mr. Davis informed Mr. Zonsius that Part 2 was filled in, but it was not his responsibility. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 7 Ms.Reader suggested Mr. Zonsius review the EAF,make changes and/or corrections and write N/A where not applicable. Ms. Reader informed the applicant to provide the information needed. The matter will also be referred to the CZMC which meets on February 24, 1998, for comments on the project as advisory to the Planning Board. A determination will be made whether to refer this application to the County Planning Board. Mr. Davis suggested the requested information be made available for inclusion in the Board packets for the next meeting. Ms. Reader asked if there will be any blasting. Mr. Zonsius said there will be no blasting. Mr. Davis said the depth of the water table was left blank. Mr. Capicotto said it is usually the level of the brook. A discussion ensued regarding the location and the construction of the dry wells. Mr. Zonsius said that the trench drains come into the dry wells. Ms. Aisen asked how the dry wells are regulated. Mr. Davis said the New York State DEC has guidelines to be followed. When Ms. Harrington asked about the provisions for maintaining the dry wells, Mr. Capicotto said it depends on the unit. Mr. Zonsius said when the lot was subdivided, he assumed it was a buildable lot. Ms. Reader said when the original subdivision was completed the Board had no idea what the new house or plans would look like, but the scrutiny of the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit is more focused now. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Zonsius that the original Lourie subdivision was before the Board for a very long time, and many different plans were presented to the Board over that long period of time. It originally started with using the old bridge which was going to be widened, and someone had come in with a prefab model and a shared driveway with the original Lourie house. For various reasons that got changed. Mr. Davis said in order to grant the permit, there are two sets of regulations that the Board reviews. The Freshwater Wetlands regulations of the Town Code incorporate a framework of analysis that appears in the DEC regulations even though this is not a wetland regulated by DEC. In order for the Town to grant this permit it undertakes a compatibility analysis and possibly a weighing analysis depending upon the outcome of the compatibility analysis. The State Regulations entitled 6.NYCRR, Section 665.7, sets forth the compatibility issues. In order to grant the permit, the Board has to be able to make the findings that both the local regulations and State regulations require. Mr. Zonsius asked if the Board has a consultant the Board deals with. Ms. Reader said Mr. Capicotto of Malcolm Pirnie is our consultant whom Mr. Zonsius may consult. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Zonsius to submit the new plans, have Malcolm Pirnie and the Building Department review them and then contact each other. Mr. Davis informed Mr. Zonsius that his engineer is probably familiar with the requirements of the regulations. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Zonsius said he wants to submit what is needed to the Board. Ms. Reader said if Mr. Zonsius thinks the consultant can help move things along, to do so. Mr. Davis said the Town of Mamaroneck has a Waterfront Revitalization Plan and applications that are in the coastal zone must be reviewed by the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) for their review and comments. Mr. Capicotto will summarize what was discussed and forward same to Mr. Zonsius. Ms. Reader said new plans will be needed with more details that include dry wells, calculations, zero runoff and a modified tree plan submitted that the Board did not receive. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was 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. On a motion made by Ms. Reader and seconded, it was FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action. On a motion made by Ms. Reader and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the matter be referred to the CZMC. Ms. Harrington asked when the CZMC meet, and when will the fmdings be submitted to the Board. Mr. Athey said the CZMC meets on February 24, 1998, and will be submitted the next day to be included in the packet delivery to the Board members the week before the next meeting. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Zonsius attends the CZMC meeting, which was a verified yes. After a lengthy discussion regarding adjourning for consideration or a public hearing, on a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was RESOLVED, that the application be, and hereby is, adjourned for a Public Hearing at the March 11, 1998 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Harrington voted no. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 11, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary ICI II MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 11, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Linda S. Harrington Edmund Papazian Absent: Richard H. Darsky C. Alan Mason Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Antonio V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:18 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES rin After some discussion, Ms. Reader informed the Board that the Minutes of the January 14, 1998 Planning Board meeting will be reviewed for approval at the next meeting, due to the absence of a few Board members. Ms. Reader brought to the attention of the Board a memorandum received from the Building Department regarding a request to indicate how conditions that the Planning Board sets are followed through on various resolutions that are passed; i.e. site plan,subdivision approval,freshwater wetlands,special permits. There has been a turnover in the Building Department in the last few years and the Board feels it is important that procedures be set up to enforce conditions imposed by the Board. The Board will review the memorandum. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-GRIFFEN AVENUE/Bobby Ben-Simon -Block 305 Lot 903.2 Bobby Ben-Simon appeared. Ms. Aisen asked if Mr. Ben-Simon will be the owner of the new house. Mr. Ben-Simon said he will be the owner of the new house. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Ben-Simon was expecting his architect or engineer. Mr. Ben-Simon said he is expecting his architect. Ms. Reader suggested taking a five minute break to await the architect's arrival, as it is important the architect be present during discussions about the proposed project. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 2 The meeting convened at 8:27 p.m. Fred Zonsius of Frederic Zonsius, Architects and Designers, the architects for the project, appeared. Mr. Zonsius apologized for his late arrival. Mr. Zonsius said that he met with the building inspector a few times and will discuss the preliminary comments made at that time. Mr. Zonsius said there is a 16 ft. drop from the basic street, Griffen Avenue, to the creek. The creek is a Tributary to the Sheldrake River, known as the east branch of the Sheldrake and is classified by New York State as Class C. Mr. Zonsius then presented and commented on pictures, which are a part of the record, numbered 1 through 12, and Exhibit A, a sketch of the bridge. Ms. Reader asked what subdivision the application pertains to. Mr. Zonsius said it is the Lourie subdivision. All the utilities that feed both the lots caused by the subdivision are north of the river. When the current applicant brings in utilities, the easements on the adjoining property will be used to access the lot. Ms. Reader stated that Gary Trachtman was instrumental in recognizing that would be helpful,to minimize the disruption. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the pictures presented, with comments and questions from the Board regarding the width of the bridge, erosion control,the length of the driveway, the turnaround, the setbacks, dry wells for drainage and materials to be used, trench drains and the pitch of same. Also discussed was the distance of the Sheldrake River from the project. Ms. Aisen asked for as much room for water abso. s, which was addressed. A discussion ensued regarding the use of impervious < . - the water to the dry well, the use of tiles or blue stone, runoff and the grades proposed. Ms. Aisen asked if Malcolm Pirnie has had a chant, tbmission. Mr. Capicotto said the drawings were received the d ting, and has not addressed erosion control, dry wells, etc. Mr. Zonsius said the dry wells were submitted with the package, but was informed that the calculations could follow. For erosion control there are the bushes, the tall trees and a gravel driveway in the front circle. Ms. Reader asked about the other side of the bridge. Mr. Zonsius said that area is paved, because of the incline. Ms. Reader questioned if porous paving blocks could be used. Mr. Zonsius said the applicant is dealing with a 16 ft. drop, but will look into the use of paving blocks. Ms. Aisen said the Board is looking for water absorption in the wetlands. Mr. Zonsius said the dry wells will handle the bulk of the water. During construction bales of hay will be used. The house will be put in the middle contour and sited so it is almost in a natural place. One portion of the easement has never been touched. The only dirt being disturbed is the upper contour for the driveway for entrance into the garage, a turnaround and retaining wall. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 2 The meeting convened at 8:27 p.m. Fred Zonsius of Frederic Zonsius, Architects and Designers, the architects for the project, appeared. Mr. Zonsius apologized for his late arrival. Mr. Zonsius said that he met with the building inspector a few times and will discuss the preliminary comments made at that time. Mr. Zonsius said there is a 16 ft. drop from the basic street, Griffen Avenue, to the creek. The creek is a Tributary to the Sheldrake River, known as the east branch of the Sheldrake and is classified by New York State as Class C. Mr. Zonsius then presented and commented on pictures, which are a part of the record, numbered 1 through 12, and Exhibit A, a sketch of the bridge. Ms. Reader asked what subdivision the application pertains to. Mr. Zonsius said it is the Lourie subdivision. All the utilities that feed both the lots caused by the subdivision are north of the river. When the current applicant brings in utilities, the easements on the adjoining property will be used to access the lot. Ms. Reader stated that Gary Trachtman was instrumental in recognizing that would be helpful,to minimize the disruption. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the pictures presented, with comments and questions from the Board regarding the width of the bridge,erosion control,the length of the driveway,the turnaround,the setbacks, dry wells for drainage and materials to be used, trench drains and the pitch of same. Also discussed was the distance of the Sheldrake River from the project. Ms. Aisen asked for as much room for water absorption as possible, which was addressed. A discussion ensued regarding the use of impervious surface, getting the water to the dry well, the use of tiles or blue stone, runoff and the grades proposed. Ms. Aisen asked if Malcolm Pirnie has had a chance to review the submission. Mr. Capicotto said the drawings were received the day before the meeting, and has not addressed erosion control, dry wells, etc. Mr. Zonsius said the dry wells were submitted with the package, but was informed that the calculations could follow. For erosion control there are the bushes, the tall trees and a gravel driveway in the front circle. Ms. Reader asked about the other side of the bridge. Mr. Zonsius said that area is paved, because of the incline. Ms. Reader questioned if porous paving blocks could be used. Mr. Zonsius said the applicant is dealing with a 16 ft. drop, but will look into the use of paving blocks. Ms. Aisen said the Board is looking for water absorption in the wetlands. Mr. Zonsius said the dry wells will handle the bulk of the water. During construction bales of hay will be used. The house will be put in the middle contour and sited so it is almost in a natural place. One portion of the easement has never been touched. The only dirt being disturbed is the upper contour for the driveway for entrance into the garage, a turnaround and retaining wall. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Papazian asked if gravel will be used in this area. Mr. Zonsius said blacktop will be used for turnaround and the apron by the driveway. Ms. Reader asked the dimensions of the paved area. Mr. Zonsius, perusing the blueprints, indicated same. Ms. Reader asked the applicant to keep the property as porous as possible. Mr. Capicotto said the block referred to previously are Unilock blocks. Mr. Zonsius said the use of Unilock blocks will be considered rather than blacktop. He discussed the minimal impact on the other contours with the use of shrubbery, dry wells and percolation of soil. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Zonsius knew where the 100-year flood plain is located. Mr. Zonsius said he did not know and checked with various agencies that also did not know. The house cannot be moved and is within the setbacks. Ms. Aisen said the house can be made smaller. Mr. Papazian asked the square footage of the house. Mr. Zonsius said the proposed house is 5,000 sq. ft. Ms. Harrington asked the length and the width of the drive going to the house. Mr. Zonsius said the width is 12 ft. by approximately 100 ft. and a 30 ft. bridge, then gravel, 40 ft. to edge of the house, 15 ft. setback, 32 ft. from the corner to the edge of the driveway, 56 ft. from the corner to the rear and 32 ft. from the corner to the start of the circle. The circle is 21-22 ft. and the doughnut in the middle 20 ft. Ms. Reader asked what will be in the doughnut. Mr. Zonsius said there will be grass and shrubs in the doughnut. Mr. Capicotto questioned the placement of the manhole. Mr. Zonsius said after checking with the County of Westchester, it is an existing manhole. Ms. Reader said her drawing is different. Mr. Zonsius said the manhole was moved on the drawings he was referring to, as the map showing the correct location was just received from the County on Tuesday. Ms. Reader said the applicant will need new plans with more information indicated on the plans, and that Mr. Capicotto will advise Mr. Zonsius as the current plans in the possession of the Board are inadequate. Ms. Aisen asked when the Board makes a referral to the CZMC. Ms. Reader stated between now and the public hearing date. The Board will refer it to the CZMC this evening. Mr. Papazian said the applicant has Town sewers and asked if the applicant will have Town water also. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Zonsius said the applicant will have Town water. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Zonsius what is currently in the area. Mr. Zonsius said it is a wooded site, with a large clearing in the middle where the proposed house will be built. Ms. Reader asked the address of the remaining house after the subdivision. Mr. Zonsius said it is 109 Griffen Avenue. Ms. Aisen asked which side of Griffen Avenue the proposed house will be. Ms. Reader said it is between Weaver and Fenimore. Mr. Ben-Simon said the proposed house will be on the right side, between Fenimore and Mamaroneck Road; Grand Park becomes Fenimore Road; between Grand Park and Mamaroneck Road. Mr. Papazian questioned the fact that it is a wooded lot, but there is a clearing. Mr. Zonsius referred the Board again to the pictures. Mr. Papazian said if the property is an acre, how much of the land does the applicant estimate to clear. Mr. Zonsius referred to a tree removal drawing, stating eleven (11) existing trees. Anything to the right of the easement will not be touched. Just the upper end of the lot will be touched, based on access to the driveway. Mr. Papazian asked about the trees toward the bridge toward Griffen Avenue, which Mr. Zonsius addressed. Mr. Papazian said applicant will be adding more trees than those being taken down. Mr. Zonsius said the applicant will be adding sixteen (16) plus trees. The applicant wants to screen the back and use the trees for erosion control. Ms. Reader asked what kind of trees will be planted. Mr. Zonsius said the applicant is currently working with a nursery on that matter. Mr. Papazian asked what kind of trees are being removed. Mr. Zonsius said Tulip, Oak and Beech trees are being removed. Ms. Harrington asked if the plan indicated the size of the trees being removed. Mr. Zonsius said the size is indicated on the tree permit plan. The Board members said they did not receive a copy of the tree removal permit plan. Mr. Zonsius said only four (4) copies were submitted as requested. Ms. Reader asked the secretary to get copies of the tree removal plan for the Board members. Ms. Aisen asked Mr. Zonsius to comment about the impact on the wetlands relative to the trees that are being removed and the impact on the wetlands relative to the proposed trees. The number of the trees is not the only thing needed. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 5 James Athey, Environmental Coordinator, said when trees are removed evergreens are not generally recommended as replacement species by the Tree Commission. Deciduous trees are usually the preferred recommendation. Ms. Aisen asked why evergreens are not recommended and what is the impact on soil erosion relative to the other trees, which Mr. Athey addressed. Ruth Guyre, of the CZMC, also addressed this issue. Ms. Harrington asked when the mature trees are removed, depending on what size the replacement trees are, how long will it take for the trees to be able to absorb the amount of water the removed mature trees. Mr. Zonsius said in terms of sucking up water, that is what the dry wells are for. Only three(3)trees are being taken down in the back. The dry well, which is 218 ft. away from the river, will take the water away better than the absorption from the three (3) trees that will be removed. The six (6) trees to be removed in the front end of the house where the proposed driveway will be located, patterned pavers will be used that will percolate which will drain into a trench drain system that goes back to the same dry well. For aesthetics, Mr. Zonsius is planting eight(8)or nine(9) trees to screen the neighbors. In another area, the neighbor has a huge pool next to the property line, there are tall pines, and additional trees and shrubs will be installed. Mr. Davis suggested the applicant list on the tree permit plan the type of trees being removed, type of replacement trees, caliper, size, etc. Ms. Harrington reiterated, if you take down all those trees and replace them, how long will it take the trees being installed to absorb the same quantity of water. A discussion ensued regarding this issue. Ms. Reader asked if the applicant, by building the retaining wall, is in some way damming the runoff of the water from the adjacent property. Mr. Zonsius said there is a paved swimming pool adjacent to the wall. Ms. Aisen asked the purpose of the Mr. Zonsius said he needs more fla e provide by cutting into the hill, hence retaining the dirt on the hill. C Mr. Davis said the question is, does I f runoff. Mr. Zonsius said no, it does not ha )ff. If water comes over the wall for any reason in a flood situation, the trench drain will pick it up. Mr. Davis asked if the top of the wall is at the swimming pool grade. Mr. Zonsius said it is a little below that. The impact is to minimize the interruption of the land. Mr. Papazian asked what his answer will be, if a neighbor asks if there will be flooding because of the retaining wall and house. Mr. Zonsius said definitely not. More water will be picked up by the dry wells than is currently absorbed. Ms. Aisen asked if the capacity of the dry wells is great enough to absorb everything Mr. Zonsius has intimated. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 5 QJames Athey, Environmental Coordinator, said when trees are removed evergreens are not generally recommended as replacement species by the Tree Commission. Deciduous trees are usually the preferred recommendation. Ms. Aisen asked why evergreens are not recommended and what is the impact on soil erosion relative to the other trees, which Mr. Athey addressed. Ruth Guyre, of the CZMC, also addressed this issue. Ms. Harrington asked when the mature trees are removed, depending on what size the replacement trees are, how long will it take for the trees to be able to absorb the amount of water the removed mature trees. Mr. Zonsius said in terms of sucking up water, that is what the dry wells are for. Only three(3) trees are being taken down in the back. The dry well, which is 218 ft. away from the river, will take the water away better than the absorption from the three (3) trees that will be removed. The six (6) trees to be removed in the front end of the house where the proposed driveway will be located, patterned pavers will be used that will percolate which will drain into a trench drain system that goes back to the same dry well. For aesthetics, Mr. Zonsius is planting eight(8)or nine(9) trees to screen the neighbors. In another area, the neighbor has a huge pool next to the property line, there are tall pines, and additional trees and shrubs will be installed. Mr. Davis suggested the applicant list on the tree permit plan the type of trees being removed, type of replacement trees, caliper, size, etc. Ms. Harrington reiterated, if you take down all those trees and replace them, how long will it take the trees being installed to absorb the same quantity of water. A discussion ensued regarding this issue. Ms. Reader asked if the applicant, by building the retaining wall, is in some way damming the runoff of the water from the adjacent property. Mr. Zonsius said there is a paved swimming pool adjacent to the wall. Ms. Aisen asked the purpose of the retaining wall. Mr. Zonsius said he needs more flat area for the driveway that will be provide by cutting into the hill, hence retaining the dirt on the hill. Mr. Davis said the question is, does it have any effect on the pattern of runoff. Mr. Zonsius said no, it does not have any effect on the pattern of runoff. If water comes over the wall for any reason in a flood situation, the trench drain will pick it up. Mr. Davis asked if the top of the wall is at the swimming pool grade. Mr. Zonsius said it is a little below that. The impact is to minimize the interruption of the land. Mr. Papazian asked what his answer will be, if a neighbor asks if there will be flooding because of the retaining wall and house. Mr. Zonsius said definitely not. More water will be picked up by the dry wells than is currently absorbed. Ms. Aisen asked if the capacity of the dry wells is great enough to absorb everything Mr. Zonsius has intimated. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Zonsius said capacity is calculated on square footage, and a civil engineer will calculate the square footage. Ms. Reader asked if that is based on the 5, 10 or 25-year flood. Mr. Capicotto said it is based on the 25-year flood according to code. On the opposite side of the river, because of the paved driveway, there should be zero increase in the rate of runoff. Because the driveway is paved towards the river, all the water may not be able to be stopped with plantings along the driveway but may need a dry well on that side. Ms. Reader said the Board does not have the calculations nor plans to review to advise the Board of the proposed intent given those calculations. Once that is received, the Building Department and the Town's consulting engineer will scrutinize what is presented, check the calculations and advise the Planning Board. Ms. Reader said the Board needs plans, similar to what the Board has, but with more detail in terms of erosion control. Ms. Aisen said Malcolm Pirnie, our consulting engineers, needs time to do calculations and advise the Board. Mr. Harrington said the public also needs time to review the plans, which are not yet available. Mr. Capicotto said once Mr. Zonsius gets the 100-year flood elevation shown on the drawing, then the Board will want to see how much of the structure is in the flood plain, how much of the flood water is being displaced by earth or structure and how that will be accounted for. Mr. Zonsius then addressed the pool drainage. The Westchester County Department of Health informed Mr. Zonsius that as long as the water has zero chlorine, the water can drain into the dry well. The backwash system goes into the house sewer, which was confirmed by the Town of Mamaroneck Engineer, David Goessl. Mr. Zonsius then addressed the issue of the bridge and handed out copies of documentation to Board members regarding same, which is a part of the record, stating no permits other than the Town of Mamaroneck Building Permit are necessary. Mr. Davis asked if the Corps determination is Nation Wide Permit ti25, a copy of which Mr. Zonsius supplied to the Board with the documentation, and does it require a water quality certification. Mr. Zonsius was not told it requires a water quality certification. Mr. Zonsius was told as long as they have a structural engineer and submit drawings, which was done, and the drawings conform to the guidelines it will give no effect. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Zonsius if he asked DEC whether water quality certification was required. Mr. Zonsius said the DEC would not look at it, but was told to go to the Army Corp of Engineers, which was done. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Zonsius to confirm whether a water quality certification is needed before the next meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the Full Environmental Assessment Form submitted. The Board questioned a number of items on page 3 paragraph B. lb, lc, also percentage developed and undeveloped, page 3, item 19, page 4, item 15, page 4, item 16 and item 17, page 7, item 3 and other various items. Mr. Davis informed Mr. Zonsius that Part 2 was filled in, but it was not his responsibility. Planning Board • February 11, 1998 Page 7 Ms.Reader suggested Mr. Zonsius review the EAF,make changes and/or corrections and write N/A where not applicable. Ms. Reader informed the applicant to provide the information needed. The matter will also be referred to the CZMC which meets on February 24, 1998, for comments on the project as advisory to the Planning Board. A determination will be made whether to refer this application to the County Planning Board. Mr. Davis suggested the requested information be made available for inclusion in the Board packets for the next meeting. Ms. Reader asked if there will be any blasting. Mr. Zonsius said there will be no blasting. Mr. Davis said the depth of the water table was left blank. Mr. Capicotto said it is usually the level of the brook. A discussion ensued regarding the location and the construction of the dry wells. Mr. Zonsius said that the trench drains come into the dry wells. Ms. Aisen asked how the dry wells are regulated. Mr. Davis said the New York State DEC has guidelines to be followed. When Ms. Harrington asked about the provisions for maintaining the dry wells, Mr. Capicotto said it depends on the unit. Mr. Zonsius said when the lot was subdivided, he assumed it was a buildable lot. Ms. Reader said when the original subdivision was completed the Board had no idea what the new house or plans would look like, but the scrutiny of the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit is more focused now. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Zonsius that the original Lourie subdivision was before the Board for a very long time, and many different plans were presented to the Board over that long period of time. It originally started with using the old bridge which was going to be widened, and someone had come in with a prefab model and a shared driveway with the original Lourie house. For various reasons that got changed. Mr. Davis said in order to grant the permit, there are two sets of regulations that the Board reviews. The Freshwater Wetlands regulations of the Town Code incorporate a framework of analysis that appears in the DEC regulations even though this is not a wetland regulated by DEC. In order for the Town to grant this permit it undertakes a compatibility analysis and possibly a weighing analysis depending upon the outcome of the compatibility analysis. The State Regulations entitled 6.NYCRR, Section 665.7, sets forth the compatibility issues. In order to grant the permit, the Board has to be able to make the findings that both the local regulations and State regulations require. Mr. Zonsius asked if the Board has a consultant the Board deals with. Ms. Reader said Mr. Capicotto of Malcolm Pirnie is our consultant whom Mr. Zonsius may consult. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Zonsius to submit the new plans, have Malcolm Pimie and the Building Department review them and then contact each other. Mr. Davis informed Mr. Zonsius that his engineer is probably familiar with the requirements of the regulations. Planning Board February 11, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Zonsius said he wants to submit what is needed to the Board. Ms. Reader said if Mr. Zonsius thinks the consultant can help move things along, to do so. Mr. Davis said the Town of Mamaroneck has a Waterfront Revitalization Plan and applications that are in the coastal zone must be reviewed by the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) for their review and comments. Mr. Capicotto will summarize what was discussed and forward same to Mr. Zonsius. Ms. Reader said new plans will be needed with more details that include dry wells, calculations, zero runoff and a modified tree plan submitted that the Board did not receive. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was 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. On a motion made by Ms. Reader and seconded, it was FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action. On a motion made by Ms. Reader and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the matter be referred to the CZMC. Ms. Harrington asked when the CZMC meet, and when will the findings be submitted to the Board. Mr. Athey said the CZMC meets on February 24, 1998, and will be submitted the next day to be included in the packet delivery to the Board members the week before the next meeting. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Zonsius attends the CZMC meeting, which was a verified yes. After a lengthy discussion regarding adjourning for consideration or a public hearing, on a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was RESOLVED, that the application be, and hereby is, adjourned for a Public Hearing at the March 11, 1998 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Harrington voted no. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 11, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ,A(-2?—i-a-t-t/Aeb Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary